Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[tonyrey]

I didn’t make any claims at all, just said that your animism has nothing to do with Christianity. There are no passages in scripture about the basis of the mind…

Quoting lonely isolated verses won’t cut it. The first says the soul is immortal, nothing about supernatural minds, the second that God isn’t physical (which should be blindingly obvious to all, since God created the physical universe).

The rejection of the supernatural is equivalent to materialism because it implies that natural causes are the sole causes of events within the universe.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

There’s nothing in the Bible to support your animist ghost-in-a-machine beliefs, and animism is usually paired with atheism or paganism, indeed the Church did its best to stamp it out in earlier times.

He’s not really arguing animism… that’s where everything has spirit (real or conceptual), and can be taken in the direction of idealistic pantheism. What he’s really arguing for, as far as I understand, is fairly conservative dualism, which sounds good to me

 

[Gaber]

He’s not really arguing animism… that’s where everything has spirit (real or conceptual), and can be taken in the direction of idealistic pantheism. What he’s really arguing for, as far as I understand, is fairly conservative dualism, which sounds good to me

So you believe in a God and a Creation besides, so somewhere where God is not, Creation being “not God” and everything else, God.

 

[inocente]

He’s not really arguing animism… that’s where everything has spirit (real or conceptual), and can be taken in the direction of idealistic pantheism. What he’s really arguing for, as far as I understand, is fairly conservative dualism, which sounds good to me

There are different kinds of dualism - animism corresponds to a type of substance dualism similar to Descartes, a belief that we are made of two substances, the body of physical matter and the mind of an invisible, immaterial, supernatural substance.

This must be the belief being professed, as no other form of dualism is incompatible with science (see post #708 amongst others). Animism is also incompatible with the CCC which says the soul is the form of the body, not an ectoplasm.

Predicate and property dualism are compatible with science and the CCC, but according to the poster only animism can save belief in God from imminent collapse and protect us from the onslaught of the naughty neuroscientists’ world conspiracy.

Not exactly a message I’ve heard from the Pope.

 

[tonyrey]

Quoting lonely isolated verses won’t cut it. The first says the soul is immortal, nothing about supernatural minds, the second that God isn’t physical (which should be blindingly obvious to all, since God created the physical universe).

The rejection of the supernatural is equivalent to materialism because it implies that natural causes are **the sole causes of events within the universe.

**God is reduced to a Remote Observer in flagrant contradiction of Christ’s teaching.

 

[Gaber]

The rejection of the supernatural is equivalent to materialism because it implies that natural causes are **the sole causes of events within the universe.
**God is reduced to a Remote Observer in flagrant contradiction of Christ’s teaching.

So you claim to know and understand in entirety what is meant by the inadequate word “causes,” and as well to have full, complete, and equal to Jesus’ comrehension of the Teaching of the Christ?

 

[inocente]

The rejection of the supernatural is equivalent to materialism because it implies that natural causes are **the sole causes of events within the universe.

**God is reduced to a Remote Observer in flagrant contradiction of Christ’s teaching.

We were talking about an explanation of the human mind. If you think neuroscience is on the wrong track then no one is stopping you from funding research into your ghost-in-a-machine, your ectoplasm. Jesus never preached against learning, belief in God doesn’t reply on ignorance.

 

[inocente]

The rejection of the supernatural is equivalent to materialism because it implies that natural causes are **the sole causes of events within the universe.

**God is reduced to a Remote Observer in flagrant contradiction of Christ’s teaching.

We were talking about an explanation of the human mind. If you think neuroscience is on the wrong track then no one is stopping you from funding research into your ghost-in-a-machine, your ectoplasm. Jesus never preached against learning, belief in God doesn’t rely on ignorance.

 

[tonyrey]

So you claim to know and understand in entirety what is meant by the inadequate word “causes,” and as well to have full, complete, and equal to Jesus’ comrehension of the Teaching of the Christ?

Non sequitur

 

[Gaber]

Non sequitur

No, because if you can state what you did, it has to be from the position I claim you attribute to yourself. To claim that "God is reduced to a Remote Observer in flagrant contradiction of Christ’s teaching, " You have to know God as God and the Teaching of Christ as Jesus. Isn’t that a bit arrogant?

 

[Sair]

The rejection of the supernatural is equivalent to materialism because it implies that natural causes are **the sole causes of events within the universe.
**

Um…actually, naturalism is not equivalent to materialism, certainly not in the sense it was posited by the atomists and by their successors, such as Thomas Hobbes. Naturalism recognises entities that are not matter, as such, but energy (of which matter seems to be a form) forces and emergent properties as well.

Or does that not matter - so to speak - to the distinction you wish to make? You want to assert that there must be some overriding entity or state of existence that somehow supplies the directions and forms that natural substances and forces follow or assume, and can’t accept that these forms and directions arise from nature rather than being imposed upon it from beyond.

If you assume that the “beyond” is part of reality, then it seems the only way that science can explain it is by the most remote inference, or perhaps by a process of elimination - that is what Intelligent Design “theory” apparently proposes to do, but since it has predetermined its preferred explanation, it’s dubious science at best. In any case, anything that has detectable effects upon nature may be assumed to be part of nature, since no means have ever been proposed for the interaction of transcendent, “supernatural” beings, entities or forces with natural beings, entities or forces. The very quality of “transcendence” appears to defeat detection and observation, the very things upon which the scientific method relies.

 

[Solus_vistor]

… and can’t accept that these forms and directions arise from nature rather than being imposed upon it from beyond.

Does “arising from nature” and “imposed from beyond” have to be mutually exclusive? This post that you are reading both “arises from my computer” and was “imposedf from beyond”, namely by myself.

If you assume that the “beyond” is part of reality, then it seems the only way that science can explain it

The very nature of that “beyond” is that (natural) science cannot explain it. If it could, it would not be beyond the material world (or nature, whichever you prefer).

anything that has detectable effects upon nature may be assumed to be part of nature, since no means have ever been proposed for the interaction of transcendent, “supernatural” beings, entities or forces with natural beings, entities or forces.

The first implication looks to me as a non-sequitur: again, my typing has “detectable effects” on this computer but I “may not be assumed to be part” of my computer. “Detectable” does not have to mean “through scientific methods” (though I suspect, you would dismiss as speculative the vast literature on Divine Action and contemporary science). And again, if (natural) science could find “means … for the interaction of transcendent … entities … with natural … entities” those entities would not be transcendent or “beyond”.

The very quality of “transcendence” appears to defeat detection and observation, the very things upon which the scientific method relies.

Exactly, this is how we understand that feature (dimension, part or what) of reality that cannot be investigated by scientific methods

“In point of fact, we do not have the option of “choosing” absolute truth, or faith. We only have the right to say, of those who do claim to know the truth of revelation, that they are deceiving themselves and attempting to deceive - or to intimidate - others.” - Christopher Hitchens

Although, I have never heard of somebody “choosing absolute truth”, Hitchens certainly has the right to say what he says here. The same us others have the right to say, of those who claim to know that all reality is in principle acessible to natural science, that they are deceiving themselves, etc.

The point I am trying to make here is not about who is deceiving himself/herself but about accepting that different world-views built on different presuppositions about reality can still be both rational and capable of trying to answer the difficult question about how and to what extent, can (natural) science “explain” (natural) reality. The answer to this question is more dependent on what contemporary theoretical physics can tell us, than on whether one believes or not that natural (material) reality is all there is.

 

[Sair]

Does “arising from nature” and “imposed from beyond” have to be mutually exclusive? This post that you are reading both “arises from my computer” and was “imposedf from beyond”, namely by myself.

Whether or not they “have to” be mutually exclusive is again dependent upon one’s conception of what is doing the imposing, and the conditions under which this “imposing” obtains. Your analogy disimsses the fact that a computer is a tool - more complex, to be sure, than a typewriter or a pencil and paper, but nonetheless a vehicle for expressing ideas in writing, and so your post does not, in fact, arise from your computer, as such, but via the means of your computer. If you mean to say - and presumably demonstrate - that your god uses natural phenomena as tools for his creation or whatever, you still have all your work ahead of you, not least in explaining why an omnipotent deity requires any tools at all.

The very nature of that “beyond” is that (natural) science cannot explain it. If it could, it would not be beyond the material world (or nature, whichever you prefer).

Hence the question - if it cannot be demonstrated, ever, even in principle or by reference to any known phenomena, why believe the “beyond” even exists?

The first implication looks to me as a non-sequitur: again, my typing has “detectable effects” on this computer but I “may not be assumed to be part” of my computer. “Detectable” does not have to mean “through scientific methods” (though I suspect, you would dismiss as speculative the vast literature on Divine Action and contemporary science).

The point is that if anything has detectable effects, it is detectable and in principle susceptible to some form of investigation. You don’t have to be part of your computer in order to directly affect it, since both are natural entities from the point of view of being composed of natural substances and reliant upon natural forces. If you consider the range of means that are encompassed by “scientific methods”, then to claim that some phenomenon is not detectable by science is to claim that it has no discernible effects whatsoever. Again, if this is the case, why invest belief in something that we cannot know, even in principle? Philosophy may posit logically possible entities, but it cannot, by itself, lead us to establish the existence of actual entities.

And again, if (natural) science could find “means … for the interaction of transcendent … entities … with natural … entities” those entities would not be transcendent or “beyond”.

Exactly.

Although, I have never heard of somebody “choosing absolute truth”, Hitchens certainly has the right to say what he says here. The same us others have the right to say, of those who claim to know that all reality is in principle acessible to natural science, that they are deceiving themselves, etc.

What Hitchens meant about “choosing” absolute truth is choosing to accept (completely, that is, not just provisionally) that religious “revelation” reflects reality - a reality that, furthermore, cannot even in principle be refuted by any exercise of observation or ratiocination; in short, to take on faith what we lack any ability to verify. Now, it’s fair to say that most people who accept this don’t exactly choose to accept it, since they tend to have it drummed into them from the time before they can exercise mature and educated judgement.

The point I am trying to make here is not about who is deceiving himself/herself but about accepting that different world-views built on different presuppositions about reality can still be both rational and capable of trying to answer the difficult question about how and to what extent, can (natural) science “explain” (natural) reality. The answer to this question is more dependent on what contemporary theoretical physics can tell us, than on whether one believes or not that natural (material) reality is all there is.

The bind that supernaturalists are in - which also serves as their escape hatch from the encroachment of natural science - is that any truly transcendent reality is immune from detection from the perspective of nature-bound beings such as ourselves, so belief in such a reality becomes entirely a matter of preference. What has become increasingly evident from the success of science in explaining the reality that we observe is that we, like Laplace, “have no need of that hypothesis”, that is, the existence of anything “beyond” nature.

 

[Solus_vistor]

Whether or not they “have to” be mutually exclusive is again dependent upon one’s conception of what is doing the imposing, and the conditions under which this “imposing” obtains. Your analogy dismisses the fact that a computer is a tool - more complex, to be sure, than a typewriter or a pencil and paper, but nonetheless a vehicle for expressing ideas in writing, and so your post does not, in fact, arise from your computer, as such, but via the means of your computer.

OK, you did not find my metaphor of computer helpful. (If I tried to explain the relative sizes of Earth and Jupiter using the metaphor of pea and orange, and you responded by pointing out that there is no juice in Jupiter, I could only concede that my metaphor did not explain to you what I had in mind.)

My argument was that one can accept the two explanations, one physical/scientific, and one metaphysical/religious, i.e. that there are many people, including many scientists, who find both the descriptions of “forms and directions in nature” explanatory, although on different levels. Of course, there are others, who do not need any metaphysical/religious explanations or have another metaphysical explanation (materialism or naturalism if you like) instead.

However, I agree that much of what we are trying to discuss here depends on one’s conception, understanding or definition of the terms used.

why an omnipotent deity requires any tools at all.

If by “omnipotent deity” you mean the Christian understanding of God, and you do not believe in Him, that is your prerogative. However, that concept of God implies that we humans do not have insight into why He used these “tools” (cosmic evolution) to achieve whatever He wanted to achieve. Or do you think your idea - if that is what you have in mind - of a Super-magician is better? A magician acts instantaneously, but instances require time, which is part of the material/physical world; it does not make sense when applied to metaphysical assumptions.

Hence the question - if it cannot be demonstrated, ever, even in principle or by reference to any known phenomena, why believe the “beyond” even exists?

Why believe in the existence of the material world only (see my post #397 showing that not even Hawking thinks this necessary for science to work) or - as an alternative - why believe that this material world has a cause and purpose that lies beyond it?

One does not ask why one chooses this or that fundamental metaphysical presupposition to build one’s world-view on, at least not as a philosophical question. The choice depends on one’s personal perspective, which includes also what one understands under elementary - strictly speaking undefinable - terms like “reality”, “exists”, etc. One can only offer arguments - convincing to some but not to others - supporting one’s choice. Now I see I am repeating myself (c.f. also my post #749).

The point is that if anything has detectable effects, it is detectable and in principle susceptible to some form of investigation.

It depends on what you call “some form of investigation” - those who write about the question of Divine Action also investigate (the compatibility of the belief in a Christian God with what is “known” through contemporary science, including neuroscience and psychology).

Besides, the question of detectable effects of the “beyond” - referred to as Divine Action in the Christian context - is one step closer to the Christian position than the mere disbelief in the reducibility of all reality to what is accessible to science that we are discussing here. Deists will share this disbelief, but will deny anything that could be called “divine action”. The same about some Buddhists.

why invest belief in something that we cannot know, even in principle?

This again depends on what you call “know”, a concept not so clear even if restricted to phenomena investigated by modern physics. Nevertheless, you have a point, an argument that I referred to as related to Occam’s razor.

Philosophy may posit logically possible entities, but it cannot, by itself, lead us to establish the existence of actual entities.

Agree, this is what I have been telling all the time: neither philosophy nor science can “establish the existence” of the world, material and/or beyond. You have to assume it (a kind of world-view axiom) as I keep on saying, but even then you have to clarify (to yourself at least) what to understand under “existence”. One would like to add “using common sense” but last century’s developments in physics make even the concept of common sense suspicious in this context .

since they tend to have it drummed into them from the time before they can exercise mature and educated judgement.

I am enjoying this debate with you, since it helps me to broaden my own perspective. However, this sentence does not sound like coming from Sair, but rather Hitchens, or maybe Dawkins.

Aquinas, or more precisely his uncritical followers, used to claim that his five “proofs” actually proved the existence of God, i.e. that the opposite position was irrational. Now that most Catholics (at least those philosophically “savvy”) have abandoned this medieval position, it is the materialists of the Dawkins type, who insist on the irrationality of the opposite position.

so belief in such a reality becomes entirely a matter of preference.

I do not know what you include under “entirely”, but yes, rationally speaking it is a matter of preference, since it is a foundational presupposition of (the rational makeup of) a world-view.

What has become increasingly evident from the success of science in explaining the reality that we observe is that we, like Laplace, “have no need of that hypothesis”, that is, the existence of anything “beyond” nature.

Laplace made that remark when explaining celestial mechanics to Napoleon. Today any student of analytical mechanics - Christian or atheist or what you like - can do the same thing without needing such metaphysical hypothesis to support his/her explanation.

Also what is “increasingly evident” to you might not be to others. Or - as is the case with me, trying to understand recent developments in mathematical physics - it might be “increasingly evident” that it does not suffice just to keep on looking at the finger when the finger is pointing to the moon, i.e. beyond itself (sorry, another metaphor).

Let me finish with repeating my thanks to you for making me think more deeply about my own world-view beliefs and faith.

 

[tonyrey]

The rejection of the supernatural is equivalent to materialism because it implies that natural causes are the sole causes of events within the universe.

Which is identical with “emergent materialism”.

Or does that not matter - so to speak - to the distinction you wish to make? You want to assert that there must be some overriding entity or state of existence that somehow supplies the directions and forms that natural substances and forces follow or assume, and can’t accept that these forms and directions arise from nature rather than being imposed upon it from beyond.

1. How do rational, valuable and purposeful persons arise from irrational, valueless and purposeless things?
2. Rationality implies insight and understanding which are entirely lacking in things.
3. There is no evidence whatsoever that anything but a mind has insight and understanding.
4. What is the physical mechanism by which insight and understanding are attained?
5. If the universe is valueless what makes things in the universe valuable?
6. If they make themselves valuable how do they do it?
7. If the universe is purposeless how can things make themselves purposeful?
8. If things cannot make themselves purposeful what makes them purposeful and how does it makes them purposeful?

If you assume that the “beyond” is part of reality, then it seems the only way that science can explain it is by the most remote inference, or perhaps by a process of elimination - that is what Intelligent Design “theory” apparently proposes to do, but since it has predetermined its preferred explanation, it’s dubious science at best.

You are assuming that the starting point is physical reality.

1. It is reasonable to assume the mind is the starting point because that is where the interpretation of reality occurs.
2. The only way science can be explained is by the activity of the mind.
3. Therefore the activity of the mind explains science - which is the result of mental activity that explains extramental reality.
4. To assume science explains the mind and its activity is to put the cart before the horse. It is clearly absurd to think the instrument can account for the inventor of the instrument - comparable to saying a guitar can account for the guitarist and the music into the bargain!
5. The rejection of Design implies that things have designed themselves - which is also absurd.
6. If things haven’t designed themselves they are either designed or not designed.
7. If things not designed they are purposeless.
8. Purposeless things cannot design anything, let alone science.

In any case, anything that has detectable effects upon nature may be assumed to be part of nature, since no means have ever been proposed for the interaction of transcendent, “supernatural” beings, entities or forces with natural beings, entities or forces. The very quality of “transcendence” appears to defeat detection and observation, the very things upon which the scientific method relies.

1. The scientific method does not rely on things but on the minds that created it.
2. Science is a product not an agent.
3. The means by which science has been produced is mental activity which transcends both science and the natural objects that science explains.
4. Without scientists with minds science wouldn’t even exist!

 

[Sair]

Which is identical with “emergent materialism”.

You just want to call naturalism by a name that allows you to assume that nature is powerless without a designer.

1. How do rational, valuable and purposeful persons arise from irrational, valueless and purposeless things?

1. Rationality implies insight and understanding which are entirely lacking in things.

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that anything but a mind has insight and understanding.

1. What is the physical mechanism by which insight and understanding are attained?

1. If the universe is valueless what makes things in the universe valuable?

1. If they make themselves valuable how do they do it?

1. If the universe is purposeless how can things make themselves purposeful?

1. If things cannot make themselves purposeful what makes them purposeful and how does it makes them purposeful?

On the naturalist hypothesis, the natural behaviour of complex systems gives rise to what we experience as value, purpose and rationality. A system need not comprehend itself - although it may do so, at least to some extent - in order to function effectively. As far as I am concerned (and I would hazard a guess, many others besides), this is a far more fascinating and rewarding avenue for the pursuit of understanding than any supposition that we’ve been drawn up and designed, by an unknowable designer, with a predetermined set of “ultimate” purposes and values.

You are assuming that the starting point is physical reality.

And you are assuming that the starting point is your own mind, as if your own mind is the ultimate source of everything - yet strangely, excluding your concept of god - rather than the vehicle by which we experience an already existing reality into which we gradually emerged. We might have only one means of comprehending our world, but it doesn’t follow that this means is in any way independent of that world.

1. It is reasonable to assume the mind is the starting point because that is where the interpretation of reality occurs.

1. The only way science can be explained is by the activity of the mind.

1. Therefore the activity of the mind explains science - which is the result of mental activity that explains extramental reality.

1. To assume science explains the mind and its activity is to put the cart before the horse. It is clearly absurd to think the instrument can account for the inventor of the instrument - comparable to saying a guitar can account for the guitarist and the music into the bargain!

1. The rejection of Design implies that things have designed themselves - which is also absurd.

1. If things haven’t designed themselves they are either designed or not designed.

1. If things not designed they are purposeless.

1. Purposeless things cannot design anything, let alone science.

1. The scientific method does not rely on things but on the minds that created it.

1. Science is a product not an agent.

1. The means by which science has been produced is mental activity which transcends both science and the natural objects that science explains.

1. Without scientists with minds science wouldn’t even exist!

Even if human minds are the only means by which we can approach the rest of the world, you are leaping to unwarranted conclusions in supposing an all-encompassing, all-knowing, all-creating divine mind. For all you know, by your insistence upon our mental imprisonment (since you appear to assume, despite vague admissions that the mind “interacts” with the body, that all our impressions arise first and foremost from our own minds, whatever you suppose them to be), you could have sprung into existence yesterday, from nothing, with all your “past” experiences already simulated in your mental picture of the world. But what would such a solipsistic hypothesis avail you? And for that matter, what does the supposition of imposed order, rather than evolved order, avail you? It explains nothing - it only adds an immeasurably complex extra entity that requires - but can never, by its very definition, accommodate - explanation.

 

[tonyrey]

Which is identical with “emergent materialism”.

Ad hominem - which fails to refute the logical equivalence of naturalism and emergent materialism.

1. How do rational, valuable and purposeful persons arise from irrational, valueless and purposeless things?

1. Rationality implies insight and understanding which are entirely lacking in things.

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that anything but a mind has insight and understanding.

1. What is the physical mechanism by which insight and understanding are attained?

1. If the universe is valueless what makes things in the universe valuable?

1. If they make themselves valuable how do they do it?

1. If the universe is purposeless how can things make themselves purposeful?

1. If things cannot make themselves purposeful what makes them purposeful and how does it makes them purposeful?

On the naturalist hypothesis, the natural behaviour of complex systems gives rise to what we experience as value, purpose and rationality.

It remains an unsubstantiated hypothesis which also contradicts itself. If it were true then all reasoning would be due to natural causes and therefore unreliable - given that natural causes have no insight into, or understanding of, anything whatsoever. It would be a case of machines leading other machines nowhere…

A system need not comprehend itself - although it may do so, at least to some extent - in order to function effectively. As far as I am concerned (and I would hazard a guess, many others besides), this is a far more fascinating and rewarding avenue for the pursuit of understanding than any supposition that we’ve been drawn up and designed, by an unknowable designer, with a predetermined set of “ultimate” purposes and values.

According to the naturalist hypothesis you only find it fascinating and rewarding because all your behaviour is predetermined by natural causes and all “your” beliefs and feelings are valueless and insignificant because they are not really “yours” at all…

You are assuming that the starting point is physical reality.

And you are assuming that the starting point is your own mind, as if your own mind is the ultimate source of everything…

I am not assuming anything of the sort. I am simply stating the recognised fact that the starting point of all our knowledge without exception is our direct and immediate mental experiences - from which we infer the existence of everything else.

… yet strangely, excluding your concept of god - rather than the vehicle by which we experience an already existing reality into which we gradually emerged. We might have only one means of comprehending our world, but it doesn’t follow that this means is in any way independent of that world.

It certainly doesn’t follow that all our mental experiences depend on - and are caused by - the physical world. Otherwise all our behaviour would be predetermined by natural causes - and all our beliefs and feelings would be valueless and insignificant because they wouldn’t be not “ours” at all…

1. It is reasonable to assume the mind is the starting point because that is where the interpretation of reality occurs.

1. The only way science can be explained is by the activity of the mind.

1. Therefore the activity of the mind explains science - which is the result of mental activity that explains extramental reality.

1. To assume science explains the mind and its activity is to put the cart before the horse. It is clearly absurd to think the instrument can account for the inventor of the instrument - comparable to saying a guitar can account for the guitarist and the music into the bargain!

1. The rejection of Design implies that things have designed themselves - which is also absurd.

1. If things haven’t designed themselves they are either designed or not designed.

1. If things not designed they are purposeless.

1. Purposeless things cannot design anything, let alone science.

1. The scientific method does not rely on things but on the minds that created it.

1. Science is a product not an agent.

1. The means by which science has been produced is mental activity which transcends both science and the natural objects that science explains.

1. Without scientists with minds science wouldn’t even exist!

Even if human minds are the only means by which we can approach the rest of the world, you are leaping to unwarranted conclusions in supposing an all-encompassing, all-knowing, all-creating divine mind.

You are carelessly leaping to the unwarranted - and absurd - conclusion that I base my beliefs solely on one fact!

For all you know, by your insistence upon our mental imprisonment (since you appear to assume, despite vague admissions that the mind “interacts” with the body, that all our impressions arise first and foremost from our own minds, whatever you suppose them to be)…

False deduction based on none of my statements!

… you could have sprung into existence yesterday, from nothing, with all your “past” experiences already simulated in your mental picture of the world. But what would such a solipsistic hypothesis avail you?

Further false suppositions based on your false deduction which has led you to continue tilting at windmills…

And for that matter, what does the supposition of imposed order, rather than evolved order, avail you?

How exactly did the laws of nature emerge from the Big Bang?

It explains nothing - it only adds an immeasurably complex extra entity that requires - but can never, by its very definition, accommodate - explanation.

According to your naturalist argument the existence of a “complex” entity described as “a person” can never, by its very definition, accommodate - explanation (which is entirely in keeping with the assumption that a person is an impotent and uninformative product of physical causes. Matter is deemed to be the supreme reality to which we must acknowledge our absolute subservience and admit that we are all its powerless slaves condemned for a few brief years to be tragic observers of our total insignificance in an utterly pointless universe…

 

[Sair]

Ad hominem - which fails to refute the logical equivalence of naturalism and emergent materialism.

You wanted to equate materialism with naturalism. They are not the same. And you are very quick to call “ad hominem” at every observation of your prejudices…

It remains an unsubstantiated hypothesis which also contradicts itself. If it were true then all reasoning would be due to natural causes and therefore unreliable - given that natural causes have no insight into, or understanding of, anything whatsoever. It would be a case of machines leading other machines nowhere…

Upon what basis do you claim that “natural causes” have no insight? This seems an entirely unsubstantiated hypothesis to me, given what we’ve already learned about the way human brains and nervous systems operate. And if reasoning about nature emerges from natural causes, whence unreliable? That would be like saying that only someone else could understand my behaviour whilst I have no comprehension of it whatsoever. Even allowing for that, you can’t possibly claim that all persons have an equivalent degree of insight - if a “person” was a fixed supernatural entity, we might expect a greater degree of consistency between persons across different circumstances.

According to the naturalist hypothesis you only find it fascinating and rewarding because all your behaviour is predetermined by natural causes and all “your” beliefs and feelings are valueless and insignificant because they are not really “yours” at all…

Then whose are they?

I am not assuming anything of the sort. I am simply stating the recognised fact that the starting point of all our knowledge without exception is our direct and immediate mental experiences - from which we infer the existence of everything else.

Yet the frequency with which you fall back on this assertion in an attempt to refute the efficacy of empiricism suggests that you assume all impressions of the world arise first in our minds, not in response to external (and internal) stimuli.

It certainly doesn’t follow that all our mental experiences depend on - and are caused by - the physical world.

Why not?

Otherwise all our behaviour would be predetermined by natural causes - and all our beliefs and feelings would be valueless and insignificant because they wouldn’t be not “ours” at all…

Again, whose would they be? And so what if they are determined? They are still new from our perspective, and if the interactions that take place within our own bodies and brains contribute to the behavioural outcome, then we are part of the determining process.

You are carelessly leaping to the unwarranted - and absurd - conclusion that I base my beliefs solely on one fact!

Doesn’t feel so good coming back at you, huh?

False deduction based on none of my statements!

Only the many statements you have made that imply solipsism.

How exactly did the laws of nature emerge from the Big Bang?

How exactly did your god create them? And in any case, you are still considering “laws” as prescriptive, rather than descriptions of how natural phenomena behave, just because they behave that way - it’s not as if electrons have the wit to change their ways!

According to your naturalist argument the existence of a “complex” entity described as “a person” can never, by its very definition, accommodate - explanation (which is entirely in keeping with the assumption that a person is an impotent and uninformative product of physical causes. Matter is deemed to be the supreme reality to which we must acknowledge our absolute subservience and admit that we are all its powerless slaves condemned for a few brief years to be tragic observers of our total insignificance in an utterly pointless universe…

A “person” that is just a vague confluence of ethereal substance, unanchored to any physical phenomena, must necessarily be impotent in the physical universe - even if such a “person” were possible. And again, you are displaying a thoroughly theistic mindset, by assuming that “we” are somehow “subservient” to matter, as though matter were some all-powerful entity in itself - we are matter, as well as energy and forces, operating in a world that consists of the same stuff as ourselves. I hardly think that makes us powerless.

 

[tonyrey]

Ad hominem - which fails to refute the logical equivalence of naturalism and emergent materialism.

Is nature composed of anything but material objects? If so how do those objects differ from material objects?

And you are very quick to call “ad hominem” at every observation of your prejudices…

Yet another ad hominem! In a philosophical discussion it really is necessary to refrain making personal remarks which give the impression that one’s argument is so weak it needs to be bolstered.

It remains an unsubstantiated hypothesis which also contradicts itself. If it were true then all reasoning would be due to natural causes and therefore unreliable - given that natural causes have no insight into, or understanding of, anything whatsoever. It would be a case of machines leading other machines nowhere…

Upon what basis do you claim that “natural causes” have no insight? This seems an entirely unsubstantiated hypothesis to me, given what we’ve already learned about the way human brains and nervous systems operate.

It is an entirely unsubstantiated hypothesis that nervous systems understand what they are doing. Electrical impulses are not conscious of themselves, let alone anything else…

And if reasoning about nature emerges from natural causes, whence unreliable? That would be like saying that only someone else could understand my behaviour whilst I have no comprehension of it whatsoever.

Natural causes are not “some one” nor do they know what they are doing - unless consciousness is attributed to all natural objects.

Even allowing for that, you can’t possibly claim that all persons have an equivalent degree of insight - if a “person” was a fixed supernatural entity, we might expect a greater degree of consistency between persons across different circumstances.

Since supernatural entities - like the mind - are not subject to the laws of nature they are not “fixed” like natural objects.

According to the naturalist hypothesis you only find it fascinating and rewarding because all your behaviour is predetermined by natural causes and all “your” beliefs and feelings are valueless and insignificant because they are not really “yours” at all…

Then whose are they?

They would be products of the natural causes from which they emerge according to the naturalist hypothesis.

I am not assuming anything of the sort. I am simply stating the recognised fact that the starting point of all our knowledge without exception is our direct and immediate mental experiences - from which we infer the existence of everything else.

Yet the frequency with which you fall back on this assertion in an attempt to refute the efficacy of empiricism suggests that you assume all impressions of the world arise first in our minds, not in response to external (and internal) stimuli.

Perceptions of the external world are only one factor in mental activity. We are not passive, impotent recipients of stimuli control all our behaviour.

It certainly doesn’t follow that all our mental experiences depend on - and are caused by - the physical world.
Why not?

A sane person has an interior existence in addition to stimuli from beyond the mind.

Otherwise all our behaviour would be predetermined by natural causes - and all our beliefs and feelings would be valueless and insignificant because they wouldn’t be not “ours” at all…

Again, whose would they be? And so what if they are determined?

They would be products determined by the natural causes from which they emerge.

They are still new from our perspective, and if the interactions that take place within our own bodies and brains contribute to the behavioural outcome, then we are part of the determining process.

We would have the illusion that they are new but we would still have no original part to play we would be cogs in a machine and if all our behaviour would be determined.

You are carelessly leaping to the unwarranted - and absurd - conclusion that I base my beliefs solely on one fact!

Doesn’t feel so good coming back at you, huh?

Ad hominem.

False deduction based on none of my statements!

Only the many statements you have made that imply solipsism.

Another false unsubstantiated assertion.

How exactly did the laws of nature emerge from the Big Bang?

How exactly did your god create them?

With the power of rational activity which all persons possess in stark contrast to impersonal objects.

And in any case, you are still considering “laws” as prescriptive, rather than descriptions of how natural phenomena behave, just because they behave that way - it’s not as if electrons have the wit to change their ways!

The laws of nature are descriptive - and prescriptive in the sense that they are not fortuitous but a rational basis for life and personal existence in the universe.

According to your naturalist argument the existence of a “complex” entity described as “a person” can never, by its very definition, accommodate - explanation (which is entirely in keeping with the assumption that a person is an impotent and uninformative product of physical causes. Matter is deemed to be the supreme reality to which we must acknowledge our absolute subservience and admit that we are all its powerless slaves condemned for a few brief years to be tragic observers of our total insignificance in an utterly pointless universe…

A “person” that is just a vague confluence of ethereal substance, unanchored to any physical phenomena, must necessarily be impotent in the physical universe - even if such a “person” were possible.

Persons exist on this planet and our minds are not enslaved by physical phenomena. The truth liberates us from the tyranny of natural causes. The only impotent persons are those who believe they are animals dominated by instinct but even they are necessarily inconsistent because it is impossible for them to live exactly like animals unless their minds are unbalanced…

And again, you are displaying a thoroughly theistic mindset, by assuming that “we” are somehow “subservient” to matter, as though matter were some all-powerful entity in itself - we are matter, as well as energy and forces, operating in a world that consists of the same stuff as ourselves. I hardly think that makes us powerless.

If we are of the same stuff as the world we are a part of the world and utterly dominated by the physical energy and forces like everything else. On that reckoning matter is all-powerful because nothing else exists and we are no more than components of the universal machine. There is nothing to differentiate us from any other object apart from our awareness of our impotence in the face of inscrutable fate…

 

[Sair]

Is nature composed of anything but material objects? If so how do those objects differ from material objects?

This has been pointed out before. Several times now…

Yet another ad hominem! In a philosophical discussion it really is necessary to refrain making personal remarks which give the impression that one’s argument is so weak it needs to be bolstered.

Commenting upon your demonstrated opinions and prejudices is not an ad hominem. If you don’t want to have your opinions held up to scrutiny, it’s a good idea not to publish them.

It is an entirely unsubstantiated hypothesis that nervous systems understand what they are doing. Electrical impulses are not conscious of themselves, let alone anything else…

We are not even consciously aware of all the functioning of our nervous systems - why would we need to be in order to function? The components of a conscious system do not themselves need to be conscious in order to give rise to consciousness. That is the whole point of emergent phenomena. Does a computer need to be able to understand what it is doing in order to compute complex mathematical equations?

Natural causes are not “some one” nor do they know what they are doing - unless consciousness is attributed to all natural objects.

We are natural objects that demonstrate consciousness, as are many other animals.

Since supernatural entities - like the mind - are not subject to the laws of nature they are not “fixed” like natural objects.

You have yet to substantiate the claim that the mind is a supernatural entity.

They would be products of the natural causes from which they emerge according to the naturalist hypothesis.

Yes. Again, so what?

Perceptions of the external world are only one factor in mental activity. We are not passive, impotent recipients of stimuli control all our behaviour.

We are active processors of stimuli. This does not mean our behaviour has anything other than natural causes.

A sane person has an interior existence in addition to stimuli from beyond the mind.

And do you think this interior existence is independent of physical phenomena?

They would be products determined by the natural causes from which they emerge.

Which doesn’t sit well with the notion that minds are supernatural entities in and of themselves, but does not diminish their effectiveness in the context of the natural world in which we exist.

We would have the illusion that they are new but we would still have no original part to play we would be cogs in a machine and if all our behaviour would be determined.

And so the problem is that we don’t have contra-causal free will?

With the power of rational activity which all persons possess in stark contrast to impersonal objects.

You have not explained how a brainless mind can even generate thought, let alone how a nonphysical entity can act to produce a physical universe…

The laws of nature are descriptive - and prescriptive in the sense that they are not fortuitous but a rational basis for life and personal existence in the universe.

You imply that life and “personal existence”, whatever that means, were the result of prior planning, yet cannot substantiate such a claim. The anthropic principle tends to make us think that the reason for physical laws being the way they are must have been, ultimately, to produce beings like us - but the truth of it is that were physical laws not the way they are, we would not be here to contemplate them.

The truth liberates us from the tyranny of natural causes.

And which version of “the truth” might that be?

The only impotent persons are those who believe they are animals dominated by instinct but even they are necessarily inconsistent because it is impossible for them to live exactly like animals unless their minds are unbalanced…

Nonphysical “persons”, if there could even be any such thing, are necessarily impotent in a physical universe. By definition.

If we are of the same stuff as the world we are a part of the world and utterly dominated by the physical energy and forces like everything else.

We are completely embedded within the physical universe. What could you possibly mean by the notion that we are “dominated” by every other physical phenomenon, and utterly passive as physical beings in our own right? It’s obvious from this that your thinking on the subject is dominated by the idea that “persons” are a separate and special reality that actually has nothing to do with the physical universe, but must be either completely independent of it or completely ruled by it. This is a false dichotomy.

On that reckoning matter is all-powerful because nothing else exists and we are no more than components of the universal machine. There is nothing to differentiate us from any other object apart from our awareness of our impotence in the face of inscrutable fate…

But on your reckoning, aren’t we impotent in the face of an inscrutable god? According to your argument, our only choice is that of which despot we prefer.

But that is not what we observe or experience. We function within the world, and effect change in our environment. This doesn’t mean we are independent of the world, by any means; but it also indicates that we are not merely passive receptacles or automata. By definition, components of a machine have a role to play in the functioning of a machine. We are part of the causal web, not ineffectual ephemera that play no part in our own lives.