Teleology important for science

[Bradski]

Perhaps as much to the point, if the activity of the brain is purely material, how (and why) does matter construct or grasp purely mental realities?

For thousands of years this question has been asked of materialists, with no satisfactory answer.

We know beyond any shadow of doubt whatsoever that different parts of the brain present representations of reality. The process of doing this is by electrical and chemical means and represent what we know as the mind in action.

You can probe different areas of the brain of a conscious person and they will experience colours, sounds, emotions, shapes and so on. We know that this is the way that the brain works.

We know that if you remove a certain part, colour will disappear from the mental image that a person has of colors. That is, not just the ability to see colours (although the world appears in shades of grey), but to imagine them as well. Ask them to picture a banana and they can only think of it in grey tones.

Likewise remove a certain portion of the somatosensory cortex from right hemisphere and you will lose the ability to recognize that you have a left hand side. It won’t exist as far as you understand it even though it is patently there.

So all these connections with reality are, again, prompted by chemical and electrical stimulations of neurons. That is, physical action on material objects.

If you don’t think this happens and that there is something else at work somewhere, then it is now incumbent on you, and anyone else who thinks like you, to tell me what else is there at work, where it is, and if it is, as you seem to think, non-material, how does it interact with the physical brain.

The ball is in your court.

 

[thinkandmull]

Several points on both sides of this discussion:

1. There has to be proven that there is a difficulty is saying the spiritual can cause something physical
2. Music is entirely different from the order that is in the universe. So it doesn’t seem
   necessary for man’s survival to love music in the same sense as it is to be curious about
   making things. I can grant to the atheists that perhaps enjoyment is like sleeping, it
   recharges the organism. Maybe it is the best way our molecules work.
3. Does there have to be a difference between “intelligent design” and simply saying the
   world is intelligible? I think there are two positions on the origin of life. There is the
   idea that we came from inorganic atoms through gradual ascent, and then the idea that a
   species was the DIRECT result of the big bang (a protaplast). Either is amazing. Either way, for the atheist this tells the amazing fact of life and admittedly those two theories are SO SIMILAR.
4. Where is the necessity of there existing anything conscious “before” the big bang? Is the big bang great enough to explain life? I think this can be proven wrong because of conscience and the idea we have of God. Thoughts are like mirrors, they reflect something. What does an idea of an all perfect God reflect? There is nothing in the world that it can reflect. So I think St. Bonaventure is right when he says we understand the world through the light of God. I dont know if the idea of God is innate, but at least we see the world through this light, and from the idea we have of God we can get to the teleological argument and see it in philosophical light.

 

[tonyrey]

Saying that people function more humanly when they believe in a higher power doesn’t seem to be to be an argument for the higher power. There might be an argument there but there is a step missing in the syllogism that needs to be filled. My argument is that conscience itself speaks to the idea of a God. Just as someone can have a sense that the world is real, so one can have a rational sense that God exists because the conscience is a dialogue with a high power.

In philosophical terms we don’t invent morality because it is a fundamental feature of reality.

 

[tonyrey]

Several points on both sides of this discussion:

1. There has to be proven that there is a difficulty is saying the spiritual can cause something physical

The power of the mind is far more significant than the power of matter because it can choose to change the course of events.

 

[Bradski]

The power of the mind is far more significant than the power of matter because it can choose to change the course of events.

And you are going to tell us how it does that…

 

[tonyrey]

And you are going to tell us how it does that…

I’m not so presumptuous as to think I can explain fundamental factors of existence like the activity of the mind, unlike certain scientists who believe they will eventually explain everything (ToE) and proclaim that the more we discover about the universe the more pointless it appears (Steven Weinberg) - using the power of their mind to do so of course - thereby demonstrating they’re unaware of the basic principles of adequate explanation, intelligibility, consistency, coherence and fertility in addition to the fact that if they have no control over their mental activity they cannot be rational beings but simply biological machines with no insight or understanding whatsoever. Knowledge becomes a total illusion and, as Sartre and Camus pointed out, everything is absurd (including their conclusion!). In the scientists’ scheme of things (rather than persons) truth, goodness, freedom, justice, love, consciousness, identity, freedom of choice, the power of abstract thought, decision-making, moral awareness and responsibility, human rights and capacity for unselfish love simply don’t exist. All is vanity…

 

[tonyrey]

Several points on both sides of this discussion:

1. There has to be proven that there is a difficulty is saying the spiritual can cause something physical
2. Music is entirely different from the order that is in the universe. So it doesn’t seem
   necessary for man’s survival to love music in the same sense as it is to be curious about
   making things. I can grant to the atheists that perhaps enjoyment is like sleeping, it
   recharges the organism. Maybe it is the best way our molecules work.
3. Does there have to be a difference between “intelligent design” and simply saying the
   world is intelligible? I think there are two positions on the origin of life. There is the
   idea that we came from inorganic atoms through gradual ascent, and then the idea that a
   species was the DIRECT result of the big bang (a protaplast). Either is amazing. Either way, for the atheist this tells the amazing fact of life and admittedly those two theories are SO SIMILAR.
4. Where is the necessity of there existing anything conscious “before” the big bang? Is the big bang great enough to explain life? I think this can be proven wrong because of conscience and the idea we have of God. Thoughts are like mirrors, they reflect something. What does an idea of an all perfect God reflect? There is nothing in the world that it can reflect. So I think St. Bonaventure is right when he says we understand the world through the light of God. I dont know if the idea of God is innate, but at least we see the world through this light, and from the idea we have of God we can get to the teleological argument and see it in philosophical light.

I particularly like your reductio ad absurdum in the last paragraph.

 

[tonyrey]

1. There has to be proven that there is a difficulty is saying the spiritual can cause something physical.

As Pascal remarked, we know the universe exists but the universe doesn’t know we exist. Without the power of reason nothing would be intelligible. That is why teleology is not only important for science it is its very foundation

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you don’t think this happens and that there is something else at work somewhere, then it is now incumbent on you, and anyone else who thinks like you, to tell me what else is there at work, where it is, and if it is, as you seem to think, non-material, how does it interact with the physical brain.

The ball is in your court.

So far as the spirit is concerned, there is no “somewhere.” It is because of your materialistic outlook that anything that exists must be “somewhere.”

Everything you said about how the brain connects with the mind is spot on. No argument about it. The flaw is in assuming that the mind could not exist separate from the brain, whereas the brain does indeed indicate all the connections between the physical world and the spirit.

To answer your question in the way you would want it answered is impossible. Because the mind is not material, how is anyone to “show” you where it is?

The point has been made hundreds of times throughout all the threads at Catholic Answers that the laws of nature cannot be intelligible to any natural being but man. Can you tell me why this does not indicate that some human attribute exceptional in all of Creation belongs to man and no other creature we know of? Can you tell me why this exceptional human trait does not defy all the physical powers of atoms everywhere in that only in man is to be found the idea of transcendence over the purely empirical. The only answer you can give is that the trait of “mind as spirit” is purely delusional.

Can you prove why it is delusional? The “proof” you offered above is not “proof.” It is only an indicator that mind and brain are somehow connected. Well of course they are. Nobody denies that.

But if the mind is no more than a collection of the brain’s atoms activated in various ways, that would not explain why the mind seems as dedicated to matters of spiritual transcendence (such as mathematics, philosophy, and religion) as it is to material sensation.

Materialism denies the existence of the human soul. It cannot prove that the soul does not exist any more than it can prove that God does not exist. It’s only argument is that these things cannot be seen and measured. This is the ultimate arrogance of materialism, that the only valid methodology is seeing and measuring. But that is the methodology of any animal that exists, and is far from explaining why man is so un like any other animal that exists that he might not be in possession of a soul that transcends the realm of finite matter and reaches for the Infinite.

Ball is back in your court.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As Pascal remarked, we know the universe exists but the universe doesn’t know we exist. Without the power of reason nothing would be intelligible. That is why teleology is not only important for science it is its very foundation

Without teleology, there could not even be intelligently designed scientific experiments.

 

[Bradski]

I’m not so presumptuous as to think I can explain fundamental factors of existence like the activity of the mind…

But you are, Tony. You are precisely that presumptious. You keep on telling us that the mind is NOT just the physical operation of the brain. You keep telling us that there is something MORE than that. That it CANNOT just be chemicals and electrical impulses and neurons and ganglia and nerve endings. You keep telling us that…

…well, actually, you keep telling us nothing at all. And not because you cannot explain it. It’s because you have absolutely no idea what you think it might be. We’re back to the shrug of the shoulders. Just like Tallis, who spent more time than was reasonable saying that he had no idea how the mind worked, you do exactly the same.

To you, the mind is something non-physical, but you have no idea where it is. Consciousness lights up specific areas of the brain, but where is your non-physical mind located? It controls our physical states, including those of the brain, but you have no idea how. Where is the connection between your idea of mind and the brain?

You can remove the part of the brain that allows you to interpret colour. So before that is removed, your ethereal mind must be making a physical connection to that part of the brain when you imagine colour. Because when the physical part is removed, you cannot. We are obviously not removing part of this mysterious non-physical mind. How could we…it’s not a physical thing in itself. So where is the connection?

It seems that if your non-physical mind thinks ‘yellow’, then it causes parts of the brain to activate which gives you the impression of yellow. And we see the physical activity. It seems that if your non-physical mind feels anger, then it causes parts of the brain to activate which gives you the sensation of anger. And we see the physical activity.

So, from a purely physical point of view, we see chemical and electrical changes causing reactions in neuron activity that gives the self impressions and sensations. And we say, hey, look. The mind in action. We can watch it work.

But you want to say that something that we can’t see, something that we can’t detect, something that you can’t describe, something that has never been detected, something that is not part of the natural world, something that is non-physical, something that cannot connect to us in any way, something that you, nor anyone else on the planet can explain, is really the cause for all this activity.

All you’ve got is the same old standard, boiler plate responses to situations like these. ‘How can immaterial molecules be sentient’ or variations on that tired theme. It’s an argument from incredulity. Tony can’t grasp it, therefore it ain’t so. Would that you had something to bring to the table other than ‘I can’t explain it’.

But wait. There must be something more. Didn’t you say this?

It’s a topic I’ve specialised in for many years…

Many years, eh? And you still have no idea what you are talking about? You still cannot ‘explain fundamental factors of existence like the activity of the mind’.

Come on, Tony. Give it your best shot. Don’t let all those years have been a waste. Tell us how you think it works.

 

[thinkandmull]

Can you **prove **there is a problem-difficulty with the idea of the spiritual moving the physical? A lot of people don’t get algebra, it doesn’t mean that its a gray area of knowledge

 

[thinkandmull]

A thousand difficulties don’t make a doubt, a million doubts don’t make a sin. But some people not getting the connection between the spiritual and the material doesn’t make it a philosophical problem. Its eazy peazy for the rest of us

 

[thinkandmull]

I was reading an article about an ancient indian sceptic who was like hume, not sure that causality existed. He tried to argue that there was difficulties in saying that one physical object can influence another. It was nonsense. Spiritual things have powers. You can remain stuck if you want in not understanding this but don’t put that frustration on other people who don’t share your issues

 

[TheAtheist]

A thousand difficulties don’t make a doubt, a million doubts don’t make a sin.** But some people not getting the connection between the spiritual and the material doesn’t make it a philosophical problem.** Its eazy peazy for the rest of us

If we are to look at this more formally and with less of the personal theatrics that this thread tends to slip into…

It might be better to ask how an Immaterial being or substance can effect a material one.

And in that respect, this has been a long running debate you can trace at least as far back as to Platonists vs. Stoics or Epicureans… at least in your civilizations philosophical traditions.

And to your civilizations credit, people have tried. I remember reading that Descartes for instance thought that the Soul must somehow adhere to the Pineal Gland found in the brain because it was the only structure that didn’t have a “twin.”

But, at least to my knowledge, I’ve never seen a modern attempt t to explain how Spirit A associates with Body B.

I’ve seen a lot of philosophy of mind and theology spoken of - i never see mechanics.

But i have bias in that regard, i’m a scientist. My profession operates quite differently from that of the philosopher.

Philosophers of any stripe seem to revel in unsolvable problems or seeming contradictions like Zeno’s paradoxes. Because no one can be “wrong,” unless they violate non-contradiction. All options have to be placed on the table and people will argue back and forth about whatever position one decides.

But i’m surprised that the lessons learned from Socrates’ battles with the Sophists haven’t taken hold. Human language being an imprecise tool, it is quite possible to make a stronger argument for an incorrect viewpoint.

Its that epistemological issue that may have helped create my very profession - the search for a method by which to cut through argumentation in order to derive results.

 

[thinkandmull]

There is no more difficulty in the idea of a spiritual substance influencing a material body than a body moving a body. Try to make it make sense instead of creating a problem for yourself. Wise up

 

[Bradski]

Everything you said about how the brain connects with the mind is spot on. No argument about it. The flaw is in assuming that the mind could not exist separate from the brain, whereas the brain does indeed indicate all the connections between the physical world and the spirit.

Spirit world, eh? Something tells me that we are going to get a circular argument here. Along the lines of: The brain itself can’t possibly contemplate the spiritual so it must be the spiritual that connects to the brain.

But lets assume that ‘mind’ is something that Man has other than his brain. And I think it’s safe to say that we don’t have far to look back down evolutionary time to reach a point where it can be agreed that a given organism does not have what we would describe as a mind.

So let me know at what point this non-physical mind makes an appearence. Thanks.

The point has been made hundreds of times throughout all the threads at Catholic Answers that the laws of nature cannot Materialism denies the existence of the human soul.

Ah, the soul. Do you think this non-physical mind is the soul? So Man would have it and apes, for example, wouldn’t?

But apes undoubtedly have a mind that, without a soul/non-physical mind, works perfectly well. So we could manage without it as well, unless you think it adds to our intelligence? Or just our sense of the spiritual?

In which case we are talking about the soul. Not anything that required to ‘operate’ our brains. And we’re back to asking about the evolutionary point where our brain worked quite well on its own and then somehow had something else that was running it.

 

[thinkandmull]

Spirit world, eh? Something tells me that we are going to get a circular argument here. Along the lines of: The brain itself can’t possibly contemplate the spiritual so it must be the spiritual that connects to the brain.

But lets assume that ‘mind’ is something that Man has other than his brain. And I think it’s safe to say that we don’t have far to look back down evolutionary time to reach a point where it can be agreed that a given organism does not have what we would describe as a mind.

So let me know at what point this non-physical mind makes an appearence. Thanks.

Ah, the soul. Do you think this non-physical mind is the soul? So Man would have it and apes, for example, wouldn’t?

But apes undoubtedly have a mind that, without a soul/non-physical mind, works perfectly well. So we could manage without it as well, unless you think it adds to our intelligence? Or just our sense of the spiritual?

In which case we are talking about the soul. Not anything that required to ‘operate’ our brains. And we’re back to asking about the evolutionary point where our brain worked quite well on its own and then somehow had something else that was running it.

Adam and Eve

 

[Bradski]

There is no more difficulty in the idea of a spiritual substance influencing a material body than a body moving a body.

There’s no difficulty in the idea of the planets controlling my fate either. But I’m hoping that you discount astrology because there is zero evidence for the one influencing the other.

 

[thinkandmull]

There is no proof for astrology. Believing there is a soul does not mean there is a problem with it working on matter but neither is it required in order to know there is a God. Believe you are just atoms if you want, but there are those (lots of youtube videos if you are interested) who believe in the afterlife because of quantum physics. The existence of the soul will be evident from revelation once you realize that a perfect God alone can explain the existence of this world