Argument From Free Will

[red]

If it's possible to known something, an omnipotent entity will know it.

I realise that is what it "means", but I question how it is attained.
Omnipotence is not a natural sense that I can rationalise.

 

[red]

So how did you know about where the car went before you knew there was a car

Once I become omniscient I know where the car went so the question is academic

And I am omnipotent, so I have the power to change what you thought you knew.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I realise that is what it "means", but I question how it is attained.
Omnipotence is not a natural sense that I can rationalise.

Ah, now I see where the problem is.

It isn't attained, it simply is. For an omniscient entity, the state of having all knowledge is simply brute fact.

As is often the case, trying to rationalise the illogical is not rational.

 

[Deleted member 619]

And I am omnipotent, so I have the power to change what you thought you knew.

And here we run into the perennial problem of the existence of mutually exclusive attributes. If you can change what an omniscient entity knows, it isn't omniscient (and never was). If you can't, you're not omnipotent. The two simply cannot coexist without leading to paradox.

That's what happens when you apply logic to the illogical.

 

[red]

As such, the Creator knows everything since it's all occurring NOW.

Thus, the Creator knows what "choices" you're going to make tomorrow (your future, His PRESENT) - this has nothing to do with the Creator actually controlling what "choices" you're going to make tomorrow.

I guess to some extent we were talking generically, but it probably makes no difference.
I have never been defending Dave B's original post, just trying to understand it.
I cannot - but it has been interesting.
It seems that it makes no difference when anything happens as the omniscient entity must always know - otherwise not omniscient.

 

[red]

And here we run into the perennial problem of the existence of mutually exclusive attributes. If you can change what an omniscient entity knows, it isn't omniscient (and never was). If you can't, you're not omnipotent. The two simply cannot coexist without leading to paradox.

I should have made this point clear when I spoke of the need to subsume omnipotence into omniscience - it was the only way it worked in my brain at that time. But the word paradox was not on my radar, so in future I will try to think a bit deeper about the whys - so many thanks as always..

 

[red]

It isn't attained, it simply is. For an omniscient entity, the state of having all knowledge is simply brute fact.

How does one instantiate brute fact into a logical fallacy?
The ancient operating system in my brain is going into meltdown.

 

[Deleted member 619]

How does one instantiate brute fact into a logical fallacy?

Not sure I understand the question.

The ancient operating system in my brain is going into meltdown.

It happens to all of us.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I should have made this point clear when I spoke of the need to subsume omnipotence into omniscience - it was the only way it worked in my brain at that time. But the word paradox was not on my radar, so in future I will try to think a bit deeper about the whys - so many thanks as always..

The easiest way to see this point is to ask 'can an omniscient, omnipotent entity do something that it didn't know it would do?'

There's nothing illogical about doing something you didn't know you'd do, and indeed this is a power we all possess, but it can't happen with those two omnis in place.

Of course, dependent on how you define them, they're pretty much impossible on their own, but put the two together and you have a paradox.

 

[red]

How does one instantiate brute fact into a logical fallacy?

Not sure I understand the question.

I thought omnipotence was logically fallacious. If so, then is it able to have the property of a brute fact?

 

[Deleted member 619]

I thought omnipotence was logically fallacious.

It can't be fallacious in and of itself, because a fallacy is an error on reasoning. Omnipotence is incoherent rather than fallacious. I've come across apologetics that attempt to circumvent this by limiting what it means to be omnipotent. All have failed, of course, because the only limitation that can be placed on it and it still qualify as omnipotence is to define it in such a way as to limit the power to what's logically possible, and that's easy to defeat, because I can list a whole slew of perfectly possible things that even a standardly able schmo like me can do, such as building a pile of bricks I can't lift. It only becomes illogical when you introduce omnipotence into the mix.

If so, then is it able to have the property of a brute fact?

Well, we're playing around with the illogical here, so if it were possible for omnipotence to exist, there wouldn't be any logical problem with it, so there's also no issue with it being a brute fact.

 

[surreptitious57]

Once I become omniscient I know where the car went so the question is academic

And I am omnipotent so I have the power to change what you thought you knew

No because your omnipotence does not and can not invalidate my omniscience

Neither is infringing upon the other and consequently both can logically co exist

Because omniscience pertains to thought while omnipotence pertains to action

One is a state of mental supremacy while the other is a state of physical supremacy

And as the mental and physical do not overlap then neither can impact upon the other

 

[Deleted member 619]

the mental and physical do not overlap

Betcha can't defend that statement.

 

[surreptitious57]

I knew you would object to it but if one conflates the two exclusively within the context of this particular thread then it makes the arguments less
sound in my completely humble opinion. We are dealing with hypotheticals here for neither omnipotence or omniscience actually exist in reality
And as such permit myself to take some liberties with terminology. But were this about other subject matter instead such as consciousness for
example then I would almost certainly not think of the mental and physical as being mutually exclusive. For the very simple reason that in that
particular context one can observe both processes so one has a more solid grounding as to what they actually are. But when one is debating
the metaphysical one has to go on just logic and reason. Hence why one may take liberties with language as one is not constrained by mere
observation. Now I strongly suspect you shall dismiss all of this as total bollocks though it is the best I can offer so apologies if it disappoints

 

[Deleted member 619]

I knew you would object to it but if one conflates the two exclusively within the context of this particular thread then it makes the arguments less sound in my completely humble opinion.

The problem is that there's no context in which the statement could be defended. Put simply, the mental is a behaviour of the physical, so they don't merely overlap, they're inextricably intertwined, the one entirely dependent on the other.

But were this about other subject matter instead such as consciousness for example then I would almost certainly not think of the mental and physical as being mutually exclusive.

And the problem there is that this topic IS about consciousness.

Now I strongly suspect you shall dismiss all of this as total bollocks though it is the best I can offer so apologies if it disappoints

I never merely dismiss, as you well know.

 

[surreptitious57]

And the problem there is that this topic IS about consciousness

I thought it was about metaphysics. Consciousness to me references the working of the human brain and as we are dealing
with concepts here which are evidently non human then I fail to see the connection. Less you are stretching the definition of
what you actually mean by consciousness. I suppose it could be about that from a completely hypothetical perspective. But
that is way beyond the standard usage of the definition as is generally employed. So I am sticking with metaphysics myself

 

[Deleted member 619]

I thought it was about metaphysics.

If it were, would I be posting in it?

Consciousness to me references the working of the human brain

That suggests that only humans are conscious, which is just plain silly.

and as we are dealing with concepts here which are evidently non human then I fail to see the connection.

Knowledge is predicated on consciousness.

Less you are stretching the definition of what you actually mean by consciousness.

Not remotely.

I suppose it could be about that from a completely hypothetical perspective. But that is way beyond the standard usage of the definition as is generally employed. So I am sticking with metaphysics myself

The free will/determinism dichotomy has exactly nothing to do with metaphysics.

 

[surreptitious57]

Consciousness to me references the working of the human brain

That suggests that only humans are conscious which is just plain silly

Human consciousness is discussed far more within the disciplines of science and philosophy than any other type and for very obvious reasons
I can communicate to other humans what I am thinking and they to me in a way that other species simply cannot. We are the only species that
can think in incredibly abstract terms. So even if one rejects hubris we would still be studying our own consciousness over that of other species

In humans the percentage of the brain that is the pre frontal cortex that references abstract thinking and problem solving is thirty three per cent
of total brain mass. In chimpanzees our closest cousins in the animal kingdom with whom we have over ninety eight per cent DNA compatibility
that figure is just seventeen per cent. And it is that that fundamentally separates us both from them and all other species. Now if seven hundred
monkeys typed for seven hundred years one of them could indeed produce the complete works of Shakespeare but it would have no idea it had

When the pathologist Thomas Harvey sawed open Einsteins skull he discovered that his brain mass was unspectacularly average for a man of his
age. However his pre frontal cortex was a very significant fifteen per cent larger than average. I suspect that abstract thinkers like philosophers and
mathematicians have large ones as well. It is that more than any other part of our brain which makes us unique with regard to our cognitive capability

 

[red]

No because your omnipotence does not and can not invalidate my omniscience

If I am omnipotent then I do have that power, or there is no omnipotence: There can be nothing beyond my realm in terms of powers.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Human consciousness is discussed far more within the disciplines of science and philosophy than any other type and for very obvious reasons

The obvious reason being that we are human.

I can communicate to other humans what I am thinking and they to me in a way that other species simply cannot.

That's true of any conscious species. Dolphins can communicate with each other more effectovely than they can communicate with us.

We are the only species that can think in incredibly abstract terms.

Even were this true (it isn't), you wouldn't have a hope of supporting that statement.

So even if one rejects hubris we would still be studying our own consciousness over that of other species

That's because we can discuss it with other humans, and for no other reason.

In humans the percentage of the brain that is the pre frontal cortex that references abstract thinking and problem solving is thirty three per cent
of total brain mass. In chimpanzees our closest cousins in the animal kingdom with whom we have over ninety eight per cent DNA compatibility
that figure is just seventeen per cent. And it is that that fundamentally separates us both from them and all other species. Now if seven hundred
monkeys typed for seven hundred years one of them could indeed produce the complete works of Shakespeare but it would have no idea it had

When the pathologist Thomas Harvey sawed open Einsteins skull he discovered that his brain mass was unspectacularly average for a man of his
age. However his pre frontal cortex was a very significant fifteen per cent larger than average. I suspect that abstract thinkers like philosophers and
mathematicians have large ones as well. It is that more than any other part of our brain which makes us unique with regard to our cognitive capability

Not sure what any of this has to do with whether other species are conscious, and it certainly has nothing to do with whether knowledge is a function of consciousness.