What’s the evidence that there is not a biological machine posting messages?
You have failed to answer my question:
What’s the evidence that there is not** a biological machine **posting messages?
If you’re making a really average claim, then most people would accept it as a matter of convention. For example, if you said you had a dog, I’d believe you because 1) it’s really common for people to have dogs and 2) even if you’re lying, it wouldn’t really matter much anyway.
But if you make a different claim, a more extraordinary one – like, for example, that a supernatural intelligence that somehow exists without a body created the world, cares about the world, intervenes in human affairs, and wants people to worship him (it?) and behave in certain ways or he (it?) will punish your ghost forever after you die – then the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate that claim with evidence.
You fail to recognise the simple fact that **all **claims, proof and evidence presuppose **the existence of rational beings **rather than biological machines. Animals do not fit into that category. If therefore you are making any claims whatsoever you are presupposing you are a rational being rather than merely a physical product of nature. In other words you are taking your
intangible self and
supernatural intelligence for granted. How do you think you are capable of grasping the abstract concept of **the entire universe **with the lump of tissue inside your skull? By electrochemical activity?
If you cannot demonstrate that your claim is likely to be true, then other people can dismiss it.
I agree wholeheartedly!
And, for the record, you can’t demonstrate your claim by making a huge argument from ignorance: “But science can’t explain consciousness! Therefore, humans were created by a supernatural intelligence that somehow exists without a body and who cares about the world, intervenes in human affairs, …”
It is you who are making a huge argument from ignorance. My claim is based on **direct knowledge **of my thoughts, feelings and perceptions. Our primary datum - and sole certainty - is not the external world but **our mind **which enables us to infer that world exists. Science is itself a product of our intangible, rational activity not the mindless workings of natural processes. You are putting the cart before the horse to assert that consciousness needs to be explained. It is a fundamental reality that underlies every thought and assertion you make. You wouldn’t know you have a body if you didn’t have a conscious mind!
BTW Precisely how do you define “nature” and “natural”? The burden of proof rests on you to justify your materialistic interpretation of reality in which nothing exists except that which you can see, taste, smell, hear and touch…
