Teleology important for science

[Bradski]

There is no proof for astrology. Believing there is a soul does not mean there is a problem with it working on matter…

There is no proof for an immaterial mind, either. Just saying so doesn’t make it so. Unless you are saying that a belief in God therefore compels you to believe that the mind cannot work as has been described. I’m really not sure why that should be.

Couldn’t God have designed it to work perfectly well on its own? To use one of Tony’s favourite phrases: If not, why not?

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is no proof for an immaterial mind, either. Just saying so doesn’t make it so. Unless you are saying that a belief in God therefore compels you to believe that the mind cannot work as has been described. I’m really not sure why that should be.

Brad, at this point let’s remind ourselves that “proof” is a mental concept. In fact, even “material,” “physical” and “body” are mental concepts.

If we really wanted to be picky about getting to the bottom of the question, the mind is what we undeniably, directly and subjectively apprehend, whereas the “physical” has to be presented to our minds via the senses and interpreted as meaningful in any sense by our mental faculties. I would submit that proof of the material needs to be made before any proof of the mind because the concept of “proof” itself depends upon mind and for any proof to be considered it is TO our minds that any proof must be made. Any proof assumes the prior existence of mind to consider the proof. Everything else, including the idea of “material,” is a mental construct. Let’s not gloss over that there little item, Brad.

ANY proof about anything simply presumes a mind to consider the proof in the first place. By insisting on a proof, you must, to be consistent, presume the existence of mind to entertain the proof. Without mind, proof itself is a meaningless construct.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

Well, no Brad.

We directly witness mind (aka spiritual substance) moving our own bodies all of the time. The evidence, at least for me, is massive. Here I am moving these little keys on my keyboard as the direct result of my thinking and willing. Just a minute ago I was moving my little feet across the room without any evidence of planets making me do so. Just me all by my lonesome.

That isn’t “zero evidence,” Brad. It is undeniable. Well, at least for anyone who trusts what they directly experience. AND, unfortunately for you, for anything to be convincing to any conscious and rational human being (not sure about rational rats, though) it is the subject himself/herself who must directly encounter, entertain and be convinced, rationally speaking, by whatever they consider. The evidence, the proof, the experience, etc., etc., must all enter the conscious awareness of the subject in order for him/her to be convinced by it.

Human subjects in this age of secular “rationalism” seem to have a prejudice towards viewing existence through rosy-materialistic colored glasses. A definite “blindness” of a sort – at least blinkered in the direction of seeing reality materialistically.

 

[Bradski]

Brad, at this point let’s remind ourselves that “proof” is a mental concept. In fact, even “material,” “physical” and “body” are mental concepts.

Apologies. My bad. I should have said evidence, not proof.

 

[Bradski]

Well, no Brad.

We directly witness mind (aka spiritual substance) moving our own bodies all of the time.

Huh? So we know that the mind is a spiritual substance because, well…it’s also known as ‘spiritual substance’.

Brilliant.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Apologies. My bad. I should have said evidence, not proof.

Makes no difference, Brad. In order to know what counts as evidence a mind must do the necessary determination. Evidence still requires a mind.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Huh? So we know that the mind is a spiritual substance because, well…it’s also known as ‘spiritual substance’.

Brilliant.

Call mind whatever you will. We still directly experience ourselves thinking, perceiving, assessing, judging, willing, etc., in a way that we do not directly apprehend matter. We apprehend the “whatness” of things around us including ourselves without necessarily accessing the fullness of what those things are. “Spiritual substance” is a construct which tries to explain or capture the reality of what a mind is. Whether or not it is adequate to do so is good question, but that is not to deny that what we directly know as mind supercedes the proposed “material world” that we do not directly access. Ergo, “spiritual substance” as a mental construct stands in pretty much the same relationship as “material world,” although we are what we attempt to explain to others as “spiritual substance,” but only indirectly access what we propose to others as the “physical world.”

I wouldn’t suppose either one requires evidence or proof since both are undeniable to any sane person, although mind or “spiritual substance” is closer to what we are than “material substance,” which attempts to capture the external world that we experience less directly. Again, I wouldn’t suppose either one requires evidence or proof to establish that they are.

And the burden is on you with regard to the adequacy of using the construct “material world” as it is on someone using the construct “spiritual substance.” You don’t get a bye merely because your physical world construct is presumed by you any more than someone gets a bye because they presume “spiritual substance” as a construct.

Sure, the physical world appears to be more tangible (measurable, manipulatable, etc.,) than mind, but even that relationship to the material depends upon our mental faculties, which in themselves are more difficult or vexing to explain or depict precisely because we are so close to them and they are far more profoundly mysterious than things like subatomic particles or electromagnetic waves. But the ease by which something is explained or understood isn’t, by itself, the determining feature of whether it exists or not.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If truth is, as the materialists might say, no more than a assembly of activated atoms, the truth of materialism is no different than the truth of transcendentalism. A truth is fundamentally and ontologically not different from a lie.

But the assertion of transcendentalism is to correct this error by positing that spirit sees through this absurdity. A real truth rises above a real lie because the spirit, not matter, can know the difference between a truth and a lie.

All animals but man lack this spiritual power of transcendence, this power of the soul’s detection that the universe was created, that there is a Creator behind the Creation, and that the deepest passion in men is to find out more about their destiny in relation to their Creator. Even the atheist is obsessed with this question, though as a matter of denial rather than affirmation.

 

[tonyrey]

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

Ad hominem.

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…

Given that the distinction between mind and matter has always existed the onus is on you to explain how a **tangible **physical organ like the brain comprehends the meaning and significance of **intangible **facts the senses cannot perceive. Why are there two words if there is no difference between them? Can you explain 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 in terms of physical processes? If not not why not?

To you, the mind is something non-physical, but you have no idea where it is.

Why does it have to be somewhere?

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?

Are you saying the mind is just an idea?

You can remove the part of the brain that allows you to interpret colour.

Why do you distinguish “you” and the brain?

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…

Is there are any other 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.

Is the brain watching itself? I seem to remember some one saying another person is tying himself in knots…

What you see is the **effect **of the mind on the brain at work unless you can explain **how **the brain is angry, selfish, proud, cynical, sceptical and pessimistic…

What do you mean when you say “myself”? My mindless body?

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.

Which of the five senses do you use to detect goodness, freedom and justice?

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’.

Materialism is an argument from credulity in the power of purposeless particles to understand, make decisions and fall in love! Can you explain those facts? Or do you believe they are illusions?

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

I have already stated I’m not so presumptuous as to think I can explain the activity of the mind unlike scientists who believe they will eventually explain everything. Can **you **explain **how **physical energy emerged from nothing and has achieved so many scientifically inexplicable miracles? Why don’t you at least speculate if you’re so absolutely sure the mind doesn’t exist?

The argument from ignorance works both ways…

 

[tonyrey]

If truth is, as the materialists might say, no more than a assembly of activated atoms, the truth of materialism is no different than the truth of transcendentalism. A truth is fundamentally and ontologically not different from a lie.

But the assertion of transcendentalism is to correct this error by positing that spirit sees through this absurdity. A real truth rises above a real lie because the spirit, not matter, can know the difference between a truth and a lie.

All animals but man lack this spiritual power of transcendence, this power of the soul’s detection that the universe was created, that there is a Creator behind the Creation, and that the deepest passion in men is to find out more about their destiny in relation to their Creator. Even the atheist is obsessed with this question, though as a matter of denial rather than affirmation.

No one bothers to waste time and energy attacking a ridiculous belief like “We don’t exist” in great detail.

 

[thinkandmull]

What do you guys or girls think about Vis viva and Élan vital? Are they the same idea, and how do they relate to this discussion??

 

[tonyrey]

What do you mean when you say “myself”? My mindless body?

In a mindless universe “My mindless body” doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t belong to anything. The materialist replaces persons with things. It would be more accurate to state “The biological organism which is producing these (re)marks”…

 

[tonyrey]

What do you guys or girls think about Vis viva and Élan vital? Are they the same idea, and how do they relate to this discussion??

They don’t seem related at all!

Vis viva (from the Latin for “living force”) is an obsolete scientific theory that served as an elementary and limited early formulation of the principle of conservation of energy. It was the first (known) description of what we now call kinetic energy or of energy related to sensible motions.

• wikipedia

Author and popular theologian C.S. Lewis rejected Bergson’s concept in his essay The Weight of Glory stating “…even if all the happiness they promised could come to man on earth, yet still each generation would lose it by death, including the last generation of all, and the whole story would be nothing, not even a story, for ever and ever. Hence all the nonsense that Mr. Shaw puts into the final speech of Lilith, and Bergson’s remark that the élan vital is capable of surmounting all obstacles, perhaps even death—as if we could believe that any social or biological development on this planet will delay the senility of the sun or reverse the second law of thermodynamics.”

• wikipedia

 

[Bradski]

Why does it have to be somewhere?

Ohhh Kaaaay. So now we have something which everyone seems to have and which directly affects the operation of the brain but which can’t be detected, isn’t physical, cannot connect to anything physical and doesn’t apparently exist anywhere.

I don’t think you have left anything to actually discuss.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Ohhh Kaaaay. So now we have something which everyone seems to have and which directly affects the operation of the brain but which can’t be detected, isn’t physical, cannot connect to anything physical and doesn’t apparently exist anywhere.

I don’t think you have left anything to actually discuss.

Nothing to discuss, of course, but your scientism, which cannot even prove itself.

 

[tonyrey]

Ohhh Kaaaay. So now we have something which everyone seems to have and which directly affects the operation of the brain but which can’t be detected, isn’t physical, cannot connect to anything physical and doesn’t apparently exist anywhere.

I don’t think you have left anything to actually discuss.

You are forgetting that our primary datum and sole certainty is the fact that we are thinking, choosing and making decisions. We** infer** the existence of everything else from what we perceive. You haven’t even explained what you mean by the word “we” nor the location of truth, freedom and justice. Can you detect them with your five senses?

Materialists are so immersed in their dogmatic doctrine that only matter exists they reject the existence of their own mind! In a sense they are out of their minds. They prefer to rely on their bodies, on what they can see, smell, hear, see and touch rather than their intelligence…

 

[tonyrey]

You are forgetting that our primary datum and sole certainty is the fact that we are thinking, choosing and making decisions. We** infer** the existence of everything else from what we perceive. You haven’t even explained what you mean by the word “we” nor the location of truth, freedom and justice. Can you detect them with your five senses?

Materialists are so immersed in their dogmatic doctrine that only matter exists they reject the existence of their own mind! In a sense they are out of their minds. They prefer to rely on their bodies, on what they can see, smell, hear, see and touch rather than their intelligence…

I should add that it isn’t “theirs” at all because “they” don’t exist. Intelligence is just the activity of a lump of tissue in the skull which doesn’t even know it exists. Persons are just biological computers functioning in time and space according to natural laws imagining they are reasoning but in reality those biological computers are simply responding to physical stimuli with no understanding of anything whatsoever. There is nothing which stands under or over or anywhere else in relation to the neurons in the cerebral cortex…

 

[thinkandmull]

animals are just biological organisms. Maybe he is arguing that intellegence is just a higher degree of animal thought?

 

[tonyrey]

animals are just biological organisms. Maybe he is arguing that intelligence is just a higher degree of animal thought?

I’m quite sure that is so because according to materialists nothing intangible exists. Truth, for example, is a figment of the imagination. I don’t know how they distinguish what is true and what is false or can swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…

 

[Cheiron]

I’m quite sure that is so because according to materialists nothing intangible exists. Truth, for example, is a figment of the imagination. I don’t know how they distinguish what is true and what is false or can swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…

How did you come to that conclusion? Why is truth a figment of the imagination in the materialist worldview?