'Immateriality' and Meaning

[Sair]

whatswrongwithatheism.wordpress.com/about/doesnt-science-rule-out-the-immaterial/

If we were inside a created computer world then the keyboard would be immaterial to us.

The striking of keys would cause changes in our world through mechanincs, electricity and then projection.

But the mechanics, electricity and projection, while creating our world, is ontologically different to us and so we could not see or examine it directly.

Both the keyboard and the projection process could only be surmised by the effects we would see inside our closed world (closed relative to us not to the greater reality).

So it is not directly detectable, but it is not ineffectual either.

Science was developed in the Christian West to examine the material world. We can only see the effects of the immaterial, we cannot directly control or examine it through a system that was designed to examine the material.

youtube.com/watch?v=s-eAoMw6gJg&feature=related

As I understand it, ontological difference constitutes a difference in the manner of existing, in which case you are still faced with the problem of how these ontologically different realms of existence could be expected to interact.

As for not being able to detect things but by their effects, that is most certainly true for many things invisible to us and once thought to fall under the auspices of the ‘spirit’ realm - wind, electricity, magnetism and so forth. These things, however, create measurable and very specific effects which allow us to infer quite accurately what manner of entity we are dealing with, and how such entities characteristically behave. I think the issue is less one of delimiting what a system was ‘designed’ to examine and more that of what manner of things actually exist to be examined. Any detectable effect constitutes empirical evidence, and the cause of such effects is thus open to scientific investigation.

 

[Sair]

If every thought - and conclusion - comes unbidden there is no means by which they can be controlled. I fail to understand how you fail to understand the inevitable consequence of physicalism is self-contradiction.

Why inevitable? Do you suppose that a process as complex as thought has a single originating source? That thoughts come from some point beyond the vast web of cause and effect in which we operate? If we cannot identify the precise origin of a particular thought or act of will, that is likely because that same thought or act of will could have come about through multiple pathways. You may well say that we are conscious of being the originators of our thoughts, but as I’ve already pointed out, neurological experiments demonstrate the strong likelihood that conscious awareness is preceded by detectable neurological activity; or you might say that if our thoughts are based on neuronal activity, then they are not, strictly speaking, ‘our’ thoughts. But that is kind of silly - these are ‘our’ neurons we are considering, not those of some other entity like us. However you consider it, ‘we’ are still the centres of the process of our own thoughts, regardless of the ultimate origins of such thoughts - whether in some perceived cause in the external world, or within the electrochemical signalling network of our brains.

Because you would be in the inflexible grip of determinism.

Determinism is a separate issue from physicalism. We are barely able to predict the patterns of weather, with its largely known influential factors; why would you imagine we should with any greater facility be able to predict the patterns of our neuronal interactions?

That is a far cry from believing that every single decision is ungoverned
and caused by physical events.

What is the difference between governed by physical processes and ungoverned? Or between ungoverned and governed by a homunculus or a resident spirit? The thoughts are an effect in the physical centre of the brain, which in turn produce further physical effects in the body and through the action of the body, in the wider world. These are all effects that constitute empirical evidence, and are thus at least theoretically susceptible to scientific investigation, not merely metaphysical speculation.

Exactly the same description applies to naturalists. You are directly aware of the intangible contents of your mind but you seek to explain them away as tangible impulses.

As I’ve explained before, this claim is erroneous since naturalism or physicalism is more of an open-ended classification than a deliberate cordoning off of different species of reality. In terms of tangibility, there are a couple of ways you could take this - physical phenomena like gravity and magnetism are intangible in the sense that they cannot be grasped or held, as in the hands, but their effects are apparent in the physical world. In the same way, thought is apparent in the physical world - we are aware of it and can observe its effects. Is the information in a computer’s memory ‘tangible’?

No one ever knows precisely what occurs in another person’s mind. If you think that day will eventually come you have succeeded in demonstrating that you are irrational! Are electrical impulses an adequate source of insight into themselves? What did Godel say about incompleteness?

I do think the day will come when we will have effective explanatory models of how thought operates. But see the above comment about the weather - we can model weather patterns and make predictions, but meteorologists are still very frequently taken by surprise. Perfect predictability is probably not a feature of any sufficiently complex system. Furthermore, I don’t see how Goedel’s theorem applies any less to a supernaturalist accounting of the mind than to a naturalist accounting.

Precisely what can justify it as the basis?

The fact that only a living thing can be subjectively affected by any decision made in relation to it.

I’m afraid your dogmatism is irrational.

I am not the one stating that it is actually theoretically impossible to understand the operation of the mind. I have yet to see you offer an explanation that overcomes the greatest weakness of the dualist’s position - how it would be possible for immaterial entities to affect material entities.

You are still assuming that thought is no more than brain activity - which is the very issue at stake. The inability of a person to use or control the brain does not entail inability to use or control the mind. It merely means that they cannot express themselves or communicate physically. The brain is an instrument - like other organs (!) - not an instrumentalist.

Then I would suggest that the mind, if it has indeed a separate existence, is a highly ineffectual entity if it cannot work past the ‘merely’ physical incapacity of the brain. If you know of some means by which it would be possible to bypass a decaying or diseased brain and carry on coherent communication with the mind, I’d love to know what it is.

 

[abucs]

Electricity, magnetism, gravity, matter, nuclear forces etc are what we call physical manifestations and are measureable. They give us our reality. But they can also be thought of as the projection from a deeper reality. As mentioned above, the Christian development of science had this at its base - Newton, Galileo, Boscovich, Lemaitre etc. It is only in the last century or so that the materialist view of cutting the projection part out of this vision has come to surmise that electricity, magnetism etc are fundamentals of reality. While Christians have been a large part in explaining these concepts, the materialist has to go further. He has to explain all reality in these (or similar) manifestations.

I think quantum physics has ruled out as untenable that materialist view.

With ontological differences and the problem of explaining interactions. As mentioned above the whole of creation can be thought of as this projection but there is a problem in being able to explain it if we are limited to 3 dimensions we cannot fully understand the workings of projection from a fourth dimension.

If our world consisted only of a projector screen we could only infer the projector from the changes to our world (the screen). In order to explain the interaction effectively we would have to step off the projector screen (our world).

Likewise, in order to explain the detection from the immaterial world we would have to be set free from our three dimensional space.

What we have found in quantum physics is that there is a discontinuity of cause and effect at the smallest level. The comparison would be us looking closely at our projector world screen and seeing the discontinuity of flashing dots of coloured light from something ??? (we know it is the projector). From the projector screen world point of view we can detect the projections and surmise the projector but we cannot fully explain it or control the process.

In our 3D world the discontinuity of cause and effect, of matter, of time and space strongly suggest to me that our world is a second order level of reality. But like the projector world we can only surmise this by looking at the effects on our world and surmise the interactions that would explain this. If our world (physical reality) is a second level of reality then by definition the first level or order of reality is immaterial.

With quantum scientific concepts of complimentarity, observer effect and non locality there is a level of reality which is at the base of our reaity, but we are barred from knowing what it is. This by definition is the immaterial.

If we take the example of ‘quantum tunnelling’ where what we call ‘matter’ jumps across space without travelling through the intermediate space we are left with either saying our reality includes non causal discontinuity (but then we have to explain why it looks causal to us and why it obeys mathematical law) or surmise that there is causality, it just is not material (in our world) and therefore matter is a projection from somewhere?? and interacts with this somewhere ?? in the normal process of how our Universe works. This by definition is the immaterial. Either way we go we can detect it (quantum tunnelling) be we can’t explain it. If we want to keep causality then the immaterial must come into play when we study the workings of quantum physics. Hence the plethora of modern scientific guesses of string theory, parallel Universes, Multiverses etc. These too are immaterial by definition. They are ontologically different. Science basically knows now there is this immaterial concept, we just cannot properly explain what it is from our standpoint (hene all the whacky theories) but science strongly suggests the immaterial. That is all science can do because it was designed to explain only our material world.

Similarly we can look to the Big Bang and say matter jumping into our existence is just how our Universe works (and give up on causality) or time and space has come from somewhere. By definition this somewhere is the immaterial. We can detect it but we can’t explain it because it is ontologically different from our reality.

 

[abucs]

Hello Sair,

you may be interested in the following link :

springerlink.com/content/j688212025002460/

It is from the Journal "Foundation of Physics and was raised by an Atheist when we had ‘heated’ discussions about reality. They discuss the idea of non detectable realities that influence our reality.

Their conclusion was as follows :

…“In conclusion, we upheld that quantum waves must be real even if they do not belong to the same ontological level of events, which connected with particle detections.”

My reply after reading the article can be found here :

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=383372&page=10

An excerpt of my reply :

"I also point out that after discussing all of these experiments the authors say ‘Any attempt at proving a reality of quantum waves seem to fail‘. But they do highlight the smooth transition result (although again they don’t explain these results in their paper). Because there is a claimed smooth transition, their logic is that if the particles are real then it makes sense to say the wave is real as well, since they claim they are interacting. They do admit though that ‘one could also reject the reality of the particle’. This is close to my position in that I think all matter (particles) are secondary in reality although of course they are real relative to us.

I also point you to the statement from the authors that they accept physics does not have a ’classically causal relationship between the initial state and the detection event‘.

The authors then ask the question that they say is ’a vital question’ and that is ’does matter disappear and then re-appear from nothingness‘. They answer in the negative only because they believe that if the answer is yes then ’the scientific enterprise would become a nonsense’. I would argue that perhaps certain ideas some people have about science would become a nonsense, but not the scientific enterprise. And believing as I do in a reality beyond our time and space I would not agree that matter that disappears from our ’time and space’ disappears into nothingness. That is a philosophical position.

The authors then go on to admit at least that ‘there must be a form of reality that is not of the type of events and that is not connected through classically causal chains with other realities‘. Now the authors have already admitted this reality has a non deterministic probability nature with no energy or momentum and they then go on to say it cannot in principle be directly experienced. Just before the conclusion the authors then say that if they are right then 'the reality of the waves cannot be at the same level as the reality of the particles or the detection events‘. Putting this all together this sounds pretty close to saying a non material and non detectable reality is at the base of our reality and controls, through non deterministic probability, every facet of our existence. I would also point out that the ‘non deterministic probability’ is relative to us but in fact can have levels of determinism once realities outside our time and space are admitted.

In the conclusion section the authors purport the question - ‘what is this reality we can have no direct experience of, not because of physical limitations but in principle’ ?"

Finally another link on Quantum Physic experiments that seem to suggest our physical world is a second level of reality and hence the first, which interacts with us, is an immaterial level of reality. (Not of our material ontology).

whatswrongwithatheism.wordpress.com/about/the-shortfalls-of-materialism/is-materialism-scientifically-tenable/

 

[Sair]

In the conclusion section the authors purport the question - ‘what is this reality we can have no direct experience of, not because of physical limitations but in principle’ ?"

Finally another link on Quantum Physic experiments that seem to suggest our physical world is a second level of reality and hence the first, which interacts with us, is an immaterial level of reality. (Not of our material ontology).

whatswrongwithatheism.wordpress.com/about/the-shortfalls-of-materialism/is-materialism-scientifically-tenable/

Thanks for the scholarly link - although I haven’t managed to access it in its entirety (it seems to require purchase, which I will consider in due course!) it appears to contain some interesting ideas worth further exploration.

What I will say, by way of comment, is that it doesn’t do for anti-materialists (if I may so phrase it) to get caught up in the idea of matter as merely solid particles. Experimental data show beyond reasonable doubt that the vast majority of the volume of an atom, for example, is empty space. Our perception of reality is relative to the nature of our own existence, hence ‘solid’ things are those things through which we cannot freely pass - unlike air or water, for example…or even custard (though that’s another discussion altogether).

The point, I think, is not whether ‘immaterial’ realities - in the sense of non-solid substances whose nature is not readily discernible to our perception, but whose reality may be established by observing their effects - exist, because they clearly do. The point is finally whether all reality may be classified under a single ontology - that of physical reality. Such things as interact with physical reality are, in this sense, classified with the rest of physical reality, even if their behaviours are demonstrably different. Physical reality implies certain limits, and it would appear - at least on my extremely noviciate understanding (if I may even so call it) of quantum mechanics - that there are still some defining boundaries within which quantum wave-functions etc are observed (indirectly) or calculated to behave. This seems to be dependent upon scale. As I indicated, however, I am certainly in no position to attempt an explanation of how such entities behave - I would only say that if they are susceptible to investigation in any way, then it is reasonable to give them an ontological classification with such other things as are susceptible to investigation.

It hardly needs to be said - though I will say it anyway - that not knowing whether there may be a reality beyond our perception is a far cry from stating unequivocally that there are such things as souls and gods that are necessarily immaterial, in the sense of being non-physical (yet still have definite characteristics, such as personalities). If anything, this is support for the position - which I hold - that we have yet to know and understand all there is to physical reality, and hence should not summarily dismiss its capabilities with talk of supernatural entities that are unlimited and necessarily beyond our understanding. If a reality exists that has discernible effects, even at several removes, that is open to at least some investigation and hence part of a physical, natural ontology; if such a reality exists that has no effect upon us or upon any experimental investigation we may undertake, how would we know, and why should we care?

 

[You]

Cropped up on another thread, and I thought it warranted a discussion of its own.

What do people mean when they say that something is ‘immaterial’ or ‘non-physical’?

For that matter (if you’ll pardon the pun) what do people mean by ‘meaning’ - especially in terms of considering whether or not life has ‘meaning’.

To my way of thinking, meaning requires reference. A symbol has meaning when it refers to an object or state of affairs in the physical world. I don’t believe that life is a symbol of something else, so it seems vague, at best, to say that life must have meaning.

With that in mind, when one says something is ‘immaterial’, to what does one refer? What qualities of this immaterial entity make it what it is, other than its nonconformity to our notions of what physical things are? I have often found that the word ‘immaterial’ is tossed out when people don’t have - and don’t particularly want - an explanation for some particular phenomenon. They want to say that this particular non-physical entity is undetectable, but by claiming so, they are also, by implication, claiming that such an entity is ineffectual - since by its effects, it could be detected, and would therefore come under the scrutiny of those who seek a physical explanation.

The definition of material is obvious. The origin of material is the generally accepted idea that material had a beginning. The immaterial is that which was before the material. And the meaning of the material is found in the character of the immaterial which calved it.

 

[Sair]

The definition of material is obvious. The origin of material is the generally accepted idea that material had a beginning. The immaterial is that which was before the material. And the meaning of the material is found in the character of the immaterial which calved it.

Then that is doubly a reason to reject ‘materialism’ as a defining term for physicalism or naturalism. Can any ontologically defined entity give rise to a differently-defined ontological entity? Can the nonphysical give rise to the physical? I leave this question to those who claim to know the answer.

 

[You]

… Can the nonphysical give rise to the physical?..

Luckily I don’t have to claim anything. Science has demonstrated the material universe had a beginning. Whatever lives before the universe; A. was something; and, B. was immaterial.

 

[Sair]

Luckily I don’t have to claim anything. Science has demonstrated the material universe had a beginning. Whatever lives before the universe; A. was something; and, B. was immaterial.

Yet ‘B’ has been defined by religious believers. On what grounds? Sure, the ‘material’ universe had a beginning, but that is just the universe as we know it - that which contains matter, otherwise known as energy in a different form. We don’t know what form, if any, physical reality existed prior to the Big Bang. Religious believers have latched on to this as the ‘beginning’ before which God existed, but the truth is no-one really knows what existed before the Big Bang. It was not necessarily an ontological ‘nothing’ from which a supernatural being had to exercise some unexplained, undescribed creative power.

 

[abucs]

Thanks for the scholarly link - although I haven’t managed to access it in its entirety (it seems to require purchase, which I will consider in due course!) it appears to contain some interesting ideas worth further exploration.

What I will say, by way of comment, is that it doesn’t do for anti-materialists (if I may so phrase it) to get caught up in the idea of matter as merely solid particles. Experimental data show beyond reasonable doubt that the vast majority of the volume of an atom, for example, is empty space. Our perception of reality is relative to the nature of our own existence, hence ‘solid’ things are those things through which we cannot freely pass - unlike air or water, for example…or even custard (though that’s another discussion altogether).

Will try and post a copy of the article on another forum.

I agree with your comment about not getting caught up in the idea of matter as solid particles. As my comment on the article stated, my view is to see particles as a projection, not what we typically think of as matter - but we call it matter because it is the environment of which we live and have our life in.

I agree as well with the comment that our perception of reality is relative to the nature of our own existence.

While ‘quantum’ means the smallest length, quantum physics covers the whole of physical (for want of another term) reality. It is just that because the rules of our Creation work on probabilities, the laws only show up clearly at the quantum level.

For example, a quantum particle can be isolated and tested and its discontimuity and non locality can be observed. At the more macro level, exactly the same thing happens but because reality works on probabilities, those probabilities cancel out and give us the impresson of causal physics. If you have two billion electrons and you test one property, a 50% chance will mean that the behaviour of one billion electrons will cancel out the behaviour of the other billion electrons. When we get down to just one electron there is no cancelling out. We see how the electron works as a rule. It cannot hide in a group anymore.

As mentioned previously, discontinuity and non locality mean we think in terms of projection from somewhere else, or we accept non causality as a rule of reality.

Again, as mentioned previously the observer effect demonstrates that the way our reality works, it takes into consideration consciousness. My career by training is a computer programmer. When we program a virtual world for a user we take into consideration the laws of the world which is non local and discontinuos (but looks causal) and also we take into account the knowledge of the user which is again what we see in the laws of physics in our world.

For me it is a simple idea that our universe is a projection that works to programmed rules for an observer. That sounds like God to me.

My views are very similar to yours but i think there is a purposful veil over our Creation that bars us from knowing too much (see quantum complimentarity) and that an intelligence creates, underwrites and transcends that veil.

I don’t think what we see can be explained without a designing Creator and i think the non locality and discreteness together with the rules regarding complimentarity together with the dual nature of what we call matter (which depends on conscious beings) means there are at least two levels of reality.

I respect your view and would like to hear what you have to say regarding your own philosophy of Pantheism, but the above makes sense to me.

 

[You]

Yet ‘B’ has been defined by religious believers. On what grounds? Sure, the ‘material’ universe had a beginning, but that is just the universe as we know it - that which contains matter, otherwise known as energy in a different form. We don’t know what form, if any, physical reality existed prior to the Big Bang. Religious believers have latched on to this as the ‘beginning’ before which God existed, but the truth is no-one really knows what existed before the Big Bang. It was not necessarily an ontological ‘nothing’ from which a supernatural being had to exercise some unexplained, undescribed creative power.

B has been defined on the grounds that B calved the universe, and the universe is very good etc.
No scientist knows what was going on before the bb because all the material universe reduced to an infinitely small point, after that they lose sight of it because there is nothing left to think about.
Nobody has definitely said the bb was the point of creation, but it certainly was the point of our creation.

 

[Sair]

I respect your view and would like to hear what you have to say regarding your own philosophy of Pantheism, but the above makes sense to me.

My belief can essentially be summed up in a paraphrase of Hume, that the universe (which I define as encompassing all that exists) contains the principles of its order within itself, and is thus its own creative force. As I understand, this belief runs counter to the classical theistic belief that creation requires an outside agent and a conscious act of intelligent will. For me, god is the universe, not a being outside of it - indeed, from the point of view I expressed above, there is no ‘outside’ the universe. For me, religious experience is a deeply-felt connection with the rest of reality.

You have certainly given me plenty to think about, and I am presently seeking online resources related to quantum mechanics and consciousness. It may well be that quantum physics can point the way forward to a resolution of the mind-body problem that has long bedevilled philosophers.

Is consciousness prior to matter? Perhaps. But then, what is consciousness? If certain forms of matter exhibit consciousness, how can consciousness be prior? These are questions I am poorly equipped to even begin to address. I have seen it proposed that consciousness simply is some fundamental property of physical particles (for the want of a better descriptor) that manifests when those particles are arranged in certain ways - the simple analogy was made with electrical conductivity as a property of certain arrangements of matter. Certainly it seems reasonable to suppose that consciousness permeates reality to a far greater extent than manifesting only in human minds. Indeed it must be so, if belief in a past without human minds is to have any meaning, whilst we suppose that consciousness is an essential element in the manifestation of matter.

I hope the above makes some kind of sense! I do believe that investigation of reality ought to lead to a greater appreciation of its wonder and beauty, and that whilst there are still things to be discovered or better understood, science and philosophy are most worthy pursuits. For me, indeed, they might be called religious observance.

 

[abucs]

Hello Sair,

thankyou for explaining your thoughts on this important question.

With regards to consciousness before matter, the question may be that if the study of quantum physics suggests that the idea of consciousness is written into the way physics works; and if physics has been with us always from the beginning, then consciousness also or the idea of consciousness has also been with us from the beginning (of our physical universe).

And if consciousness that is not physically detectable has given rise to the consciousness in our physical world - again this may be evidence for an ontoligical difference - that is, the immaterial. But of course there is a lot of pondering, thinking and checking to do before one accepts or rejects that view.

Good luck and i’ll try and post the link to the “Foundations of Physics” article on this thread sometime in the next few days.

 

[tonyrey]

My belief can essentially be summed up in a paraphrase of Hume, that the universe (which I define as encompassing all that exists) contains the principles of its order within itself, and is thus its own creative force.

 

[Sair]

Sair;8419474:

Unfortunately Hume also believed we are “bundles of perceptions” which disposes of the “I” and the mind in any intelligible sense…

What do you understand the mind to be, other than a product of our perceptions?

Yet you seem to believe the value of reality is outweighed by pointless and unnecessary suffering.

If you refer to my interpretation of the problem of evil, then it is as well to point out that such a problem exists only if there is an intentional being who is considered to be perfectly good. I do not believe in any such being. Without such a being, suffering is merely an aspect of reality - to be overcome where possible, but not to be embraced as the intention of an omnipotent mind.

We are not entitled to assume human minds are the only minds - assuming that belief in minds is consistent with “bundles of perceptions” .

Then if I may so say, you are not a true Cartesian, since Descartes assumed that other animals were merely mechanical, with no powers of sentience whatsoever. The dualistic assumption has primarily been used in support of the notion that humans are somehow more special than all the rest of creation, and thus has conscious awareness been supposed to be a purely human feature, that which connects us uniquely with the mind of (the classical theistic) God.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;8420130:

Unfortunately Hume also believed we are “bundles of perceptions” which disposes of the “I” and the mind in any intelligible sense…

What do you understand the mind to be, other than a product of our perceptions?
The interpreter of our perceptions!

Yet you seem to believe the value of reality is outweighed by pointless and unnecessary suffering.

If you refer to my interpretation of the problem of evil, then it is as well to point out that such a problem exists only if there is an intentional being who is considered to be perfectly good. I do not believe in any such being. Without such a being, suffering is merely an aspect of reality - to be overcome where possible, but not to be embraced as the intention of an omnipotent mind.

Then you have no reason to believe in the reality of evil - which is the commonest objection to the existence of God…

We are not entitled to assume human minds are the only minds - assuming that belief in minds is consistent with “bundles of perceptions” .

Then if I may so say, you are not a true Cartesian, since Descartes assumed that other animals were merely mechanical, with no powers of sentience whatsoever.
I have never claimed to be a Cartesian. Nor have other philosophers who accept the reality of the egocentric predicament.
The dualistic assumption has primarily been used in support of the notion that humans

are somehow more special than all the rest of creation, and thus has conscious awareness been supposed to be a purely human feature, that which connects us uniquely with the mind of (the classical theistic) God.

Theism does not entail the belief that we are the sole conscious beings. Don’t you believe we have more rights than other forms of life on this planet? Would you sacrifice a child’s life for that of a pet cat, dog or monkey? If not why not?

 

[Sair]

The interpreter of our perceptions!

Which we must first have in order for there to be anything to interpret. Perceptions are interpreted in the light of other perceptions - the mind is a feedback loop between the organism and its environment.

Then you have no reason to believe in the reality of evil - which is the commonest objection to the existence of God…

Belief in the existence of suffering is sufficient argument against an omnipotent, benevolent god. It’s not an argument against a cruel and malicious god, however…

I have never claimed to be a Cartesian. Nor have other philosophers who accept the reality of the egocentric predicament.

Yet this is a fundamental aspect of Descartes’ philosophy - one of the reasons for which he is named “the father of modern philosophy”, along with the idea that reasoning must be based on a foundation of self-evident truths. The trouble is, the only self-evident truth he could come up with was belief in his own mind’s existence. This is a pretty poor foundation, since from it, there is nowhere else to go. Belief in other minds cannot be justified on the basis of the cogito - a mind in splendid isolation has no basis upon which to establish any belief.

Theism does not entail the belief that we are the sole conscious beings.

No, it does not entail this - but it supports the belief.

Don’t you believe we have more rights than other forms of life on this planet? Would you sacrifice a child’s life for that of a pet cat, dog or monkey? If not why not?

We only have more rights, as such, because we have more abilities. I don’t believe the fundamental rights we have established for ourselves - to the freedom of our natural behaviours, to freedom from coercion and abuse, for example - outweigh the same fundamental rights of all other animals. As to whether I would sacrifice the life of a child for that of a pet dog (or other animal), that would depend very much on the circumstances. If the child presented an immediate threat to my dog, I would not think twice about taking appropriate action against the child - just as I would take (and have taken) action to prevent my dog from harming children or other dogs - largely with the intent to protect my dog from legal repercussions in a society that balks at punishing human murderers and rapists yet doesn’t think twice about destroying a dog for much lesser actions. The point is that I would not automatically weigh the child’s life as more valuable than that of my dog; what, after all, is a stranger’s child to me, in comparison to the companionship and affection my dog freely gives me?

Value is a subjective component of our existence - the life of any being may be accounted valuable so long as we may suppose that being capable of valuing its own existence in some way. Living things, in general, strive to remain alive and to transmit life, though not all are conscious of doing so, perhaps. We may value the life of a tomato plant, for example, because it feeds us - but is the plant capable of valuing its own life? Who knows? I am simply aware that the wanton destruction of life goes against the respect I believe we owe to nature, as our home and our essence; getting back to the child vs dog scenario, it is quite clear that a child intent on harming a dog has not that sense of respect for other life. What if that same child, beginning by abusing other animals, went on to abuse humans in later life? That’s how many a serial killer gets started, after all. How then to measure the value of that child’s life? Again, this should illustrate the complexity of a question for which it seems you required a simple, straightforward answer. When it comes down to a life for a life, who is to say what manner of life is ultimately more valuable than any other?

 

[You]

Its like 1984, is there nothing you wouldn’t do if we asked?

 

[tonyrey]

The interpreter of our perceptions!

If the mind is a loop its activity is as irrational as instincts…

Belief in the existence of suffering is sufficient argument against an omnipotent, benevolent god.

Only for a hedonist…

It’s not an argument against a cruel and malicious god, however…

It’s not an argument at all! A perfect world is an unfeasible fantasy…

I have never claimed to be a Cartesian. Nor have other philosophers who accept the reality of the egocentric predicament.

Yet this is a fundamental aspect of Descartes’ philosophy - one of the reasons for which he is named “the father of modern philosophy”, along with the idea that reasoning must be based on a foundation of self-evident truths.

If you deny that your thoughts are self-evident you are incapable of reasoning at all!

The trouble is, the only self-evident truth he could come up with was belief in his own mind’s existence. This is a pretty poor foundation, since from it, there is nowhere else to go.

What is your foundation?

Belief in other minds cannot be justified on the basis of the cogito - a mind in splendid isolation has no basis upon which to establish any belief.

Descartes thought the concept of God justifies belief in God, the validity of our perceptions, the reality of the material world and the existence of other minds.

Theism does not entail the belief that we are the sole conscious beings.

No, it does not entail this - but it supports the belief.

Theism supports the belief that there are many types of conscious beings. Only physicalists believe man is the measure of all things…

Don’t you believe we have more rights than other forms of life on this planet? Would you sacrifice a child’s life for that of a pet cat, dog or monkey? If not why not?

We only have more rights, as such, because we have more abilities. I don’t believe the fundamental rights we have established for ourselves - to the freedom of our natural behaviours, to freedom from coercion and abuse, for example - outweigh the same fundamental rights of all other animals. As to whether I would sacrifice the life of a child for that of a pet dog (or other animal), that would depend very much on the circumstances. If the child presented an immediate threat to my dog, I would not think twice about taking appropriate action against the child - just as I would take (and have taken) action to prevent my dog from harming children or other dogs - largely with the intent to protect my dog from legal repercussions in a society that balks at punishing human murderers and rapists yet doesn’t think twice about destroying a dog for much lesser actions. The point is that I would not automatically weigh the child’s life as more valuable than that of my dog; what, after all, is a stranger’s child to me, in comparison to the companionship and affection my dog freely gives me?

In other words you believe rights are merely human conventions and you value your dog more than an unknown child - which is logical in a purposeless universe.

Value is a subjective component of our existence - the life of any being may be accounted valuable so long as we may suppose that being capable of valuing its own existence in some way. Living things, in general, strive to remain alive and to transmit life, though not all are conscious of doing so, perhaps. We may value the life of a tomato plant, for example, because it feeds us - but is the plant capable of valuing its own life? Who knows? I am simply aware that the wanton destruction of life goes against the respect I believe we owe to nature, as our home and our essence; getting back to the child vs dog scenario, it is quite clear that a child intent on harming a dog has not that sense of respect for other life. What if that same child, beginning by abusing other animals, went on to abuse humans in later life? That’s how many a serial killer gets started, after all. How then to measure the value of that child’s life? Again, this should illustrate the complexity of a question for which it seems you required a simple, straightforward answer. When it comes down to a life for a life, who is to say what manner of life is ultimately more valuable than any other?

For you the question doesn’t arise because rights are occasionally inconvenient conventions…

 

[abucs]

Sair, here is the link under the title - “On The Physical Reality of Quantum Waves.”

whatswrongwithatheism.wordpress.com/scholarly-articles/

Also for consideration is Einstein’s theory that time travel is possible. If so, then this would point to matter being a secondary substance and not the fundamental substance of the universe. If say an orange goes back in time then the atoms that make up that orange would be duplicated. This cannot happen if matter is the fundamental basis of reality but can happen if it is a projection.