DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here



If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at with the relevant information.


Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.


If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at with your Paypal email/Bitcoin address/etc as well as your board account name and the situation will be addressed ASAP.


We just upgraded the board software, and now your email address is used to log in. If you're having trouble, please Contact Us.

All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Today
  2. Well I've never heard of eliminativist naturalism before so don't mind me if I'm mixing up something and I applaud you for the vocab, but if I get the concept right (no mind i.e. no conceptual awareness) I can't see why there is nesseccarily a dichotomy between one mind and no minds. Mind arises from conceptual awareness which arises from prefrontal brain development (as far as we know) and this seems universal across the human species (compare pre-conceptual babies or mentally disabled/brain dead) which at the very least implies a strong cooralation between the physical brain and awareness. In fact, I believe surgeons can disconnect specific areas of the brain which disable conceptual awareness (brain dead,) but I could be wrong on that. Each person's genetic code seems unique, so it seems quite possible to me that ones awareness at least in qulia could be individually distinct from another's. If not, how do we differentiate between two human bodies? The same principle may just as well apply to ones awareness, I think. As well, the uniqueness of each mind could arises from physical causes (evolution) rather than a God (which, to my knowledge, has less if not none at all, emperically basis than evolution.) The mind could've arisen to give an individual the greatest level of control of it's environment. I don't see why free will implies freedom from physics, if this is the case and we do have free will, wouldn't we be able to defy the laws if physics? Free Will, it seems to me, would simply mean the ability to originate cause, which could come through something like Rand's 'think or not think' choice. Could are through value-conflict, where two things are values equally but you must act which forces choice (seeing as though value arises from conceptual awareness.) What I'm saying is that there seems to be other ways to look at free will which have more of a sense basis than souls or God. Free will and the physical nature of reality must be connected because they share the same metaphysical base. Without such a universal metaphysical base we can't form a universal methodology (epistemology) to truth which would devolve into subjectivism which would invalidate any theory proposed. Either free will arises from reality or there isn't free will because a free will derived from anything but what is real would be something non-real. Let me know if this makes sense, love the discussion so far.
  3. I don't know, why is God so retarded?
  4. Atlas Shrugged is so damn accurate and thorough that things remind me of it every day. This is article in particular is uncanny:
  5. I think the distinction between yourself and "others" denotes the objective experience that you are you and not another person. Objectively speaking, everyone is themselves, ea h persona has an individual mind and body which, in some way differentiates them from another human. In terms of perspective, I am the subject and everything else the object, but I think this is different from what the term 'us' and 'other' denote. As well, the fact that I have a perspective that's is not anothers and that other people have a perspective that is not mine is an objective reality, so I don't see how it cancels each other out. Plus, with out distinction there is no identity which refutes A is A. The fact that you can differentiate between my post and your post implies that there is something which distingishes us, I believe. Let me know what you think!
  6. God's a bit of a cunt, then, isn't he?
  7. Why is there "us" and why is there "other"? Objectively speaking, there can be neither, as I am "me" to me, but I am "you" to you. I am my own subject, but I am your object. You are your own subject, but my object. As these roles are mutually exclusive, I believe they cancel one another out, at least in terms of pure perspective. Why have we not evolved to believe this objective truth when it is so plain, and so plainly helpful? If we cease to create the "other", we cease to create conflict too. All is as is, rather than all being as we wish it to be to suit our purposes and our motivations, either selfless or selfish. To see a thing as it is, is truly to see it. To see the self in the other is to falsify the dichotomy, and to falsify the dichotomy is to cease being afraid of that which is, in reality, not foreign.
  8. The sort of "morality" (I use that very loosely) attributed to God in the Bible is that It keeps Its promises to the people It chose, I guess, but I don't see genocide, homophobia, racism, envy, misogyny, and all that other shit as being justified by the whole "I protect my chosen people" thing, because, as we can see, the God of the Bible didn't protect them when the Romans destroyed the second Temple and forced them off of their ancestral land, which really wasn't the best land to begin with: rather arid and surrounded by extremely powerful empires for almost all of its history. And besides that, even the people can't exactly agree on where the boundaries are meant to be, hence the split into the northern and southern kingdoms, as well as the current conflict in Gaza. The only thing that Judaism has going for it in terms of having retained God's protection is the fact that it still exists and can call itself the forerunner of the other Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam. But I have to say, I'm not partial to the God of the Bible, mostly for the aforementioned sins and heresies that It commits in Its own Name, which is blasphemy and hypocrisy anyway, but also in the fact that having such a God would make us separate from what God is, which is impossible. We are indivisible from God. We are God. Not God's creators, nor are we Its creation: we are one and the same thing. When things started existing, God started existing, and, upon the heat death of the Universe, God will cease to exist in this Universe, though I believe in Multiverse so that's more or less a nonissue anyway. So God is only moral insofar as we are moral. Are we doing a good job?
  9. That's racist. Unsubscribed.
  10. Okay...? I'm partially blind and I got very little out of this. Was there supposed to be sound or no? He's just kind of dancing around like a nut, which I fully support, and then flipping us off...which isn't a universal symbol (they do it with the first two fingers in England and I think they do it with the index in Japan), and...other stuff. I need an interpreter here, please, and thanks. ...Either that or he's just trolling, so nothing out of the ordinary, LOL.
  11. First I want to say that, for me, this was a clear, positive and curious response. I really thank you for that, it makes the whole discuss a lot more enjoyable for me, not that you nesseccarily care, but I wanted to compliment you on your presentation here, it impressed me. I'll try to take these comments in turn (still not sure how to quote things separately in the same post): Great! I'm glad we agree, that solves a lot of problems now I don't have to respond to anything and...haha never mind of course I do! I'm not sure this represents a universal therory. You yourself point out that classical mechanics is needed for one and quantum mechanics, ethics and the like are needed for the other. Furthermore, both of these fields (and therefore I would assume their respective topics) are subjective to emperically testing and logical consistency, which implies something universal (monistic) underlying mind and matter which connect them. "All knowledge is connected" sort of thing. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this. It seems to make sense to me that to make sense of anything you've written here, you'd have to assume that you can know truth (and primarily that there is a methodology for discovering that truth.) To experience, in a way, is to know. Though of course you must verify it logically (which is itself based in really and "experienced") as well as assume some axioms (existence exists, A is A, Aristotle 101...) Ethics is based only on things we can experience and to be aware means to be aware of something which exists and that you are experiencing, I believe. It sees to me that all truth arises from a 1-2 combo of experience and logical consistency which are only sensible within monistic (or universal) metaphysical theory. I think if they overlapped we wouldn't know anyway because we could only have knowledge where these two methodologies overlapped each other. If knowledge exits where these overlapped, where and how would we be able to know the two methodologies which overlapped? Secondly, I don't think that if these two do overlapped, that that means they still remain distinct, if they have the capacity to overlap, there must be something universal which can combine them, sort of like thesis + antithesis = synthesis. I don't think science (and definitely not I) have even a relative clue to how the universe arose or the entire function/origins of black holes and white holes, so I'll have to stay ignorant in explaining those points, but I don't think it would be possible to get something from nothing, that seems to be the eternal problem here. If reality gives rise to mind (awareness) then mind can't give rise to something which is non-reality because mind IS a part of reality so reality encompasses mind, it works on the same universals. Secondly, I think, a mind can't give rise to anything because the mind doesn't have primacy over existence. To be aware is to be aware of something, as Rand would endlessly point out in fascinatingly annoying futility. That the mind is a product of reality implies that it can never give rise to non-reality, it seems to me at any rate. I think to ignore the third (or pretend it isn't there) may be dangerous, dulism often leads to all sorts of life destroying mysticism, secular or otherwise. It seems to me that to ignore this third element is similar to one of ignoring gravity because we live before Newton. Anyway, again, thank you for the response, this is really enjoyable and insightful for me!
  12. Relate any possible reason for the mind's association with the body, to what we were discussing in the “Why am I me and not you?” thread. All minds being equal, as mere nodes of experience, there is insufficient reason for any one mind to associate with any one body. Either all minds are the same mind (pantheism) or there are no minds (complete eliminativist materialism). To break free of these two alternatives we must consider that every mind is unique, akin to the content of a single, unreproduced original LP recording. My unique mind gives God, who created it, sufficient reason to associate my mind with my body and not another body. Without this consideration, again, pantheism or complete eliminativist materialism, both of which destroy the soul as a distinct entity. On free will: If we believe the mind to be distinct from other minds, we must believe that those minds (souls) are unique; and if we believe souls are unique and possess free will, they must be separate from the material of the brain (metaphysical naturalism) because under that metaphysic there is no “alternate world” for free will to come from. Free will means choice unbound from physics. If all there is is physics, there is no room for free will. Thus if we believe we have free will we must also have souls.
  13. Wow, that's a pretty unique argument, I mean this sincerely, and maybe it's just because I'm sometimes ignorant, but I've not heard that argument for souls before, so definitely thank you for that, really interesting to mentally munch on. Do I smell Schopenhauer...? Maybe not... Anyway, not sure if this is nesseccarily an argument, but could it be that we simply haven't found the reason for it's existence (though I think something like the idea that freewill may have an evolutionary benefit of some sort and needed a conceptually aware brain to be able to obtain that could stand as an example of a possible reason, though I have no proof for the validity of that idea) but the fact that it does exist implies that it has a reason for existing? Perhaps we don't know how mind arises from the brain, but perhaps "mind" is an effect of the unique human brain rather than something separate and that this "mind" serves an evolutionary purpose. In short, I guess I don't see how just because we haven't found a reason for it's existence or just because we don't know the connection between mind and "body" so to speak, that this necessarily means that the two are different. Is there emperically evidence for that? I definitely be curious to find out. Thought provoking though, let me know what you think!
  14. I'm not sure if it's possible to live a completely vice-free life. Only a complete saint can do that, and I don't know of anyone who's a complete saint. We're all human after all; we're not super beings. The best way in my view to go about living a virtuous life is to do the best we can, but not beat ourselves up for not being perfect. It's okay to have a few vices such as eating ice cream for breakfast or not brushing your teeth before going to bed on some nights. It's even okay to be "mean" sometimes, such as saying "no" if you don't feel like doing someone a favor. In other words, balance is the key. One shouldn't be a bona fide troublemaker. On the other hand, one shouldn't be a self-righteous goody-two-shoes or a pushover either.
  15. I've started a new thread here.
  16. First, everything I say presumes the action of the principle of sufficient reason (psr), which states that everything is the way it is for a reason. Second, we must separate mind from brain. It is clear from the action of the unconscious, the brain, in creating the vivid, detailed, highly structured domain of dreams, that the brain is perfectly capable of highly functioning outside of the conscious mind. We also see this in the careful actions of somnambulists, and the autonomic processes of the body. In other words the brain can function reflexively in all capacities without any need for a conscious mind. In terms of metaphysical naturalism, there is insufficient reason for the conscious mind to exist. Third, the fact that, as everyone knows from empirical experience, the mind does exist, demonstrates that the mind is distinct from the brain. This mind I call “soul”.
  17. Yesterday
  18. The 'good life' is a life full or virtue and free of vice. Living virtuously brings you health, success, good relationships, happiness. So the question is how to live virtuously is a culture that encourages vice. the answer should be how you remove bad culture from your life. For instance, you might refuse to listen to commercial radio and you listen to philosophy podcasts instead.
  19. That's a little... general.
  20. Yes you would. Universal Epistemological Theories: Dualism. Matter being Deterministic side, and Mind being Freewill. One theory for matter, the classical mechanics side. The other for the mind, Ethics, Quantum Mechanics, other dimensions and universes. Maybe you can't know truth because then you'd be a God, only experience truth. The same way you can't know a person, only experience their company. A way of experiencing truth with another person, being through Goodwill and or Ethics. An indirect way of measuring truth, perhaps through increased consciousness and awareness. What if the two methodologies overlapped in someway, a bit like set theory? Like having multiple pieces of evidence some of which might be contradictory or insufficient. Perhaps like the fundamental forces of physics. Yeah looks that way, haven't listened to all of the Will to Power. Dualism doesn't refute matter in terms of reality, just that in addition to that reality, there is the potential for the mind to encompass more then what is, to perhaps bring more matter into existence, blackholes, whiteholes etc Which if they exist wouldn't they change any constant of this universe? If there was a constant then how did the universe form in the first-place. Why only one Big Bang, why not multiple ones, across a void, which is by definition impossible to imagine but yet the word remains. I thought it was well thought out. My thoughts on Monism is wouldn't that mean that concepts such as, Ethics, Good and Bad, were ultimately delusional? All Good Things... Another thing with monism, is it hasn't reconciled this supposed 3rd substance that links mind and matter into one, so why not deal with the acknowledged entities as they are, Mind and Matter? One more thing I've noticed is that the majority of people like 90%+(imo) are monists in one way or another.
  21. What do you mean by the good life? What in your opinion is a good life?
  22. Ditto, very interested to hear your thoughts on souls, maybe move this to a different thread? Or perhaps that not nesseccary...
  23. If you care to take the time, I would like to hear your argument for the existence of souls.
  24. I'm not sure I read you. Are you asking why there are souls at all?
  25. Catering for future demographics
  1. Load more activity