himnextdoor wrote: » Fixed it; it was Saul, not David.
muppeteer wrote: » Well as I'm not a dualist the mind body problem isn't really a problem.
Sufficient for what exactly?
I subjectively think that it is always wrong.
Whether they believe they are right or wrong is irrelevant. All that matters is that I think that it is wrong.
I, currently, subjectively think I would be wrong, always.
I think it is well supported that the mind is an effect of a physical brain. I don't claim that position is solved or can't be questioned at all. More questioning the better.
all human emotion/personality is centered in the brain. I'm unaware of any alternative that is seriously considered.
ISAW wrote: » according to WHAT? To what you happen to believe? Even if you believe Pi is three it is good enough for you. Until all the buildings fall down?
himnextdoor wrote: » Would it be fair to say that Lazarus was resurrected?
ISAW wrote: » Nice try but sorry not working. We are not discussing what you are not. We are discussing you claim of the mind body problem being resolved in favour of the mind being explained exclusively in terms of the brain. Medicine or science does not say that this has been resolved; And i have produced some criticism of it being shown by the field you appeal to i.e. cognitive psychology.
sufficient for society! To believe science is is scientism.
do you subjectively think a foot is a meter or PI is three? are they?
so it is "well supported now". that is a bit of a climb down from earlier where you statedhttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77540045&postcount=2943 And you stated that in response to my directly putting the mind body problem to you! :"Where is the evidence that the mind and emotions are wholly biological in nature? Medicine is still divided o this issue. "
himnextdoor wrote: » The more I hear about Lucifer, the less wise he seems.
Zombrex wrote: » Can you cite a single example of anyone in the history of humanity having a subjective moral assessment being demonstrated objectively wrong through external events (ie the equivalent of the buildings falling down if you get pi wrong).
muppeteer wrote: » Science is not something that comes to a conclusion in a single step, it takes time where doubt is lessened but questioning never stops.
As I said before Cognitive Sciences, not just the subset Cognitive Psychology, generally works on the assumption that the brain is the source of the mind.
As such it seems a reasonable conclusion to me as the alternatives I'm aware of do not have the same explanatory power. Do you know of any explanation that is as well supported as I would be curious?
I believe science can help us with knowledge about running society but how we decide to run it is beyond what the method is designed for.
ISAW wrote: » In colloquial terms you are "hedging" or "kicking the can down the road" the think is you claimed the mind is explained by science. It isnt. Now you are saying "the jury is still out" on that claim which is entirely different to Message 2943 "all human emotion/personality is centered in the brain. I'm unaware of any alternative that is seriously considered. " Apparently now not alone are alternatives considered but the certainty you earlier offered isnt so certain and science has not come to a conclusion on it!
earlier it was centred on the brain based on the science of cognitive psychology and there was no serious scientific alternative. Now that certainty is based on an assumption? Ironically the assumption is the very point you are claiming it proves! A little bit of circular reasoning there i think?
ISAW wrote: » So basically your argument is the Holocaust (as assessed by Hitler) or child abuse is not wrong because it cant be objectively assessed?
ISAW wrote: » But it is wrong! this is just sophistry. Next i suppose you will be claiming objective human rights are non existant because they are held to be "self evidence"?
ISAW wrote: » what Hitler or child abusers did is wrong and not just because I say so.
ISAW wrote: » Fixed what? what king was saul told to kill? what commandants did Saul receive before Moses got the ten commandments?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » No, it wouldn't.
Festus wrote: » Well, he does have pride issues.
Manach wrote: » In support of objective rights existing, since the end of WWII there has been a wide range of academics (offhand John Finnis) who have written in support of these rights. The ECHR is part based on these. In university jurisprudence courses, these are part of the curriculum and are contrasted with other legal schools of though on what is the correct grounding of moral rights. Thus the impact of such rights are real and measureable.
ISAW wrote: » what Hitler or child abusers did is wrong and not just because I say so. it would always be wrong no matter whether i or anyone else thought the "final solution" was right.
himnextdoor wrote: » Is that correct; Satan is an idiot due to his pride?
Festus wrote: » Are you calling him an idiot?
himnextdoor wrote: » Wasn't he stupid enough to help the Messiah prophecy come true?
himnextdoor wrote: » Also, the synagogue while accusing Jesus of blasphemy did all they could to make Jesus fit the bill for the Messiah.
Zombrex wrote: » Can you detail what method anyone has used to determine what is the accurate reading of the objective standard of the universe or reality?
Festus wrote: » You are still calling him stupid. Is that wise?
Festus wrote: » Jesus does fit the bill for the Messiah.
himnextdoor wrote: » If Satan existed and was not an idiot then the prophecy of the Messiah would have been thwarted. I have as much to fear from Satan as I have from Casper the friendly ghost.
Zombrex wrote: » It should be pointed out as well that Satan isn't the one who throws you into hell for eternal suffering cause you stole a pencil when you were 10.
Manach wrote: » Based on my recollection and notes of a 10m talk on the subject, it would be everyone have an intuitive understanding of what is good in terms of society as per Finnis. This was broken down into a 7 part division which included
himnextdoor wrote: » The Jews denied Jesus was the Messiah but at the same time they micro-managed the trial, the crucifixion and the resurrection in order that Jesus appeared to be the Messiah. Remember, it was a Jewish prophecy that was being fulfilled. In order to show that Jesus was not the Messiah, all they had to do was either let Him live or execute Him the following Monday after the Passover. If they'd have left Him on the cross for a bit longer or allowed the Roman guard to break His legs then the prophecy wouldn't have come true. Why would they do that then but today deny that Jesus was the Son of God?
Festus wrote: » Quite correct. One throws oneself into Hell
Festus wrote: » You are talking as if you believe he does. Are you a fan of conspiracy theory?
ISAW wrote: » So you agree - science is sufficient.
himnextdoor wrote: » If by science you mean an investigative process that doesn't rely on faith then yes, science is sufficient.
