From where did all the physical laws come?

[davidv]

I don’t agree with your premises.

Obviously. However what you present below isn’t a very factual basis for that disagreement.

Animals and mechanical constructs can calculate, animals and humans can ‘decide’, and I would imagine many animals are capable of love.

I not seen any convincing evidence of any of this.

That’s an interesting question though, I’ll have to look up and see if anyone has studied non-human animal hormone reactions. It would be interesting to know if animals have a similar child-bonding process!

I don’t know why humanity would be unique in having a mind or intellect, nothing about those two things (that I know of) is different in non-human animals outside of degree.

Well I know why, but you won’t accept the explanation.

Free will, again, I don’t see what would differ between humans and non-humans.

Just because you don’t see it does not mean it does not exits.

Soul…I dunno, no-one seems to be able to define soul in a meaningful way.

If you reject God it is no wonder that you wouldn’t find the defintion meaningful.

I’ve also seen Catholics on this board say animals have souls, they just won’t be made immortal by God, so I’m not sure what the official position is on that.

It is in agreement with the teaching that only humans were created in God’s image and likeness.

And then you end with an assertion about everything being a gift from God.

Honest question, I’m dead serious here: Did you think what you wrote would, in any way, interest, motivate or convince me to change my opinion?

If you had addressed this to me I would have to say that most intellectual presentations of the faith do not change an athiest’s opinion. Yet the Truth is important and bears repeating. Neither God nor Catholic can force you to accept it. It is your choice.

I understand you feel passion for your beliefs, it says so in your signature and it comes across in your posts, but I really hope you understand, or learn to understand, that debating an atheist in that way is a waste of effort. I disagree with JDaniel, but we’re communicating, and I value the exchange of ideas. This didn’t seem like an attempt at communication, it seems like an attempt at preaching in my general direction.

 

[JDaniel]

The continuation of life(s) I value more highly than my own.

Well, there’s one major difference: the true Christian is not self-serving. The true Christian may just as easily die for a life the value of which he does not know.

On an instinctual, non-intellectual level I’m the same as any human, the lives of my children and mate are lives I would die for without thought.

(You wouldn’t be much of a “parent” if you wouldn’t.)

On a more intellectual level there is a cost benefit analysis involved. Would I die to give a random stranger an extra five minutes of life? No. Would I die to save the human race from doom? Yes. There is obviously a sliding scale in between.

There is no “sliding scale” for the true Christian. Do you see a distinct difference emerging?

Advancement of concepts or ideologies I find valuable. Would I die to prevent a kid from having his lunch money stolen? No. Would I die to prevent the human race existing in perpetual torture? Yes. There is obviously a sliding scale in between.

I repeat: there’s no “sliding scale” for a true Christian. A true Christian is not self-serving. In fact, a true Christian could be said to be the antithesis of self-serving.

Any time I value something more than my own life, I would be willing to spend my life for that purpose. Just like anyone else.

Not quite: see above.

Anyone who’s ever died for anything not in the name or religion? Anyone who’s ever died for love of family, country, ideology…? Is this a serious question?

Of course it is. And, you are obfuscating. How can you be so sure that these people: Anyone who’s ever died for love of family, country, ideology…, are non-religious? Statistically, those people who view themselves to be religious compared to those who view themselves to be atheistic are in a ratio of about 800,000 : 1. Thus, if you are not asking each participant of each and every selfless factical what it is that they adhere to, and are simply saying, well, it would all average out, your math will be at complete odds with your thinking.

I wouldn’t say so…I would say the majority of people who’ve died for a cause didn’t have overtly religious intentions.

What on earth does “overtly religious intentions” have to do with the price of tea in China?

I’d say that the bulk are either related to family, close social groups, national identity or political ideology.

So, you are saying that you are guessing but in an over-embellishing way.

A soldier who throws themselves onto a grenade isn’t thinking, “God wants me to throw myself on this grenade”, they’re thinking about protecting their group.

Straw-man. And, an excellent example of solidly poor logic.

Religion is certainly up there, but only because once those things are out of the way there isn’t much left. The number of cases where religion is the direct cause of self sacrifice is probably limited to martyrdoms, and the Muslim faith seems to have that tradition at least as strongly as the Christian faith. Buddhists have a tradition of self termination as well.

Add to the above: another example of poor logic. Look, I’m sorry I dragged myself into your previous discussion. I have to bow out at this juncture. You’re making my brain hurt. But, wait, that’s not possible. A brain is naught but matter and has no sensory (name removed by moderator)uts.

On that idea atheism would lose, although they still exist because both in Christianity, Islam and other religions where apostasy has been punishable by death people have still left, and some have died as a result.

Reinforcement.

Now if you broaden it out and ask how the a particular religion enlarges an individuals social group and then ask about self sacrifice within that group…hmm. Maybe not. I dunno, I’d have to think about that. Although I doubt we’d get to that point since I doubt you agree with the premise, or indeed, anything I’ve said above.

Marvelous! How did you know that?

If I had to guess, I’d say your world view is built around virtue being the result of free will conforming to the dictates of your deity, and in my world view virtue is a label we attach to behavior beneficial in an evolutionary sense and self sacrifice can be an incredibly beneficial act for your own progeny and your own social group. I would say I have more evidence for my side since self sacrifice exists without religion. I am, however, perfectly willing to grant that a particular religion might re-enforce that behavior to the benefit of a group. But if you agree to that you agree to religion being no different from any other meme and I doubt that will happen either.

I can’t take it.

Cheers!

Thanks for that! Is it over? Yep. OK. Later. God bless,
jd

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Within the MANY BILLIONS of Created Things in the Universe; only One: Humanity can caculate; formulate, decide; and LOVE… WHY?

Because only humanity has a Mind; Intellect, FREEWILL and SOUL… al Spiriual Gifts from God.

Computers can calculate, formulate and decide. Love isn’t specified well enough for computer scientists to implement yet.

 

[tonyrey]

Computers can calculate, formulate and decide. Love isn’t specified well enough for computer scientists to implement yet.

A touching faith in the ability of science to explain the greatest power that exists!

 

[tonyrey]

Material objects are not morally responsible.

Can you explain how material objects are morally responsible?

How could the increased complexity of the brain produce self-control?

A brain without the capacity for self control is at a disadvantage to one with self control, so that would be covered by the general process of evolution by natural selection.

The topic is banned but many scientists reject NeoDarwinism.

Conscious thought seems to be an emergent property of significantly complex brains.

Why do you postulate a mind if brains adequately explain human activity?

We are not aware of the atomic state of our brains, but if I introduce the right atoms in the right places I can make you happy, sad, giddy, fall in love, hate someone, fear something, etc.

So you agree that physicalism implies that we do not make any decisions and they are made for us by physical processes. How can our conclusions ever be rational if we have no control over them?

Hence, we act as though we do. But if we want to measure dosage for a drug that will impact the brain, we don’t act as if we have free will, because our perspective changes.

Aren’t we are using free will when we choose to measure the correct dosage?

So, at the conscious level we can act as though we have free will, but at the material level we don’t.

So what you are thinking and writing is beyond your control?

Having said that, every drug that has a psychological impact moves us further in that direction. I’m not sure how you can reconcile that on a dualistic basis.

Interaction.

Well, freedom is a concept, so it is a complex pattern that we sum up and apply a label to.

If freedom is merely a complex pattern it is not freedom!

A computer is programmed by rational beings but - according to you - we are programmed by blind processes.

The process has, as far as we know, no objective purpose. It behaves according to rules though, the subject of which this thread was started in reference to.

Rationality is not simply behaving according to rules. It also entails choosing and formulating the rules.

Programmed, in this context, wouldn’t be an appropriate word. We’re the result of a process, our output is the result of another process.

A sequence of processes is still a programme.

If you want to go further down the rabbit hole you need philosophy.

What is philosophy based on?

Do you mean conscious thoughts are electrical currents?

Along with chemical and physical states, yes, they seem to be. Take away those things and we lose consciousness and thought, conscious or otherwise, does not return until they do.

We appear to lose consciousness and thought but appearances are often deceptive.

You can claim that thought exists independently, but it is an unfalsifiable claim since there would be no way to verify it and so it is a useless assumption. It is like saying, “every night an immaterial dog hovers over my bed”. You can’t prove me wrong, all you can do is show that, as far as we know, no such thing has ever been detected and so alternate explanations for my perception are more likely.

Our thoughts are the basis of all our knowledge. To put matter before mind is to put the cart before the horse. We infer that material objects exist but we are directly aware of ourselves. The power of our rational, purposeful mind demonstrates that it is not a **product **of irrational, purposeless particles.

If someone rejects those alternate methods though (like science) and relies purely on their own perception, you can’t prove otherwise. The downside is that person loses the ability to discern fact from fiction in enormous areas of investigation.

How do you discern the facts about yourself? By examining your brain?

Do you believe reality consists only of the thing we can see, hear, taste, smell and touch?

No. There are plenty of things we cannot/will not ever sense. However, I have no reason to believe anything non-material exists, or what practical difference it would make if it did since we would never be able to perceive it in any form.

Practical differences are determined by the nature of reality. It is absurd to ignore everything that cannot be perceived by the senses or to assume that only material reality exists if “there are plenty of things we cannot/will not ever sense”.

How are thoughts material?

I think this was explained above. If not, let me know and I’ll go over it again.

You have stated only that they come from the brain.

Can you observe theories with your senses?

Interesting question. I suppose you could call our conscious recognition of our own thoughts a sense, so in that way, sure.

I should have specified physical senses.

Otherwise you can observe how well those theories match your observations.

Theories take us into the immaterial world!

Then how do you know reality consists only of material objects?

I don’t ‘know’ in a technical, 100% certainty sense. I know in the common usage sense, in that I’ve never seen any evidence to the contrary, and the alternative has less explanatory power.

Do you treat other persons like material objects?

 

[PJM]

=mellestad;7634261]I don’t agree with your premises. Animals and mechanical constructs can calculate, animals and humans can ‘decide’, and I would imagine many animals are capable of love. That’s an interesting question though, I’ll have to look up and see if anyone has studied non-human animal hormone reactions. It would be interesting to know if animals have a similar child-bonding process!

I don’t know why humanity would be unique in having a mind or intellect, nothing about those two things (that I know of) is different in non-human animals outside of degree. Free will, again, I don’t see what would differ between humans and non-humans. Soul…I dunno, no-one seems to be able to define soul in a meaningful way. I’ve also seen Catholics on this board say animals have souls, they just won’t be made immortal by God, so I’m not sure what the official position is on that.

And then you end with an assertion about everything being a gift from God.

Honest question, I’m dead serious here: Did you think what you wrote would, in any way, interest, motivate or convince me to change my opinion?

I understand you feel passion for your beliefs, it says so in your signature and it comes across in your posts, but I really hope you understand, or learn to understand, that debating an atheist in that way is a waste of effort. I disagree with JDaniel, but we’re communicating, and I value the exchange of ideas. This didn’t seem like an attempt at communication, it seems like an attempt at preaching in my general direction.

Thanks my friend,

**First: One cannot seperate the human Mind, Intelect, FREEWILL and sould; **it’s a “package deal” given fo a precise reason: To enable humanity to “Konw, to Love, o Obey and to Serve our Lord.” They operate in union with each other.

Do not confuse a Mind and Itellect with a “Brain.” The brain is physical matter; that animals do have; the mind, Intellect and Freewill; are Spiritual THINGS, and are exclusively in humanity.

Not too long ago I read a very interestering article by a Theologian on the topic of "animals being able to “love.” [Sorry I don’t recall the source]

**The summation of the article was that annimals cannot, and therefore do -not “love.” **What we accept as affection is “nothing other than instinct.” A dog sees for example “it’s owner as a Gigantic can-opener for its dog food.”

Nor can an annimal know good from bad. It acts and recacts ONLY on instinct. Put a steak in front of a humgry dog; and it’ll eat it every time; put a steak in front of a human and we can deside IFI we will eat it or not. [Perhaps on the grounds of being a vegiterian; not being prepared as we like our steakes prepared; or some other reason. An annimal cannot Know God; humanity can and MUST!

**ALL Living THINGS, plants, annimals and human have a soul “the annimator of life for all-living things.”] … BUT in each case except for the Human soulwhich is conected to and cannot be seperated from the mind, intellect and FREEWILL; [needed to know, love, obey and serve God in heaven], the soul dies with the plant, mamal or annimal; NOT so with humanity. Our Sould being 'Spirit" as is God’s canot be [physically] destroyed; or die.

Do a bit of research and you’ll find out that I’m correct on this.

God Bless,
Pat
Pat

 

[mellestad]

Well, there’s one major difference: the true Christian is not self-serving. The true Christian may just as easily die for a life the value of which he does not know.

(You wouldn’t be much of a “parent” if you wouldn’t.)

There is no “sliding scale” for the true Christian. Do you see a distinct difference emerging?

I repeat: there’s no “sliding scale” for a true Christian. A true Christian is not self-serving. In fact, a true Christian could be said to be the antithesis of self-serving.

Not quite: see above.

Of course it is. And, you are obfuscating. How can you be so sure that these people: Anyone who’s ever died for love of family, country, ideology…, are non-religious? Statistically, those people who view themselves to be religious compared to those who view themselves to be atheistic are in a ratio of about 800,000 : 1. Thus, if you are not asking each participant of each and every selfless factical what it is that they adhere to, and are simply saying, well, it would all average out, your math will be at complete odds with your thinking.

What on earth does “overtly religious intentions” have to do with the price of tea in China?

So, you are saying that you are guessing but in an over-embellishing way.

Straw-man. And, an excellent example of solidly poor logic.

Add to the above: another example of poor logic. Look, I’m sorry I dragged myself into your previous discussion. I have to bow out at this juncture. You’re making my brain hurt. But, wait, that’s not possible. A brain is naught but matter and has no sensory (name removed by moderator)uts.

Reinforcement.

Marvelous! How did you know that?

I can’t take it.

Thanks for that! Is it over? Yep. OK. Later. God bless,
jd

Sigh. Well, I’m glad we had that little chat. In the future, I would very much appreciate it if you please let me know you are not interested in discussion before I spend time writing responses.

 

[mellestad]

Can you explain how material objects are morally responsible?

Morality serves a purpose in the self replicating feedback loops we call life

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be flippant. This is just a difficult question though, because, as above, this comes down to axioms. In my world view this is material and so ‘how’ is…well, just observing behavior is how. I don’t know how far to take it.

tonyrey:

The topic is banned but many scientists reject NeoDarwinism.

Is that relevant though? Many scientists reject religion, but I wouldn’t say that as any kind of point. Or are you saying you reject the idea of Darwanism, so we would have to go to that level to dialog?

tonyrey:

Why do you postulate a mind if brains adequately explain human activity?

It is just a label for a complex behavior. When we talk about an “Internet Forum” we’re really talking about electrons zipping around, but we don’t use that context because it isn’t useful.

tonyrey:

So you agree that physicalism implies that we do not make any decisions and they are made for us by physical processes. How can our conclusions ever be rational if we have no control over them?

Again, we’re talking about perspective and context.

tonyrey:

Aren’t we are using free will when we choose to measure the correct dosage?

That depends on what context we’re working on. If I measure the dosage to 1mg, then I injest ethanol and end up with a dosage of 1.5mg due to lack of motor control, what just happened? It depends on your context and perspective.

tonyrey:

So what you are thinking and writing is beyond your control?

Perspective Again, ethanol. If I drugged my brain, what I wrote would change dramatically. That is the result of a change in my brain chemistry. If I had free will in the theistic sense, I would not expect such a thing to be possible. I don’t know how it is possible to accept that material things change our exercise of theistic free will, but free will is claimed to be evidence of immaterialism. To me it seems to go the other way.

Free will would seem to have more standing if our choices were divorced from our physical brain state.

tonyrey:

Interaction.

Yea, but how? Why? How would we show evidence?

A question: If God took away our free will tomorrow, how would we know the difference? If He took away my free will, how would you know the difference? What test could you perform? How could you discern free will from no free will?

To me, decision divorced from brain state might be evidence for immaterialism. Transfer of memory via re-incarnation might be.

tonyrey:

If freedom is merely a complex pattern it is not freedom!

Well, again we’re back to perception.

tonyrey:

Rationality is not simply behaving according to rules. It also entails choosing and formulating the rules.

I agree.

tonyrey:

A sequence of processes is still a programme.

Yes, so as long as you realize that from my perspective ‘program’ isn’t negative.

tonyrey:

What is philosophy based on?

Our attempts to model reality via our (name removed by moderator)uts.

 

[mellestad]

tonyrey:

We appear to lose consciousness and thought but appearances are often deceptive.

Again, falsifiability. If we didn’t really lose consciousness, how would you know the difference? It seems like an empty claim to me.

tonyrey:

Our thoughts are the basis of all our knowledge. To put matter before mind is to put the cart before the horse. We infer that material objects exist but we are directly aware of ourselves.

Right, but if you took away all interaction, there wouldn’t be any thought, right? If you freeze a brain, that’s it, no new thought. Again, falsifiability…if we were still thinking when our brains were shut down, but could never remember it, how could you tell the difference? It seems simpler and more cohesive to assume things work the way we observe them to work, rather than to assume the nature of reality changes for our thoughts and turns into an undefined immaterial thing.

tonyrey:

The power of our rational, purposeful mind demonstrates that it is not a **product **of irrational, purposeless particles.

They have rules though, it isn’t chaos. Complexity, not chaos. The original question was where do those rules come from.

tonyrey:

How do you discern the facts about yourself? By examining your brain?

Partly. Analyzing our own thoughts is important, but the limits of pure reason are known…without external and emperical evidence I don’t think you’re justified in a lot of knowledge. That’s a philosophic point though, many will say pure reason is all that matters and ‘course empericism’ is just a crutch of an imperfect logical process.

tonyrey:

Practical differences are determined by the nature of reality. It is absurd to ignore everything that cannot be perceived by the senses or to assume that only material reality exists if “there are plenty of things we cannot/will not ever sense”.

Absurd? Why? I don’t even have the ability to ignore something that cannot be percieved, I can’t percieve it, it exists entierely outside our frame of reference. It would be like me criticizing you for ignoring the coffee on my desk right now…you can’t sense it, why wouldn’t you ignore it? If my coffee is immaterial and impossible for you to sense, I think you’re justified in acting as though it doesn’t exist. My senses, by the way, include rational thinking, inferences, and other tools that detect things I can’t personally sense.

tonyrey:

You have stated only that they come from the brain.

I’m not sure what the question is, sorry, the quote wall is winning

tonyrey:

I should have specified physical senses.

Well, now we’re back to square one, because that is a ‘physical’ sense to me. Or do you mean, touch-taste-smell-feel-hear? Not directly, but I think I listed a bunch of tool use scenarios, monitoring electrical impulses, etc? Again, I’m losing cohesion in the quote wall.

tonyrey:

Theories take us into the immaterial world!

Conceptual, but not immaterial. If you took away the material minds, the concepts would go away, right? The things those concepts are about though, would remain.

tonyrey:

Do you treat other persons like material objects?

In my worldview everything is material, so yea. I know that isn’t what you meant though, I don’t treat them like rocks. I’m a very moral person, or at least I think so. I’m the worlds worst vegan though

Thanks for the back and forth though, I hope I can help you to understand my worldview.

 

[mellestad]

Thanks my friend,

**First: One cannot seperate the human Mind, Intelect, FREEWILL and sould; **it’s a “package deal” given fo a precise reason: To enable humanity to “Konw, to Love, o Obey and to Serve our Lord.” They operate in union with each other.

Do not confuse a Mind and Itellect with a “Brain.” The brain is physical matter; that animals do have; the mind, Intellect and Freewill; are Spiritual THINGS, and are exclusively in humanity.

Not too long ago I read a very interestering article by a Theologian on the topic of "animals being able to “love.” [Sorry I don’t recall the source]

**The summation of the article was that annimals cannot, and therefore do -not “love.” **What we accept as affection is “nothing other than instinct.” A dog sees for example “it’s owner as a Gigantic can-opener for its dog food.”

Nor can an annimal know good from bad. It acts and recacts ONLY on instinct. Put a steak in front of a humgry dog; and it’ll eat it every time; put a steak in front of a human and we can deside IFI we will eat it or not. [Perhaps on the grounds of being a vegiterian; not being prepared as we like our steakes prepared; or some other reason. An annimal cannot Know God; humanity can and MUST!

**ALL Living THINGS, plants, annimals and human have a soul

“the annimator of life for all-living things.”] … BUT in each case except for the Human soulwhich is conected to and cannot be seperated from the mind, intellect and FREEWILL; [needed to know, love, obey and serve God in heaven], the soul dies with the plant, mamal or annimal; NOT so with humanity. Our Sould being 'Spirit" as is God’s canot be [physically] destroyed; or die.

Do a bit of research and you’ll find out that I’m correct on this.

God Bless,
Pat
Pat

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, I appreciate your well spoken thoughts!

 

[tonyrey]

Can you explain how material objects are morally responsible?

What purpose does it serve?

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be flippant. This is just a difficult question though, because, as above, this comes down to axioms. In my world view this is material and so ‘how’ is…well, just observing behavior is how. I don’t know how far to take it.

Then what makes us usually restrict moral responsibility to persons?

The topic is banned but many scientists reject NeoDarwinism.

Is that relevant though? Many scientists reject religion, but I wouldn’t say that as any kind of point. Or are you saying you reject the idea of Darwanism, so we would have to go to that level to dialog?

I mentioned it because you seem to regard natural selection as the sole explanation of evolution.

Why do you postulate a mind if brains adequately explain human activity?

It is just a label for a complex behavior. When we talk about an “Internet Forum” we’re really talking about electrons zipping around, but we don’t use that context because it isn’t useful.

Or absurd! Reductive materialism is self-contradictory because reasoning is self-referential whereas the movement of electrons is not.

So you agree that physicalism implies that we do not make any decisions and they are made for us by physical processes. How can our conclusions ever be rational if we have no control over them?

Again, we’re talking about perspective and context.

If we have no control over our conclusions the probability of discovering the truth is negligible because there are countless ways of being mistaken but as a rule only one way of being right!

QUOTE]Aren’t we are using free will when we choose to measure the correct dosage?

That depends on what context we’re working on. If I measure the dosage to 1mg, then I injest ethanol and end up with a dosage of 1.5mg due to lack of motor control, what just happened? It depends on your context and perspective.

So you think free will is a myth?

So what you are thinking and writing is beyond your control?

Perspective Again, ethanol. If I drugged my brain, what I wrote would change dramatically. That is the result of a change in my brain chemistry. If I had free will in the theistic sense, I would not expect such a thing to be possible. I don’t know how it is possible to accept that material things change our exercise of theistic free will, but free will is claimed to be evidence of immaterialism. To me it seems to go the other way.

It is possible because the brain is the instrument not the instrumentalist.

Free will would seem to have more standing if our choices were divorced from our physical brain state.

That is like saying a driver is more likely to be free to choose where to go if he doesn’t have a car or other form of transport!

Interaction.

Yea, but how? Why? How would we show evidence?

The intangibility of our mental faculties and our control of events.

A question: If God took away our free will tomorrow, how would we know the difference? If He took away my free will, how would you know the difference? What test could you perform? How could you discern free will from no free will?

You would make no effort to control yourself - and always do what comes naturally!

To me, decision divorced from brain state might be evidence for immaterialism. Transfer of memory via re-incarnation might be.

How do you know decisions occur in the brain? Can you locate them? Which part of the brain is responsible for its activity as a whole?

If freedom is merely a complex pattern it is not freedom!

Well, again we’re back to perception.

A pattern is determined whereas freedom is the power of self-determination.

Rationality is not simply behaving according to rules. It also entails choosing and formulating the rules.

I agree.

So without the power to choose we cannot be rational…

A sequence of processes is still a programme.

Yes, so as long as you realize that from my perspective ‘program’ isn’t negative.

Even a positive programme leaves no scope for freedom.

What is philosophy based on?

Our attempts to model reality via our (name removed by moderator)uts.
What enables us to model reality?

 

[tonyrey]

Two corrections and some additions:

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be flippant. This is just a difficult question though, because, as above, this comes down to axioms. In my world view this is material and so ‘how’ is…well, just observing behavior is how. I don’t know how far to take it.

Then what makes us usually restrict moral responsibility to persons?

Aren’t we are using free will when we choose to measure the correct dosage?

That depends on what context we’re working on. If I measure the dosage to 1mg, then I ingest ethanol and end up with a dosage of 1.5mg due to lack of motor control, what just happened? It depends on your context and perspective.

So you think free will is a myth?

Conceptual, but not immaterial. If you took away the material minds, the concepts would go away, right? The things those concepts are about though, would remain.

The concepts would go away but the facts would not! Or do you dispute the existence of facts?

Thanks for the back and forth though, I hope I can help you to understand my worldview.

Thanks for your stimulating posts.

 

[mellestad]

What purpose does it serve?

It helps continuation.

A society without basic morality would never survive.

tonyrey:
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be flippant. This is just a difficult question though, because, as above, this comes down to axioms. In my world view this is material and so ‘how’ is…well, just observing behavior is how. I don’t know how far to take it.

Then what makes us usually restrict moral responsibility to persons?

Self interest and control, I suppose. We still feel empathy though, if one of my cats is torturing a mouse my wife usually stops the cat. If we could convince cats to avoid that, I imagine many people would do so.

I mentioned it because you seem to regard natural selection as the sole explanation of evolution.

Well it isn’t, technically. I just didn’t see where the distinction was relevant, but I have a disease where I can’t avoid responding to what people write, so if that’s something you want to chat about, go ahead, I’m at your mercy, so to speak.

Even if you want to talk about I.D. I don’t think it would matter much to the meat of what we’re going over.

tonyrey:

Or absurd! Reductive materialism is self-contradictory because reasoning is self-referential whereas the movement of electrons is not.

And yet, if we remove electrons from the process, that self-referential awareness goes away, never to return. Simplicity begats complexity all over nature, I don’t see why it would not be the case here as well.

An atom bumping into another atom eventually translates into 1.19 x 10^57 atoms in an isolated orb of energetic particals ejecting radiation over vast distances that is then taken in by another group of atoms on a larger substrate that turns the energy into a self replicating engine capable of endless adaptation. Or, sunshine makes the trees grow.

People seem fine with that level of complexity being natural, and it is all based on ‘simple’ chemistry. I find it no more absurd to think the mind is also goverened by the same processes.

If you want something trippy to think about, imagine what the universe looks like from my perspective, since my matter isn’t any different than the matter of the rest of the universe. If I let my mind wander, it occurs to me that the universe is a conscious entity by virtue of my own mind. Things like that are an outlet for my own sense of awe.

tonyrey:

If we have no control over our conclusions the probability of discovering the truth is negligible because there are countless ways of being mistaken but as a rule only one way of being right!

Indeed!

Although, as in evolution, our methods are always being refined, are they not? I’m positive that we’re totally wrong about many of the things we think are truths. But I’m also almost as positive that we’re more right today then we were when Plato was around.

tonyrey:

So you think free will is a myth?

In a technical sense? Yes. In a practical, useable sense? No. In my daily life I act as though free will exists because I can’t track the variables. It does make a difference in some choices I make, but I don’t dwell on the vast gears of the universe methodically grinding away as I ponder what to cook for dinner.

tonyrey:

It is possible because the brain is the instrument not the instrumentalist.

If we’re going to run with that analogy, that would be like saying that if you intend to play song A someone can make you play song B by tinkering with your guitar. I don’t see how that works.

tonyrey:

That is like saying a driver is more likely to be free to choose where to go if he doesn’t have a car or other form of transport!

I like this analogy.

The direct analogy you made only makes sense if you assume a driver exists though.

Right now we’re in a situation where we can’t see the driver, we can only see the car. We can observe that when we tweak the engine, the car travels to different destinations depending on the type of tweaking. Many assume there is a driver, but I’m arguing that if there were a driver the car would at least attempt to travel to the same destination, regardless of what we did to the engine. If a car is headed towards the edge of a cliff I wouldn’t expect that some prozac in the gas tank would make it turn around and go home instead, and I wouldn’t expect the car at home to head towards the cliff with the addition of ethanol.

That may be straining an analogy though, haha.

tonyrey:

The intangibility of our mental faculties and our control of events.

By intangibility you mean your perception that we cannot see materialistic cause, right? And our control of events is free will?

The problem is both of those things assume your premise, do you see what I mean?

tonyrey:

You would make no effort to control yourself - and always do what comes naturally!

What would the look like though? Social animals seem to do fin in their herds without going bonkers. What is it about humans that is currently ‘un-natural’? To me it looks like we have the same natural drives as any other critter, we’re just a lot smarter.

tonyrey:

How do you know decisions occur in the brain? Can you locate them? Which part of the brain is responsible for its activity as a whole?

Proponderence of evidence and a lack of superior explanatory theories.

There does not seem to be any part of the brain responsible for the activity of the whole, although certainly different areas are responsible for different things, some of which you might consider more important than others. Some of this stuff is crazy! For example, one side of the brain can figure out math, but the other side of the brain can’t, or that patients could be shown a word on a screen and be unable to say what the word was, or acnkowledge that they knew what the word was, but when asked to write the word they could (speech and writing are on different sides of the brain). Crazy, crazy stuff.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

tonyrey:

A pattern is determined whereas freedom is the power of self-determination.

I know you think that is true, but I’m trying to see if there is a reason to think so.

tonyrey:

So without the power to choose we cannot be rational…

I’d put this under the technical/practical umbrella. I’d agree, if you want to reduce it enough the word rational becomes meaningless.

tonyrey:

Even a positive programme leaves no scope for freedom.

Again, if I want to be reductionist I’d agree with you. I just don’t see it as a negative.

tonyrey:

What enables us to model reality?

Our brains.

 

[mellestad]

tony:

The concepts would go away but the facts would not! Or do you dispute the existence of facts?

Nope, I agree.

I think I answered the other clarifications above, but I messed up the quotes so if I missed something let me know!

 

[mellestad]

I’d like to point out that I don’t find the idea of materialism ‘intuitive’ either, but only in so far as I don’t find anything about how the universe works intuitive once you reduce it down far enough.

You can take absolutely anything in the world and get reductionist with it and wind up with something that blows my mind.

I remember the first time I learned about the chemical reactions that result in fire.

So I don’t find materialism intuitive, I just think it explains things better than the alternative.

 

[levinas12]

So I don’t find materialism intuitive, I just think it explains things better than the alternative.

I’ve looked at all of this discussion … and I know this sounds like mystification … but there is something weird about how neurons firing in the brain can disclose an apple tree out there in the world … some people even reduce the apple tree to the neurons firing … but the brain and the apple tree are both objects of perception and complexes of quarks and electrons (or strings) … so how can a process in one material object disclose another material object … this is a genuine question which I find very perplexing … I agree that consciousness depends on what happens in the brain but somehow it also seems distinct … it’s like there’s an underlying reality which, in one perspective, is material, and, in another perspective, is mental … Spinoza?

 

[mellestad]

I’ve looked at all of this discussion … and I know this sounds like mystification … but there is something weird about how neurons firing in the brain can disclose an apple tree out there in the world … some people even reduce the apple tree to the neurons firing … but the brain and the apple tree are both objects of perception and complexes of quarks and electrons (or strings) … so how can a process in one material object disclose another material object … this is a genuine question which I find very perplexing … I agree that consciousness depends on what happens in the brain but somehow it also seems distinct … it’s like there’s an underlying reality which, in one perspective, is material, and, in another perspective, is mental … Spinoza?

I agree that consciousness is fascinating, to me it is probably the most interesting question in science right now. Some thing might be ‘bigger’, but this one gets to the root of who ‘we’ are, which is pretty important to me as an individual.

I’m skeptical it will be totally cracked in my lifetime, and I’m still pretty young. I can see us getting to where we can model biological brains someday and at that point I think we’ll probably be able to understand consciousness. We’re still a long way away, but I don’t see any technical reason why it is outside the realm of technology.

But some crazy grad student (or a kid in their parent’s garage) might crack it tomorrow, who knows?

When it comes to dualism in a purely immaterial way, I’ll consider it a valid alternative when someone can show precisely where materialistic causation fails. I think the dualist needs to show at what point an event in the brain happens without physical causation.

Some philosophers, like Chalmers, posit that consciousness is material, but a fundamental force in nature we have not been able to detect, like gravity. I still think that’s a gaps argument that doesn’t have any explanatory power, but I applaud the attempt at thinking outside the box. In a way I suppose I agree with him, in that consciousness seems to be the result of fundamental forces applied in a very complex environment. I’m probably butchering what he means though ​

So I agree, it does seem weird. But as in my example of the sun above, or quantum mechanics, or anything really, weird doesn’t mean we should mystify it.

One line of thinking that might be interesting in relation to your post is at what point do beings begin to generate mental models of reality? Most animals certainly would need to do so to function, but I wonder how far down it goes? There is some pretty out there stuff about complex behavior in ‘simple’ organisms that makes me wonder how soon some form of consciousness(although then it depends on how you define consciousness I 'spose) starts. At what point do organisms stop responding only from direct stimulus and start responding in some part due to how those stimuli interact with an internal state? The more complex that internal state is, I’d imagine the closer you’d get to ‘real’ consciousness.