Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Ok, time for some philosophical tought.
>

> 1) The human mind does not transcend beyond the physical world, which means
> that free choice does not exist. Everything the human mind comes up with is
> predetermined by deterministic events, sometimes garbled by random quantum
> effects. This is not free choice.
>
> 2) The human mind does transcend beyond the physical world as we know it,
> and is able to perform true choices which change deterministic chains of
> events in non-random ways. In other words, the human consciousness is more
> than just the electric impulses in our brain.
>
>   The religious (and possibly agnostic) point of view ...
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

Master to a group of students: "Who amongst you has transcended the self?"

Particularly ungifted student(waving arms): "Me! Me! Me! Me!"


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I'd like to discuss what are, for me, some key terminology in option 2) from the
"agnostic" point of view as the term was originally coined by  T. H. Huxley.
(This is the point of view that asserts that one should not claim to know what
one can not prove.)  It is entirely possible that the human mind could
"transcend beyond the physical world AS WE KNOW IT" without implying the
existence of the supernatural because there is quite a bit about the universe
that we simply don't know.  There's nothing irrational or supernatural about one
saying: "My experience of the universe is such that it seems to me that free
choice does exist, but I can not prove this and must refrain from treating the
existence of free choice as an objective fact when dealing with the rights and
claims of others."  It's very nice to have objective facts when we can get them
and wise to act in deference to those facts when they are relevant, BUT... There
is so much about the universe that we have yet to learn that it is entirely
impractical for us to say nothing and do nothing when we are confronted with
issues that we do not presently have the objective knowledge to resolve on such
a basis.

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message