The Rational Proof of God's Existence
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
- Status
Bernie Gunther said:
Well the other possibility, which I'll discuss at a later stage, is to think of value as a system of *signs,* like a language. The history of value shows a progressive diminution of referentiality, so that we move from value being *identified* with its sign, as with the bullionist economics of the sixteenth century, through its being posited as a sign that refers to something tangible, as with the system of money tied to the gold standard, to its current status as a completely non-referential signifier: a sign that refers to nothing at all. But I will argue that language too depends upon the working of a "spirit."
ZWord said:
The best evidence that consciousness forms "reality" is the historical and cultural *variations* in consciousness. A glance at any literature of past ages, or even past decades, tells us that the people of the past did not see the same world that we do. Consciousness (and with it the world) changes, it follows an historical narrative which appears to have its own momentum that transcends the volition of human beings.
ZWord said:
It is indeed quite astonishing. But I doubt that even Gurrier has succeeded in destroying his own soul, try as he might. I think he is conscious: but he is not *conscious* of being conscious, and this entangles him in a myraid of logical problems, as we have all witnessed. Now, I can see how someone like Gurrier, trained *only* in the natural sciences, might conclude that consciousness is an illusion. As I have said before, I think that materialism is the "default position" of the Western bourgeoisie--in other words, our social and economic system automatically inculcates materialism into people, and it takes a certain effort, as well as some knowledge of the history of ideas, for most Westerners to rise above this debased mode of thought. What I *cannot* understand, though, is why anyone would actively *desire* a materialist ontology to be true. I cannot comprehend how anyone could think materialism was either politically progressive, as Gurrier apparently does, or ethically beneficial. And most of all, I cannot understand the aggressive, paranoid hostility displayed by materialists towards those who dare to challenge their position, unless it is simply the ferocity born of desperation.
Purdie said:SO WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM WITH CONSTRUCT INSTEAD OF SPIRIT THEN?
Ignorant twat
Right on cue! Just to repeat the observation I made in my previous post: I cannot understand the aggressive, paranoid hostility displayed by materialists towards those who dare to challenge their position, unless it is simply the ferocity born of desperation.
Purdie
there are no stars, only suns
phildwyer said:
Its not because i'm a materialist i can't believe in spirit.
Like i said before, spirit to me has religious connotations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Gunther
Do we have any other choices than idea or spirit? I don't think either of those words are terribly useful because of the historical garbage encrusted on them.
Idea or construct?
They are both created
One in the individual's mind.
The other in the collective mind of society
Where is the aggressive, paranoid hostility in the post this is all about? Maybe by using a neutral word there wouldn't be so much side-tracking.
Twat
Since you are the OP as far as the thread is concerned surely that gives you the ultimate say
So excuse me for you not figuring that out for yourself 
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Fair enough, that sounds potentially interesting, although the "refers to nothing at all" bit sounds like pomo gibberish at first glance.phildwyer said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
parallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
And you're right, they're NOT!ZWord said:
There is NO EVIDENCE that the eye or brain actively changes things. Given the cumulative human experience of eyes looking at things (being of the order of 10^11 person-years since the year 1900, at a quick guess), does it not seem strange that such an effect has never been observed? The only active change that the brain exerts is via the actions of the human being as a result of perceiving and processing the light input.
Non sequitur. It is a reasonable hypothesis that the simultaneous wave-like and particle-like behaviour of light suggests that its 'true nature' is not yet understood. It's also reasonable to suggest that the way our brains are constructed affects the way we experience things. However we already know that the 'universe of *things* with distinct locations in space and time' is indeed an illusion - but this was shown years ago by quantum mechanics. Science is so far beyond dependence on direct observation these days that that argument no longer applies.
In your opinion. I don't find my view of reality mundane at all, despite not believing in any First Cause, or 'magic', or 'central mystery'. I find the observable world thoroughly amazing, and the more we learn about it the more amazing it appears to be, not less. But this is simply because of its concurrent complexity and susceptibility to description by physical laws. Just because we may not yet understand the true nature of light, and therefore it seems like a 'mystery' to us, this is not sufficient evidence to claim that it will remain a 'mystery' in the future - certainly when you look at progress in basic science research over the last 200 years.
phildwyer said:
In my eyes the inference you seem to be making (y is radically different to x and is therefore composed of another substance) is a bit dodgy, and would need to be justfied. One cannot point to another situation where such a inference is accepted, so its gonna be difficult.
Or are you saying that it is not infact the fact that it is not the radical difference alone that makes you think that fv is a different kind of substance, but its malignancy, power etc in itself. You're seriously saying that because something is malign and powerful its a spirit!? That is clearly lunacy of early-man proportions.
ZWord said:
Here's a few:
Things with neural mass can exhibit consciousness.
Things without neural mass do not exhibit consciousness.
Removing all neural mass from conscious organisms leads to the cessation of consciousness.
Applying drugs that materially interact with the nervous system can alter perception and consciousness.
If the mind isn't due to matter, then it must be due to something else. This something else has never been observed, measured or been able to be manipulated.
And about light and slits, I can only reiterate what has already been said before, it is not our consciouness that causes light to collapse into a wave or a particle, it is the interaction (usually via light) that occurs during observation that causes this.
To me it seems that fv or alienated labour power can be eplained by physical processes: labour power and alienating work relations/economic relations (which are not just private ownersip of the means of production - so the argument that fv can exist outside private ownership of the means of production, and is therefore not just alienating conditions is inconsequential).
parallelepipete said:
You surprised me. I know this, apparently you do too. Not many people do. So we're much closer to agreeing than I thought. Most of the materialists here would no way accept this. The main difference we have is that you don't want to call it God, and I do. I know it's intelligent:- you don't. Or you're denying it.
But if you can accept that ...is indeed an illusion, then you're pretty much in the territory of both me and Azrael23, believing that human reality is a mass hallucination. And in a universe so extraordinary, the idea that it was created by intelligence seems quite likely.
You've just defined consciousness as the set of beliefs an individual has. You know perfectly well this is not in accord with any scientific definition which attempts to explain the I' that interprets the world, holds these beliefs, acts upon them and so on. Neither is there any claimed successful explaination. All you've said is that beliefs change over time. We know that.
parallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
No - you believe it, and I don't. I'm not saying the subject is closed, simply that I have heard of no evidence that a deity exists. This may boil down to whether one could call the phenomenon of 'spooky action at a distance' or quantum entanglement a god, but I wouldn't.ZWord said:
I never said that the *things* were themselves illusions. I only pointed out that the classical (Newtonian) physics which describes a fully deterministic Universe has turned out to be an approximation (or illusion, since this is all humans can observe without aids) which is decreasingly accurate the smaller the objects you inspect. At the sub-atomic scale, the illusion gives way. And I am worried about the use of the word 'hallucination', since a hallucination is something perceived without any stimulus or sensory input. Our view of the Universe may be incomplete, or filtered subconsciously by the more primitive parts of our brains, or hampered by our inability to perceive the entire EM spectrum, but it certainly depends on, and is affected by, stimuli received via our senses.
parallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
Vodka or tarragon? I think the two together would be rather nice.phildwyer said:
*works up business plan for marketing herb-infused vodkas*
*wonders if Loki's Michelin-starred restaurant will stock it*
parallelepipete said:
I'm afraid my larder doesn't stock such exotic herbs. My luncheon snack was a feeble assortment.
Prosciutto crudo di Langhirano con melone cantalupo with spaghettini alle vongole veraci in 'bianco' followed by cueillette éphémère (petit pois,poivron, haricot vert, épinard, aubergine,poireau) and then pineapple tart (with yoghurt, black pepper and lemon grass ice cream).
Not nearly enough
Thankfully din dins isn't far away.parallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
Er... consciousness, and the ability to imagine possibilities that comes with it?Jo/Joe said:
*feels a circular argument developing here*
Bernie Gunther said:
What I meant was that, by the end of the twentieth century, financial value was widely recognized to be independent of the material tokens that are used to represent it. The last vestiges of materiality have departed from it, and value is now revealed as a purely imaginary, but nonetheless real and powerful, force. It is also revealed to be pure representation, a system of signs that function independently of any material referents. The manipulation of these financial signs is the motor of the postmodrn economy, and bigger fortunes are now made by this manipulation than by material production.
I now want to return to the *four* qualities that, as I have argued, differentiate financial value from any other "idea," to the degree that it cannot by described as an "idea" (I see no difference between the terms "idea" and "construct" in this context, BTW). We shall discuss each in turn. Let us begin with the *power* of value, its efficacious force in the real world. Value is an instance of what J.L. Austin calls the "performative sign," it is a sign that *does* things. On these grounds, many philosophers of money have drawn an analogy between value and spirit, as for instance Karl Marx in On The Jewish Question. Note how Marx describes the imposition of exchange-value upon use-value (of which financial value is the instrument) as an *unnatural* imposition of sign upon essence. Referring to financial value he writes:
"It is clear that this mediator thus becomes a real God, for the mediator is the real power over what it mediates to me. Its cult becomes an end in itself. Objects separated from this mediator have lost their value. Hence the objects only have value insofar as they represent the mediator, whereas originally it seemed that the mediator only had value insofar as it represented them." (1975, 3:212)
So a capitalist economy is a *supernatural* economy, which works by imposing human concepts and signs on natural objects. The supernatural, or metaphysical if you prefer, force of value obscures the natural essence of things. The first obstacle to conceiving of value as a spirit is thus eliminated: it clearly *is* possible for nonmaterial entities to have material effects that transcend the volition of human agents. A further quote frm Marx will illustrate, this time from Capital:
"In order... to find an analogy, we must take flight into the misty realm of religion. There the products of the human brain appear as autonomous figures endowed with a life of their own, which enter into relations both with each other and with the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men's hands." (1975, 165).
Note that Marx describes value and the spirits of religion as being equally real--or rather, equally *unreal.* They are real, or unreal, in the same way. Is financial value "real?" This is the next question we will consider.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
phildwyer said:
sorry this is gibberish. For a start, Austin does not refer to performative "signs", but performative "utterances". There can be no such thing, in language, as a "natural sign" - since, as has been understood at least since Saussure, the linguistic sign is inherently arbitrary .
You also miss entirely the point of Derrida's critique of Austin, and its implications for the conditions of possibility which govern (re)iteration of any utterance - ie. in the differential relationships between signs qua signs. Marx, writing before the development of structural linguistics, does not always grasp the necessary corrolaries of these points.
articul8 said:
Of course there can be no natural signs; what I am describing is the process by which the *sign* obscures the *referent,* which is the same process by which exchange-value obscures use-value. The performative sign occupies a slightly later stage in my proof, but it is worth pausing over here. The performative sign is the linguistic corrolary of financial value, and I will argue that they are in fact two manifestations of the same underlying tendency. It is directly responsible for the degraded pragmatism, the denial of Truth, espoused by Gurrier and his motly pack of imitators, and it also explains their materialism and their shameful dismissal of consciousness as illusion. Above all, it reveals why they believe their delusions are politically progressive. Since you mention it, let us consider Derrida's reading of Austin as an example.
Derrida interprets Austin’s reluctant prioritizing of the performative as implying the demise of such basic metaphysical concepts as the external objective referent, the conscious speaking subject and the logical opposition between truth and falsehood. The fact that all constative statements are performative but not all performatives are constative is held to demolish all forms of the Western metaphysics of presence which Derrida dubs ‘logocentrism.’ Truth, in the view of Derrida, is a textual ‘effect,’ imposed by what Nietzsche called ‘a mobile army of metaphors.’
Especially through the influence of Foucault, the status of metaphysical concepts like the subject, objectivity and truth has become deeply involved in political ethics. To advocate any form of ‘logocentrism’ is often viewed as politically reactionary and even ethically reprehensible, and the category of the performative acquires an aura of subversion and freedom. In much postmodernist rhetoric, the performative becomes a liberator, come to burst the chains of intentionality and to loose discourse from the repressive constraints of essentialist subjectivity. Austin, of course, would not have put it that way. In fact, this rhetorical (for it is not logical) association of the performative with liberation is the major reason why analytic philosophers see Derrida's interpretation of Austin as a monstrous distortion.
Why can't fv be explained by physical process? Why does something being malign and powerful imply that it is composed of another substance?
I see nothing in the semantics of idea that would prohibit it from being malign and powerful.
Are you seriously saying that it is conventional to think of fv as a spirit?
I see nothing in the semantics of idea that would prohibit it from being malign and powerful.
Are you seriously saying that it is conventional to think of fv as a spirit?
- Status
Similar threads
