Does it make sense to treat the people you meet as subsets of physical organisms? Or to regard subsets of physical organisms as having a right to life? Why use the term “person” at all?
Notionally, for the same reason you don’t refer to a dog as an ‘animal.’ For example, if someone asks you what pets you have, would you say, “2 cats and a dog” or “3 animals?” But we’re getting away from the point here - you’re implying that I de-personalise people. That’s not the case at all - I just recognise that people are physical organisms.
The taxonomy you use is biological - which most people would regard as an inadequate category for a person.
“Most people?” Where’s your reference for that? I assume you are not implying that “most people” don’t believe that persons are biological in nature. More likely that they are not
purely biological. However, there’s no evidence that this the case. That’s my point.
We are referring to evidence not proof.
Yes - evidence of God’s existence. The existence of consciousness is not evidence, any more than the existence of my glass of water.
Do you really believe it is as easy to explain a glass of water as a person?
That’s not the point, as I’ve explained above. The point is whether either of them constitute evidence of God. Neither of them do.
Do you believe everything for which there is no evidence?
Of course not, that would be as stupid as believing in God
.
Such as the origin of rational beings from irrational processes…
Again you demonstrate that your argument is one from personal incredulity. Not from any kind of evidence or robust logic.
Once again you are assuming that scientific explanation is the only valid form of explanation.
Let’s be careful here. I’m not talking about science, in terms of physics and chemistry, I’m talking about the
scientific method. This means that any explanations have to be observable, predictable, objective and repeatable. I can’t see that any other method can produce reliable results. Surely, by definition, if it doesn’t meet the above criteria it’s just subjective - which is not an adequate basis for explanation. I’d be really interested to hear any basis for disagreement.
I am asking a question, not assuming anything.
Okay, apologies. My answer is, none. Nor is there any evidence that intangible realities are the product of anything other than physical processes. We just
don’t know. Not knowing is a lousy reason to make stuff up.
What evidence can you produce for that belief?
None - as I said, it’s a belief. It’s tentatively supported, I suppose, by a lack of any other valid explanation, but I’m aware that I might be wrong. If I am, I’ll be thrilled to know the truth if and when it is discovered using an adequate process.
How would you define a self?
Ooh, there’s a question! I’m not sure I can in any meaningful terms.
How do think they are related to consciousness?
As I said, they are aspects. In the same way that a branch could be said to be an aspect of a tree.
When everyone has similar subjective experiences those experiences become objective evidence.
It’s not as simple as that as I’m sure you are aware. Subjective experiences can be influenced in a number of ways: by written material; by indoctrination; by individual belief; or by chemical means. I think it’s fair to say that religion meets 75% of these criteria, and there are probably more.
Then you are not justified in regarding physical explanations as the only valid explanations.
You are getting confused between ‘physical’ and ‘tangible.’ And you also seem to be equating physics with scientific method, which is an error.
“I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.” - Einstein
A good quote, the meaning of which you presumably fail to grasp!
Why do bodies have a right to life?Because human laws and morals have developed (in most countries) to mandate it.
Then truths must be intangible realities.
Yes. Both those that are known through repeated testing, and those that are as yet unknown.
It amounts to the same thing.
Depending on your definition of each! But yes, we probably understand the same thing by it.
So you believe thoughts are determined by physical events?
As I said earlier, yes, I do believe that. I have no evidence for it, but nor is there any evidence that it’s otherwise.
What precisely is justice then?Do you believe tangible reality is more fundamental? If so why?
As I said, justice is a human concept. You may have got my answer to your subsequent question mixed in here!
