A question on the theology of time travel. If you were to travel back in time and kill the baby version of yourself. Do you go to hell?

[bsengstock20]

@Sheldon

So no then, you have nothing remotely like objective evidence that a soul exist.

I demonstrated the concept of soul to be provided for given the presence of an omniscience observer. Since I hold all reality to possess consciousness as a panpsychist, my assumption would be correct assuming panpsychism is true: theistic or non-theistic.

There is nothing immaterial; everything that exists is material. Consciousness is irreducible to lower-level physical properties. Higher-order properties of matter (i.e., emergent properties) can be reduced to their lower-level properties.

If everything that exists is material is true, then either consciousness does not exist, or it exists as material substance. If consciousness is irreducible to lower-level physical properties, then either consciousness does not exist, or it (a) exists as distinct property of matter or (b) is fundamentally entailed by matter. If consciousness exists, it is either (a) its own property of matter or (b) composed by the matter of the brain but not logically entailed by it. If higher-order properties of matter (i.e., emergent properties) can, at least in principle, be reduced to their lower-level properties., then (b) is false, and consciousness must be its own unique property of matter. Therefore, if all four premises are true, consciousness is its own unique property of matter and panpsychism is true.

@Sheldon

Whose view should I be expressing?

I was merely being polite…

@Sheldon

Why are you telling me what I’m entitled to say in a public debate forum? Your claims were entirely unevidenced, your arguments wooly gibberish.

I believe that the thread was based on a speculative premise based upon an assumed metaphysical construct. Don’t take it as an attack to your ego…

[Sheldon]

@bsengstock20

I demonstrated the concept of soul to be provided for given the presence of an omniscience observer.

You made a string of unevidenced claims, you keep using the word demonstrate, but it’s clear you demonstrated nothing.

@bsengstock20

Since I hold…

Subjective unevidenced claim.

@bsengstock20

panpsychism

Is entirely unevidenced, untestable, and of course has no explanatory powers.

@bsengstock20

There is nothing immaterial; everything that exists is material.

Then please offer some empirically testable objective evidence for this material deity you think exists. Something beyond bare fallacious claims, that falsely equate with with other objectively rea things.

@bsengstock20

If

So you would first need to demonstrate your claim was true, before anything after that has any value in terms of reality.

“IF the traditional concept of Superman is true, then he can be harmed by Kryptonite.”

Do you really imagine this true statement tells us anything about reality? Just as with your endless unevidenced claims about a deity, it is meaningless.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

Whose view should I be expressing?

I was merely being polite…

Well you’re entitled to your opinion, but I doubt that.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

Why are you telling me what I’m entitled to say in a public debate forum? Your claims were entirely unevidenced, your arguments wooly gibberish.

I believe that the thread was based on a speculative premise based upon an assumed metaphysical construct. Don’t take it as an attack to your ego…

Wow you never address what is actually posted do you, and I know what the thread title is, it’s right there, we are not limited to it entirely, and since you are intent to real off claims, then anyone is entitled to challenge your woolly gibberish, egos are not relevant.

[bsengstock20]

@Sheldon

You made a string of unevidenced claims, you keep using the word demonstrate, but it’s clear you demonstrated nothing.

Demonstrated through deductive reasoning.

@Sheldon

Subjective unevidenced claim

Yes, subjective. Based on my assumption. I agree. However, my assumption would be correct assuming panpsychism is true. I provided a deductive proof to demonstrate why panpsychism is true.

@Sheldon

Then please offer some empirically testable objective evidence for this material deity you think exists. Something beyond bare fallacious claims, that falsely equate with with other objectively rea things.

Again, this completely misrepresents my point. I don’t hold merely that God exists IN reality, but that God IS reality. Deities are a separate subject of discussion.

@Sheldon

So you would first need to demonstrate your claim was true, before anything after that has any value in terms of reality.

“IF the traditional concept of Superman is true, then he can be harmed by Kryptonite.”

Do you really imagine this true statement tells us anything about reality? Just as with your endless unevidenced claims about a deity, it is meaningless

Ok. Which of the three statements that I presented do you disagree with?

(1) There is nothing immaterial; everything that exists is material.

(2) Consciousness is irreducible to lower-level physical properties.

(3) Higher-order properties of matter (i.e., emergent properties) can be reduced to their lower-level properties.

[Sheldon]

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

You made a string of unevidenced claims, you keep using the word demonstrate, but it’s clear you demonstrated nothing.

Demonstrated through deductive reasoning.

That’s a lie, unevidenced assumptions and irrational arguments do not demonstrate a claim, they demonstrate bias.

@bsengstock20

1) Yes, subjective. Based on my assumption. I agree. 2) However, my assumption would be correct assuming panpsychism is true. 3) I provided a deductive proof to demonstrate why panpsychism is true.

1. Why are you repeating my objections back to me?
2. So what? Panpsychism is unevidenced, untestable and offers no explanatory powers at all.
3. I disagree, either way it is unevidenced and untestable woo woo,

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

Then please offer some empirically testable objective evidence for this material deity you think exists. Something beyond bare fallacious claims, that falsely equate with with other objectively rea things.

1) Again, this completely misrepresents my point. 2) I don’t hold merely that God exists IN reality, but that God IS reality. 3) Deities are a separate subject of discussion.

1. No it does not.
2. Unevidenced and irrational false equivalence, again since reality can be objectively evidenced and empirically tested. No one can do this for any deity, how many times will you repeat this lie and ignore this objection.
3. Semantics. (dishonest)

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

So you would first need to demonstrate your claim was true, before anything after that has any value in terms of reality.

Ok. Which of the three statements that I presented do you disagree with?

Dishonest deflection again, you made the claims, you must demonstrate sufficient evidence to support the claims, something beyond the bare claims themselves, else they are meaningless. You don’t get to deflect your burden of proof to a question.

[bsengstock20]

@Sheldon

That’s a lie, unevidenced assumptions and irrational arguments do not demonstrate a claim, they demonstrate bias.

Sheldon, have you even taken a basic philosophy class? Please inform me so that I may know if I’m wasting my time.

@Sheldon

No it does not.

Yes, it does. And I have provided reasons why it does…

@Sheldon

Unevidenced and irrational false equivalence, again since reality can be objectively evidenced and empirically tested. No one can do this for any deity, how many times will you repeat this lie and ignore this objection.

Another unevidenced and irrational claim on your part. Please demonstrate that a deity cannot be objectively evidenced and empirically tested. If you don’t have any empirical evidence or can’t provide a deductive or modal proof, I would advise you to stop with baseless claims as it makes you appear unintelligent and irrational.

@Sheldon

Dishonest deflection again, you made the claims, you must demonstrate sufficient evidence to support the claims, something beyond the bare claims themselves, else they are meaningless. You don’t get to deflect your burden of proof to a question.

I will ask you again: Which of the three statements that I presented do you disagree with?

(1) There is nothing immaterial; everything that exists is material. (You probably don’t disagree with this, although I would find it deeply amusing if you did).

(2) Consciousness is irreducible to lower-level physical properties. (Do you disagree with this statement?)

(3) Higher-order properties of matter (i.e., emergent properties) can be reduced to their lower-level properties. (What about this statement?)

Based upon my analysis of you, I think that you would object to number 3. I would counter and state that relations between properties are illusions (Ontological Monism). If all differentiation ultimately arises from the configuration of a single field or substrate, monism is the simplest interpretation (Occam’s razor).

[Sheldon]

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

That’s a lie, unevidenced assumptions and irrational arguments do not demonstrate a claim, they demonstrate bias.

Sheldon, have you even taken a basic philosophy class?

Ah so this deity only wants post graduate philosophers to believe it exists, the rest of us dullards are doomed.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

No it does not.

Yes, it does.

I disagree.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

Unevidenced and irrational false equivalence, again since reality can be objectively evidenced and empirically tested. No one can do this for any deity, how many times will you repeat this lie and ignore this objection.

Another unevidenced and irrational claim on your part. Please demonstrate that a deity cannot be objectively evidenced and empirically tested.

Pointing out that no apologist has ever objectively evidenced or empirically tested a deity in the way science has done for objective reality, s not an unevidenced claim, but by all means offer something to demonstrate this has been done. I guess they just kept a secret all this time.

@bsengstock20

If you don’t have any empirical evidence or can’t provide a deductive or modal proof, I would advise you to stop with baseless claims as it makes you appear unintelligent and irrational.

Cite a single example of any apologist who has objectively evidenced and empirically tested any deity, comparable to the way objective reality has, if you can’t then this is compelling evidence to support the claim. Unless you imagine such a paradigm shifting event would be kept secret by theists.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

Dishonest deflection again, you made the claims, you must demonstrate sufficient evidence to support the claims, something beyond the bare claims themselves, else they are meaningless. You don’t get to deflect your burden of proof to a question.

I will ask you again:

Nope, I asked you to evidence your claims, you don’t get to deflect this with a question.

[bsengstock20]

@Sheldon

Ah so this deity only wants post graduate philosophers to believe it exists, the rest of us dullards are doomed.

Sheldon, I want to know to be able to meet you where you are at. If you haven’t, there no shame in admitting that you haven’t. But I won’t continue my case in the manner that I have presented it in if you don’t possess the capacity necessary for understanding.

@Sheldon

I disagree.

On what grounds?

@Sheldon

Pointing out that no apologist has ever objectively evidenced or empirically tested a deity in the way science has done for objective reality, s not an unevidenced claim, but by all means offer something to demonstrate this has been done. I guess they just kept a secret all this time.

A hasty generalization coupled with a host of assumptions. Also commits a black swan fallacy

@Sheldon

Nope, I asked you to evidence your claims, you don’t get to deflect this with a question.

So you wish for me to demonstrate the three axioms? Ok.

(1) There is nothing immaterial; everything that exists is material.

(O1) Rationalism systematically explains and predicts all ranges of phenomena.

(O2) Hypotheses that posit immaterial beings have not improved predictive power or explanatory scope.

(O3) Ontological parsimony (Occam’s Razor): between competing explanations with equal explanatory power, prefer the one with fewer kinds of entities.

(O4) Materialism: posits only material entities (and perhaps higher-level emergent properties realized in material substrates)—accounts for O1 and O2 while introducing fewer ontological categories than alternatives.

(2) Among monistic ontologies, reductive physicalism is the only position that identifies consciousness entirely with lower-level physical properties. If ontological monism is not reductive physicalism, then consciousness is irreducible to lower-level physical properties.

If reduction cannot explain consciousness, the only consistent move is to deny consciousness exists.

But consciousness is the one thing we know exists with absolute certainty (Descartes).

So reductive physicalism leads to absurdity: either we accept consciousness, and (1) physicalism cannot explain it or (2) we deny consciousness exists, which is self-defeating.

(3) Higher-order properties of matter (i.e., emergent properties) can be reduced to their lower-level properties.

If reductive physicalism is false and reality is monistic, Consciousness ≠ any lower-level physical property. Consciousness cannot be reduced to mere physical structure or function. The mental cannot be paraphrased away in purely physical terms. Identity theory and eliminativism are false.

If these assumptions are true:

Reality is monistic.

Reductive physicalism is false.

And…

Panpsychism is true.

[Sheldon]

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

Ah so this deity only wants post graduate philosophers to believe it exists, the rest of us dullards are doomed.

Sheldon, I want to know to be able to meet you where you are at. If you haven’t, there no shame in admitting that you haven’t.

You have me confused with a whole other person, and where I am at, is that I base belief on a demonstration of sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence. Logically sound arguments that start with subjective unevidenced assumptions won’t do it.

@bsengstock20

I won’t continue my case in the manner that I have presented it in if you don’t possess the capacity necessary for understanding.

Well aren’t you just a thin slice of heaven, and you accused me of grandstanding that I has the intellectual high ground, more irony.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

I disagree.

On what grounds?

Same as previously.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

Pointing out that no apologist has ever objectively evidenced or empirically tested a deity in the way science has done for objective reality, s not an unevidenced claim, but by all means offer something to demonstrate this has been done. I guess they just kept a secret all this time.

A hasty generalization coupled with a host of assumptions. Also commits a black swan fallacy

It’s not a hasty generalisation, that going from too small a sample size to make a sweeping claim, I see no assumptions but by all means edify me. No it is not a black swan fallacy, as the claim was yours, my claim was qualified and involved a question, you remember you only quoted the claim to dishonestly misrepresent it. Now in all the excitement you have again failed to answer my question, since you claimed god = objective reality, and objective reality can be empirically evidenced and tested, can you do this for any deity you imagine to be real?

If not your assertion remains a false equivalence, not be rude, but this has dragged on, and I think tic fucking toc is called for, or perhaps in Latin tempus fucking fugit.

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@bsengstock20

So reductive physicalism leads to absurdity: either we accept consciousness, and (1) physicalism cannot explain it or (2) we deny consciousness exists, which is self-defeating.

That’s a false dichotomy. There is at least one other option, for example (3) we cannot explain consciousness in detail YET.

[bsengstock20]

@Sheldon

You have me confused with a whole other person, and where I am at, is that I base belief on a demonstration of sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence. Logically sound arguments that start with subjective unevidenced assumptions won’t do it.

These aren’t subjective unevidenced assumptions, Sheldon. These are provisional assumptions.

Subjective Unevidenced Assumptions

Definition: These are beliefs or assumptions held without evidence, often based on personal feelings, intuitions, biases, or opinions.

Characteristics:

Lacks empirical support or logical justification.

Often colored by personal perspective or ideology.

Provisional Assumptions

Definition: These are temporary assumptions adopted for the sake of reasoning, investigation, or hypothesis-building. They are explicitly recognized as tentative and are subject to testing and revision.

Characteristics:

Used as working tools in analysis, experiments, or problem-solving.

Acknowledged as potentially false and revised as evidence comes in.

Supports structured inquiry rather than reflecting personal belief.

@Sheldon

Well aren’t you just a thin slice of heaven, and you accused me of grandstanding that I has the intellectual high ground, more irony.

Sheldon, I’m asking the extent of your education.

In a gesture of good faith, I will put forth mine: M.S in Clinical Psychology (applied research & clinical counseling), former PSY.D candidate, former Doctor of Education candidate (special education), current ABA post-grad candidate, former Doctor of Religious/Philosophical Studies candidate. B.A in Psychology and in Philosophy & Religious Studies (second seat of my Philosophy & Religious Studies program).

@Sheldon

Same as previously.

Be specific.

@Sheldon

It’s not a hasty generalisation, that going from too small a sample size to make a sweeping claim, I see no assumptions but by all means edify me.

Then you admit it’s a subjective claim?

@Sheldon

No, it is not a black swan fallacy

Your position on the existence of deities is. You haven’t even yet defined what you position is as to what you consider a deity.

[bsengstock20]

@Get_off_my_lawn

That’s a false dichotomy. There is at least one other option, for example (3) we cannot explain consciousness in detail YET.

Now you’re really trying to hold on to a rope that won’t support your weight…

The original claim sets up two options:

Consciousness exists → physicalism cannot explain it.

Consciousness exists → deny consciousness exists → self-defeating.

You suggested a third:

Consciousness exists → physicalism might eventually explain it (we just don’t know yet).

Your “yet unexplained” option is epistemic: it reflects a limitation of our knowledge, not a fundamental metaphysical category. But the dichotomy is ontological: it claims only two fundamental possibilities exist about consciousness under physicalism.

In other words:

“We don’t know yet” ≠ a third ontological category.

It’s just a temporary gap in understanding.

The dichotomy isn’t false because all metaphysically possible states are covered: either physicalism can, in principle, account for consciousness, or it cannot. “We don’t know yet” is just a statement about our current epistemic situation, not a separate metaphysical possibility.

[Sheldon]

@bsengstock20

These aren’t subjective unevidenced assumptions, Sheldon. These are provisional assumptions.

Provisional assumptions that are both subjective (see bias) and unevidenced.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

Same as previously.

Be specific.

Exactly the same.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

It’s not a hasty generalisation, that going from too small a sample size to make a sweeping claim, I see no assumptions but by all means edify me.

Then you admit it’s a subjective claim?

No, it was is your claim god = objective reality. Since objective reality can be empirically tested and evidenced, so if no deity can be empirically tested and evidenced, it’s a false equivalence.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

No, it is not a black swan fallacy

Your position on the existence of deities is. You haven’t even yet defined what you position is as to what you consider a deity.

No it’s not, and it wasn’t a black swan fallacy, or a hasty generalisation fallacy, as I explained.

@bsengstock20

Consciousness exists → physicalism cannot explain it.

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@bsengstock20

“We don’t know yet” ≠ a third ontological category.

It’s just a temporary gap in understanding.

There is also one more option, analogous to Gödel’s completeness theorem: We cannot know whether consciousness exists or not. I.e. it may be true that consciousness exists, but we cannot prove it.

[bsengstock20]

@Get_off_my_lawn

There is also one more option, analogous to Gödel’s completeness theorem: We cannot know whether consciousness exists or not. I.e. it may be true that consciousness exists, but we cannot prove it.

Get_off_my_lawn, seriously? Descartes FUNDAMENTAL Principle?

Are you now going to assert that you aren’t sure whether you (conscious construct) exist?

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@bsengstock20

These aren’t subjective unevidenced assumptions, Sheldon. These are provisional assumptions.

Oh FFS. Stale popcorn, more mendacity. More unevidenced claims and more attempts to redefine proper nouns.

Done with it.

[bsengstock20]

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

Oh FFS. Stale popcorn, more mendacity. More unevidenced claims and more attempts to redefine proper nouns.

Can you tell me the difference between subjective assumptions and provisional assumptions?

[Sheldon]

@bsengstock20

Can you tell me the difference between subjective assumptions and provisional assumptions?

The key difference is that a subjective assumption is based purely on personal opinion and lacks verifiable facts, like the one’s used to start Gödel’s proof you cited for example. While a provisional assumption is a tentative conclusion, potentially based on available evidence, and we can see why this is not describing the subjective assumptions you have championed.

[Tin-Man]

To answer the title of this thread: Yep. Not only have you committed murder, you have also committed suicide. So, straight to the eternal lava spa for you, I’m afraid. (See? Short, sweet, and to the point. No need for extensive elaboration. You’re welcome.)

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@bsengstock20

Get_off_my_lawn, seriously? Descartes FUNDAMENTAL Principle?

Are you now going to assert that you aren’t sure whether you (conscious construct) exist?

Well, prove that we are actually conscious and not just advanced computer simulations.

Btw, assertions are more like your domain.

[Tin-Man]

@fireflies

At any point in the past where we exist, we exist in the perspective of that moment, considering the present a future yet to be, with choices yet made. There is no reason to consider that the future is any different, merely the present from another perspective, or the past from another perspective still.

At present, I sit here wondering about my future and reflecting on my past. In the past, I often sat wondering what the future held for me. Now I wonder if in the future I might one day recall this present moment and think to myself, “Did I actually predict there would be a day I would think about that moment from so long ago?” Interestingly enough, the moment I started typing this post is now in the past, while the remainder of what I type from this point forward will be in the future, which is still unknown, as I am literally making this shit up as I go along. So, in effect, one could say I am currently experiencing the past, present, and future all at once. Or has that moment already passed? Well, only time will tell, I suppose. How, exactly, does one know when the past ends, and the present starts? Or when the present ends and the future starts? Say I step through a doorway from one room into another room. I just travelled into the future, right? But what if I immediately step back through the doorway into the room I just vacated. Would that mean I travelled into the past? Or did I simply just step back into a different future? (By the way, somebody please feel free to stop me before I get too carried away with this ridiculousness.) Anyway, where was i?…. Oh, yes, stepping back into the future. (Hmmm… …. Sounds like a catchy premise for a movie.) Overall, it seems our present is the future of our past, as well as being the past of our future. And here we all are, stuck somewhere in between, never knowing what is to come and never able to return to our present. Bummer…