“Moses, Jesus, and a bearded old man are playing golf. Moses drives a long one, which lands on the fairway but rolls directly toward the pond. Moses raises his club, parts the water, and the ball rolls safely to the other side.
Jesus also hits a long one toward the same pond, but just as it’s about to land in the center, it hovers above the surface. Jesus casually walks out on the pond and chips it onto the green.
The bearded man’s drive hits a fence and bounces out onto the street, where it caroms off an oncoming truck and back onto the fairway. It’s headed directly for the pond, but it lands on a lily pad, where a frog sees it and snatches it into his mouth. An eagle swoops down, grabs the frog, and flies away. As the eagle and frog pass over the green, the frog drops the ball, and it lands in the cup for a hole-in-one.
Moses turns to Jesus and says, “I hate playing with your dad.” ”
(by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein)
Philosophical Engineering Quintessential Knowledge:
Some scientists believe that the philosopher’s idea of free will is mystifying, like the case of Moses parting the pond for the golf ball to reach the hole. They find consciousness explained without something more causally explainable (in terms of underlying physical laws) will make no sense; you can’t just part the water like that! The same thoughts come to mind when Jesus stands on the water for his next shot; we don’t just stand on water and then pow! we’re conscious. We need, philosophically, a firmer ground to stand on.
But when we follow the determined determinist’s view of consciousness, following the steps to get to consciousness, into the frog, then the eagle and eventually in the hole, how much more sense does that make? We’re looking for consciousness in some underlying magic, some truly basic causal chain, when the natural chain of events leading up to God’s hole in one are much more complicated. What’s underlying isn’t basic.
3 Responses
Stephen Cope
I recently read Julian Jaynes’ discussion of consciousness in his book “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind”. Although his work has been largely ignored or even disparaged it seems to me that recent discussions on Freewill, such as the book of that name by Sam Harris, indicate that a re-evaluation is due. If, as Harris and others claim, there is no such thing as freewill, and that the conscious mind merely observes and rationalises the behaviour engendered by the unconscious mind, it is not unreasonable to suggest that this conscious observation and rationalisation process is a recent evolutionary development.
anthonyt
Very interesting perspective on this. Jaynes’ book sounds interesting as well. I agree with you in that a re-evaluation is due. Science is now catching up to the postulation of Descarte many years ago with the concept of dualism. Would be interesting to see a modern evaluation from the perspective of a physicist who studies quantum mechanics. I have enjoyed the work from Henry Stapp on this. It is interesting that in the world of physics it is OK for a possibility of uncertainty and no causal link readily observable sometimes in experiments. However when it comes to consciousness, the word “science” when used still suggests phenomena that is causal and explainable. Just think of the string theorists!
Gwen Burdick
BEST PROGRAM FOR ADVERTISEMENT!
XRumer is the best program for advertisement!
It’s have CAPTCHA recognizer, email verificator, and a lot of other functions…
This software will help to increase traffic to website to hundreds, thousands times.
Program have a rich seven year history, which use experience of professionals in search engine optimization.
Appreciate and use a truly unique and powerful XRumer program, can both professionals and beginners.
MORE INFO=> https://bit.ly/39RzWR4