My wife currently is not in this room where I type this post. In other words, my wife does not “exist” in this room. Just because this is a negative statement, it does not mean that I cannot know it.
This is the problem. Through out your posts, you assume quite allot with out proof. As human beings, we tend to accept the reality that is given to us. Our brains appear to give us true reality; but in reality, experience is nothing but the (name removed by moderator)ut and output of information. In reality, one can only reasonably assume that you are receiving a signal; but one cannot know for sure that what you are receiving is in fact an accurate depiction of true reality. It could be quite different to what we see and think. If you are the result of nothing but blind chemical activity in the brain which is reliant on stimulus, then you are forced to see reality in the way that your brain is feeding it to you. The problem with that is; in theory, you can have the same sensation of touching or seeing something, without the need of those sensations being objectively real, since we are dealing with “information”.
One type of information produces a certain kind of experience. The receiver is in the place of subjectivity and by definition, cannot know, or have knowledge, without having blind-faith in the reality we are forced to receive. We receive nothing in real time, since every bit of information has to be processed by the brain before being experienced by the person. Everything you have learned: the laws physics, relativity, biology, evolution, cosmology; these are subjective interpretations which are reliant on information being objective reflections of reality. Our knowledge of physical laws is only relevant to the information we gather; but we have no proof of its actual objectivity. If one assumes that random information can produce the appearance of Intelligence and logic given so many shuffles, then you surely you cannot reasonable assume that the information you experience, which you receive from outside your subjective self, is accurate, free from error, or real. In fact it could all just be a figment of your imagination. The point is, you are relying on a biological system, which is the produce of billions of years of blind error, blind mutations, blind cause and effect, blind environmental stimulus and blind chemical reactions in the brain. What truly objective evidence do you have, which proves that your brain is working in the way that you think it does.
Theres no scientific experiment to prove that it does, because no matter how objective you try to be, everything is subjective and is clouded by subjective beliefs.
If your basing truth on the brain; then it is silly to speak of rationality, because sensory perception cannot provide immediate proof of your rationality; It only proves that the information you do recieve, has a consistent order. We have no evidence that the function of you brain is to provide accurate dipictions of reality. So why trust it?
In all truth and reality, the only thing you can know to be objectively true, is that your “mind” exists; because that is your immediate subjective experience which cannot contradict. From this stand point, there is absolutely no reason what so ever to think that mind is dependent on the brain. Everything, including physical reality, is subjective information which cannot be proven. It follows inescapably from my premises, that Absolute naturalism is based on unsupportable evidence, because, to begin with, it is based on information from an unknown source. Knowing this, I would be very humble when making assumptions about the relationship between mind and matter. It is not the same as an atom and a diamond. We are dealing with experinece rather then blind objective matter.
Faith, as into believe, is the beginning of knowledge.
Peace.
