Can an Atheist Answer These?

[tonyrey]

                                                                  Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                                      
             *Do you believe in the validity of induction? Intuition? Creative thought? Do you believe sophisticated machines like computers have a self? Or is the self an illusion?*
                             
 I can't answer those questions with certainty, but my inability to answer does not prove that you are right.

Until answers are forthcoming it demonstrates that physicalism remains an unsubstantiated explanation.

You have not answered how you know that reasoning is more than a mechanical process. You must realize that to claim to know A, you must have evidence in support of A, or reasonable grounds on which to claim that you know it.

I have already given evidence and reasonable grounds. If you reject those grounds the burden of proof is upon you to explain why they are insufficient **and **to produce a better explanation…

 

[Shredderbeam]

Until answers are forthcoming it demonstrates that physicalism remains an unsubstantiated explanation.

I have already given evidence and reasonable grounds. If you reject those grounds the burden of proof is upon you to explain why they are insufficient **and **to produce a better explanation…

Physicalism is not unsubstantiated. You have brought up a few objections to it, but that does not make the entire philosophy, if I can call it that, groundless.

Your evidence is not evidence, but the argument from ignorance. You are putting forth things that you think that machines ought not to be able to do, and concluding that since humans can do them, we must not be machines. You have not put forth hard evidence, such as experiment results, attempts to create a self-aware computer, etc. That is what I am looking for when I say “evidence”.

 

[liquidpele]

Why do your thoughts turn to money?

I believe you didn’t get the joke. youtube.com/watch?v=Pe6kGJDGctU
Essentially, bringing it up notes someone’s list or plan is ill thought out.

 

[Matthias123]

Physicalism is not unsubstantiated. You have brought up a few objections to it, but that does not make the entire philosophy, if I can call it that, groundless.

Your evidence is not evidence, but the argument from ignorance. You are putting forth things that you think that machines ought not to be able to do, and concluding that since humans can do them, we must not be machines. You have not put forth hard evidence, such as experiment results, attempts to create a self-aware computer, etc. That is what I am looking for when I say “evidence”.

Physicalism wroughts its own ruin when it claimed to describe all of objective reality. It s fine as a method to gain knowlege.

I will present four arguments for you to consider:

Physicalism cannot explain “species”. Take for example a dog. Now a dog is a species of animal. There are subspecies of a lower categories such as “Irish setter” and “greyhound” now the matter in these two species are arranged differently. So if species were categorized by matter, then the species of “Irish setter” and “greyhound” would not be able to be part of the species “dog” but of two separate species at this particular categorical level. So we must conclude that when we categorize beings, we categorize them through from/essence/idea. Therefore we understand that a substance must be both matter and form.

Next physicalism is going to have to explain how we can know matter. For if the idea of matter is made out of matter, we would not be able to now matter because the idea of matter would be made out of what we are trying to know.

Next we understand that greater cannot come form less and more perfect cannot come from less perfect because the latter is incapable of producing this effect. Therefore if matter is intrinsically unconscious, it is never going to be able to produce consciousness , only simulate it.

Finally we understand that the “whole is different form the sum of its parts”, as Aristotle says in the metaphysics. Now this would not be true if the whole was just a sum of material things. For then it would just be equal to its parts. Therefore we understand that the whole must have greater perfection of substantial form.

 

[tonyrey]

Physicalism is not unsubstantiated. You have brought up a few objections to it, but that does not make the entire philosophy, if I can call it that, groundless.

There is a difference between unsubstantiated and groundless. There may be some grounds for believing physicalism is true but they are not substantial…

You are putting forth things that you think that machines ought not to be able to do, and concluding that since humans can do them, we must not be machines.

I did not use the word “ought”. I have simply pointed that we have direct knowledge of our power of reason, creativity, insight, imagination and purposeful activity. Since there is no reason to suppose that machines have these powers there is no reason to believe we are machines, biological or otherwise. For that matter there is no reason to believe any living organism is a machine because all the machines we know are created by intelligent persons - unless of course you believe in a Creator!
It is quite arbitrary to apply mechanistic explanation to everything that exists… particularly when it excludes two of the most significant aspects of our existence: intention and purpose.

 

[tonyrey]

I believe you didn’t get the joke.
Essentially, bringing it up notes someone’s list or plan is ill thought out.

In that case the joke is on you because you put “profit” as the answer to 3) , i.e. the power of abstract reasoning - implying you believe profit to be its main (or perhaps sole) purpose!

 

[AnAtheist]

Please will you explain how I am confusing everything?

E.g. I am talking about personality and character and you ask question about persons and identities.

 

[tonyrey]

E.g. I am talking about personality and character and you ask question about persons and identities.

I don’t see why that makes any difference. You believe human beings, i.e. persons, are biological machines. We don’t attribute personality to machines or think of them as persons. So why is my question a source of confusion? You asked me why thinking is more than a mechanical process. I pointed out that our thinking entails creativity, originality, intuition, insight and imagination. There is no evidence that machines have these attributes. What is confusing about that? You are the one who has introduced the ideas of personality and character…

 

[AnAtheist]

I don’t see why that makes any difference. You believe human beings, i.e. persons, are biological machines. We don’t attribute personality to machines or think of them as persons.

Actually, you brought up the term machine. I think living beings are entirely made of physical matter as are machines we build. Of course there is a distinction between a toaster, a computer, a tree, and a stellar cluster - yet they are all made of matter.
Of course a toaster has no creativity, that has nothing to do with the question, whether living beings are made of matter.
It’s like we’re discussing what is better to drive, a car or a motor cycle, and you keep saying a toaster had no wheels.

I have already agreed that there are still unanswered questions in this model, questions you pointed out. No, I cannot, and experts on that area neither, explain how exactly creatitivity e.g. works within the brain.
The point is introducing a non-material mind that somehow controls the body, resides somewhere outside the material world, where the creativity among other things happens, doesn’t explain it either. How does the non-material mind do the creativity? Do you have an answer apart from “somehow”?
But the assumption of a non-material something where non-material* minds operate leads to more unanswered questions like how does the immaterial things interact with physical ones? How exactly does the creativity move electrons in the brain around?
And even if that was answered somehow the next philosophical problem arises: Is this interaction a part of the material or the immaterial world? So is there another layer of interaction? Can the immaterial world be thought separated from the physical one if there is an interaction (and there must be, somehow the body has to be influenced by the mind)? And if there is no real boundary, no clear distinction, is it not just one physical world “just” having some yet unknown forces, i.e. interactions?

---

• just a footnote: energy is as material as matter

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, you brought up the term machine.

You are mistaken. It was the two atheists with whom I was discussing this subject.
I think living beings are entirely made of physical matter as are machines we build. Of course there is a distinction between a toaster, a computer, a tree, and a stellar cluster - yet they are all made of matter. Of course a toaster has no creativity, that has nothing to do with the question, whether living beings are made of matter.

It has everything to do with the question because living beings are made of matter but they are creative, flexible and purposeful - unlike toasters, computers and stellar clusters.

I have already agreed that there are still unanswered questions in this model, questions you pointed out. No, I cannot, and experts on that area neither, explain how exactly creativity e.g. works within the brain.

And that, together with consciousness and free will, is precisely the most significant characteristic of the mind…

The point is introducing a non-material mind that somehow controls the body, resides somewhere outside the material world, where the creativity among other things happens, doesn’t explain it either.

You assume that the material world existed prior to mind. Obviously I don’t understand the origin and nature of spiritual energy any more than you understand the origin and nature of physical energy. They are both mysteries but spiritual energy is undoubtedly more powerful: it is the creative, rational, free, conscious, controlling, directing factor whereas physical energy is simply a neutral tool.

But the assumption of a non-material something where non-material* minds operate leads to more unanswered questions like how does the immaterial things interact with physical ones?

The mind is like the driver of a car. It controls the car and directs it for a specific purpose. It exists at a higher level than matter in a similar way to truth, freedom, beauty, justice and love - which cannot be explained in terms of material objects.

How exactly does the creativity move electrons in the brain around?

The mind does not move electrons around. It integrates, organises and directs their activity.

And even if that was answered somehow the next philosophical problem arises: Is this interaction a part of the material or the immaterial world?

Your question implies that there are two distinct worlds which interact. This is not the case. The material world exists in the mind of the Creator. It is a product rather than an independent entity. Our minds are similar to that of the Creator because they are made in His image and likeness. We use spiritual energy when we think, choose, decide and love. The prime reality is spiritual. The material world is real but it is a contingent reality. Our minds are also contingent of course but they share in the divine nature, most noticeably in our consciouness and free will, and they are indestructible! We are godlike in our power to control ourselves and physical objects - a power we take for granted…

So is there another layer of interaction? Can the immaterial world be thought separated from the physical one if there is an interaction (and there must be, somehow the body has to be influenced by the mind)?

Yes, because the prime reality is spiritual. The truth does not occupy space or time. Facts are not products of our thoughts. We search for, and find, facts, i.e. truths which are eternal and indestructible. Once a fact always a fact. Nothing will ever change the facts of what has happened, is happening and will happen. Mathematical facts are also immutable. The physical universe will ultimately disappear but the fact that it existed is “immortal”…

And if there is no real boundary, no clear distinction, is it not just one physical world “just” having some yet unknown forces, i.e. interactions?

I hope I have made it clear that there is a clear distinction: spiritual reality has precedence over the physical world: “In God we live, move and have our being”.

• just a footnote: energy is as material as matter

A belief I don’t share!

 

[AnAtheist]

Obviously I don’t understand the origin and nature of spiritual energy any more than you understand the origin and nature of physical energy. They are both mysteries but spiritual energy is undoubtedly more powerful: it is the creative, rational, free, conscious, controlling, directing factor whereas physical energy is simply a neutral tool.

Physical energy is no mystery at all. “Spiritual energy is undoubtedly more powerful” - How do we measure that?

The mind does not move electrons around. It integrates, organises and directs their activity.

Ok, how does it do that?

Your question implies that there are two distinct worlds which interact. This is not the case. The material world exists in the mind of the Creator.

If you say so. It could as well exist on some divine TV screen.

 

[AnAtheist]

Btw, this might be interesting regarding free will in a purely physical universe: Ansgar Beckermann: Free Will in a Natural Order of the World

Ansgar Beckermann is a leading German philosopher who deals with those issues.

 

[tonyrey]

                                                                       Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5680372#post5680372)                 
             * Obviously I don't understand the origin and nature of spiritual energy any more than you understand the origin and nature of physical energy. They are both mysteries but spiritual energy is undoubtedly more powerful: it is the creative, rational, free, conscious, controlling, directing factor whereas physical energy is simply a neutral tool.*

Physical energy is no mystery at all.

Then how do you explain its origin? Do you think its characteristics are necessary? If so, why? If not, why not?

“Spiritual energy is undoubtedly more powerful” - How do we measure that?

The most important things in life - like love, determination and power of self-restraint - are immeasurable. You need to escape from the habit of regarding everything in physical terms. It is literally a death-trap!

The mind does not move electrons around. It integrates, organises and directs their activity.
Ok, how does it do that?

In the same way that you control your thoughts! By using your power of reason and decision-making. Or do you believe you are a helpless spectator?

*Your question implies that there are two distinct worlds which interact. This is not the case. The material world exists in the mind of the Creator. *
If you say so. It could as well exist on some divine TV screen.

The analogy is not bad, the difference being that in our case we have been given the power to choose our own script - which must be the main difference between your interpretation of life and mine.

 

[AnAtheist]

You need to escape from the habit of regarding everything in physical terms. It is literally a death-trap!

If someone uses a comparative (something is more X than another thing) I will ask how to measure it. Unless it is just a subjective opinion. Objectiveness must be measurable.

In the same way that you control your thoughts! By using your power of reason and decision-making. Or do you believe you are a helpless spectator?

I believe I am my thoughts. So I am neither controlling them nor do I just watch.

 

[tonyrey]

Physical energy is no mystery at all.

                             Then how do you explain its origin? Do you think its characteristics are necessary? If so, why? If not, why not?

The most important things in life - like love, determination and power of self-restraint - are immeasurable. You need to escape from the habit of regarding everything in physical terms. It is literally a death-trap!
If someone uses a comparative (something is more X than another thing) I will ask how to measure it. Unless it is just a subjective opinion. Objectiveness must be measurable.

So if you love one person more than another it is an illusion that you love one person more than another (because you cannot measure love)? If you love a person and are prepared to die for that person you believe you do not love that person more than some one who is not prepared to die for that person (because you cannot measure love)? If I deliberately kill a person and you accidentally kill a person I am not more evil than you (because there is nothing to measure)?

I believe I am my thoughts. So I am neither controlling them nor do I just watch.

If you are just your thoughts there is no self, no self-control, no person, no free will, no responsibility, no continuous identity (because thoughts are constantly changing), no rights (because thoughts cannot have rights), no obligations, no decisions (because thoughts are not decisions), no love (because thoughts cannot love)… Do you really believe all that?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Physicalism wroughts its own ruin when it claimed to describe all of objective reality. It s fine as a method to gain knowlege.

I will present four arguments for you to consider:

Physicalism cannot explain “species”. Take for example a dog. Now a dog is a species of animal. There are subspecies of a lower categories such as “Irish setter” and “greyhound” now the matter in these two species are arranged differently. So if species were categorized by matter, then the species of “Irish setter” and “greyhound” would not be able to be part of the species “dog” but of two separate species at this particular categorical level. So we must conclude that when we categorize beings, we categorize them through from/essence/idea. Therefore we understand that a substance must be both matter and form.

Categories such as “species” are abstractions, or concepts, that we use to make it easier to understand the world. They are invented by humans, and so no form is necessary.
"Matthias123:

Next physicalism is going to have to explain how we can know matter. For if the idea of matter is made out of matter, we would not be able to now matter because the idea of matter would be made out of what we are trying to know.

I don’t understand how that follows. Why would the idea of matter being made out of matter make us unable to know matter?

Matthias123:

Next we understand that greater cannot come form less and more perfect cannot come from less perfect because the latter is incapable of producing this effect. Therefore if matter is intrinsically unconscious, it is never going to be able to produce consciousness , only simulate it.

Why can lesser/imperfect things not produce greater/more perfect things?

Matthias123:

Finally we understand that the “whole is different form the sum of its parts”, as Aristotle says in the metaphysics. Now this would not be true if the whole was just a sum of material things. For then it would just be equal to its parts. Therefore we understand that the whole must have greater perfection of substantial form.

I don’t believe that the whole is different from, or greater to, the sum its parts. I think that whatever characteristics an object has comes only from the parts it is composed of.

There is a difference between unsubstantiated and groundless. There may be some grounds for believing physicalism is true but they are not substantial…

Why aren’t they substantial? Have you reviewed the available evidence, or at least skimmed through the conclusions?

tonyrey:

I did not use the word “ought”. I have simply pointed that we have direct knowledge of our power of reason, creativity, insight, imagination and purposeful activity. Since there is no reason to suppose that machines have these powers there is no reason to believe we are machines, biological or otherwise. For that matter there is no reason to believe any living organism is a machine because all the machines we know are created by intelligent persons - unless of course you believe in a Creator!

Not all machines are alike. The structure of man-made machines is radically different to the structure of biological machines.

Perhaps it would be better to say “biological creatures are like machines”, in that they operate on mechanistic principles, but unlike man-made machines, they do not have a creator.

tonyrey:

It is quite arbitrary to apply mechanistic explanation to everything that exists… particularly when it excludes two of the most significant aspects of our existence: intention and purpose.

Arbitrary is choosing A over B and having no basis to do so. The reason that mechanistic explanations are applied to everything is that everything seems to operate on mechanistic principles. It’s not arbitrary.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Of course not.

You said: “Real knowledge is that which we know to be true, we reap its benefits.” You didn’t say that we can see its effects; you said we reap its benefits. Benefit involves an advantage. I was just pointing out that much of this knowledge is questionably advantageous. This leaves your statement as “Real knowledge is that which we know to be true”, which is analytic and trivial.

I don’t agree, it means we all have to appreciate that just because we believe something that does not make its true. Religion would dissipate even more quickly if people could learn that knowledge and belief are two separate things.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Religion would dissipate even more quickly if people could learn that knowledge and belief are two separate things.

The same could be said of atheism. And, indeed, the goal is neither religion nor atheism. Religion is a codification of the ineffable, and atheism is an opposition to the possible. In contrast, **creed **is the affirmation of the possible, insofar as it gives meaning to the inner man.

He who only believes what he also knows is a fool.

 

[AnAtheist]

So if you love one person more than another it is an illusion that you love one person more than another (because you cannot measure love)?

Could you at least try to read my posts completely? And then perhaps try to understand them before you ask something in answer that has nothing to do with waht I said.
Of course I do love some persons more than others (and I one more than anyone else on this world, and no, that’s not me). But that is entirely my subjective assessment. You do not love the same people at the same “measure” as I do. I guess you’d agree to that. So there is no objective measure how “loveable” someone is. If say say spiritual energy (whatever that is) is generally more powerful than physical energy (if you want further explanations to that grab a physics book) then you must provide a method how to verify that otherwise it is just an opinion and far away from truth.

If you are just your thoughts there is no self, no self-control, no person, no free will, no responsibility, no continuous identity (because thoughts are constantly changing), no rights (because thoughts cannot have rights), no obligations, no decisions (because thoughts are not decisions), no love (because thoughts cannot love)… Do you really believe all that?

No, I don’t mainly because (for the bazillionth time) that has nothing to do with a naturalistic worldview. You shift all that to a physically, objectively, scientifically non-accessible part of the world or some other world (which is practically the same), and then claim, all who do not share that worldview cannot have or “believe” in the sthings you shifted there.
That is like someone claims a quantum field theory cannot describe gravitational forces (an open issue in physics), and then asks other people who think that’s possible: “So you don’t believe you will fall down when you jump out of a window?”
Having a different explanation how phenomena occur does not deny their existence.

 

[tonyrey]

Of course I do love some persons more than others (and I one more than anyone else on this world, and no, that’s not me). But that is entirely my subjective assessment.

If it were entirely your subjective assessment other people would not know if you love that person at all. If you sacrificed your life for that person they would not know that you love that person very much? Do you think you just imagine you love that person or is it an objective fact?

You do not love the same people at the same “measure” as I do. I guess you’d agree to that. So there is no objective measure how “lovable” someone is.

The fact that there is no objective measure does not mean that there are not different degrees of love. There are many things about people we cannot measure exactly but we can still judge to what extent they are true by observing their (or our) behaviour.

…if you want further explanations to that grab a physics book…

Do you think a physics book explains the origin of physical energy? Or why a physical constants have their present values?

If say spiritual energy (whatever that is) is generally more powerful than physical energy (then you must provide a method how to verify that otherwise it is just an opinion and far away from truth.

Can you explain your great love for a person in terms of physical energy? I shall be very interested to know **how **you do it. If you cannot then your argument has no foundation.

If you are just your thoughts there is no self, no self-control, no person, no free will, no responsibility, no continuous identity (because thoughts are constantly changing), no rights (because thoughts cannot have rights), no obligations, no decisions (because thoughts are not decisions), no love (because thoughts cannot love)… Do you really believe all that?
No, I don’t mainly because (for the bazillionth time) that has nothing to do with a naturalistic worldview. You shift all that to a physically, objectively, scientifically non-accessible part of the world or some other world (which is practically the same), and then claim, all who do not share that worldview cannot have or “believe” in the things you shifted there.

You are evading the question. Let us put it another way. What is the self? Does it have a continuous identity? If so what is the basis of this continuous identity? Is it responsible for its behaviour? If so what is the basis of its responsibility? Does it have any rights or obligations? How does it make decisions? And, most importantly, how does it choose to love a person?

That is like someone claims a quantum field theory cannot describe gravitational forces (an open issue in physics), and then asks other people who think that’s possible: “So you don’t believe you will fall down when you jump out of a window?” Having a different explanation how phenomena occur does not deny their existence.

You have not provided a different explanation of all these phenomena! Until you do that there is no reason to suppose that they even exist. In your own words they are just subjective, i.e. they only exist in your mind. Your love, according to you, is a figment of your imagination: you only think you love. Would you say to the person you love:
“I’m very sorry but our love for each other is only subjective. It is not as real as the fact that we are standing here because it is not physical. It exists only in our minds…”?