It doesn’t make sense to you. We know that.Bradskii:
You are trying to to turn this in to a debate about evolution, but it’s got nothing to do with it. It is irrelevant if homosapiens have a social nature and whether or not this trait has emerged within the processes described as evolution. It’s a question of whether or not specific traits or activities such as goal direction or an activity driven by intent can be intelligibly reduced to blind natural processes alone (not that physical processes have nothing to do it) as a sufficient cause for their existence (that’s a philosophical question, not a scientific one).
We are still talking about goal directed activity when you create posts on a forum with the intent to rationally debate with other humans about the nature of reality, and you are falling to understand that this type of activity cannot be compared to a gust of wind blowing a ball down a hill; it simply doesn’t make rational sense to conclude that a goal driven rational conversation is going to emerge from that kind of process or any blind natural process as a consequence.
No, it’s not a matter of ignorance. It’s a contradiction any way you look at it. I’m not saying it probably isn’t true. I’m not saying that it is unlikely. I am not trying to produce an alternative scientific theory. I am saying that it is logically and ontologically impossible.
It’s not simply a question of that. If metaphysical naturalism is true we shouldn’t be here because it’s a contradiction.
You can’t just say ‘we’. You have to include everything. That it all has a purpose. And that is a religious view.Bradskii:
It’s not simply question of that. If metaphysical naturalism is true we shouldn’t be here because it’s a contradiction.
I suspect that you would expect us to be ignorant.
No i just have to show that metaphysical naturalism is irrational in order to prove that metaphysical naturalists don’t really have a reasonable doubt.
Well i would venture to argue that many of the traits that organisms posses (not all) presuppose an objective environment in which evolution is possible, which is something that a blind natural process could not possibly know. If this is true, it would therefore follow that a being that does know and created physical reality is necessary in order for a process like natural evolution to have played out as it did.
Think of our discussion. Our discussion is more fruitful when more people with ability to critically think get involved. We, collection of minds, are attached together by physical. I think there are also many minds in a single individual being. We are sure that subconscious mind exists. Sometimes we perceive ideas from it. Subconsciousness cannot be blind.
Because there is always a reason for something which occurs. Things cannot occurs for no reason. Therefore there is no such a thing as emergence if by definition there is no explanation for it. Emergence is meaningless if it is explicable.
Your welcome.
Could we agree that goal directed phenomena cannot be the result of blind process? Could we also agree that there is no such a thing as emergence of mind, emergence being the result of process in matter? Finally, could we that the goal directed phenomena exist? If the answer to these questions are yes, then you cannot have a blind process.
Yes, most definitely.
If by that you mean the mind is an emergent property of matter alone, then yes i agree that there is no such thing.
Yes
You cannot have a goal directed act of the mind that is essentially a blind natural process, but i don’t think it follows that blind natural processes don’t exist or don’t exist in conjunction with the minds activity.
Great.
Great, I meant that.
Great.
So, you believe in mind? That is mind which causes an intentional process? You cannot have both blind natural process and mind activity to work together. How blind matter could possibly follow mind’s instruction if it follows laws of nature blindly? It cannot possibly be aware of mind’s instruction and it cannot do both at the same time.
Such a conjunction is impossible as it is argued. Please notice the last comment.
Because
So, there is another Mind/minds involved in a goal directed process? That could be God or other minds which make a goal directed phenomena possible. I can buy that. What I am arguing is that you cannot make a blind process to follow exactly what is required for an intentional phenomena. It if God or other minds that intervene and they are not blind. You see? There is no blind process.
And what is the point of having a brain if a single mind, what you call it soul, has only the intellect? We know that there are areas in a brain which are responsible for reasoning. It is collection of minds which are working together intellectually. There is however a hierarchy of awareness in the body and brain depending on subject matter.
We interact with the physical world through the body and brain. Why? Only God can tell you that.
The brain is very much like a processor or computer. The soul and body are united in the act of thinking. We know that we are thinking, and we know through the brain, but the brain doesn’t know that. If you damage the brain, we are unable to interact properly with the world or think properly because the brain processes the thoughts that are produced by the intellect. If the process is damaged then we cannot think, at least not in the same sense that we do when the brain is not damaged.