Exactly. I would also like to add that every case we know of regarding complexity, that complexity has developed incrementally from simplicity. Positing god as a starting point, like many other aspects of religion (i.e. virgin births, rising from the dead, miracles), goes against everything we know about reality.But we know that the person is made up of lots of components, right down to a particle level. It’s fallacious to say that make a person simple, just because there’s only one assembly. A human being is in fact the most complex organism known to man - not just by virtue of the number of components, but by the way those components work together. And a human is in no way capable of creating a universe, nor indeed anything more complex than itself. So if humans can’t do it, on what grounds should we speculate that God can? And if he can’t, we’re back to the fact that if he made the universe, he must be more complex than the universe… which means that he is a less economical explanation, all knowns considered.
Every case we know of **physical **complexity has developed incrementally from simplicity. You assume reality is restricted to physical reality - which is far from self-evident. What is the sole reality of which you have direct experience?Exactly. I would also like to add that every case we know of regarding complexity, that complexity has developed incrementally from simplicity. Positing god as a starting point, like many other aspects of religion (i.e. virgin births, rising from the dead, miracles), goes against everything we know about reality.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean, the only reality i have ever experienced is the physical one if that is what you mean?Every case we know of **physical **complexity has developed incrementally from simplicity. You assume reality is restricted to physical reality - which is far from self-evident. What is the sole reality of which you have direct experience?
Do you regard your thoughts and decisions as physical?I’m not entirely sure what you mean, the only reality i have ever experienced is the physical one if that is what you mean?
How about your mind?However even if there is a spiritual reality, we have never directly observed anything complex in it? So the claim stands, we have never observed anything that starts with complexity.
I regard these things as the product of the physical brain. Conciseness is a strange one indeed and while we don’t fully understand it, we have no empirical evidence of anything spiritual going on. Admittedly this is a philosophical position, but empircal evidence goes along way with me…Do you regard your thoughts and decisions as physical?
How about your mind?
The only reason we believe there are physical objects - like the brain - is because we **infer they exist from our perceptions. We have direct knowledge only of what happens in our mind: thoughts, feelings and perceptions. Sometimes life seems like a dream and everything seems unreal. But the one thing we cannot doubt is the fact that we **are thinking - or dreaming!I regard these things as the product of the physical brain. Consciousness is a strange one indeed and while we don’t fully understand it, we have no empirical evidence of anything spiritual going on. Admittedly this is a philosophical position, but empirical evidence goes a long way with me…
ADW.
Well you’re equating an unknown factor with a specific one for a start. I don’t think this is a valid point.I did think of that possibility but it struck me that one unknown physical factor is not very far removed from the concept of God!
We don’t know what physical factors are? Do you mean the specific physical factors extant at the birth of the universe, or are you claiming we literally don’t know what physics is?I say this because at the outset we don’t even know what physical factors are. All we know is that our thoughts exist and that doesn’t take us very far at all, does it? I’m beginning to think our conditions are not stringent enough but of course it depends on how basic we make our assumptions.
I was, but even if the conditions were not complex, God would still have had to create them - how could he do this unless he was more complex than the conditions he created? Making him less economical.You are assuming that creating the universe entails creating complex conditions.
No, you seem to be stuck on the premise that if a single entity does something, no matter how complex the make-up of that entity, it is still a simple entity. This is clearly wrong by any yardstick other than a theological one, which is somehow granted exemption from common sense!This is not self-evident. Nor is it self-evident that the act of creation makes God more complex - assuming that He is complex in the first place. A person remains one person even if he creates something - but that too is a conclusion. I don’t think we can proceed beyond simple numbers when we are dealing with assumptions and entities, can we?
Come on, you can’t really believe that? You’re just saying that “single” = “simple!” Let me ask you this - if an alien landed on earth tomorrow and demonstrated telekinesis, would you say, “Well, there’s a very simple explanation - the alien did it?” Or would you concede that perhaps there is an opportunity for further investigation?Here again we are in the world of conclusions far removed from our starting point. I shall be very interested to know how you deal with this problem. My point is that we regard a person as a single entity for all practical and theoretical purposes except when it comes to questions about the body. Intelligence and responsibility are attributed to one being. It is the unity of a person that makes a person a simpler and more economical explanation.
Atomism is fact. Its definition is, “The theory that all matter consists of minute indivisible particles or atoms.” Do you disagree that matter consists of such? If so, what’s your justification?This is where atomism fails miserably because reality consists of a hierarchy of entities ranging from an atomic particle to a molecule to a living cell to a multicellular organism to a person.
Sorry, not sure what you’re trying to say here.Why start at the beginning of the scale rather than the end? Temporal precedence is favoured by neoDarwinists but a person is not observable by the senses anyway. In fact the thoughts of a person are our starting point - or if you prefer, the thoughts of a thinker. Or do you regard a thinker as a conclusion?
Well, that’s an odd basis on which to suggest a phenomena, but that’s not the reason I rule it out. The reason I rule it out (well actually, I don’t rule it out, I just find it extremely unlikely), is that there is no evidence that Creation (note the big C - I don’t want to imply that nothing has ever been created) took place.If we are going to go this far - and we might as well, considering the number of conclusions we have already made, there is no reason to rule out the possibility of creation on the ground that human beings can’t do it.
How do you know those are the only two alternatives? I do not believe that our universe is eternal - there is plenty of evidence pointing towards its beginning 15 billion years ago. But why should it have been created from nothing, just because it wasn’t created by God? Your question highlights the narrow-mindedness of the theist who won’t even countenance any explanation other than the one they believe.The primary definition of God is the Creator. Of course you will retort that this doesn’t fit into the initial set of assumptions but then neither does the universe! So where are we? There are only two alternatives: the universe is either self-created from nothing or it is eternal. Which do you favour?
Do you regard your thoughts and decisions as physical?
How about your mind?
tonyrey
I* did think of that possibility but it struck me that one unknown physical factor is not very far removed from the concept of God!*
They are both unknown but as they are both entities from which the universe is thought to emerge atheism cannot be more economical than theism.Well you’re equating an unknown factor with a specific one for a start. I don’t think this is a valid point.
We begin with our thoughts and perceptions and know nothing about anything else until we infer that physical objects exist.We don’t know what physical factors are? Do you mean the specific physical factors extant at the birth of the universe, or are you claiming we literally don’t know what physics is?
I have pointed out that complexity within a person is consistent with his/her unity (and indivisibility).You are assuming that creating the universe entails creating complex conditions.
I was, but even if the conditions were not complex, God would still have had to create them - how could he do this unless he was more complex than the conditions he created? Making him less economical.
When you do something does it make you more than one entity or a multiple entity? Your yardstick seems to be physical objects which are quite different from persons in their attributes. My yardstick is not theological but both legal and empirical in that it corresponds to the ways in which we think of and treat persons. They never cease to be simple entities to whom responsibility is attributed (not to one of their functions).No, you seem to be stuck on the premise that if a single entity does something, no matter how complex the make-up of that entity, it is still a simple entity. This is clearly wrong by any yardstick other than a theological one, which is somehow granted exemption from common sense!
You are equating a person with the activity of a person but there is clearly a vast difference. A person is a source of complex activity but is readily identified as a person with the same enduring identity. There is obviously an opportunity for further investigation of such powers but the essential nature of a person is beyond the scope of physical investigation.My point is that we regard a person as a single entity for all practical and theoretical purposes except when it comes to questions about the body. Intelligence and responsibility are attributed to one being. It is the unity of a person that makes a person a simpler and more economical explanation.
Come on, you can’t really believe that? You’re just saying that “single” = “simple!” Let me ask you this - if an alien landed on earth tomorrow and demonstrated telekinesis, would you say, “Well, there’s a very simple explanation - the alien did it?” Or would you concede that perhaps there is an opportunity for further investigation?
I don’t disagree with atomism regarding matter but it is inferior to holism with regard to persons and living organisms.This is where atomism fails miserably because reality consists of a hierarchy of entities ranging from an atomic particle to a molecule to a living cell to a multicellular organism to a person.
Atomism is fact. Its definition is, “The theory that all matter consists of minute indivisible particles or atoms.” Do you disagree that matter consists of such? If so, what’s your justification?
You agree that we begin with our thoughts rather than external objects. From there it is reasonable to assume that our thoughts originate in a thinker rather than take place in a void. Do you agree?Why start at the beginning of the scale rather than the end? Temporal precedence is favoured by neoDarwinists but a person is not observable by the senses anyway. In fact the thoughts of a person are our starting point - or if you prefer, the thoughts of a thinker. Or do you regard a thinker as a conclusion?
Sorry, not sure what you’re trying to say here.
In fact there is evidence iwithin ourselves. We create mathematical systems, scientific inventions and works of art solely by using our imagination and reason. It is obviously only an analogy but it is evidence of a unique creative power possessed only by persons.If we are going to go this far - and we might as well, considering the number of conclusions we have already made, there is no reason to rule out the possibility of creation on the ground that human beings can’t do it.
Well, that’s an odd basis on which to suggest a phenomena, but that’s not the reason I rule it out. The reason I rule it out (well actually, I don’t rule it out, I just find it extremely unlikely), is that there is no evidence that Creation (note the big C - I don’t want to imply that nothing has ever been created) took place.
You are misinterpreting me. “There are only two alternatives to the theory that the universe has a physical cause or causes: the universe is either self-created from nothing or it is eternal.” You have made it clear that you reject those two alternatives in favour of the theory that the universe has an unknown physical cause or causes…The primary definition of God is the Creator. Of course you will retort that this doesn’t fit into the initial set of assumptions but then neither does the universe! So where are we? There are only two alternatives: the universe is either self-created from nothing or it is eternal. Which do you favour?
How do you know those are the only two alternatives? I do not believe that our universe is eternal - there is plenty of evidence pointing towards its beginning 15 billion years ago. But why should it have been created from nothing, just because it wasn’t created by God?
To our starting point: our thoughts…Do you regard your thoughts and decisions as physical? How about your mind?
And around we go again.
You are returning to your assumption that the primary reality is physical - in spite of the primacy of our thoughts in our knowledge of reality.I really don’t think you can base an argument on the conjecture of a reality outside the physical one, unless you can start by proving it exists.
Religion, science and every other form of knowledge are in exactly the same boat. They all depend on our stream of consciousness. Otherwise they all remain high and dry without a direct source of knowledge!This is a basic necessity that exists in any other realm of proof, but for some reason you think that religion should be exempt?
Outstandingly flawed logic! You are comparing, in terms of complexity, a set of physical conditions with a necessary creator of those conditions and calling them economically equal!They are both unknown but as they are both entities from which the universe is thought to emerge atheism cannot be more economical than theism.
That doesn’t really answer my question. Are you talking about the specific physical factors at the birth of the universe, or general physical phenomena? If the former, then my comment above applies. If the latter, then you are building your entire hypothesis on a ‘what-if’ scenario that is unsupported by evidence.We begin with our thoughts and perceptions and know nothing about anything else until we infer that physical objects exist.
Indeed you have, however you have also gone one stage further and strongly implied that no matter how complex the make-up of a person/entity, that person/entity is simple by virtue of there being only one of them. Your hypothesis is creaking badly.I have pointed out that complexity within a person is consistent with his/her unity (and indivisibility).
Until you can prove that a person is not contained within the physical boundary, you are basing your argument on conjecture. Weak foundations = unstable conclusion.When you do something does it make you more than one entity or a multiple entity? Your yardstick seems to be physical objects which are quite different from persons in their attributes.
Simple in one very specific meaning, yes - but not simple as in, “not complex” or “easy to understand.” You seem to be sticking with your “single” = “simple” claim?My yardstick is not theological but both legal and empirical in that it corresponds to the ways in which we think of and treat persons. They never cease to be simple entities to whom responsibility is attributed (not to one of their functions).
I’m equating the fabricated actions of one invented individual with the alleged actions of another. Unless you are now claiming that God didn’t make the universe?You are equating a person with the activity of a person but there is clearly a vast difference. A person is a source of complex activity but is readily identified as a person with the same enduring identity. There is obviously an opportunity for further investigation of such powers but the essential nature of a person is beyond the scope of physical investigation.
In certain contexts, certainly. Not when attempting to describe the complexity of that organism and how it can achieve what it achieves.I don’t disagree with atomism regarding matter but it is inferior to holism with regard to persons and living organisms.
I guess nobody knows for certain, but that seems sensible, yes. Our thoughts originate within our brains, as far as anybody can tell.You agree that we begin with our thoughts rather than external objects. From there it is reasonable to assume that our thoughts originate in a thinker rather than take place in a void. Do you agree?
That is why I stressed the capital “C” - to differentiate between a human being creating a model boat, and God Creating the Universe.In fact there is evidence iwithin ourselves. We create mathematical systems, scientific inventions and works of art solely by using our imagination and reason. It is obviously only an analogy but it is evidence of a unique creative power possessed only by persons.
I haven’t said I reject them, I have said that those aren’t the only two options. What about a cyclical universe, or a dimensional-shift universe? They’re valid options - no evidence of course, but that doesn’t disadvantage them compared to Creation!You are misinterpreting me. “There are only two alternatives to the theory that the universe has a physical cause or causes: the universe is either self-created from nothing or it is eternal.” You have made it clear that you reject those two alternatives in favour of the theory that the universe has an unknown physical cause or causes…
Well, no - our starting point is our physical bodies. We can’t have thoughts without them, unless you can prove differently…?To our starting point: our thoughts…
Again - show categorically that our thoughts do not occur in, and stem from, our physical bodies, and you have the start of a discussion. Otherwise you are basing your entire argument on an indefensible conjecture.You are returning to your assumption that the primary reality is physical - in spite of the primacy of our thoughts in our knowledge of reality.
All knowledge depends on having someone to know it, that’s true. That hardly puts religion and science in the same boat other than in a very specific - and meaningless - context. It certainly doesn’t mean that religious suppositions are just as valid as scientific facts and theories. Who are you trying to fool?Religion, science and every other form of knowledge are in exactly the same boat. They all depend on our stream of consciousness. Otherwise they all remain high and dry without a direct source of knowledge!
Well, here I think we’ve reached the point where it’s time to ask for the hand-in-flame demonstration. It’s my claim that you CANNOT doubt the reality of reality in such a direct way. You can suppose that the reality of reality is a “conclusion”, but it’s very easy to show it’s baked into your own wiring, or the wiring of any human who has it on for reality NOT being real. A newborn infant, who has not even the faculties of language yet, the basis for an inference you submit here, reflexively pulls away its hand from a hot surface.The only reason we believe there are physical objects - like the brain - is because we **infer they exist from our perceptions. We have direct knowledge only of what happens in our mind: thoughts, feelings and perceptions. Sometimes life seems like a dream and everything seems unreal. But the one thing we cannot doubt is the fact that we **are thinking - or dreaming!
At the outset all that pain proves is the reality of pain - which occurs within our stream of consciousness. From then on we enter the realm of inference. We proceed to the assumption that an unknown factor causes the pain and in our minds we construct a scheme of reality which we call “matter”. Materialists then take another step and in their minds attempt to prove the mind is a subordinate derivative of matter. This is precisely where they fail to acknowledge that all their thoughts about matter are still taking place in their intangible stream of consciousness - which is the only fact of which we are directly aware, is it not?Well, here I think we’ve reached the point where it’s time to ask for the hand-in-flame demonstration. It’s my claim that you CANNOT doubt the reality of reality in such a direct way. You can suppose that the reality of reality is a “conclusion”, but it’s very easy to show it’s baked into your own wiring, or the wiring of any human who has it on for reality NOT being real. A newborn infant, who has not even the faculties of language yet, the basis for an inference you submit here, reflexively pulls away its hand from a hot surface.
You cannot doubt the reality of a flame, any more than you can doubt that you are conscience, and the proof of that is very vivid; anyone who thinks they can is invited to try their hand in a flame, and see how long they can deny it. Even if the flame isn’t “real” in some amorphous theological quasi-sense, it is undeniably, overwhelmingly real to a human being. Every human being – even an insane man has the ‘pull my hand away reflex’.
This is an area where philosophy becomes quite foolish when it feels free to take leave of real experience. Any “inference” is moot, and overridden by your brainstem. The reality of reality is physiologically axiomatic, a necessary given.
That doesn’t make physical reality the only reality by necessity. But it does make it a reality for a human being, and the reality he starts with, and cannot avoid or escape aside from unconsciousness or death. An atheist who begins with that axiom, that reality is real, need not defend it all, so long as he is talking to a fellow human being. All he needs is a cigarette lighter in his pocket to make his case quite painful clear for any who suppose they have the luxury of such doubts and dubious inferences.
From a solipsistic standpoint, it doesn’t even show that. But it’s academic. We aren’t free or able to deliberate on such questions in practice.At the outset all that pain proves is the reality of pain - which occurs within our stream of consciousness.
You seem intent on ignoring the physiology here. The pain reflex is automatic – non-voluntary. We are wired that way. We construct a scheme about the causes of pain in the same way a light switch constructs a scheme about having it’s lever flipped from off to on. I’ll repeat that the solipsism you are entertaining here is easily shown to be an abstract concept only – see the hand over open flame test for anyone who thinks such degrees of freedom as you suppose exist are actual. The results are persuasive, every time.From then on we enter the realm of inference. We proceed to the assumption that an unknown factor causes the pain and in our minds we construct a scheme of reality which we call “matter”.
Well, we can test each of those ideas. If the mind is somehow immaterial, all we would need is some evidence of an immaterial mind – a mind without a physical medium – to falsify the materialist understanding.Materialists then take another step and in their minds attempt to prove the mind is a subordinate derivative of matter. This is precisely where they fail to acknowledge that all their thoughts about matter are still taking place in their intangible stream of consciousness - which is the only fact of which we are directly aware, is it not?
My point is that “subjective reality” cannot be ignored nor is there a good reason to derive it from physical reality. We agree that solipsism and idealism are untenable theories but materialism cannot account for any of the most important aspects of reality: truth, goodness, beauty, justice, freedom and love. The causes of pain remain constructs of the mind even though they exist independently and pain itself is far more immediately real to us** in the mind **than those causes - as your flame test proves…tonyrey At the outset all that pain proves is the reality of pain - which occurs within our stream of consciousness.
From a solipsistic standpoint, it doesn’t even show that. But it’s academic. We aren’t free or able to deliberate on such questions in practice.
Code:* From then on we enter the realm of inference. We proceed to the **assumption ***that an unknown factor causes the pain and** in our minds** we construct a scheme of reality which we call "matter".
Solipsism is an abstract concept but our subjective reality is the most basic reality of all. Do you reduce our pain to electrical impulses in the brain? Or does it exist in its own right?You seem intent on ignoring the physiology here. The pain reflex is automatic – non-voluntary. We are wired that way. We construct a scheme about the causes of pain in the same way a light switch constructs a scheme about having its lever flipped from off to on. I’ll repeat that the solipsism you are entertaining here is easily shown to be an abstract concept only – see the hand over open flame test for anyone who thinks such degrees of freedom as you suppose exist are actual. The results are persuasive, every time.
attempt to prove the mind is a subordinate derivative of matter. This is precisely where they fail to acknowledge that all their thoughts about matter are **still taking place in their intangible stream of consciousness - which is the only fact *of which we are directly aware, is it not? *Materialists then take another step and in their minds
Well, we can test each of those ideas. If the mind is somehow immaterial, all we would need is some evidence of an immaterial mind – a mind without a physical medium – to falsify the materialist understanding. The evidence is our stream of consciousness: qualia which cannot be explained in physical terms. You are insisting on physical evidence of an immaterial mind as if our primary datum is physical reality, as if our starting point is matter. But it is not! Our stream of consciousness is our primary datum. I could equally well ask you for mental evidence that matter exists. What answer would you give?
How would we falsify the idea of a material object?But how would we falsify the idea of an immaterial mind?
All we know is that damage to the brain affects the function of the brain - which is a material object. You are assuming that the mind has a material basis and originates in the brain. How would you prove that is the case?We can observe that damage to a brain affects the function of the mind.
“interactions” is the key word. Correlation does not entail causality. Physical events do not destroy intangible realities like truth and justice. So why should the intangible mind depend on physical events?We note that the physical death of the brain correlates with the cessation of interactions with the mind. We observe electrical patterns in the brain that track tightly with observed interactions of the mind.
By direct knowledge - as every single one of us does now. How do we know we exist? Not by observing our bodies!If there is nothing immaterial there, how would you know?
You cannot escape from your physicalist criteria which are deeply embedded in your interpretation of reality.I have a way to know if I’m mistaken, and the evidence we have just doesn’t support the falsification criteria – that’s the mark of a solid theory.
It is ironic that truth itself is an intangible reality. Logical positivism was abandoned precisely because of the absurdity of the verification principle. The falsification principle is in precisely the same category…But “falsification” doesn’t even seem to be a meaningful concept in what you’re asking me to acknowledge here (on what grounds you ask this you don’t say). If there’s no possible way it could be false, saying it is “true” isn’t meaningful, is it?
Is the set of physical conditions self-explanatory, eternal and uncaused? Until you answer that question it is impossible to know whether it is more economical or not.tonyrey
At the moment I’m not building any hypothesis. I’m trying to discover how you proceed from your assumptions.We begin with our thoughts and perceptions and know nothing about anything else until we infer that physical objects exist.
That doesn’t really answer my question. Are you talking about the specific physical factors at the birth of the universe, or general physical phenomena? If the former, then my comment above applies. If the latter, then you are building your entire hypothesis on a ‘what-if’ scenario that is unsupported by evidence.
You state (very soon) that it is sensible to believe thoughts originate in a thinker. Why don’t you specify a complex thinker? Your criticism is based on your physicalist preconceptions of reality.I have pointed out that complexity within a person is consistent with his/her unity (and indivisibility).
Indeed you have, however you have also gone one stage further and strongly implied that no matter how complex the make-up of a person/entity, that person/entity is simple by virtue of there being only one of them. Your hypothesis is creaking badly.
You have not answered my question nor established the ontological priority of the physical boundary. The onus is on you to prove that a person is contained within the physical boundaryWhen you do something does it make you more than one entity or a multiple entity? Your yardstick seems to be physical objects which are quite different from persons in their attributes.
Until you can prove that a person is not contained within the physical boundary, you are basing your argument on conjecture. Weak foundations = unstable conclusion.
By any standard a single entity is simpler than many components until it is explained in terms of those components. What are the components of a person?My yardstick is not theological but both legal and empirical in that it corresponds to the ways in which we think of and treat persons. They never cease to be simple entities to whom responsibility is attributed (not to one of their functions).
Simple in one very specific meaning, yes - but not simple as in, “not complex” or “easy to understand.” You seem to be sticking with your “single” = “simple” claim?
You are equating a person with the activity of a person but there is clearly a vast difference. A person is a source of complex activity but is readily identified as a person with the same enduring identity. There is obviously an opportunity for further investigation of such powers but the essential nature of a person is beyond the scope of physical investigation.
I’m equating the fabricated actions of one invented individual with the alleged actions of another. Unless you are now claiming that God didn’t make the universe?You are assuming that a person is a (physical) organism rather than an indivisible entity.I don’t disagree with atomism regarding matter but it is inferior to holism with regard to persons and living organisms.
In certain contexts, certainly. Not when attempting to describe the complexity of that organism and how it can achieve what it achieves.
“within our minds” is a more accurate description.You agree that we begin with our thoughts rather than external objects. From there it is reasonable to assume that our thoughts originate in a thinker rather than take place in a void. Do you agree?
I guess nobody knows for certain, but that seems sensible, yes. Our thoughts originate within our brains, as far as anybody can tell.
The question is: how exactly did that creative power originate? From uncreative processes?In fact there is evidence within ourselves. We create mathematical systems, scientific inventions and works of art solely by using our imagination and reason. It is obviously only an analogy but it is evidence of a unique creative power possessed only by persons.
That is why I stressed the capital “C” - to differentiate between a human being creating a model boat, and God Creating the Universe.
They all boil down to a unknown set, or sets, of physical causes.You are misinterpreting me. “There are only two alternatives to the theory that the universe has a physical cause or causes: the universe is either self-created from nothing or it is eternal.” You have made it clear that you reject those two alternatives in favour of the theory that the universe has an unknown physical cause or causes…
I haven’t said I reject them, I have said that those aren’t the only two options. What about a cyclical universe, or a dimensional-shift universe? They’re valid options - no evidence of course, but that doesn’t disadvantage them compared to Creation!
You are jumping the gun! You agreed that our starting point is our stream of thoughts and perceptions.To our starting point: our thoughts…
Well, no - our starting point is our physical bodies. We can’t have thoughts without them, unless you can prove differently…?
Why do you think the onus is on me to show categorically that our thoughts do not occur in, and stem from, our physical bodies?You are returning to your assumption that the primary reality is physical - in spite of the primacy of our thoughts in our knowledge of reality.
Again - show categorically that our thoughts do not occur in, and stem from, our physical bodies, and you have the start of a discussion. Otherwise you are basing your entire argument on an indefensible conjecture.
Why do you say “a very specific - and meaningless - context”? Are you referring to *our stream of consciousness?Science and every other form of knowledge are in exactly the same boat. They all depend on our stream of consciousness. Otherwise they all remain high and dry without a direct source of knowledge!
All knowledge depends on having someone to know it, that’s true. That hardly puts religion and science in the same boat other than in a very specific - and meaningless - context. It certainly doesn’t mean that religious suppositions are just as valid as scientific facts and theories.
*I think it is time for you to list your atheist assumptions in the order you make them. Then we can p(name removed by moderator)oint how economical atheism is. Otherwise we are going around in circles…
I guess that’s an area of dispute, but I thought you were wondering why we treat pain stimuli as veridical? Are we now past that?My point is that “subjective reality” cannot be ignored nor is there a good reason to derive it from physical reality. We agree that solipsism and idealism are untenable theories but materialism cannot account for any of the most important aspects of reality: truth, goodness, beauty, justice, freedom and love.
Now I’m confused. Are we free to hem and haw about the reality of our perceptions, or not? Can we proceed as if the world is not extramental?The causes of pain remain constructs of the mind even though they exist independently and pain itself is far more immediately real to us** in the mind **than those causes - as your flame test proves…
that an unknown factor causes the pain and** in our minds** we construct a scheme of reality which we call “matter”.* From then on we enter the realm of inference. We proceed to the **assumption ***
Solipsism is an abstract concept but our subjective reality is the most basic reality of all. Do you reduce our pain to electrical impulses in the brain? Or does it exist in its own right?
I have no idea what “exist in its own right” means. Can you tell me what it means to “exist in its own right”? I can tell you what it means to have electrical impulses in your brain.
Explained in terms of what? Explained as to how they are immaterial? I’m lost as to what criteria you are using for “exists”, and “explains” here. Materialism I think is clear on its semantics there. A perception of our mind as being “disembodied” does not mean our mind is disembodied, for example, and we can explain this as an artifact of cognition, a helpful bit of illusory abstraction that aids is thinking about the self.The evidence is our stream of consciousness: qualia which cannot be explained in physical terms.
But that notwithstanding, what kid of explanation are you looking for? Maybe an example from another area of knowledge would help me.
Well, we can agree that matter exists, and in that sense, it is a starting point. A flame on your bare flesh is as real to you as it is to me. That is a great, common starting point, and in that sense, the most mystical Catholic is an unshakable materialist.You are insisting on physical evidence of an immaterial mind as if our primary datum is physical reality, as if our starting point is matter.
So we start from the common affirmation of the reality of reality, of the “truth” of the flame burning our hand, forcing us to withdraw it. Now, we suppose some other mode of apprehension may be possible. You suggest “immaterial reality”. What is the “hand over lighter test” for “immaterial reality”?
Without some grounds for that, I don’t need to say physical reality is “primary” or “complete”, but rather it’s just the only framework that invests objective meaning in the term. That is, the flame is an equal opportunity burner; it burns my hand as badly as your hand. We share that common reality. It’s objective, not dependent on either of our wishes or desires. But what would establish your “immaterial reality” along the same lines? What distinguishes it from delusion?
Give me your hand while I pull out my cigarette lighter.But it is not! Our stream of consciousness is our primary datum. I could equally well ask you for mental evidence that matter exists. What answer would you give?
Keep your hand in the flame for a minute or so. Run out into high speed traffic. That would be a strong repudiation of the materiality of the extramental world.How would we falsify the idea of a material object?
That’s what the evidence shows. You destroy the brain, the activity of the mind stops. You engage the mind, the electrical patterns dance, and in specific areas (language here, visual pattern matching there, etc.) You mess with a scalpel in the brain, and the mind has all sorts of funky things happen to it in real time. You damage your brain in certain parts and ways, your mind changes. This is how reasoning works about the real world.All we know is that damage to the brain affects the function of the brain - which is a material object. You are assuming that the mind has a material basis and originates in the brain. How would you prove that is the case?
A very good question. I don’t see that ‘intangible’ adds anything but confusion or superfluity to the conversation at all. Justice is a distributed brain pattern, the ensemble of related brain states in all those who entertain the concept in their brains, and encoded in physical matter as symbols that can (re)construct those same concepts by the reader/interpreter. So what do we need “intangible” for, again?“interactions” is the key word. Correlation does not entail causality. Physical events do not destroy intangible realities like truth and justice. So why should the intangible mind depend on physical events?
Well, that’s not the only, but that’s a perfectly sufficient means of establishing that.By direct knowledge - as every single one of us does now. How do we know we exist? Not by observing our bodies!
How so? It’s a concept, like “justice” above. Are you familiar with how materialists explain concepts, abstract or no?You cannot escape from your physicalist criteria which are deeply embedded in your interpretation of reality. It is ironic that truth itself is an intangible reality.
Falsification is not verification. Falsifiability is a counter to positivism, not a part of it. And falsifiability isn’t axiomatic epistemically, but methodological in separating out meaningful statements about the real world in a practical way from metaphysical propositions that are not.Logical positivism was abandoned precisely because of the absurdity of the verification principle. The falsification principle is in precisely the same category…
But in any case, you didn’t answer my question. It’s fine to say “I can’t”, but how would you falsify (not verify, that’s a totally different enterprise!!!) the ideas you are advancing here about immaterial mind. If that idea was bogus, is there any way you would be able to know?
-TS
What does it matter? Can you answer the same questions in respect of God? Of course you can’t - all you can do is hypothesise. So on the assumption that we don’t know the full nature of either phenomenon, we are left with a necessary set of physical factors without which the universe would not exist. And you now want to add a further entity - God - to the mix. That cannot be more economical.Is the set of physical conditions self-explanatory, eternal and uncaused? Until you answer that question it is impossible to know whether it is more economical or not.
Then please confirm the context for your comment, “I say this because at the outset we don’t even know what physical factors are.” Do you mean the specific extant factors, or physical factors in general? This is the third time I’ve asked you to clarify your comment!At the moment I’m not building any hypothesis. I’m trying to discover how you proceed from your assumptions.
Because I don’t need to. The complexity of a human being is well-known and well-documented. That doesn’t mean that a human being is a simple construct. Do you disagree? Do you believe that a human being - in terms of how it is able to achieve what it does - is simple?You state (very soon) that it is sensible to believe thoughts originate in a thinker. Why don’t you specify a complex thinker?
So what you are saying, then, is that I am basing my assumptions on the physical reality that we all share, and failing to take account of another form of reality, for which no evidence exists and which only a subset of people believe in? I’ll gladly admit to that - perhaps you can demonstrate why I should do otherwise?Your criticism is based on your physicalist preconceptions of reality.
How so? You’re the one implying that this isn’t the case. Of course, it cannot be proved absolutely either way. But to conjecture that a person is multi-located is adding a level of complexity that has no justification - exactly like adding God to the Big Bang event. There is no value in doing it unless you need it as a prop for your belief.You have not answered my question nor established the ontological priority of the physical boundary. The onus is on you to prove that a person is contained within the physical boundary.
You’re just being evasive now - if your argument really hinges on a compound entity being simple by virtue of its parts sticking together, then I don’t need to point out the gaping hole of your logic. You’re bright enough to see it for yourself, and I think you’re starting to argue for its own sake now.By any standard a single entity is simpler than many components until it is explained in terms of those components. What are the components of a person?
It’s both. It is a physical, indivisible organism. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.You are assuming that a person is a (physical) organism rather than an indivisible entity.
It amounts to the same thing. The “mind” is just an abstract of the “brain.” Unless you can prove differently.“within our minds” is a more accurate description.
Almost certainly yes - by a complex combination and evolution of organic elements. Just because we don’t understand the process, that doesn’t mean it didn’t occur. Your personal incredulity is not evidence that anything different occurred, I’m afraid.The question is: how exactly did that creative power originate? From uncreative processes?
Of course. The point was just to show that there are more than two godless options. Let’s not let this sideshow distract us - we can discuss in a separate thread if you like.They all boil down to a unknown set, or sets, of physical causes.
Where did I do that? I’ve just had a look through my posts on this thread and cannot see where I’ve agreed this. How can one have thoughts without a physical brain to manufacture them? How can one have a brain without a body to contain and sustain it?You are jumping the gun! You agreed that our starting point is our stream of thoughts and perceptions.
Because you are the one claiming - or implying - that they don’t. Burden of proof, my friend. If you make a claim, you have to be able to justify it or accept that it you can’t use it to support your argument.Why do you think the onus is on me to show categorically that our thoughts do not occur in, and stem from, our physical bodies?
I’m referring to the fact that religious hypothesis and scientific theory are in the same boat only in respect of the fact that they both consist of items of information that can be known. The items of information are in no way at the same level of integrity or provenance. They are certainly not both valid interpretations of the universe or its cause.Why do you say “a very specific - and meaningless - context”? Are you referring to our stream of consciousness?
There’s only one assumption that needs to be made in the context of this argument, and I’ve already made it. The assumption is this:I think it is time for you to list your atheist assumptions in the order you make them. Then we can p(name removed by moderator)oint how economical atheism is. Otherwise we are going around in circles…
Then please confirm the context for your comment, “I say this because at the outset we don’t even know what physical factors are.”
With an intangible mind. Can you observe your thoughts or measure them?How can one have thoughts without a physical brain to manufacture them?
You are assuming that the mind cannot exist without the brain…How can one have a brain without a body to contain and sustain it?
The vast majority of people believe they are persons with an intangible mind, not just tangible bodies.So what you are saying, then, is that I am basing my assumptions on the physical reality that we all share, and failing to take account of another form of reality, for which no evidence exists and which only a subset of people believe in?
That set of physical factors does not explain the origin of the universe - which is the issue at stake. You have to assume it is ultimate or it is caused. Neither assumption is self-evident. So how can your mix be more economical?*Is the set of physical conditions self-explanatory, eternal and uncaused? *
So on the assumption that we don’t know the full nature of either phenomenon, we are left with a necessary set of physical factors without which the universe would not exist. And you now want to add a further entity - God - to the mix. That cannot be more economical.
The complexity of a human being is due to the body not the mind. Complex results do not always stem from complex entities. The attributes of rationality, consciousness and free will are deemed to be those of **one **person who has **one **specific identity, continuity and responsibility and cannot be reduced to a collection of physical organs or a multitude of brain cells. Your model of simplicity is based on your derivation of everything from atomic particles whereas our stream of consciousness is not a series of discrete units but a continuous process.The complexity of a human being is well-known and well-documented. Do you believe that a human being - in terms of how it is able to achieve what it does - is simple?
A person is not multi-located for the simple reason that an intangible reality has no physical location. Truth or similarity or insight or freedom cannot be p(name removed by moderator)ointed in time and space. Truth is not to be found in a particular place. It may be expressed somewhere but truth itself exists only “in” the mind, yet it is not an illusion!The onus is on you to prove that a person is contained within the physical boundary.
How so? You’re the one implying that this isn’t the case. Of course, it cannot be proved absolutely either way. But to conjecture that a person is multi-located is adding a level of complexity that has no justification - exactly like adding God to the Big Bang event.
If your argument really hinges on a compound entity being simple by virtue of its parts sticking together, then I don’t need to point out the gaping hole of your logic.By any standard a single entity is simpler than many components until it is explained in terms of those components. What are the components of a person?
I have pointed out the power of the mind over the body and over itself. Where is the control-centre in the brain? Or is it a junta?You are assuming that a person is a (physical) organism rather than an indivisible entity.
It is a physical, indivisible organism. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
If the mind were an abstract of the brain it would lack the power of abstraction! It would also lack free will and be no more than a biological machine without responsibility or purpose other than survival.The “mind” is just an abstract of the “brain.” Unless you can prove differently.
If we don’t understand the process “Almost certainly” is unjustified…How exactly did that creative power originate? From uncreative processes?
Almost certainly yes - by a complex combination and evolution of organic elements. Just because we don’t understand the process, that doesn’t mean it didn’t occur.
No matter how many unknown sets of physical causes there are it does not increase their probability.They all boil down to a unknown set, or sets, of physical causes.
The point was just to show that there are more than two godless options.
So you deny that our starting point is our stream of thoughts and perceptions? That the existence of the brain and body are inferred from our perceptions?You agreed that our starting point is our stream of thoughts and perceptions.
I cannot see where I’ve agreed this.
You are claiming that our thoughts do occur in and stem from, our physical bodies. Does that not require justification?Why do you think the onus is on me to show categorically that our thoughts do not occur in, and stem from, our physical bodies?
Because you are the one claiming - or implying - that they don’t. If you make a claim, you have to be able to justify it or accept that it you can’t use it to support your argument.
Not valid if one assumes physicalism is true. Ironically **the interpretation of all information is **in our mind. Information is abstract…Why do you say “a very specific - and meaningless - context”? Are you referring to our stream of consciousness?
I’m referring to the fact that religious hypothesis and scientific theory are in the same boat only in respect of the fact that they both consist of items of information that can be known. The items of information are in no way at the same level of integrity or provenance. They are certainly not both valid interpretations of the universe or its cause.
How you know the universe exists? By the evidence of your (internal) perceptions.There’s only one assumption that needs to be made in the context of this argument:
For the universe to exist, a certain set of physical factors had to exist.
Those factors do not explain the origin of the universe.Those factors continue to exist today, as evidenced by the fact that the universe is still here.
Do you deny that pain is the primary reality when we experience pain?I thought you were wondering why we treat pain stimuli as veridical?
No. That is precisely the point I am making. Our perceptions per se are not observable. Only the person who feels the pain knows what it is like. Pain is certainly real and it is entirely subjective.Are we free to hem and haw about the reality of our perceptions, or not?
We can and do - as when we are engaged in abstract reasoning or in a hypnotic state.Can we proceed as if the world is not extramental?
To exist independently. You believe physical objects and only physical objects exist in their own right…Do you reduce our pain to electrical impulses in the brain? Or does it exist in its own right?
I have no idea what “exist in its own right” means. Can you tell me what it means to “exist in its own right”?
They don’t need explanation! We experience them directly.The evidence is our stream of consciousness: qualia which cannot be explained in physical terms.
Explained in terms of what?
Why resort to illusory abstraction? To avoid the inconvenient fact that abstractions are real?A perception of our mind as being “disembodied” does not mean our mind is disembodied, for example and we can explain this as an artifact of cognition, a helpful bit of illusory abstraction that aids thinking about the self.
It is not the flame but the pain that is our common starting point.Well, we can agree that matter exists, and in that sense, it is a starting point. A flame on your bare flesh is as real to you as it is to me.
Pain is the immaterial reality. It is a psychological fact - unless you are a behavourist…So we start from the common affirmation of the reality of reality, of the “truth” of the flame burning our hand, forcing us to withdraw it. Now, we suppose some other mode of apprehension may be possible. You suggest “immaterial reality”. What is the “hand over lighter test” for “immaterial reality”?
So there is no objective meaning in the pain we both experience?Without some grounds for that, I don’t need to say physical reality is “primary” or “complete”, but rather it’s just the only framework that invests objective meaning in the term.
We share the common reality of pain. Even if pain is psychosomatic and has no physical cause it is as real as pain which has a physical cause.We share that common reality. It’s objective, not dependent on either of our wishes or desires. But what would establish your “immaterial reality” along the same lines?
I am asking for **mental **evidence that the cigarette lighter exists. It could be a figment of my imagination. How do you know you are not dreaming now? When you are dreaming do you know that you are dreaming? These may seem idle questions but your answers will be instructive.Our stream of consciousness is our primary datum. I could equally well ask you for mental evidence that matter exists.
Give me your hand while I pull out my cigarette lighter.
It merely shows that we can reason, choose and decide what to do.Keep your hand in the flame for a minute or so. Run out into high speed traffic. That would be a strong repudiation of the materiality of the extramental world.
You are assuming that the mind has a material basis and originates in the brain. How would you prove that is the case?All we know is that damage to the brain affects the function of the brain - which is a material object.
How do you know that the activity of the mind stops? All we know is that a person is unable to use the brain.You destroy the brain, the activity of the mind stops.
Only according to your assumption that the mind is the brain in action.You damage your brain in certain parts and ways, your mind changes.
Is truth a distributed brain pattern? The widely accepted definition of truth is correspondence between a belief and a fact, all of which are intangible. How do you convert that into a distributed brain pattern? How about similarity? Is that merely a concept or does it refer to an objective relation between two objects? Does all your reasoning consist of related brain states which are determined by physical events over which “you” have no control - for the simple reason that “you” do not exist? (According to “you” the concept of a person is no more than a distributed brain pattern…)Justice is a distributed brain pattern, the ensemble of related brain states in all those who entertain the concept in their brains, and encoded in physical matter as symbols that can (re)construct those same concepts by the reader/interpreter. So what do we need “intangible” for, again?
We<>our bodies
- How do we know we exist? Not by observing our bodies!*
Well, that’s not the only, but that’s a perfectly sufficient means of establishing that.
“Physical objects, small and large, are not the only posits. Forces are another example; and indeed we are told nowadays that the boundary between energy and matter is obsolete. Moreover, the **abstract entities **which are the substance of mathematics – ultimately classes and classes of classes and so on up – are another posit in the same spirit. Epistemologically these are myths on the same footing with physical objects and gods, neither better nor worse except for differences in the degree to which they expedite our dealings with sense experiences.” Two Dogmas of Empiricism - W.V.QuineAre you familiar with how materialists explain concepts, abstract or no?
What you regard as “the real world” is a metaphysical assumption. On what do you base it?And falsifiability isn’t axiomatic epistemically, but methodological in separating out meaningful statements about the real world in a practical way from metaphysical propositions that are not.
It is impossible to falsify because it is true! We can think the material world does not exist but we cannot think that we are not thinking. Or if we do we are insane…It’s fine to say “I can’t”, but how would you falsify (not verify, that’s a totally different enterprise!!!) the ideas you are advancing here about immaterial mind.
Sure I deny it. The flame burning my hand is just as real as the electrical impulses in my nerves that make me say “Yow!”. Ontologically, pain is no more “primary” than any other electrical pattern, or the can of soda on my desk.Do you deny that pain is the primary reality when we experience pain?
Did you read my response on justice? All of these are concepts, stored in brains – collectively to whatever degree you think one person’s concept of “justice” (or whatever) is isomorphic to another – and catalyzed by mnemonics stored in physical matter – letters in books, diagrams on a screen, etc. Concepts are physical entities – states of the brain. They’re perfectly real, and as “universal” as they are shared with other brains.Do you believe truth, goodness, beauty, justice, freedom and love can be explained in physical terms? If so how?
It’s not entirely subjective. We can objectively observe it – in your physiology. Pain produces real, observable physical effects in your brain and body. This is how we know that an animal is feeling pain, objectively. We also can demonstrate objective control over your sensations with technology – when you have surgery, you can be given an anaesthetic that attentuates or even eliminates the experience. We can try the same procedure on your body, and you demonstrably will feel the pain that was previously obscured by the anaesthetic. None of that is subjective – it is the same from observer to observer, and it matters not what you claim about it at the time.No. That is precisely the point I am making. Our perceptions per se are not observable. Only the person who feels the pain knows what it is like. Pain is certainly real and it is entirely subjective.
Again, this is a distinction without a difference. You are not at liberty to make any other inference about the externality of the causes of pain.
- The causes of pain, i.e. physical objects, are inferred.
- The pain itself is not inferred but experienced directly.
Uh, try it. Have a friend light a flame under your hand when you are deep in thought, or under hypnosis. What do you think will happen? The pain reflex, notably, is not exhibited in people in a coma. They do not have sufficient consciousness, physiological awareness, to react. Doctors use a “coma scale” to gauge a patients responsiveness per these reflexes to determine their level of consciousness. To be conscious is to have one’s cognitive physiology active, the reflexes engaged.We can and do - as when we are engaged in abstract reasoning or in a hypnotic state.
Are you aware of your surroundings, of time and space, when you are deep in thought?
That doesn’t answer the question. What does it mean to “exist independently” of physical reality? That is how could we distinguish that which “exists independently of physical reality” from “something we imagine with our brains”?To exist independently. You believe physical objects and only physical objects exist in their own right…
You said these qualia could not be explained. I am unaware of any terms that are meaningful with respect to “experience” other than terms rooted in physical concepts. If “experience” is not a physical reality, what kind of reality is it? That is, how would we distinguish it from the purely imaginary?They don’t need explanation! We experience them directly.
Well, no. To avoid the massive problem raised by the term “exists independently of physical reality”. If you can tell me what it means to “exist indpendently of physical reality”, of some test between that and “purely imaginary”, “purely imaginary” is going to win every time as a practical explanation. We know humans can imagine unreal things and concepts with imaginary referents. We have no idea what “exists independently of physical reality” even means, let alone how it might be applied.Why resort to illusory abstraction? To avoid the inconvenient fact that abstractions are real?
So we are NOT agreed, then, that flame is real, as indicated when we both quickly pull our hand from it? Let’s get clarity on whether you agree with me that the flame is real in that case or not.It is not the flame but the pain that is our common starting point.
Uh, it’s a biological fact. How do you suppose anaesthesia works? Does that rely on a subjective role for the patient?Pain is the immaterial reality. It is a psychological fact - unless you are a behavourist…
I’m not sure what you mean by “meaning”. It’s a physical phenomenon – heat burns your skin, nerves fire, sending physical impulses to your brain, which has ready patterns that cause various physical responses, like the reflexive impulse to move your hand, and quickly. That is, objectively, verifiably from an external standpoint, what happens.So there is no objective meaning in the pain we both experience?
Psychophysiological pain has a physical cause. The cause is physically internal to the body, that’s all.We share the common reality of pain. Even if pain is psychosomatic and has no physical cause it is as real as pain which has a physical cause.
I’m confronted with solipsism all the time. The instruction I have for you is that the questions are purely academic, moot. We aren’t free to proceed as if we are dreaming, lest we die. Again, if you think you are doing anything more than fooling around with this line of questions, you can easily prove your folly with a cigarette lighter.I am asking for **mental **evidence that the cigarette lighter exists. It could be a figment of my imagination. How do you know you are not dreaming now? When you are dreaming do you know that you are dreaming? These may seem idle questions but your answers will be instructive.
You are really going to try and sell the idea that the pain reflex is reaoning??? The reason the hand-in-flame test is so effective is because it completely nukes that kind of answer. It’s involuntary. If you have ever had any martial arts training you are surely aware of a number of “pressure points” that are extremely effective for an attacker precisely because they bypass any “reasoning” by the subject, and capitalize on the strong, nonvoluntary physiological reactions that manipulating those pressure points induce.It merely shows that we can reason, choose and decide what to do.
I don’t, and can’t have the burden to prove that an “immaterial mind” does not exist. Can’t prove a negative like that, remember? We know that the brain is the physiological seat of cognition and mental activity. Supernaturalists will readily affirm the brain’s physiological role in cognition. What remains in dispute is the positive claim of supernaturalists that mind is reified in some additional, immaterial way. I simply deny that any such claim has evidence or warrant for belief. As with all other positive claims, it’s not my proposition to disprove, but yours to prove.You are assuming that the mind has a material basis and originates in the brain. How would you prove that is the case?
That’s sufficient to explain it. Any other notions of immaterial mind are superfluous, not needed.How do you know that the activity of the mind stops? All we know is that a person is unable to use the brain.
It’s not an assumption, but a conclusion. We know the brain is the physiological seat of congnition, this is extremely well attested by our objective tests and observations. Given that, it’s not at all clear that anything more is needed. For example, your idea that “justice” as some kind of a cosmic don’t-know-what-can’t-explain-don’t-ask is more parsimoniously exchanged for the idea that concepts are physical phenomena that occur as brain-states and which are amenable to storage in communication media and (re)construction based on related concepts driven by those mnemonics.Only according to your assumption that the mind is the brain in action.
Sure. The map is not the territory, remember. “Truth” is our concept about the correspondence between some proposition (which is a concept in the brain) and the actual state of affairs in the extramental world. The world is what it is, no matter what we think. “Truth” is a conceptual means to describe the relationship between a statement about reality and reality itself.Is truth a distributed brain pattern?
They are? That’s a novel idea. Certainly, the “state of reality” is considered real – tangible? What do you think ‘tangible’ means, I guess I must ask?The widely accepted definition of truth is correspondence between a belief and a fact, all of which are intangible.
I’m going to have to start charging you my hourly rate! The distribution is achieved through language and communication – the configuration of physical matter in such a away as to encode symbols that enable for reconstruction of the concept. The words you are reading right now are electrical patterns that map to symbols we use to connect conceptual referents – language transmitted as configurations of physical matter.How do you convert that into a distributed brain pattern? How about similarity? Is that merely a concept or does it refer to an objective relation between two objects?