Profile

Cover photo
Michael M
131 followers|110,669 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

Michael M

Philosophy  - 
 
Just started a debate on the existence of God via idealism. 

http://www.debate.org/debates/God-most-likely-exists/1/
3
Rodney Mulraney's profile photoChristopher Johnson's profile photoMichael M's profile photoSebastian Nozzi's profile photo
25 comments
 
+Christopher Johnson Looks good. Thanks for sharing, I'll definitely read it.
Add a comment...

Michael M

Philosophy  - 
 
Philosopher surveys on big issues
I don't know if you guys are aware of this, but this is pretty cool... It's neat to look at the different areas of study, and see what the results are.

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=coarse
2
Add a comment...

Michael M

Philosophy  - 
 
The most intelligent atheist I know just became an idealist, and suddenly believes the mind is immaterial, and has converted to a sort of theism (pan-en-theism to be exact.)

George Berkeley: Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous

He sent me this video. He also is an idealist because it solves the interaction problem.

I dunno... it's really interesting, and makes some sense... but it seems kindof far out there. Thoughts?
4
sal c's profile photoWilliam Hilton's profile photo
2 comments
sal c
+
1
2
1
 
I like the video and kind of live my life this way. I feel we are all kind of trapped in this 3-D world but it really only exists I'm our mind. It's kind of confusing. I am aware of God just as strong as the way we think, feel, and use our 5 senses. So to deny God I would have to deny these other ways of knowing. I love what Eckhart Tolle says- the only absolute truth is where we all came from, a loving life source or God and everything emanates from that.
Add a comment...

Michael M

Training Ground  - 
 
Just started a debate about the immateriality of the mind. Thought you guys might find it interesting.

http://www.debate.org/debates/The-mind-is-probably-not-entirely-physical/1/
2
William Hilton's profile photoMichael M's profile photoSebastian Nozzi's profile photo
24 comments
 
+Michael M D'oh!! :-D
Add a comment...

Michael M

Philosophy  - 
 
What's your opinions on Alvin Plantinga's modal ontological argument? Or the ontological arguments in general?
1
William Hilton's profile photoMichael M's profile photoSebastian Nozzi's profile photo
29 comments
 
+Michael M I'm suggesting that a maximal being (perhaps plural, but more likely singular) is the creator of our universe, but that this being is anthropic. I question whether it is necessary for the creator to be physically present in his (or her?) creation, but is at home in the universe to which he is original. This is not the same idea as the multiverse schema of superstring and quantum theory, but concerns a transcendent reality in contrast to a universal reality. Now, this little philosophy will convince whomever it will convince. It's very much a work in progress.
Add a comment...
In their circles
103 people
Have them in circles
131 people
dominic marincic's profile photo
Gabe Yank's profile photo
Abby Dedinsky's profile photo
Anna Fenelon's profile photo
Teresa Zambo's profile photo

Michael M

Discussion  - 
 
+Angela Martin +David Behrens 

I'm challenging Angela Martin or David Behrens to debate me on the topic.

"Abortion is generally immoral"

I think we sortof derailed +Kent Burt 's other post, so I decided to make a new one.

I hope one of them accepts, because I'd love to have a rational discussion on this topic.

http://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-is-generally-immoral/7/
1
Angela Martin's profile photoMichael M's profile photoKent Burt's profile photo
50 comments
 
+Kent Burt I mean is it a sort of behavior which all humans are obliged to not partake in, regardless of their wants or desires? 
Add a comment...

Michael M

Philosophy  - 
 
Modal Transcendental Argument

I just wrote up a modalized version of the TAG. Thought you guys might like to see it. I appreciate any feedback.

1. □(LA ---> M)
2. □LA ---> □M
3. □LA
C: .'., □M

LA = logical axioms exist
M = a mind exists
□ = it is necessary that

Premise 2 follows from modal modus ponens. Premise 3 is also obviously true. Lol. I mean, everyone accepts that logical axioms are necessary things.

The only premise which would be controversial is the first, and even this seems easily defensible, due to the obviously mental nature of logical axioms.

It is necessary that: IF logical axioms exist, THEN a mind exists.

It's also obvious that this mind can't be a human mind, since if it's necessary, then it's not possible for it to not exist. But human minds are obviously possible to not exist, so it cannot be a human mind.

Thoughts?
3
William Hilton's profile photoMichael M's profile photoSebastian Nozzi's profile photo
5 comments
 
Another approach to the postulate of an existent pre-human mind: One of the most influential interpretations of the anthropic principle is that fine-tuning by the alpha constant is what gives a practical existence to the universe by insuring the emergence of sensory perceptions. The universe must be observed or, according to quantum experimental evidence, it will not have a real existence. This necessity for observation/inquiry is arguably the expression of a mind. 
However, this suggests deism rather than theism, and excludes all forms of immanent theism/pantheism.
Add a comment...

Michael M

Philosophy  - 
 
This is a great description of the ontological argument in modal terms, and just a good introduction to modal logic in general.

I'm still working up to my goal of understanding Godel's ontological proof, but this is very helpful! :D

http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgnphil/ontological.html
2
1
Robert John's profile photo
Add a comment...
 
Does mathematics point to the intellect of God?

So I've been thinking alot lately about numbers and their existential status.

It seems that numbers exist independently of our minds, and that we discover them. In other words, they exist objectively. But don't numbers exist as concepts in an intellect? I mean there's no physical object of "2." 

So could we conclude that since numbers, or mathematics in general, are objectively true, and exist as concepts in a mind, that since they are necessary things, they exist in a necessary mind?
1
Daniel Issacson's profile photoWilliam Hilton's profile photoSebastian Nozzi's profile photoDavid S. Barkley's profile photo
21 comments
 
You have the Missouri "Show Me" attitude. That's good. I'd love to hear Meidy's stories. I'm fascinated by northern European folklore especially, and wonder about the historical sources of the fanciful legends of the Merlín-types. I think Shakespeare got it right when he said, through one of his characters, "There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of even by that other William," or something like that.
Add a comment...

Michael M

Philosophy  - 
 
Argument for the mind from continuity of identity despite change

Hey guys! I heard this really really interesting argument just recently on the debate website I'm on. It got me thinking, and it seems pretty strong. Let me know what you think.

"1. If all we are is the sum of our physical parts, then we do not maintain personal identity through physical change.
2. We do maintain personal identity through physical change.
3. Therefore, we are not merely the sum of our physical parts.

Suppose there is a wooden ship, and we replace each piece of wood on the ship one at a time until there are no original pieces of wood left, and the entire ship is made of new wood. If that happened, then you would no longer have the original ship. It would be a completely different ship.

If you are not persuaded, let's press the analogy further. Let's say that we gather together the original wood that used to be part of the ship, and we assemble it into a ship that has all of the properties of the original ship before you started replacing parts. Now you've got two ships--one made entirely of new parts, and one made of all the original parts. Surely if either of these ships stand a chance of being the original, it's the one with the original parts.

If you are still not persuaded, let's tweak the thought experiment a little. Instead of replacing each piece of wood with another piece of wood, let's say we replace each piece of wood with cardboard. In the end, we'd have a ship made entirely of cardboard. By now, you should be able to see that if you replace all the parts on the ship, then you no longer have the original ship.

So it is with people. We are in a constant state of change, and within 10 to 15 years, we have a mostly new body.[1] If we were identical with our bodies (i.e. if we are our bodies), then none of us have been around for longer than 10 or 15 years. You yourself never were a baby. Even some of the memories you have were not your own. Rather, you inherited them from somebody else who had those experiences but has passed out of existence.

But to deny that we ourselves have continued to exist in spite of our physical changes is absurd, and many counter-intuitive results follow from it. It would follow that nobody should be convicted of a crime that happened more than 15 years earlier. It would follow that you were never born and that you have no parents. It would follow that your memories are not your own. It would follow that within another 15 years, you could cease to exist without dying.

Since we do maintain personal identity through physical change, it follows that we are not identical with our bodies. We are immaterial, and we animate different bodies throughout our lives." [2]

The argument is a valid modus tollens syllogism, so if the premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. The first premise seems to be obviously true, and I doubt anyone would want to deny the second premise. I suppose that's probably what people would do nowadays.. Although it kindof goes to show how contra common sense the materlialist position really is.

[1] [1] "Your Amazing Regenerating Body" by Gaia Vince http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025561.900-your-amazing-regenerating-body.html "Cells That Last a Lifetime" by April Holladay http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2007-03-30-cell-lifetime_N.htm
[2] Site:debate.org, User:philochristos, URL: http://www.debate.org/debates/That-the-mind-is-a-purely-physical-substance./1/
4
1
Jacinta Gundrum's profile photoDaniel Issacson's profile photoMichael M's profile photoSebastian Nozzi's profile photo
52 comments
 
+Michael M _Wouldn't there have to be something physical that remains the same?_ No, I don't think so. If this analog holds, than it is it possible for a biological system.
Add a comment...
People
In their circles
103 people
Have them in circles
131 people
dominic marincic's profile photo
Gabe Yank's profile photo
Abby Dedinsky's profile photo
Anna Fenelon's profile photo
Teresa Zambo's profile photo
Links
YouTube