Humility: Good or Bad?

[Probius]

Cf...one cannot find "laws" and then deny a lawgiver.

Laws cannot have a lawgiver, otherwise the lawgiver would have existed before the laws, which would mean the laws would not be laws.  Laws are necessary and must always exist in all places and all times.

whaaaaat???
You smoken the kronik?

Not yet...

What is your objection?

[james03]

Consciousness is a material process, so there is no contradiction with materialism.

Are you seriously positing that baking soda and vinegar think about themselves and are aware?

[james03]

False.  Action comes from an entity, action never comes from action.  If there is an action, there must be an entity which acted.  Act is not a floating abstraction which exists on its own, it is something done by an entity.

You are dense.

The entity is God.  You are correct, action is done by an entity.  Which means existence has to be cause by an entity that is pure action.  He can not have potential and be acted on because that necessitates a previous entity.  Therefore the first CAUSE is an entity that is pure action.

[Probius]

Consciousness is a material process, so there is no contradiction with materialism.

Are you seriously positing that baking soda and vinegar think about themselves and are aware?

You are the dense one.  Obviously not all material is conscious, but some is.

[james03]

The very fact that he is speaking of the mind means that he doesn't deny it. 

He considers it an illusion. Did you watch the video?  Are you that dense?  When he says "there is nothing else", he is saying that the brain is just like baking soda and vinegar, and there is nothing else.  No mind, no consciousness.  Just material reactions.  Which means no rights, values, beauty, Truth, love, or Justice.  All illusions.  Remember?

[james03]

You are the dense one.  Obviously not all material is conscious, but some is.

If the brain is just reactions like vinegar and baking soda, then either both are conscious or nothing is conscious.  Didn't you say you believe in non-contradiction?  A is A?

A is material reactions.  Material reactions are not conscious.  A is A.

[Probius]

You are the dense one.  Obviously not all material is conscious, but some is.

If the brain is just reactions like vinegar and baking soda, then either both are conscious or nothing is conscious.  Didn't you say you believe in non-contradiction?  A is A?

A is material reactions.  Material reactions are not conscious.  A is A.

The brain and baking soda are two different things, they cannot be compared.  The brain is not a reaction like baking soda and vinegar, and I can't imagine why you are using this as an example.  The brain is what it is, and it is in its nature to be conscious as long as it is alive.  Consciousness is an action which pertains to men, not to inanimate objects.  It is not in the nature of baking soda or vinegar to be conscious.  What is it with you and the baking soda/vinegar thing?

[james03]

What is it with you and the baking soda/vinegar thing?

That is Dennett, and you.  If the brain is just matter, then it is just a bunch of chemical reactions.  "That's all that there is".

The brain is not a reaction like baking soda and vinegar,

Then what is it, and how can it be concious and intentional?  Oh yeah, that's right, "We're making progress".

The brain is what it is, and it is in its nature to be conscious as long as it is alive.

Wait, "alive"?  What the heck is that?  More assumptions on your part.

[Probius]

What is it with you and the baking soda/vinegar thing?

That is Dennett, and you.  If the brain is just matter, then it is just a bunch of chemical reactions.  "That's all that there is".

The brain is not a reaction like baking soda and vinegar,

Then what is it, and how can it be concious and intentional?  Oh yeah, that's right, "We're making progress".

The brain is what it is, and it is in its nature to be conscious as long as it is alive.

Wait, "alive"?  What the heck is that?  More assumptions on your part.

Not all chemical reactions are alike, each chemical reaction has its own nature.  Life, as a chemical reaction, is different than other chemical reactions, such as your baking soda and vinegar example.  Alive is word to indicate something which is in the process of living.  A thing must be alive in order to to be conscious, this is rather elementary.  The science still has a way to go to understand what creates consciousness, but we can know what things are conscious, and we can know that thinking involves the brain and only the brain.

[james03]

Alive is what is living?  You have to be sh!tting me.  Do you know what a tautology is?

Life, as a chemical reaction, is different than other chemical reactions, such as your baking soda and vinegar example.

Have you established this difference?  The expert you posted says there is no difference.  Any difference is an illusion.

We started with  existence exists.  We now have two options.  The atheist universe where all existence is material only.  And the Catholic universe where there also exists the immaterial.

You have chosen the atheist view.  I can ask you about immaterial things (e.g. triangles were discovered, not invented), so your selection is merely an irrational assumption, but for the sake of argument, we'll go with it.

You have to prove that "man", a material collection of atoms, can "live", and that a acid catalyzed chemical reaction between butylene and isobutane can not (or we can go back to baking soda and vinegar).

Proceed.

[Probius]

Alive is what is living?  You have to be sh!tting me.  Do you know what a tautology is?

Life, as a chemical reaction, is different than other chemical reactions, such as your baking soda and vinegar example.

Have you established this difference?  The expert you posted says there is no difference.  Any difference is an illusion.

We started with  existence exists.  We now have two options.  The atheist universe where all existence is material only.  And the Catholic universe where there also exists the immaterial.

You have chosen the atheist view.  I can ask you about immaterial things (e.g. triangles were discovered, not invented), so your selection is merely an irrational assumption, but for the sake of argument, we'll go with it.

You have to prove that "man", a material collection of atoms, can "live", and that a acid catalyzed chemical reaction between butylene and isobutane can not (or we can go back to baking soda and vinegar).

Proceed.

Just because I don't accept immaterial things, does not mean I don't accept ideas.  This is pure sophistry.  It is akin to saying, God cannot be seen, but neither can love, therefore if you don't accept God, you cannot accept love.  Blah, blah, blah, ridiculous.  This is silly and is never accepted outside of the lobbies of churches where believers congregate to reinforce their beliefs.

By perceiving the world around me I know that man can live, as I am a man who is living.  To deny this would be akin to denying the nose on your face.  A man was once very worried about his son, and took him to the local priest.  You see, the son had become convinced that he was dead.  The doctor asked the son, "do dead people bleed?"  The son replied, "no, of course not, every one knows this."  So the doctor took the boy's hand and pricked it with a needle, and the boy bled.  The son was very confused, and said to the doctor, "what do you know, I guess dead people do bleed."  Only an insane person would not be able to recognize that he is in fact alive.

[james03]

Just because I don't accept immaterial things, does not mean I don't accept ideas.  This is pure sophistry.

What a hoot.  I don't think you can comprehend this sentence.  This sentence is absolutely correct as written.  You condemn yourself.

By perceiving the world around me I know that man can live, as I am a man who is living.

Which is why you are going to hell.  And your eternal whine: "It's not my fault, I didn't see it" will only condemn you more.

[Probius]

Just because I don't accept immaterial things, does not mean I don't accept ideas.  This is pure sophistry.

What a hoot.  I don't think you can comprehend this sentence.  This sentence is absolutely correct as written.  You condemn yourself.

By perceiving the world around me I know that man can live, as I am a man who is living.

Which is why you are going to hell.  And your eternal whine: "It's not my fault, I didn't see it" will only condemn you more.

Your threats of hell have no force.

[james03]

I don't threaten.  I'm just announcing.

But why are you here if not to save yourself from hell?  To whine?  We can try to save you, but you have to ditch the pride, which is effeminate in a man.  Start by admitting when you are wrong, or learn something about the Faith.  You were obviously wrong about humility, as you were using an erroneous definition (self-loathing).

You said one of the big problems you had with the Faith was the perceived (or perhaps actually observed) leftism.  I gave you a book which addresses the errors of leftists in the Church.  Here's the link again.:

Link to Book

This book is online and free to read.  Take some time off and read the book.  Then report back.  Besides that, I'm done.

[Probius]

James03, which do you think has primacy, existence or consciousness?