Which is more economical: theism or atheism?

[Touchstone]

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…)

Well, “no more than a distributed brain pattern” is like saying a Monet painting is ‘no more than some paint of canvas’. Such a description misses the significance of the configuration, of the internal relationships and structures it contains.

We<>our bodies

Ipse dixit!

“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 Forces are another example; and indeed we are told nowadays that the boundary between energy and matter is obsolete.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.Quine

I think you are totally confusing epistemology and ontology. Quine is talking about conceptual frameworks, not ontic distinctions (the map is not the territory). Have you read much Quine? There’s a nice treatment of Quine on this in *Gödel, Escher, Bach *from Doug Hofstadter that would be an interesting thread starter on this, if you suppose this says what you apparently think it does from Quine. They’re all concepts, and the difference is proved out by the expediencies garnered by empirical investigation. Or, abstractions are as “real” as the empirical enterprise validates.

What you regard as “the real world” is a metaphysical assumption. On what do you base it?

Necessity. I can not assume otherwise. Neither can you. Or anyone else.

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…

You’ve now reached the Zen I’ve been pushing, thank you. That is why asking “is reality real” is a non-starter – it’s not falsifiable, and thus, saying it’s “true” is meaningless. It is axiomatic. A given.

But your ideas about the immaterial mind, and the supernatural are not necessary assumptions. They are totally optional. And yet, they are perfectly unfalsifiable. That’s a really terribly combination in terms of epistemology – unnecessary and unfalsifiable. We CANNOT view reality as “false”, that’s as meaningless an idea as “true” – it’s simply real. But “supernatural reality”, which I take it you are conceding to be unfalsifiable, here, is not something we are obliged to accept. The world coheres well without it, better than with it, in my experience, having tried supernatural Christianity and now materialism.

-TS

 

[wanstronian]

1. We are in an egocentric predicament, i.e. before we believe anything else we are aware of our thoughts, feelings and perceptions, i.e. our stream of consciousness…
2. We infer from our perceptions that physical objects exist but we have direct knowledge only of our stream of consciousness.
   With an intangible mind. Can you observe your thoughts or measure them?
   You are assuming that the mind cannot exist without the brain…
   The vast majority of people believe they are persons with an intangible mind, not just tangible bodies.
   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?
   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.
   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!
   A mind has no parts. That is a physicalist assumption. What are the parts 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?
   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.
   If we don’t understand the process “Almost certainly” is unjustified…
   No matter how many unknown sets of physical causes there are it does not increase their probability.
   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 are claiming that our thoughts do occur in and stem from, our physical bodies. Does that not require justification?
   Not valid if one assumes physicalism is true. Ironically **the interpretation of all information is **in our mind. Information is abstract…
   How you know the universe exists? By the evidence of your (internal) perceptions.
   Those factors do not explain the origin of the universe.

Rather than address all your comments individually, I’ll just point out that your entire argument is based on the belief that there is more to reality than the physicality which we all experience. You have no proof of this extended reality, therefore every conclusion you come to is ultimately built on a baseless assumption which just happens to support your desired outcome.

This is not worth pursuing any longer, as it is impossible to engage in rational debate with someone who is making groundless assertions to support their point of view. I believe you must be aware of the fundamental weaknesses of your argument, but you clearly aren’t going to admit to them!

 

[tonyrey]

                 Originally Posted by **tonyrey**

Since “the physicality which we all experience” presupposes the epistemological priority of our power of reason is hardly “a baseless assumption”. It is precisely the reverse: there could be no assumptions without our power of reason. You believe everything is physical as a result of **inference **from our perceptions - and then argue that our power of reason and our perceptions are not really ours but have physical causes! Yet all your reasoning presupposes the existence of rational entities!

I shall leave others to decide whether you have answered my questions satisfactorily…

 

[tonyrey]

According to “you” the concept of a person is no more than a distributed brain pattern…
Well, “no more than a distributed brain pattern” is like saying a Monet painting is ‘no more than some paint of canvas’. Such a description misses the significance of the configuration, of the internal relationships and structures it contains.

What are internal relationships and structures of a person?

We<>our bodies
Ipse dixit!

So you believe a person is a biological machine? How is it responsible and free to choose what to think?

Quine is talking about conceptual frameworks, not ontic distinctions (the map is not the territory).

Ontic distinctions are made within conceptual frameworks. Your epistemological assumptions underlie your interpretation of reality.

What you regard as “the real world” is a metaphysical assumption. On what do you base it?
Necessity. I can not assume otherwise. Neither can you. Or anyone else.

Nor can you exclude the reality of your consciousness, thoughts, emotions, decisions and power of reason without being inconsistent…

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…
You’ve now reached the Zen I’ve been pushing, thank you.

So we have established that **our starting point **is the fact that we are thinking…

But your ideas about the immaterial mind, and the supernatural are not necessary assumptions. They are totally optional. And yet, they are perfectly unfalsifiable. That’s a really terribly combination in terms of epistemology – unnecessary and unfalsifiable.

Ironically you reach this conclusion (after conceding that **our starting point **is the fact that we are thinking) by using your intangible power of reason - which is necessary and falsifiable. We can soon tell if you lose it!

We CANNOT view reality as “false”, that’s as meaningless an idea as “true” – it’s simply real.

You constantly use “reality” as a synonym for “physical reality”, thereby begging the question.

But “supernatural reality”, which I take it you are conceding to be unfalsifiable, here, is not something we are obliged to accept.

Of course you are not obliged to accept it! You have the power to choose what to believe - a power that cannot be explained in terms of physical processes.

The world coheres well without it, better than with it, in my experience, having tried supernatural Christianity and now materialism.

It is significant that you refer to the physical world - implying that persons are less significant - even though the world cannot reason whereas you can. Do you really regard “biological machines” as an adequate explanation of persons?!

 

[Touchstone]

What are internal relationships and structures of a person?
So you believe a person is a biological machine? How is it responsible and free to choose what to think?

Through thinking, cognition, of course. We process (name removed by moderator)ut, cogitate, react, act.

Ontic distinctions are made within conceptual frameworks. Your epistemological assumptions underlie your interpretation of reality.

Yes, and that’s why Quine’s words there work against what you’ve been saying. Quine’s, empirical holism provides epistemic grounding for the ontology that gets developed in our “web of belief” (his term). Your quote wasn’t suggesting that spirits and numbers were ontologically indistinguishable from anything else, but that they were validated and proved out empirically.

If you want to spin up a separate thread on Quine to chase this down, I’m up for it. It takes more than the room I have spliced in here to give this a good treatment, though. Quine wasn’t saying anything like you supposed, I believe.

Nor can you exclude the reality of your consciousness, thoughts, emotions, decisions and power of reason without being inconsistent…

Right, and I affirm all of those as real, physical features of my person, and of every person. Emotions, for example, are real, physical phenomena. It’s perfectly consistent with materialism.

So we have established that **our starting point **is the fact that we are thinking…

Well, there is no thinking without consciousness – awareness of external objects. It’s a transcendental predicate. If you are thinking, you are aware of externalities. Without consciousness, there are no referents for any concepts, no language, no thought.

Ironically you reach this conclusion (after conceding that **our starting point **is the fact that we are thinking) by using your intangible power of reason - which is necessary and falsifiable. We can soon tell if you lose it!

Why would you say it’s “intangible”? That’s not necessary, or indicated. Reasoning is a real, physical phenomenon, an activity of the brain. Maybe you can tell me why reasoning is NECESSARILY an “intanglible power”.

You constantly use “reality” as a synonym for “physical reality”, thereby begging the question.

We have no other meaningful concepts for reality beyond the physical. Physical reality may NOT be all there is to reality, but it’s all we have grounds to identify as “real” at this point. If you doubt this, I invite you to provide the definitions I’ve asked you for previously concerning what “supernatural reality” or “supernaturally exists”, or “intangible power” means. What separates those from the mere imagination of same?

Of course you are not obliged to accept it! You have the power to choose what to believe - a power that cannot be explained in terms of physical processes.

Well, I’m not looking for a view of reality that simply fits my fancy. I’d like to have some epistemic grounding for my beliefs, there. If “immaterial mind” is not necessary, epistemically, as physical reality is necessary, why would I embrace that idea?

Perhaps it helps to consider something outside of Christianity – the Tao. Lots of people like that idea, but its not epistemically obligatory, not necessary to explain what we see around us. So why not just embrace that, you and me. It’s kind of a cool word! Maybe that’s enough reason?

It is significant that you refer to the physical world - implying that persons are less significant - even though the world cannot reason whereas you can. Do you really regard “biological machines” as an adequate explanation of persons?!

It’s true to say that a hurricane is just a bunch of air and water molecules. We might say a hurricane is “merely” those things, and indeed, in a reductionist sense, that is an accurate description; that’s what hurricanes are made of. But that (purposely) ignores higher levels of description, level of description that are essential to establish meaning and utlitity in conceptualization and communication. When we say “hurricane”, we are referring to an enormously complex phenomenon, filled with structures (an eye at the center, rotating clouds around it) and chaotic dynamics (fluid dynamics of the clouds and air currents). “molecules in motion” misses the meaning and contexts that obtain at higher levels of abstraction. It’s a “dumbed down” description for many applications.

So, too, with humans. We are “molecules in motion” at the most rudimentary level of description. But like thinking of a hurricane as “just some molecules”, thinking of humans as “just some molecules” spectacularly misses the complexities and structures that obtain at higher levels of description. Man, while much smaller than a hurrican, has levels of description and meaningful abstractions that make a hurricane seem banal by comparison. Just as you don’t think of the photons coming into your eyes from your computer monitor as “just a bunch of photons”, but instead words and symbols that point to concepts and referents, a human’s thoughts, actions and beliefs have a significance that compllete transcends “molecules”, even though those thoughts, actions and beliefs are just as physical as the pixel patterns on the monitor you are looking at right now.

-TS

 

[wanstronian]

Since “the physicality which we all experience” presupposes the epistemological priority of our power of reason is hardly “a baseless assumption”. It is precisely the reverse: there could be no assumptions without our power of reason. You believe everything is physical as a result of **inference **from our perceptions - and then argue that our power of reason and our perceptions are not really ours but have physical causes! Yet all your reasoning presupposes the existence of rational entities!

It looks as though you are attempting to show my logic to be circular. Setting aside the extreme irony of this, perhaps you could clarify why I should believe anything outside of physical reality?

I shall leave others to decide whether you have answered my questions satisfactorily…

We may, but we have undeniably reached the conclusion (again) that your argument is based upon a supposition that is unsupported by any evidence.

 

[tonyrey]

It looks as though you are attempting to show my logic to be circular. Setting aside the extreme irony of this, perhaps you could clarify why I should believe anything outside of physical reality?
We may, but we have undeniably reached the conclusion (again) that your argument is based upon a supposition that is unsupported by any evidence.

Why do we believe anything at all? We don’t even know what we are… You jump to the conclusion that you are a physical object. How do we know what a physical object is? Do we have **direct knowledge **of any physical object? No. They are posits based on our perceptions. Whether we like it or not we cannot get outside our private world of thoughts, feelings, images, perceptions, choices and decisions. I am not an idealist. I accept the reality of physical objects but I do know that all our conceptual schemes exist in our private worlds…

 

[wanstronian]

Why do we believe anything at all? We don’t even know what we are… You jump to the conclusion that you are a physical object. How do we know what a physical object is? Do we have **direct knowledge **of any physical object? No. They are posits based on our perceptions. Whether we like it or not we cannot get outside our private world of thoughts, feelings, images, perceptions, choices and decisions. I am not an idealist. I accept the reality of physical objects but I do know that all our conceptual schemes exist in our private worlds…

That’s true, but those schemes that relate to our physical environment are consistent so that we can each interact with it, and with others, using a common datum to achieve consistent results. Our perception of the world is the same as everyone else’s (the “do I see green the same as you” question notwithstanding, although it has no real-world impact). This consistency is enough to perform repeatable and objective experiments on our physical environment to prove its validity and reality beyond any reasonable doubt.

The same cannot be said for an extra-physical reality. What’s sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander in this respect.

So yes, strictly speaking everything we individually perceive is subjective and hypothetically at least, you can argue that this adds a level of doubt to the whole shooting match. But this is taking the argument too far. You have to put a stake in the ground somewhere and call it “reality”, and the logical place to put this stake is the point where human perception of our environment is utterly consistent.

 

[Touchstone]

Why do we believe anything at all? We don’t even know what we are… You jump to the conclusion that you are a physical object. How do we know what a physical object is? Do we have **direct knowledge **of any physical object? No. They are posits based on our perceptions. Whether we like it or not we cannot get outside our private world of thoughts, feelings, images, perceptions, choices and decisions. I am not an idealist. I accept the reality of physical objects but I do know that all our conceptual schemes exist in our private worlds…

Given your failure to grasp the problems with your solipsisms here, I think this bears asking:

Why do you accept the reality of physical objects?

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

Why do you accept the reality of physical objects?

No problem! Because of the evidence of our perceptions which are repeated regularly and consistently.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s true, but those schemes that relate to our physical environment are consistent so that we can each interact with it, and with others, using a common datum to achieve consistent results. Our perception of the world is the same as everyone else’s (the “do I see green the same as you” question notwithstanding, although it has no real-world impact). This consistency is enough to perform repeatable and objective experiments on our physical environment to prove its validity and reality beyond any reasonable doubt.

I entirely agree with you. I answered Touchstone’s question before reading your post and also pointed out the consistency and regularity of our perceptions.

The same cannot be said for an extra-physical reality.

The consistency and regularity of everyone’s perceptions is evidence primarily for the internal reality of our thoughts, feelings, sensations, perceptions, choices and decisions. We all have basically the same personal, psychological, intellectual, spiritual, emotional and social needs and activities - which matter to us more than all the impersonal objects in the world. It is only subsequently that our perceptions are evidence for the external reality of material things.

So yes, strictly speaking everything we individually perceive is subjective and hypothetically at least, you can argue that this adds a level of doubt to the whole shooting match.

You cannot have it both ways. If individual perceptions are unreliable so are our inferences from them. You are attempting to remove the very foundation of** all **our knowledge in order to arrive at your preconceived idea of physical reality. You are substituting what is inferred for what is directly experienced.…

You have to put a stake in the ground somewhere and call it “reality”, and the logical place to put this stake is the point where human perception of our environment is utterly consistent.

The logical place to put the stake is where human perception begins not where it ends. You can escape from your physical surroundings but not from your thoughts and feelings. This is the prime reality for all of us whatever we profess to believe…

 

[wanstronian]

I entirely agree with you. I answered Touchstone’s question before reading your post and also pointed out the consistency and regularity of our perceptions.

Uh-oh - we’ve agreed twice in one week now!!

The consistency and regularity of everyone’s perceptions is evidence primarily for the internal reality of our thoughts, feelings, sensations, perceptions, choices and decisions. We all have basically the same personal, psychological, intellectual, spiritual, emotional and social needs and activities - which matter to us more than all the impersonal objects in the world. It is only subsequently that our perceptions are evidence for the external reality of material things.

But you cannot show that these thoughts, feelings et al are not sourced from within our physical manifestation - that’s the point I’m trying to make. We can both agree, along with the rest of humanity, that such-and-such a rock is grey, but we do not all agree on the source of our consciousness. Given this lack of evidence for extra-physical sources of consciousness, we are rationally bound to assume that the source is ultimately physical, for we do have evidence of physicality. We are also rationally bound to admit that * we don’t know* for sure. Otherwise we are dealing in hypothesis, upon which no rational conclusion can be supported. That doesn’t mean that the physicalist theory is right, but it does mean that there is no rational reason to suppose it is wrong.

You cannot have it both ways. If individual perceptions are unreliable so are our inferences from them. You are attempting to remove the very foundation of** all **our knowledge in order to arrive at your preconceived idea of physical reality. You are substituting what is inferred for what is directly experienced.…

The point I was making is that ultimately, you can assume whatever you want on the basis that each of us experience our environment subjectively. This comment should have been read, as it was grouped, with my following comment which argues that such an assumption gets us nowhere, and we have to base our rationale on a common understanding of our environment. That common understanding is physical, not extra-physical.

The logical place to put the stake is where human perception begins not where it ends. You can escape from your physical surroundings but not from your thoughts and feelings. This is the prime reality for all of us whatever we profess to believe…

How can you escape from your physical surroundings? Where can you go? I think what you’re saying is that you can ignore your physical surroundings. That doesn’t make them go away, and it doesn’t affect their physical influence on you. I disagree that thoughts and feelings are the prime reality because they are not consistent - your thoughts and feelings will be different to mine. The fact that we both have thoughts and feelings proves nothing about their origin. The thoughts and feelings themselves are not the reality.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

 

[wanstronian]

There is no need to show that they are sourced from within our physical manifestation because they are intangible. So it is logical to assume they have an intangible source.

Why, without evidence of an intangible source, would you assume that? Does the light from a flashlight contain any of the physical components of that flashlight?

There is no a priori reason to suppose they have an external source.

No - they have an internal source - internal to our physical bodies.

Before we have evidence of physicality we already have evidence of our intangible experiences.

We’re going round in circles here. You do not have intangible experiences before your physical body is manifest. You start with your physical existence. If you are denying your physical existence then we might as well stop here!

They are real enough in themselves and do not seem to require explanation in terms of inferred reality.

No, but they are not evidentially extracorporeal.

Since intangible activities are our starting point it is more natural and economical to postulate one intangible entity which causes them to occur.

Since I’ve shown that intangible activities are not our starting point, this statement is clearly false.

There is certainly no reason to suppose that physical reality is more fundamental than the intangible reality that we experience directly.

Well there is, because our collective experience of physical reality is consistent, but our direct intangible ‘reality’ is not.

We have agreed that our similar perceptions exclude the possibility that there is no external reality or several different external realities.

If by ‘external’ reality you mean ‘physical’ reality, then partly true. I don’t think we’ve discussed multiple physical realities, and the subject is probably irrelevant to this discussion.

Our common subjective experiences are the basis for our belief in one common reality.

Agreed.

The significant word is “understanding” which is not physical!

But our understanding is a product of our brain function, which is a physical biological organism. You may not agree with the first part of that sentence, but to assume that our understanding is somehow ‘outside’ our physical make-up is a supposition for which there is no evidence. So why think it to be true?

Our environment is the object of our understanding but we are the ones who interpret and evaluate our environment. To reduce ourselves to products of our environment is to devalue and depersonalise ourselves.

I disagree. It only devalues us compared to some ideal where we are, for some reason, “special,” “the chosen ones.” The evidence of evolution shows this to be an arrogant and unfounded assumption.

We become no more than biological machines.

Indeed, just as evolution demonstrates.

We can escape mentally from our physical surroundings. They influence us but they do not dominate us.

Yes - as I said, you meant that we can ignore them. And to a certain extent that’s true.

We can control them and adapt them for our own purposes. We are not helpless products of our heredity and environment but responsible agents.

We may not be helpless but we most certainly are the products of our heredity and environment.

Do you think we imagine we are thinking? Thoughts and feelings are not illusions. We can and do control them. If they are explained as electrical activity they certainly become illusions.

Quite right. Do you suppose that by thinking of a green dog transforming into a purple caterpillar, that it really happens?

So do the persons from which they proceed.

Nonsense! Are you saying that the person having a thought is as transient and insubstantial as the thought itself? How do you justify such a comment?

Our reality is depersonalised and rendered purposeless, valueless and meaningless in flagrant contradiction of the way in which we live and regard ourselves and others - as responsible beings with the right to life and happiness.

Reality - as defined by that which is consistent across all people - is depersonalised. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a personal opinion about it, but it doesn’t have a personal opinion about you. This doesn’t contradict the way we live our lives in any way - the fact that our thoughts are products of biochemical activity in no way detract from the value of those thoughts, other than from a subjective point of view where an individual wants to believe that his thoughts are a gift from God.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no need to show that they are sourced from within our physical manifestation because they are intangible. So it is logical to assume they have an intangible source.

Your analogy with a physical object demonstrates that you already regard physical reality as fundamental and prior to personal reality. Yet if we have no preconceptions about reality it is reasonable to believe intangible thoughts come from an intangible thinker.

There is no a priori reason to suppose they have an external source.
No - they have an internal source - internal to our physical bodies.

That is a subsequent inference which is highly controversial. Intangible reality is our primary datum.

Before we have evidence of physicality we already have evidence of our intangible experiences.
You do not have intangible experiences before your physical body is manifest. You start with your physical existence.

We do not start with our physical existence. The very first things we are aware of when we are born are our perceptions. We infer the existence of physical objects without being told that they are physical objects. Our understanding is entirely subjective but it interprets reality successfully. I am not denying our physical existence but explaining the way in which we learn about reality. It is only subsequently that adults theorise about the nature of reality.

They are real enough in themselves and do not seem to require explanation in terms of inferred reality.
No, but they are not evidentially extracorporeal.

The question does not even arise until adults start trying to eliminate the reality of the mind.

Since intangible activities are our starting point it is more natural and economical to postulate one intangible entity which causes them to occur.
Since I’ve shown that intangible activities are not our starting point, this statement is clearly false.

What precisely do you think we begin with when we are babies?

There is certainly no reason to suppose that physical reality is more fundamental than the intangible reality that we experience directly.
Well there is, because our collective experience of physical reality is consistent, but our direct intangible ‘reality’ is not.

How can it be inconsistent if it is a reliable basis for our inferences? What is inconsistent about it?

Our common subjective experiences are the basis for our belief in one common reality.
Agreed.

So our common subjective, intangible experiences are the most fundamental and reliable evidence we possess.

But our understanding is a product of our brain function, which is a physical biological organism. You may not agree with the first part of that sentence, but to assume that our understanding is somehow ‘outside’ our physical make-up is a supposition for which there is no evidence.

When we are babies we are not told physical reality exists. We infer it and understand it without having it explained to us. I cannot understand why you insist that physical reality is our starting point when there is no evidence that we have direct knowledge and understanding of physical objects when we come into the world. The only things we are aware of are our sensations…

• To reduce ourselves to products of our environment is to devalue and depersonalise ourselves.* It only devalues us compared to some ideal where we are, for some reason, “special,” “the chosen ones.” The evidence of evolution shows this to be an arrogant and unfounded assumption.

It has nothing to do with regarding ourselves as special or chosen. It is a matter of ontological and epistemological precedence. If X knows Y exists it is reasonable to believe X is the primary reality until there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

We become no more than biological machines.
Indeed, just as evolution demonstrates.

An incomplete, unverified theory is not a demonstration. Moreover the person=biological machine theory does not correspond to the civilised view of humanity.

We are not helpless products of our heredity and environment but responsible agents.
We may not be helpless but we most certainly are the products of our heredity and environment.

If we were just products we could not be responsible agents. We could not even choose what to think… All our thoughts and conclusions would have physical causes…

Thoughts and feelings are not illusions. We can and do control them. If they are explained as electrical activity they certainly become illusions.
Quite right.

I’m glad you agree!

Are you saying that the person having a thought is as transient and insubstantial as the thought itself?

No. You are equating “intangible” with “transient” and “insubstantial” - which is clearly false. Your view of substance is based on a preconception of reality as solely physical.

Our reality is depersonalised and rendered purposeless, valueless and meaningless in flagrant contradiction of the way in which we live and regard ourselves and others - as responsible beings with the right to life and happiness.
Reality - as defined by that which is consistent across all people - is depersonalised.

Physical reality is impersonal but not our reality - which atheists attempt to reduce to impersonal reality and thereby deprive us of our unique value and dignity. Strange freaks of nature have no rights to life and happiness. They just happen to exist without rhyme or reason…

This doesn’t contradict the way we live our lives in any way - the fact that our thoughts are products of biochemical activity in no way detract from the value of those thoughts, other than from a subjective point of view where an individual wants to believe that his thoughts are a gift from God.

We do not believe our thoughts are a gift from God. It is our power of reason and freedom to choose what to think that is the gift. If our thoughts were products of biochemical activity they would not be “ours”.
How could they have any intrinsic value? They would merely be events associated with the organ in which they occur. “ours” would be simply a term that is automatically applied by some biological machines to themselves! That is the logical outcome of depersonalising, devaluing and depriving of purpose what is regarded by the vast majority of human beings as “our” reality…

 

[tonyrey]

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.

It doesn’t matter what causes the pain the pain itself is the primary reality. We may not even know what causes it but the pain does not cease to be the reality which dominates us. It may not even have an external cause. How do you explain that?

*Do you believe truth, goodness, beauty, justice, freedom and love can be explained in physical terms? If so how? *
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.

Are you saying that a concept like similarity is just a configuration of neuronal activity and refers to nothing in reality? That similarity is a human invention?
That similarity does not exist if there is no one to observe it?

Concepts are physical entities – states of the brain. They’re perfectly real, and as “universal” as they are shared with other brains.

How are brain states shared with other brains?

Love, as a set of actions (sacrifice, service, companionship, etc.) and emotions (affection, desire, sympathy, etc.) are physical phenomena that serve as the referents for the concept of “love”, for example, so to the extent you are talking about the referents of these concepts that are actual, you have a physical manifestation as well.

So all concepts have a physical manifestation?

*Only the person who feels the pain knows what it is like. Pain is certainly real and it is entirely subjective. *
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.

Can you always observe depression, disappointment or pessimism?

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 also can demonstrate objective control over your sensations with hypnosis and self-hypnosis, neither of which requires technology.

1. The causes of pain, i.e. physical objects, are inferred.
2. The pain itself is not inferred but experienced directly.
   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.

We can and do make other inferences. What about psychosomatic pain?

*Are you aware of your surroundings, of time and space, when you are deep in thought? *
Have a friend light a flame under your hand when you are deep in thought, or under hypnosis. What do you think will happen?

Ironically, I have hypnotised myself and looked down to see two blisters on my right arm which was resting on a hot radiator. You underestimate the power of the mind…

That is how could we distinguish that which “exists independently of physical reality” from “something we imagine with our brains”?

How can you distinguish that which “exists independently of mental reality”? Only by comparing your mental experiences with those of other people. Your question assumes that all reality can be observed by the senses: the expression “with our brains” takes it for granted that thought and imagination are physical activities…

You said these qualia could not be explained.

I said that qualia cannot be explained in physical terms…

I am unaware of any terms that are meaningful with respect to “experience” other than terms rooted in physical concepts.

What about “mind”, “insight”, “meaning”, “rational”, “choice”, “decision”, “purpose”, “responsibility”, “guilt”, “equality”, “freedom”…?

If “experience” is not a physical reality, what kind of reality is it? That is, how would we distinguish it from the purely imaginary?

Don’t you have any intellectual, personal or spiritual experiences? Are they all imaginary!

*Why resort to illusory abstraction? To avoid the inconvenient fact that abstractions are real? *
To avoid the massive problem raised by the term “exists independently of physical reality”.

It is only a massive problem if you choose to restrict your mental horizon to material objects…

We know humans can imagine unreal things and concepts with imaginary referents.

Are you reducing concepts to products of the imagination?

We have no idea what “exists independently of physical reality” even means, let alone how it might be applied.

Facts exist independently of physical reality long after the bodies of those who discover them are dead. So do ideas… and our minds which have insight into the nature of reality. You can reject intangible reality but you cannot explain your power to **choose **to reject it…

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

You have not explained how a biological machine is responsible and free to choose what to think.

I am not concerned with Quine’s empirical holism. All I am concerned with is his admission that physical objects are posits. We do not have to posit our consciousness, thoughts, emotions and decisions because they are present whenever we are conscious. Our mind and its power cannot be denied whatever ontological theory we adopt. Any definition of reality must take mind into account as the entity which understands and controls itself.

Right, and I affirm all of those as real, physical features of my person, and of every person.

Where is a decision located in the brain? Which part of the brain is responsible for that decision?

Well, there is no thinking without consciousness – awareness of external objects.

Consciousness is awareness of your thoughts, feelings and perceptions. There is no **direct **awareness of external objects unless you have a special sense which other people lack. The existence of external objects is inferred from our perceptions.

*Ironically you reach this conclusion (after conceding that our starting point is the fact that we are thinking) by using your intangible power of reason - which is necessary and falsifiable. *
Why would you say it’s “intangible”? That’s not necessary, or indicated.

Our power of reason is associated with intangible thoughts even before we infer the existence of physical objects.

Reasoning is a real, physical phenomenon, an activity of the brain. Maybe you can tell me why reasoning is NECESSARILY an “intangible power”.

The reason I have just given. Why do you believe it is necessarily a physical phenomenon?

You constantly use “reality” as a synonym for “physical reality”, thereby begging the question.
We have no other meaningful concepts for reality beyond the physical.

What about our thoughts and perceptions? Are they not real? Are they not the realities of which you are first aware as a child?

Physical reality may NOT be all there is to reality, but it’s all we have grounds to identify as “real” at this point. If you doubt this, I invite you to provide the definitions I’ve asked you for previously concerning what “supernatural reality” or “supernaturally exists”, or “intangible power” means. What separates those from the mere imagination of same?

You have not come to terms with the fact that our very first experiences are of intangibles.We may therefore define reality first and foremost as “that which we experience and know directly”.

I’d like to have some epistemic grounding for my beliefs, there. If “immaterial mind” is not necessary, epistemically, as physical reality is necessary, why would I embrace that idea?

The reason is that you don’t even know that physical reality exists without your thoughts and perceptions - which have no physical location.

Do you really regard “biological machines” as an adequate explanation of persons?!
It’s true to say that a hurricane is just a bunch of air and water molecules. We might say a hurricane is “merely” those things, and indeed, in a reductionist sense, that is an accurate description; that’s what hurricanes are made of.

There is a vast difference between a physical phenomenon and a person.

We are “molecules in motion” at the most rudimentary level of description. But like thinking of a hurricane as “just some molecules”, thinking of humans as “just some molecules” spectacularly misses the complexities and structures that obtain at higher levels of description.

You are trying to explain thoughts, actions and beliefs in terms of physical complexity. But complexity alone is not an adequate or intelligible explanation. You are arguing in effect that an increase in physical complexity can explain anything no matter how it differs from physical objects. You also need to explain how and why there has been an increase in complexity…
You have not explained how we have the power to choose what to believe.

 

[wanstronian]

Your analogy with a physical object demonstrates that you already regard physical reality as fundamental and prior to personal reality. Yet if we have no preconceptions about reality it is reasonable to believe intangible thoughts come from an intangible thinker.

Again, your argument just demonstrates that if we make an arbitrary assumption, we can reach an arbitrary conclusion. It proves nothing, it’s just what you want to believe.

That is a subsequent inference which is highly controversial. Intangible reality is our primary datum.

It isn’t a datum because it isn’t consistent for everyone. Physical reality, on the other hand, is. Therefore our physical world is our primary datum. It can be no other way.

We do not start with our physical existence. The very first things we are aware of when we are born are our perceptions.

And we exist physically before we have such perceptions. Again you seem bent on denying the necessity of your physical existence.

We infer the existence of physical objects without being told that they are physical objects. Our understanding is entirely subjective but it interprets reality successfully. I am not denying our physical existence but explaining the way in which we learn about reality. It is only subsequently that adults theorise about the nature of reality.

That doesn’t mean that reality doesn’t exist prior to the theorising!

The question does not even arise until adults start trying to eliminate the reality of the mind.

Eh? The origin of the question is irrelevant - why are you diverting?

What precisely do you think we begin with when we are babies?

A physical presence and basic survival instincts. All we need at the time.

How can it be inconsistent if it is a reliable basis for our inferences? What is inconsistent about it?

As I have pointed out before, we each have our own perceptions. However, our perceptions regarding our physical environment can be shown to be consistent to the extent that they are acceptable as ‘reality’. Our other thoughts - imagining blue pigs carrying a green cow for example - are inconsistent across the population. They are not real. Why must I repeat myself!?

So our common subjective, intangible experiences are the most fundamental and reliable evidence we possess.

The most fundamental and reliable evidence of our physical environment, yes.

When we are babies we are not told physical reality exists. We infer it and understand it without having it explained to us. I cannot understand why you insist that physical reality is our starting point when there is no evidence that we have direct knowledge and understanding of physical objects when we come into the world. The only things we are aware of are our sensations…

For the umpteenth time - we cannot have sensations, perceptions etc. without a physical presence! Why won’t you accept this basic fact? Your argument seems to be: “Because I can think, my thoughts must be the elemental reality.” This ignores two facts: First that you need a physical body to house the brain that has the thoughts. Second, your perception of your environment does not create that environment - it existed beforehand. Faced with these two facts, how can you possibly state that our intangible thoughts are the primary reality? It’s lunacy!

It has nothing to do with regarding ourselves as special or chosen. It is a matter of ontological and epistemological precedence. If X knows Y exists it is reasonable to believe X is the primary reality until there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

And if Y is our physical universe and X is you, the overwhelming evidence lies in the fact that 6 billion other people also know that Y exists. They can’t all be the primary reality. So even if this wasn’t merely a nebulous philosophical statement, it still shows the error in your thinking.

An incomplete, unverified theory is not a demonstration.

Evolution is a fact. The evidence is overwhelming. The theory part is the exact means by which evolution occurs. Current wisdom holds that this process is Natural Selection.

Moreover the person=biological machine theory does not correspond to the civilised view of humanity.

Define “civilised.” If you mean that a lot of people think that they’re not just biological machines, then what value does that add? There is massive evidence that we have evolved just like every other biological organism. If you’re saying that humans are somehow different, what’s your justification?

If we were just products we could not be responsible agents. We could not even choose what to think… All our thoughts and conclusions would have physical causes…

Indeed. It’s the natural conclusion from the theory that all thought is the product of biochemical reactions in the brain. No evidence that this is not the case.

I’m glad you agree!

Why would I not? You’d be hard-pushed to find someone who thought that everything they imagined, was real.

No. You are equating “intangible” with “transient” and “insubstantial” - which is clearly false. Your view of substance is based on a preconception of reality as solely physical.

Okay - substitute for ‘intangible’ - the point remains. You’re right that my perception of reality is physical - as I have clearly shown, that is the only reality of which we can be sure.

Physical reality is impersonal but not our reality - which atheists attempt to reduce to impersonal reality and thereby deprive us of our unique value and dignity. Strange freaks of nature have no rights to life and happiness. They just happen to exist without rhyme or reason…

Well, I don’t care if you call your personal thoughts and desires “reality” - your thoughts are doubtless ‘real’ to you. In this context of ‘real’, your belief in God is fine. But it’s not evidence that he actually exists in an objective sense.

We do not believe our thoughts are a gift from God. It is our power of reason and freedom to choose what to think that is the gift. If our thoughts were products of biochemical activity they would not be “ours”.

Then there is no proof that your thoughts are yours!

How could they have any intrinsic value? They would merely be events associated with the organ in which they occur. “ours” would be simply a term that is automatically applied by some biological machines to themselves! That is the logical outcome of depersonalising, devaluing and depriving of purpose what is regarded by the vast majority of human beings as “our” reality…

True, the logical outcome is that thoughts are just events that occur in our brains. We have ZERO evidence that this is not absolutely the case.

 

[tonyrey]

Yet if we have no preconceptions about reality it is reasonable to believe intangible thoughts come from an intangible thinker.

Precisely. Your arbitrary assumption is that everything is tangible. My assumption is not arbitrary because the default position is that thoughts are intangible. Ask everyone you meet.

Intangible reality is our primary datum.
It isn’t a datum because it isn’t consistent for everyone.

It is consistent because we **all **have thoughts, feelings and perceptions - and make decisions. If our basic experiences were inconsistent we would not postulate external reality.

We do not start with our physical existence. The very first things we are aware of when we are born are our perceptions.
And we exist physically before we have such perceptions.

Here we are discussing** knowledge **of reality.

Again you seem bent on denying the necessity of your physical existence.

I accept my physical existence whereas you deny your mental existence, i.e. your mind.

It is only subsequently that adults theorise about the nature of reality.
That doesn’t mean that reality doesn’t exist prior to the theorising!

Of course it doesn’t. It means that mental reality exists prior to the theorising!

What precisely do you think we begin with when we are babies?
A physical presence and basic survival instincts. All we need at the time.

My question is related to knowledge.

So our common subjective, intangible experiences are the most fundamental and reliable evidence we possess.
The most fundamental and reliable evidence of our physical environment, yes.

And of our minds…

First that you need a physical body to house the brain that has the thoughts.

You need a physical body to house the brain that communicates the thoughts.

Second, your perception of your environment does not create that environment - it existed beforehand.

Your perception of your environment is used by your mind to interpret, understand and control the environment.

Faced with these two facts, how can you possibly state that our intangible thoughts are the primary reality? It’s lunacy!

It’s lunacy to deny that the objects we perceive are the primary reality for us. Our interpretation of the world is different from everyone else’s. But it is not imaginary: it is our version of the outside world. In addition to that, the world which is most real to us is the world of our thoughts and feelings which often occur independently of our physical environment. If we are intellectuals we spend much of our time in the realm of ideas, not physical objects.

And if Y is our physical universe and X is you, the overwhelming evidence lies in the fact that 6 billion other people also know that Y exists. They can’t all be the primary reality.

There are six billion Xs for whom the primary reality is themselves… and their reality is far more important than Y.

Current wisdom holds that this process is Natural Selection.

The current wisdom of NeoDarwinists selects Natural Selection as the most important factor, i.e. evolution which is ultimately irrational and purposeless.

*Moreover the person=biological machine theory does not correspond to the civilised view of humanity.*Define “civilised.”

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is a good indication.

If you mean that a lot of people think that they’re not just biological machines, then what value does that add?

They regard themselves and others as persons with a right to life, freedom and happiness…

There is massive evidence that we have evolved just like every other biological organism. If you’re saying that humans are somehow different, what’s your justification?

We have not evolved just like every other biological organism. Otherwise we would not have the power of reason, free will and the capacity for love.

It’s the natural conclusion from the theory that all thought is the product of biochemical reactions in the brain.

So you believe you have no power of self-control and no control over your thoughts?

You’re right that my perception of reality is physical - as I have clearly shown, that is the only reality of which we can be sure.

Your interpretation of your perceptions and insight into reality are not external.

*Physical reality is impersonal but not our reality - which atheists attempt to reduce to impersonal reality and thereby deprive us of our unique value and dignity. *
Well, I don’t care if you call your personal thoughts and desires “reality” - your thoughts are doubtless ‘real’ to you.

Not mine alone but everyone’s personal thoughts and desires. Try telling your family and friends their thoughts are not real!

How could they have any intrinsic value? They would merely be events associated with the organ in which they occur. “ours” would be simply a term that is automatically applied by some biological machines to themselves! That is the logical outcome of depersonalising, devaluing and depriving of purpose what is regarded by the vast majority of human beings as “our” reality…
True, the logical outcome is that thoughts are just events that occur in our brains. We have ZERO evidence that this is not absolutely the case.

In that case we have ZERO evidence for anything because:

1. “We” don’t exist.
2. “evidence” doesn’t exist.
3. “responsibility for our thoughts” doesn’t exist.
   For you these terms simply describe brain events…

 

[wanstronian]

Precisely. Your arbitrary assumption is that everything is tangible. My assumption is not arbitrary because the default position is that thoughts are intangible. Ask everyone you meet.

Nice try, but you are the one making an arbitrary assumption - that our thoughts are not products of our physical selves. There is no evidence to support your assumption. My assumption is the exact opposite. The evidence for my assumption is the incontrivertible fact of our physical existence.

It is consistent because we **all **have thoughts, feelings and perceptions - and make decisions. If our basic experiences were inconsistent we would not postulate external reality.

This is a straw man, although possibly unintentional. Yes, we all have thoughts etc. But we don’t all have the same thoughts - hence inconsistency. We do all have the same experience of our physical reality - hence, consistency.

Here we are discussing** knowledge **of reality.

Whatever - we can’t have knowledge of our reality without out physical existence occurring first.

I accept my physical existence whereas you deny your mental existence, i.e. your mind.

Why do you always resort to straw men when I point out your errors? I don’t deny my mind, I just point out that it doesn’t exist without a corporeal home. I find it increasingly amazing that you keep refuting this!

Of course it doesn’t. It means that mental reality exists prior to the theorising!

To be accurate, it means that the reality of mental activity exists prior. The precursor to this mental activity is a physical body, to the best of our knowledge.

My question is related to knowledge.

Then we know nothing, or thereabouts, at birth.

And of our minds…

In the abstract, yes. However, I point out yet again that no evidence exists to suggest that a mind is not entirely housed within the brain. Please see my sig.

You need a physical body to house the brain that communicates the thoughts.

I knew you’d say that - ignoring your unsubstantiated assertion that the brain is merely a conduit, it makes no difference to my point - the physical must exist first.

Your perception of your environment is used by your mind to interpret, understand and control the environment.

Perception is a function of the brain. The abstraction of the mind serves no useful purpose other than for a sense of identity.

It’s lunacy to deny that the objects we perceive are the primary reality for us. Our interpretation of the world is different from everyone else’s. But it is not imaginary: it is our version of the outside world. In addition to that, the world which is most real to us is the world of our thoughts and feelings which often occur independently of our physical environment. If we are intellectuals we spend much of our time in the realm of ideas, not physical objects.

As per my previous post, if you want to lose yourself in your thoughts, you may. You are REALLY having those thoughts. That does not make thoses thoughts reality for everyone. I’m making the assumption generally here that when we talk about reality, we are referring to the reality of the universe, not the subjective and self-contained ‘reality’ of one person’s thoughts.

There are six billion Xs for whom the primary reality is themselves… and their reality is far more important than Y.

Speak for yourself. You make an interesting comment, given that each of those Xs is part of Y.

The current wisdom of NeoDarwinists selects Natural Selection as the most important factor, i.e. evolution which is ultimately irrational and purposeless.

No, the current wisdom of the vast majority of molecular and evolutionary biologists, for starters. Whether you like it or not.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is a good indication.

Does this state that humans are not biological organisms? No. You are just making another straw man that biological machines are innately precluded from having human rights. Maybe you should think before you type?

They regard themselves and others as persons with a right to life, freedom and happiness…

Indeed. How is that mutually exclusive with being a product of biological process?

We have not evolved just like every other biological organism. Otherwise we would not have the power of reason, free will and the capacity for love.

We’ve evolved differently and/or to a more advanced state. But we have evolved using the same process. There is no question about that. The evidence is overwhelming. Evolution is a fact. It can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Which means that if you doubt it, you are not reasonable.

So you believe you have no power of self-control and no control over your thoughts?

It’s the only rational conclusion in the absence of evidence of any other source of free will.

Your interpretation of your perceptions and insight into reality are not external.

No. To clarify - my perception is that the only reality is physical. This is because there is no evidence otherwise. My interpretation of my environment is internal to my biological body, it takes place within my brain, like everybody else.

Not mine alone but everyone’s personal thoughts and desires. Try telling your family and friends their thoughts are not real!

I never said they weren’t real. I said they weren’t reality. Try and keep up.

In that case we have ZERO evidence for anything because:

1. “We” don’t exist.
2. “evidence” doesn’t exist.
3. “responsibility for our thoughts” doesn’t exist.
   For you these terms simply describe brain events…

If you could leap as far in real life as you do logically, you’d just have jumped across the Grand Canyon.

Shall we just call a halt now? We’re clearly not going to agree on even the most basic facts.