I keep being told that something explained must somehow definitely be a machine, while something unexplained is somehow definitely not a machine. Neither follows.
I agree.
It does not follow because it is an
either-or situation which is similar to a non sequitor. What I need to do is to rewrite what I think you are saying and then put it into the proper
both-and reasoning which I am trying to get across.
In particular, thinking obviously follows patterns, it isn’t a random process, it isn’t disordered. And since that’s the case, the mind must at some level follow rules, there must be an underlying logic, order isn’t possible otherwise. And that applies whether the mind is spirit or matter, in neither case can there be a get-out-of-jail-free escape clause.
The experience of an underlying logic and of order is valid for a person regardless of her knowledge about either mind or anatomy. This is because one’s experience of the mind is not dependent of one’s belief in the spiritual.
And of course you can continue to believe in a soul given by God, how do explanations prevent that?
It is the assumptions connected to the explanation that can exclude the spiritual soul.
That’s a curious argument, can’t it be said of any human endeavor?
granny’s argument is that “true human nature existed before science. The creativity of science is the result of human nature.”
One can validly divide human endeavors into what may be called natural instincts; for example; the craving of nourishment and what may be called creativity or gourmet cooking or granny’s excuse for not cooking
I keep being told that something explained must somehow definitely be a machine, while something unexplained is somehow definitely not a machine. Neither follows.
I agree.
It does not follow because it is an
either-or situation which is similar to a non sequitor. What I need to do is to rewrite what I think you are saying and then put it into the proper
both-and reasoning which I am trying to get across.
In particular, thinking obviously follows patterns, it isn’t a random process, it isn’t disordered. And since that’s the case, the mind must at some level follow rules, there must be an underlying logic, order isn’t possible otherwise. And that applies whether the mind is spirit or matter, in neither case can there be a get-out-of-jail-free escape clause.
The experience of an underlying logic and of order is valid for a person regardless of her knowledge about either mind or anatomy. This is because one’s experience of the mind is not dependent of one’s belief in the spiritual.
And of course you can continue to believe in a soul given by God, how do explanations prevent that?
It is the assumptions connected to the explanation that can exclude the spiritual soul.
That’s a curious argument, can’t it be said of any human endeavor?
granny’s argument is that true human nature existed before science. The creativity of science is the result of human nature. One can validly divide human endeavors into what may be called natural instincts; for example; the craving of nourishment and what may be called creativity or gourmet cooking or granny’s excuse for not cooking spaghetti long enough. I told my hungry kids that this was a new brand and that firmness (actually hardness) is the way it should be cooked.
What, art has no meaning because human nature existed before art?
Our human nature is not only able to see beauty in the universe or in a feminine form, we can express it in many different ways including Impressionism (my favorite), metaphysical poetry (another favorite), music, dance, architecture, and so on.
Philosophy is false because human nature existed before philosophy? Why pick out science?
Human nature, has the ability to recognize something beyond the material/physical which bombard the senses. Philosophy developed because the human person had highly refined gifts of observation coupled with analytical skills.
I chose science because that is the domain of mechanistic explanations of anything in the universe.
.
