Which is more economical: theism or atheism?

[tonyrey]

Latin sponte: of one’s free will.

That self-determinism is incompatible with determinism…

If people really believe in determinism they become fatalists and tend to let things take their course.
Determinism does not mean, “The same thing will happen if do nothing, as if I do something.”

It means that we** think **we are controlling events but they are predetermined.

So you believe that people had no right to life because people did not recognise the right to life? That it was not wrong to kill people for entertainment?
Wrong by today’s standards, but not by the standards of the day.

Are today’s standards superior to theirs?

You believe a person is a collection of mental events. So choices are made either by all the mental events or some of them.
That’s true. It’s unlikely that every brain cell is involved in every decision. A choice is a mental event.

So probably a certain number of cells are involved and they cause the choice? “The buck rests with them.”

The likelihood of naturalism being true is diminishing steadily.
How so?

Because it does not account for the highest and most valuable aspects of reality.

Even if it were true - for which I keenly await your evidence - by this same logic, God and extracorporeal consciousness CANNOT exist.

Please explain why it is impossible.

Why is it irrelevant whether identicality, equality, numerical relations and physical constants existed before human beings existed? If they did exist they are not just concepts…
You may remember, your point was about similarity. I answered it so you came up with a different concept.

Because similarity can be argued to be subjective but other physical facts cannot.

I could answer this too, but you could then come up with dozens of concepts.

Please explain how physical constants are just concepts in the mind…

Dogs do not make rational or moral choices.
Not moral, no - they’re not sufficiently evolved.

You are assuming that conscience has evolved due to its survival value and that good and evil exist only in the mind.

How do you know they’re not rational?

They are incapable of grasping abstract concepts like truth and are not regarded as responsible for their behaviour.

But yet again, you deflect from the original point, which was whether animals make choices. Not the basis for their choices, just whether they make them.

Their “choices” are instinctive and not based on abstract reasoning.

How is it an extreme example when it is the basis of all our thinking. If we don’t know we are thinking why bother to think?
Well, as you insist on pursuing this for some reason: You know that you are thinking. That is all that you can ever absolutely know. HOWEVER, as I’ve said before, you have to make an assumption that the world is not a figment of your imagination, otherwise as you say, there’s no point.

We make both those assumptions and both are objectively true. Our mental processes are evidence of the objective reality of our thoughts, feelings and decisions. We cannot make the **a priori **assumption that they are less real than physical objects like brain processes.

The urge to survive is not an arbitrary distinction.
We were talking about biological machines, then all of a sudden you were talking about automata.

The point is that the mechanistic biological-machine theory is an inadequate explanation of living organisms, let alone human beings.

Is there any evidence that computers are aware of themselves and their makers?
There is no evidence that computers are aware, of course. As for non-human biological machines the only evidence is anecdotal. There are experiments on chimps (Byrne, 1997, don’t know if there’s an online document.)

Their lack of syntactic language with their limited range of behaviour is convincing evidence that they cannot grasp and relate abstract concepts like the “self” and “awareness”.

Yet consciousness, intelligence and purpose are the factors which make human beings the highest form of known reality in the entire universe. Without them the amazing success of science would not have occurred. To dismiss them as fortuitous freaks of nature is a most inadequate explanation.
Why? And what better explanation is there? God? He may be an answer, but he’s not an explanation.

A conscious, rational, purposeful Being is clearly a more adequate explanation than processes which lack those powers. The immense richness, variety and value of life are far more likely to be due to Design than Chance and Necessity.

It has not been explained how and why emergence occurred.
No. Therefore it can’t have happened, right?

It is theoretically possible but extremely improbable.

Many people find it in their interest and are not bothered about their evolved morals.
That’s true. Not everybody is sane.

In that case morality must be based primarily on reason rather than emotion.

It seems odd that morals benefit society but they have not evolved for that purpose. Why have they evolved?
The theory of natural selection holds that nothing evolves for a purpose…

In that case it is a defective theory because morality is necessarily purposeful.

 

[tonyrey]

I start with a non-negotiable bootstrapping axiom, that the world is comprehensible and that our senses can give us reliable information about it - everything about understanding reality proceeds from that position which is pragmatically demonstrable.

Everything about understanding reality proceeds initially from your power of reason which infers the existence of the world from your perceptions.

One cannot describe any statement as constituting knowledge (ie a true statement about reality) if it is not falsifiable, shareable and supported by evidence which ultimately derives from sense experience.

What about your power of reason? Is that supported by evidence derived from sense experience?

So speculations which are incapable of falsification, private revelation or inspiration, and musings about entities and domains that we cannot in principle sense do not constitute knowledge.

So you do not have private knowledge of your power of reason?

• That is a less parsimonious view than the one we have been discussing - that mental states and brain states are identical.*
  I fail, in the context of the discussion, to see the distinction. Perhaps I’d make it clearer for you if I say that they are different aspects of the same material phenomenon.

One could equally well say that they are different aspects of the same mental phenomenon.

The electrochemical firing of neurons in certain centres in the brain and pain are different aspects of the same phenomenon. No supernatural mind needed.

We begin with the intangible power of reason so why suppose the intangible is derived from the tangible?

An incomplete explanation is an inadequate explanation.
Not necessarily - in order to discuss adequacy we’d need to agree on adequate for what purpose. Almost all explanations are incomplete, but that does not make them inherently or universally inadequate.

In this case if the explanation does not account for the most important aspects of reality it is clearly inadequate.

Furthermore it’s a fallacy to claim that if the particular brains that evolution has provided us with are practically unable to completely explain themselves then that is the same as saying that material based cognition is unable in principle to explain itself as support for the necessity of a non-material domain.

All this is jumping the gun! How do you extract yourself from your intangible egocentric predicament? We have direct knowledge of our intangible minds yet we do not claim that they can explain themselves. Our minds have indirect knowledge of tangible objects so the claim that they can explain themselves - as well as the minds that perceive them - needs considerable justification.

In any case, I’m not sure where you are hoping your logic will take you…

The first assumption of the materialist who was discussing this issue is that matter is the sole reality. If the matter is the sole reality then how can it explain itself? Have you encountered anything that is self-explanatory? There is no evidence whatsoever that something can explain itself. Explanation implies clarification but the assertion that matter explains matter is as clear as mud!
Your assumption is incorrect. I am asserting that matter cannot explain matter (in the context of the view that matter is the sole reality) - not that “a purely matter cognition cannot explain cognition” (although that is an unsubstantiated hypothesis).

The onus is on you to show that matter can explain matter. In the absence of any evidence it is as vacuous as the assertion “atomic particles can explain atomic particles”.
Well atomic particles can explain atomic particles in the sense that our brains are made up of hypercomplex configurations of atomic particles, and it’s our brains that we use when we “explain” (discover the existence of, describe the behaviour of) atomic particles (try explaining anything after you have dropped 3 feet head first on to a concrete floor).

You are begging the question. You are assuming that explanation - which is itself intangible - is solely due to the activity of the tangible brain. Yet all we know for certain is that we have the power of reason, not its origin or basis. There is no a priori reason to suppose the intangible power of reason depends on the tangible brain for its existence or that it ceases to exist when the tangible brain ceases to function.
If you assert, as you have, that matter can explain matter, or that atomic particles can explain atomic particles, the onus is on you to show how that can be done. .

Perhaps it’s something that you just know privately, because as I pointed out above, your “best evidence” for your assertion is based on a misunderstanding of theorems about formal systems.

The proposition that matter can explain matter is a theory which needs to be substantiated. I am not propounding any theory or claiming to have a private source of knowledge. It is not necessary for me to prove that matter cannot explain matter. It necessary for me to falsify a theory for which no evidence has been produced. All we know for certain is that we have intangible thoughts, feelings and perceptions. We infer from our perceptions that matter exists and I do not dispute that matter exists. You dispute that the source of our intangible mental activity is intangible and attribute it to the tangible physical activity of the brain. Therefore to begin with the onus is on you to produce evidence to support your contention.

 

[tonyrey]

I start with a non-negotiable bootstrapping axiom, that the world is comprehensible and that our senses can give us reliable information about it - everything about understanding reality proceeds from that position which is pragmatically demonstrable.

Everything about understanding reality proceeds initially from your power of reason which infers the existence of the world from your perceptions.

One cannot describe any statement as constituting knowledge (ie a true statement about reality) if it is not falsifiable, shareable and supported by evidence which ultimately derives from sense experience.

What about your power of reason? Is that supported by evidence derived from sense experience?

So speculations which are incapable of falsification, private revelation or inspiration, and musings about entities and domains that we cannot in principle sense do not constitute knowledge.

So you do not have private knowledge of your power of reason?

• That is a less parsimonious view than the one we have been discussing - that mental states and brain states are identical.*
  I fail, in the context of the discussion, to see the distinction. Perhaps I’d make it clearer for you if I say that they are different aspects of the same material phenomenon.

One could equally well say that they are different aspects of the same mental phenomenon.

The electrochemical firing of neurons in certain centres in the brain and pain are different aspects of the same phenomenon. No supernatural mind needed.

We begin with the intangible power of reason so why suppose the intangible is derived from the tangible?

An incomplete explanation is an inadequate explanation.
Not necessarily - in order to discuss adequacy we’d need to agree on adequate for what purpose. Almost all explanations are incomplete, but that does not make them inherently or universally inadequate.

In this case if the explanation does not account for the most important aspects of reality it is clearly inadequate.

Furthermore it’s a fallacy to claim that if the particular brains that evolution has provided us with are practically unable to completely explain themselves then that is the same as saying that material based cognition is unable in principle to explain itself as support for the necessity of a non-material domain.

All this is jumping the gun! How do you extract yourself from your intangible egocentric predicament? We have direct knowledge of our intangible minds yet we do not claim that they can explain themselves. Our minds have indirect knowledge of tangible objects so the claim that they can explain themselves - as well as the minds that perceive them - needs considerable justification.

In any case, I’m not sure where you are hoping your logic will take you…

The first assumption of the materialist who was discussing this issue is that matter is the sole reality. If the matter is the sole reality then how can it explain itself? Have you encountered anything that is self-explanatory? There is no evidence whatsoever that something can explain itself. Explanation implies clarification but the assertion that matter explains matter is as clear as mud!

The onus is on you to show that matter can explain matter. In the absence of any evidence it is as vacuous as the assertion “atomic particles can explain atomic particles”.
Well atomic particles can explain atomic particles in the sense that our brains are made up of hypercomplex configurations of atomic particles, and it’s our brains that we use when we “explain” (discover the existence of, describe the behaviour of) atomic particles (try explaining anything after you have dropped 3 feet head first on to a concrete floor).

You are begging the question. You are assuming that explanation - which is itself intangible - is solely due to the activity of the tangible brain. Yet all we know for certain is that we have the power of reason, not its origin or basis. There is no a priori reason to suppose the intangible power of reason depends on the tangible brain for its existence or that it ceases to exist when the tangible brain ceases to function.
If you assert, as you have, that matter can explain matter, or that atomic particles can explain atomic particles, the onus is on you to show how that can be done. .

Perhaps it’s something that you just know privately, because as I pointed out above, your “best evidence” for your assertion is based on a misunderstanding of theorems about formal systems.

The proposition that matter can explain matter is a theory which needs to be substantiated. I am not propounding any theory or claiming to have a private source of knowledge. It is not necessary for me to prove that matter cannot explain matter. It necessary for me to falsify a theory for which no evidence has been produced. All we know for certain is that we have intangible thoughts, feelings and perceptions. We infer from our perceptions that matter exists and I do not dispute that matter exists. You dispute that the source of our intangible mental activity is intangible and attribute it to the tangible physical activity of the brain. Therefore to begin with the onus is on you to produce evidence to support your contention.

 

[Touchstone]

TS,

Faith in God and belief in the supernatural (as in the existence of an immaterial soul) is only '“intellectually impoverished” if it leads to answering scientific and intellectual questions with the response ‘God did it’ without any pursuit of further knowledge and understanding.

Hi Fran (can I call you Fran?),

I think your results-oriented thinking is good – doctrine that dead-ends investigation is bad, and that’s not just a religious problem. But the impoverishment stems from another source, I think – what I had hoped to get across in my last reply, namely the resignation to unqualified intuition, supertitions intuitions, even.

I think the fecundity of a theory of explanation is important, but it’s not the problem I’m identifying with supernatural answers.

Many seem to believe that Faith stymies intellectual and scientific endeavour, and this is simply not true. My God is not the god of the gaps or the endstop to our potential to answer both theological, scientific and moral questions. Rather He poses more and deeper questions and this enlarges the universe rather than shrinks it.

Well, once it goes from scientific to theological or philosophical, it’s a serious downgrade on the answers. The answers may still be true, but our epistemology is now highly problematic, and we are banished to the ghetto of subjectivity.

That doesn’t mean the answers can’t be meaningful and profound, they just take on a prosaic, personal character. If our goal is real knowledge, if that’s the intellectual objective, we have resigned with answers that drift into theology. If you/we can take “godful” answers somehow and keep the epistemology intact – liable to falsification, empirically determined, predictive, objective, etc., then no problem – it’s science. I do not rule out the scientific analysis of God or God’s work so long as it doesn’t corrupt the epistemology.

Whilst I am aware of a the existence of those who use ‘God’ as a set of blinkers and as limiter on the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, this not an inevitable consequence of belief in God, but rather a symptom of a profound dis-ease with change and novelty and a profound fear of the loss of faith. That is a impoverished view and one that does no-one any credit.

I think that diagnosis is not too far off from mine, but here’s my take:

Religion is a wholly natural, unavoidable intuition. From the time we are infants, we form concepts of “deity”. We see are parents as “local gods”. As we get to be preschoolers and gradeschoolers, we demote parents and other adults to demi-gods, but the “god intution” remains – we are honed by nature to have our Hypersensitive Agency Detection Devices (seriously, that’s what they call it in research circles) set to 11, and we are hardwired to see the world from a perspective Deb Keleman calls “promiscuous teleology”.

So, religion, then, is a lingering “index” on that intution. For some, it is so strong, so invincible, theistic counterfactuals they embrace cannot be overcome by any evidence (YECs, for example). This is not a black/white switch, but rather a continuum on which people fall, with varying levels of intuition, protected from rational/empirical overturning.

So I would say those “blinkers” are intuitions that are innate, as they are for all of us, but which override meta-representational objections. They just know, and that’s that.

Faith in God and an acknowledgement of the possibility and/or reality of the supernatural can lead to an enrichment of our intellect and our worldview. A universe that contains both the material and the immaterial is a much richer and diverse universe than that which is solely material (rich though that is).

That’s a hard issue to speak to I guess. I only have my own experience to go by on that, but intellectually, my theism was like being in a drugged-up fog, intellectually. Which is not to say it wasn’t more comfy and anodyne in many ways – it was, but for me, all that was pseudo-knowledge, pretense to understanding. I say “I don’t know” a whole lot more, now, so my “declared knowledge perimeter” has shrunk a lot, but the quality of the model and the tools that provides in terms of method and discipline just embarrass strategies that casually admit supernatural explanations sans objective justification.

Of course I came out of the worst parts of the Christian intellectual ghetto – Protestant fundamentalism and mainstream Evangelicalism – but reading this forum several years ago showed me that Catholics are generally much more rational and intellectual than conservative Protestants, but sill suffer from the same basic problem, if less severely. And I note that CAF has a lot of the same kind of intransigent anti-intellectuals and non-thinkers as is found in fundy and evangelical communities. CAF just has more thoughtful minds in the ranks of the faithful.

As you have acknowledged elsewhere, God remains a possibility, as does the existence of an immaterial soul. Surely a dismissal of this possibility is an intellectually impoverished position rather than the contrary?

Absolutely, I say this all the time – he is a fool, and trivially shown so, who claims certainty that there is no God, no immaterial soul.

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

Correction:

I am not propounding any theory or claiming to have a private source of knowledge - other than that which we all possess: our knowledge of our mental activity.

It is not necessary to prove everything cannot come from nothing until evidence has been produced that everything can come from nothing. Nor is it necessary to prove everything is an illusion until evidence has been produced that everything is an illusion. Similarly it is not necessary to prove matter cannot explain matter until evidence has been produced that matter can explain matter.

All we know for certain is that we have intangible thoughts, feelings and perceptions. We infer from our perceptions that matter exists and I do not dispute that matter exists. You dispute that the source of our intangible mental activity is intangible and attribute it to the tangible physical activity of the brain. Therefore to begin with the onus is on you to produce evidence to support your contention.

 

[wanstronian]

Very annoying - responded to this once and post has disappeared.

That self-determinism is incompatible with determinism…

So I repeat, how does this preclude a physical cause?

It means that we** think **we are controlling events but they are predetermined.

Bang on.

Are today’s standards superior to theirs?

We think so, they may not have done. That proves my point nicely.

So probably a certain number of cells are involved and they cause the choice? “The buck rests with them.”

Yes - it’s unlikely that every cell in the brain is involved in every choice. Clearly that doesn’t mean those cells aren’t independent of the rest of the brain, if that’s what you’re trying to ask.

Because it does not account for the highest and most valuable aspects of reality.

Ah - so it’s diminishing in your opinion. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Phenomena previously explained in supernatural terms are consistently being found to have natural explanations, as our knowledge increases. Your accusation at naturalism is actually a far more accurate description of supernaturalism, which is constantly receding before science.

Please explain why it is impossible.

Hey, I’m just using your logic. Remember?:“The likelihood of an explanation being true diminishes in direct proportion to the insufficiency of the evidence.”

Because similarity can be argued to be subjective but other physical facts cannot.

Then you shouldn’t have used it to try and argue your point. Admit your mistake and move on.

Please explain how physical constants are just concepts in the mind…

If you want to introduce a new subject, start a new thread and let’s discuss it there.

You are assuming that conscience has evolved due to its survival value and that good and evil exist only in the mind.

There is absolutely no evidence for any other explanation. Good and evil are subjective - demonstrably true as their scope has changed over the centuries - so where else would they exist other than in the mind?

They are incapable of grasping abstract concepts like truth and are not regarded as responsible for their behaviour.

Conceded. Dogs cannot do this. It doesn’t mean they don’t make choices. Just probably not consequence-based choices.

Their “choices” are instinctive and not based on abstract reasoning.

Nevertheless they are choices.

We make both those assumptions and both are objectively true. Our mental processes are evidence of the objective reality of our thoughts, feelings and decisions. We cannot make the **a priori **assumption that they are less real than physical objects like brain processes.

Indeed. As I explained before, this was an extreme example to show exactly what you’re now repeating: that we have to put a stake in the ground somewhere and call it true.

The point is that the mechanistic biological-machine theory is an inadequate explanation of living organisms, let alone human beings.

And now you’re arbitrarily introducing a new qualifier in ‘mechanistic,’ which was not mentioned before. You’re losing the argument so you’re changing the rules. Bad form, but not the first time for you!

Their lack of syntactic language with their limited range of behaviour is convincing evidence that they cannot grasp and relate abstract concepts like the “self” and “awareness”.

Wow. They can’t talk, so you decide how mentally complete they are? In the fourteenth century, mute people were often thought of as stupid - that’s where ‘dumb’ comes from. You are in danger of aligning yourself with a 600-year-old, disproved theory.

A conscious, rational, purposeful Being is clearly a more adequate explanation than processes which lack those powers.

It explains nothing. It falls at the first hurdle that you mentioned - the lack of reponse to questions. For example: Why did God do what he (supposedly) did? How did he do it? When? And so on. Remember your comment: “Every unanswered question weakens the theory.” In keeping with the comparison to naturalism, bear in mind that the answers to these questions need to be empirically provable. God is not an explanation. He is just a simple answer for simple people.

The immense richness, variety and value of life are far more likely to be due to Design than Chance and Necessity.

Ha! Chance. The battle cry of the ignorant theist. There is ZERO evidence of ID. This is just your narrow mind and personal incredulity speaking.

It is theoretically possible but extremely improbable.

Nobody said it was inevitable. Yet it clearly has happened, and emergent properties of all kinds are evident throughout nature. It is certainly no less probable than an intelligent entity who was able to instantaneously create quintillions of atoms and predict exactly how things would turn out…

In that case morality must be based primarily on reason rather than emotion.

Probably true, but still irrelevant since both are products of brain activity.

In that case it is a defective theory because morality is necessarily purposeful.

An assertion with no evidence. A benefit does not imply purpose.

 

[tonyrey]

Self-determinism is incompatible with determinism…

So you must believe self-determinism is an illusion…

Are today’s standards superior to theirs?

We think so, they may not have done.

So today’s standards are not superior to theirs? There has been no moral progress?

So probably a certain number of cells are involved and they cause the choice? “The buck rests with them.”

Yes - it’s unlikely that every cell in the brain is involved in every choice.

It follows that the buck rests with the cells involved with the choice.

Because naturalism does not account for the highest and most valuable aspects of reality.

Phenomena previously explained in supernatural terms are consistently being found to have natural explanations, as our knowledge increases.

The highest and most valuable aspects of reality remain unexplained.

Because similarity can be argued to be subjective but other physical facts cannot.

Then you shouldn’t have used it to try and argue your point. Admit your mistake and move on.

It is not a mistake but physical constants are less controversial.

Please explain how physical constants are just concepts in the mind…

If you want to introduce a new subject, start a new thread and let’s discuss it there.

It is unnecessary. The physical features of the universe - including the constants - obviously existed before man.

You are assuming that conscience has evolved due to its survival value and that good and evil exist only in the mind.

There is absolutely no evidence for any other explanation.

Do you deny the fact of success and failure in human existence?

Good and evil are subjective - demonstrably true as their scope has changed over the centuries - so where else would they exist other than in the mind?

Differences of scientific opinion do not demonstrate the subjectivity of science, nor do differences of moral opinion demonstrate the subjectivity of morals.

They are incapable of grasping abstract concepts like truth and are not regarded as responsible for their behaviour.

Conceded. Dogs cannot do this. It doesn’t mean they don’t make choices. Just probably not consequence-based choices.

Their “choices” are instinctive and not based on abstract reasoning.

Nevertheless they are choices.

Yet dogs are still not responsible…

Their lack of syntactic language with their limited range of behaviour is convincing evidence that they cannot grasp and relate abstract concepts like the “self” and “awareness”.

They can’t talk, so you decide how mentally complete they are?

With their limited range of behaviour…

Our mental processes are evidence of the objective reality of our thoughts, feelings and decisions. We cannot make the a priori assumption that they are less real than physical objects like brain processes.

Indeed. As I explained before, this was an extreme example to show exactly what you’re now repeating: that we have to put a stake in the ground somewhere and call it true.

It is an extreme example precisely because it is the fundamental fact on which all our knowledge is based and without which there would be no interpretation of reality.

And now you’re arbitrarily introducing a new qualifier in ‘mechanistic’…

How is it arbitrary when you regard human beings as biological machines? Don’t you believe the brain functions mechanistically?

A conscious, rational, purposeful Being is clearly a more adequate explanation than processes which lack those powers.

It explains nothing. Why did God do what he (supposedly) did?

The immense value of existence answers that question.

How did he do it?

How did matter create itself?

When?

When the universe was created and as long as it is sustained in existence.

In keeping with the comparison to naturalism, bear in mind that the answers to these questions need to be empirically provable.

How is naturalism empirically provable?

God is not an explanation. He is just a simple answer for simple people.

Matter is not an explanation. It is the simplest answer for those with closed minds.

The immense richness, variety and value of life are far more likely to be due to Design than Chance and Necessity.

There is ZERO evidence of ID.Your **opinion **is not shared by eminent philosophers who have become theists…

It is theoretically possible but extremely improbable.

Yet it clearly has happened, and emergent properties of all kinds are evident throughout nature. Emergence is a fact but naturalism regards it as purposeless and does not explain purpose.

It is certainly no less probable than an intelligent entity who was able to instantaneously create quintillions of atoms and predict exactly how things would turn out…

Naturalism is far less probable because the success of science is due to intelligence rather than chance and necessity

In that case morality must be based primarily on reason rather than emotion.

Probably true, but still irrelevant since both are products of brain activity.Quod est demonstrandum!

In that case it is a defective theory because morality is necessarily purposeful.

A benefit does not imply purpose.Purpose is a more adequate explanation. Benefit is associated with benefactor…

 

[wanstronian]

So you must believe self-determinism is an illusion…

I don’t know enough about quantum theory, which apparently posits true randomness. I certainly don’t believe that free will is a bequest from spiritual entity.

So today’s standards are not superior to theirs? There has been no moral progress?

Of course they are - that’s exactly what I just said! Stop dicking around.

It follows that the buck rests with the cells involved with the choice.

Yes, but given your propensity to digress, I felt compelled to clarify.

The highest and most valuable aspects of reality remain unexplained.

Assertion and subjective opinion on your part, but regardless, “unexplained” does not mean “unexplainable.” I think this is your biggest blind spot - believing that something we don’t know can never be known. Despite the rich history of evidence to the contrary. It is your narrow-mindedness that denies your ability to learn.

It is not a mistake but physical constants are less controversial.

Whatever - new topic, new thread please.

It is unnecessary. The physical features of the universe - including the constants - obviously existed before man.

New topic, new thread please.

Do you deny the fact of success and failure in human existence?

First, define “success” and “failure.” Then demonstrate how they have any impact on my previous comment.

Differences of scientific opinion do not demonstrate the subjectivity of science, nor do differences of moral opinion demonstrate the subjectivity of morals.

Wrong from the start - differences of opinion absolutely do demonstrate the subjectivity of the topic.

Yet dogs are still not responsible…

Okay.

With their limited range of behaviour…

Chimps are not as evolved as humans. I don’t think it follows that it’s your place to judge them devoid of any of the attributes that prove you are wrong.

It is an extreme example precisely because it is the fundamental fact on which all our knowledge is based and without which there would be no interpretation of reality.

I really don’t know why you’re pursusing this, we’ve done it to death. If you continue nebulising the discussion, this will be my last full post. There’s no point debating with someone who has no interest in reaching a conclusion.

How is it arbitrary when you regard human beings as biological machines? Don’t you believe the brain functions mechanistically?

If you keep introducting adjectives, then there’s no point my continuing the discussion. Your tactics are taken as tacit admission that I’m right.

The immense value of existence answers that question.

Sorry, I asked from an explanation. Remember my criteria - “answers to these questions need to be empirically provable.” That’s how science operates, it’s only fair to judge in a consistent way.

How did matter create itself?

Ha! Typical. You can’t answer the question you said you could, so you pass the buck. Remember, I’m not the one claiming that matter created itself. How intellectually bereft you are, that you have to feel the need, when you can’t answer a question, to fire back a different question about an arbitrarily selected alternative.

When the universe was created and as long as it is sustained in existence.

Which is when? How long? Empirically-supported answers please. No? Can’t do it? Quelle suprise.

How is naturalism empirically provable?

In its entirety, it isn’t. However, at least it tries, in the form of scientific endeavour; and it doesn’t state as absolute fact, that which hasn’t been proven.

Matter is not an explanation. It is the simplest answer for those with closed minds.

The irony of someone who won’t even consider the unsupportability of their beliefs calling “closed mind” is incredible.

Your **opinion **is not shared by eminent philosophers who have become theists…

Such as whom? It’s not just my opinion, as I’m sure you’re aware. It’s the opinion of molecular biologists and evolutionary zoologists - in other words, people for whom this very subject is their job. The appearance of design is not design. The appearance of the sun going round the earth does not make it so. Evidence is what’s required, and you have none.

Emergence is a fact but naturalism regards it as purposeless and does not explain purpose.

Yes - evolution is purposeless. That doesn’t mean it can’t create people who have purpose. Another example of your personal incredulity blinding you to the possibilities.

Naturalism is far less probable because the success of science is due to intelligence rather than chance and necessity

And again he calls, “chance!” Your logic in this statement is nonsensical. Perhaps you could explain how intelligence makes naturalism less likely than God?

Quod est demonstrandum!

Maybe not, but there’s no evidence that anything else is involved, and your comment is still irrelevant either way.

Purpose is a more adequate explanation.

Your proof of this? Or is it just your opinion like everything else you say?

Benefit is associated with benefactor…

Only in some contexts… like the context in which you by default assume there is a benefactor, then find natural phenomena to fit your assumption.

 

[hecd2]

Everything about understanding reality proceeds initially from your power of reason which infers the existence of the world from your perceptions.

I agree that human cognitive ability is necessary to arrive at robust beliefs about reality. However, without sense experience, this ability is useless - reason on its own cannot arrive at any knowledge about reality.

What about your power of reason? Is that supported by evidence derived from sense experience?

Do you mean is my reasoning supported by evidence from sense experience, or is the very existence of an ability to reason supported by evidence from sense experience? In both cases, of course, the answer is yes, as human cognition is not able to develop in a sensory vacuum.

So you do not have private knowledge of your power of reason?

Only insofar as it produces beliefs which stand up in the real world.

One could equally well say that they are different aspects of the same mental phenomenon.

One could say that, but since it is trivially demonstrable that brain states are material, one would be wrong.

We begin with the intangible power of reason so why suppose the intangible is derived from the tangible?

We begin, as I pointed out, with our sense experience and our reasoning ability which depends completely on brain processes. Pain is intangible but derives from material phenomena - the claim that the intangible cannot be derived from the tangible is an error.

In this case if the explanation does not account for the most important aspects of reality it is clearly inadequate

I repeat - inadequate for what? What are the most important aspects of reality in this case, and why does the putative specific inability of human cognition to explain itself lead to the conclusion that cognition must therefore rest on a non-material foundation? It’s a non-sequitur. Don’t you think that there might be many things about material reality that our brains will be unable to explain?

All this is jumping the gun! How do you extract yourself from your intangible egocentric predicament? We have direct knowledge of our intangible minds yet we do not claim that they can explain themselves.

That knowledge depends utterly and totally on the proper working of our material brains.

Our minds have indirect knowledge of tangible objects so the claim that they can explain themselves - as well as the minds that perceive them - needs considerable justification.

I’m not insisting that our minds can explain themselves (I think we will get much better explanations as work in this area proceeds, but that is not the point) - we might not be able to do so, but in what way is that proof, or even evidence, for the necessity of a non-material domain to the mind? It seems that one is merely replacing the difficulty of explaining a material phenomenon with an appeal to superstition, since by your definition, the spiritual is inherently both sensibly and cognitively unknowable.

The first assumption of the materialist who was discussing this issue is that matter is the sole reality.

Perhaps, but it is not my position. My position is that what we can sense, ie the material world, is all that we can have robust beliefs about.

to be continued

 

[hecd2]

Continuation

If the matter is the sole reality then how can it explain itself? Have you encountered anything that is self-explanatory? There is no evidence whatsoever that something can explain itself. Explanation implies clarification but the assertion that matter explains matter is as clear as mud!You are begging the question.

No - I am sorry - it’s you that is begging the question. The question is whether our minds, which includes all our cognitive faculties, have more than a material foundation (they obviously have a material foundation). So to assert that matter cannot explain matter in this way is not evidence for your conclusion, but simply to state your conclusion in another way.

You are assuming that explanation - which is itself intangible - is solely due to the activity of the tangible brain. Yet all we know for certain is that we have the power of reason, not its origin or basis. There is no a priori reason to suppose the intangible power of reason depends on the tangible brain for its existence or that it ceases to exist when the tangible brain ceases to function.

I am not assuming that the mental and communicative process of explanation is solely due to brain activity - I am concluding that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is a good working hypothesis. It’s *certainly *the case that every piece of evidence we have indicates that brain activity (rather specific brain activity actually) is necessary. Are you really suggesting that our reasoning ability survives the demise of our brains? If you can provide any evidence that any mental function exists in the absence of brain processes, be my guest. That is certainly is a way-out belief.

If you assert, as you have, that matter can explain matter, or that atomic particles can explain atomic particles, the onus is on you to show how that can be done. .
I am not propounding any theory or claiming to have a private source of knowledge. It is not necessary for me to prove that matter cannot explain matter. It necessary for me to falsify a theory for which no evidence has been produced. All we know for certain is that we have intangible thoughts, feelings and perceptions.

…which rely entirely on the functioning of our material brains - we do not start with minds either logically or developmentally - we start with brains.

We infer from our perceptions that matter exists and I do not dispute that matter exists. You dispute that the source of our intangible mental activity is intangible and attribute it to the tangible physical activity of the brain. Therefore to begin with the onus is on you to produce evidence to support your contention.

Since you slipped in the grotesque belief that reasoning can occur in the absence of brain right at the end, we’d better start with that - because if you can show that, then you are able to point to a situation where brain functioning is not necessary for mental functioning and by inference that it is not, at least, in some cases sufficient. If you have that evidence that would be pretty revolutionary, as we could all then agree on the existence of a non-material domain.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[tonyrey]

I agree that human cognitive ability is necessary to arrive at robust beliefs about reality. However, without sense experience, this ability is useless - reason on its own cannot arrive at any knowledge about reality.

Do you mean is my reasoning supported by evidence from sense experience, or is the very existence of an ability to reason supported by evidence from sense experience? In both cases, of course, the answer is yes, as human cognition is not able to develop in a sensory vacuum.How do you know that? Have you lived in a sensory vacuum?

So you do not have private knowledge of your power of reason?

Only insofar as it produces beliefs which stand up in the real world.Do you regard your interior existence as unreal?

One could equally well say that they are different aspects of the same mental phenomenon.

One could say that, but since it is trivially demonstrable that brain states are material, one would be wrong.How is it demonstrable that thoughts,feelings and decisions are brain states?

We begin, as I pointed out, with our sense experience and our reasoning ability which depends completely on brain processes.

We begin with our consciousness, thoughts, feelings and sensations.You have not shown that our reasoning ability depends on brain processes, let alone completely!

Pain is intangible but derives from material phenomena - the claim that the intangible cannot be derived from the tangible is an error.

A false deduction.
Sorrow need not be caused by material phenomena. There is no evidence that consciousness and all thoughts and feelings are caused by material phenomena.All we know for certain is that thoughts and feelings are often influenced by material phenomena.

In this case if the explanation does not account for the most important aspects of reality it is clearly inadequate.

I repeat - inadequate for what?To explain the origin of reality.

What are the most important aspects of reality in this case, and why does the putative specific inability of human cognition to explain itself lead to the conclusion that cognition must therefore rest on a non-material foundation?

Because the most important aspects of reality are all intangible. Truth, goodness, beauty, freedom, justice, creativity and love cannot be explained physically.

Don’t you think that there might be many things about material reality that our brains will be unable to explain?

Of course. You are still assuming that the brain does the explaining!

How do you extract yourself from your intangible egocentric predicament? We have direct knowledge of our intangible minds yet we do not claim that they can explain themselves.

That knowledge depends utterly and totally on the proper working of our material brains.
That is another assumption which requires proof…

Our minds have indirect knowledge of tangible objects so the claim that they can explain themselves - as well as the minds that perceive them - needs considerable justification…

I’m not insisting that our minds can explain themselves (I think we will get much better explanations as work in this area proceeds, but that is not the point) - we might not be able to do so, but in what way is that proof, or even evidence, for the necessity of a non-material domain to the mind?Your faith is science is touching but unjustified since it is limited to that which is physical and tangible - and cannot even explain itself…

It seems that one is merely replacing the difficulty of explaining a material phenomenon with an appeal to superstition, since by your definition, the spiritual is inherently both sensibly and cognitively unknowable.

It is superstition to regard matter as the sole source of everything that exists. The origin of matter is sensibly and cognitively unknowable, is it not?

The first assumption of the materialist who was discussing this issue is that matter is the sole reality.

Perhaps, but it is not my position. My position is that what we can sense, ie the material world, is all that we can have robust beliefs about.Your robust beliefs presuppose an intangible mind which interprets sense data. My robust belief is in the primacy and power of the mind…

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

                       Continuation

If the matter is the sole reality then how can it explain itself? Have you encountered anything that is self-explanatory? There is no evidence whatsoever that something can explain itself. Explanation implies clarification but the assertion that matter explains matter is as clear as mud!

Why do our minds obviously have a material foundation?

Yet all we know for certain is that we have the power of reason, not its origin or basis. There is no a priori reason to suppose the intangible power of reason depends on the tangible brain for its existence or that it ceases to exist when the tangible brain ceases to function.

I am not assuming that the mental and communicative process of explanation is solely due to brain activity - I am concluding that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is a good working hypothesis. It’s *certainly *the case that every piece of evidence we have indicates that brain activity (rather specific brain activity actually) is necessary.

It is a good working hypothesis for a materialist! How do you explain the fact that the mind is conscious, can grasp abstract concepts, has free will, responsibility and the capacity for love - all powers which are lacking in the brain?

Are you really suggesting that our reasoning ability survives the demise of our brains? If you can provide any evidence that any mental function exists in the absence of brain processes, be my guest. That is certainly is a way-out belief.

Materialism is a rare phenomenon in history. From time immemorial the vast majority of human beings have recognised the difference between spiritual and material reality. It is a way-out belief that our existence is restricted to a few brief years on this earth without any ultimate meaning, value or purpose…

If you assert, as you have, that matter can explain matter, or that atomic particles can explain atomic particles, the onus is on you to show how that can be done. I am not propounding any theory or claiming to have a private source of knowledge. It is not necessary for me to prove that matter cannot explain matter. It is unnecessary for me to falsify a theory for which no evidence has been produced. All we know for certain is that we have intangible thoughts, feelings and perceptions.

…which rely entirely on the functioning of our material brains - we do not start with minds either logically or developmentally - we start with brains.
How can we start with brains when **our primary datum **is our intangible stream of consciousness?

We infer from our perceptions that matter exists and I do not dispute that matter exists. You dispute that the source of our intangible mental activity is intangible and attribute it to the tangible physical activity of the brain. Therefore to begin with the onus is on you to produce evidence to support your contention.

Since you slipped in the grotesque belief that reasoning can occur in the absence of brain right at the end, we’d better start with that - because if you can show that, then you are able to point to a situation where brain functioning is not necessary for mental functioning and by inference that it is not, at least, in some cases sufficient. If you have that evidence that would be pretty revolutionary, as we could all then agree on the existence of a non-material domain.

Have you been in a situation when your brain has stopped functioning? As always you are judging by physical appearances. How do you know the mind does not function when the brain is not functioning? All we know is that brain functioning is related to mental functioning. It is a highly grotesque belief that lumps of tissue are the sole cause of all the artistic and scientific achievements of mankind… that irrational, purposeless particles have fortuitously produced rational, purposeful beings capable of recognising the existence of the entire universe … and that “life is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing”…

 

[hecd2]

Have you been in a situation when your brain has stopped functioning? As always you are judging by physical appearances. How do you know the mind does not function when the brain is not functioning? All we know is that brain functioning is related to mental functioning. It is a highly grotesque belief that lumps of tissue are the sole cause of all the artistic and scientific achievements of mankind… that irrational, purposeless particles have fortuitously produced rational, purposeful beings capable of recognising the existence of the entire universe … and that “life is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing”…

Well, it seems that you *are *proposing that mind can work independently of brain, contrary to every piece of evidence we have. Of course I am judging by physical appearances because that is the only robust epistemology that we have. If you base your beliefs about reality on what you think ought to be rather than what you have evidence for, if you believe that the mind works in the absence of brain, without an iota of evidence that that is so, and in the face of huge quantities of evidence that the correct functioning of the mind requires a present and healthy brain and that things that influence the brain (drugs, hormones, trauma, disease, etc) all deeply influence the mind then we have no basis for further discussion.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[tonyrey]

Well, it seems that you *are *proposing that mind can work independently of brain, contrary to every piece of evidence we have.

You are so deeply entrenched in your materialism that you cannot even allow for the possibility that the mind can function independently…

Of course I am judging by physical appearances because that is the only robust epistemology that we have.

The robust epistemology of the materialist…

If you base your beliefs about reality on what you think ought to be rather than what you have evidence for…

it is not a question of what ought to be the case but of evidence for the independent activity of the mind - which is clearly more powerful than a lump of tissue.

… if you believe that the mind works in the absence of brain, without an iota of evidence that that is so, and in the face of huge quantities of evidence that the correct functioning of the mind requires a present and healthy brain and that things that influence the brain (drugs, hormones, trauma, disease, etc) all deeply influence the mind then we have no basis for further discussion.

The evidence shows merely that the mind cannot communicate via the brain if the brain is not functioning normally. If an instrument is damaged one does not expect to hear good music…

If you do not answer my questions I leave others to reach their own conclusions…

 

[Oreoracle]

You are so deeply entrenched in your materialism that you cannot even allow for the possibility that the mind can function independently…

Please give one example of someone saying they were thinking while they were in surgery after being made unconscious by chemicals. Just one example. Wait, you have nothing? Let’s try again–perhaps you can give an example of someone who thought immediately after having a stroke? Dang, still nothing?! Hmm…the odds aren’t in your favor, it seems. We can reasonably induce that no brain function = no thought.

 

[tonyrey]

Please give one example of someone saying they were thinking while they were in surgery after being made unconscious by chemicals. Just one example. Wait, you have nothing? Let’s try again–perhaps you can give an example of someone who thought immediately after having a stroke? Dang, still nothing?! Hmm…the odds aren’t in your favor, it seems. We can reasonably induce that no brain function = no thought.

The fact that we can’t remember something proves nothing. There are many thoughts and dreams we cannot remember but that doesn’t mean we didn’t have them. When I was a student I had a general anaesthetic to have a tooth removed and afterwards I was surprised when the nurse told me I had been muttering mathematical calculations. The power of the mind indicates that it can transcend time and space unlike any other physical phenomenon. We have transformed the world - for better and for worse - with our thoughts yet you insist like David Hume they are due merely to a “little agitation of the brain”. None are so blind as those who will not see…

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know enough about quantum theory, which apparently posits true randomness.

Neither determinism nor indeterminism are consistent with self-determinism which entails the freedom to determine our own destiny. Determinism leaves no scope at all for free will and determinism leaves insufficient scope.

So today’s standards are not superior to theirs?

Of course they are - that’s exactly what I just said!

In that case there is an objective criterion of progress.

It follows that the buck rests with the cells involved with the choice.

Yes …

Which implies that responsibility is an illusion because clusters of cells do not know what they are doing.

The highest and most valuable aspects of reality remain unexplained.

“unexplained” does not mean “unexplainable.”

It means that the best available explanation is theism.

The physical features of the universe - including the constants - obviously existed before man.

New topic, new thread please.

In the meantime the most reasonable conclusion is that physical constants exist regardless of man.

Do you deny the fact of success and failure in human existence?

First, define “success” and “failure.”

A successful human existence consists in the fulfilment of the purposes for which we are created: the pursuit of truth and goodness, justice and beauty, love and perfection. Personal fulfilment and happiness are the result of moral integrity which enables us to coexist with others in peace and harmony. Moral corruption is a cancer which destroys the individual and even the community because it undermines personal relationships and leads to conflict and disharmony. The Greek concept of Nemesis and the Indian concept of Karma are both based on the fact that our vices incur their own punishment.

Differences of scientific opinion do not demonstrate the subjectivity of science, nor do differences of moral opinion demonstrate the subjectivity of morals.

Differences of opinion absolutely do demonstrate the subjectivity of the topic.

Differences of opinion simply demonstrate that one or more opinions are erroneous.

Chimps are not as evolved as humans. I don’t think it follows that it’s your place to judge them devoid of any of the attributes that prove you are wrong.

It is not my judgment but the consensus of mankind that chimps are not responsible for their behaviour because they are ruled by instinct rather than reason.

It is an extreme example precisely because it is the fundamental fact on which all our knowledge is based…

I really don’t know why you’re pursuing this, we’ve done it to death.

Because you constantly seek to evade the fact that thoughts are objectively real.

If you continue nebulising the discussion, this will be my last full post.
There’s no point debating with someone who has no interest in reaching a conclusion.

I am trying to reach a conclusion but cannot do so when I do not receive answers to straightforward questions…

How is it arbitrary when you regard human beings as biological machines? Don’t you believe the brain functions mechanistically?

If you keep introducing adjectives, then there’s no point my continuing the discussion.

There’s is obviously no point in trying to reason with a person who refuses to answer a straightforward question…

The immense value of existence answers that question.

Sorry, I asked for an explanation. Remember my criteria - “answers to these questions need to be empirically provable.” That’s how science operates, it’s only fair to judge in a consistent way.

The immense value of existence is empirically provable because existence is the source of opportunities for all our activities - including reaching conclusions about the nature of reality about the nature of reality.

How did matter create itself?

I’m not the one claiming that matter created itself.

You are a materialist and cannot account for the origin of matter yet you criticise theists who cannot account for the origin of God!

When the universe was created and as long as it is sustained in existence.

Which is when?

When the Big Bang occurred - as far as we know…

How long? Empirically-supported answers please.

No one knows…

How is naturalism empirically provable

?
In its entirety, it isn’t.

So the dogmatic assertion that evolution is purposeless is unjustified.

It’s the opinion of molecular biologists and evolutionary zoologists - in other words, people for whom this very subject is their job. The appearance of design is not design.

Scientists are not metaphysicians. The fact of purposeful activity in living organisms and of design is evidence of Design.

[Yes - evolution is purposeless.

So the belief that evolution is purposeless is produced by a purposeful organism which is produced by purposeless evolution!

Naturalism is far less probable because the success of science is due to intelligence rather than chance and necessity

Perhaps you could explain how intelligence makes naturalism less likely than God?Naturalism is the product of intelligence which regards itself as the product of unintelligent processes. Theism is the product of intelligence which regards itself as the product of an Intelligent Being. Intelligence is clearly superior to that which lacks intelligence.

Benefit is associated with benefactor…

Only in some contexts… In the context of the development of an immensely valuable existence benefit is the most reasonable interpretation.
[/quote]

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know enough about quantum theory, which apparently posits true randomness.

Neither determinism nor indeterminism are consistent with self-determinism which entails the freedom to determine our own destiny. Determinism leaves no scope at all for free will and determinism leaves insufficient scope.

So today’s standards are not superior to theirs?

Of course they are - that’s exactly what I just said!

In that case there is an objective criterion of progress.

It follows that the buck rests with the cells involved with the choice.

Yes …

Which implies that responsibility is an illusion because clusters of cells do not know what they are doing.

The highest and most valuable aspects of reality remain unexplained.

“unexplained” does not mean “unexplainable.”

It means that the best available explanation is theism.

The physical features of the universe - including the constants - obviously existed before man.

New topic, new thread please.

In the meantime the most reasonable conclusion is that physical constants exist regardless of man.

Do you deny the fact of success and failure in human existence?

First, define “success” and “failure.”

A successful human existence consists in the fulfilment of the purposes for which we are created: the pursuit of truth and goodness, justice and beauty, love and perfection. Personal fulfilment and happiness are the result of moral integrity which enables us to coexist with others in peace and harmony. Moral corruption is a cancer which destroys the individual and even the community because it undermines personal relationships and leads to conflict and disharmony. The Greek concept of Nemesis and the Indian concept of Karma are both based on the fact that our vices incur their own punishment.

Differences of scientific opinion do not demonstrate the subjectivity of science, nor do differences of moral opinion demonstrate the subjectivity of morals.

Differences of opinion absolutely do demonstrate the subjectivity of the topic.

Differences of opinion simply demonstrate that one or more opinions are erroneous.

Chimps are not as evolved as humans. I don’t think it follows that it’s your place to judge them devoid of any of the attributes that prove you are wrong.

It is not my judgment but the consensus of mankind that chimps are not responsible for their behaviour because they are ruled by instinct rather than reason.

It is an extreme example precisely because it is the fundamental fact on which all our knowledge is based…

I really don’t know why you’re pursuing this, we’ve done it to death.

Because you constantly seek to evade the fact that thoughts are objectively real.

If you continue nebulising the discussion, this will be my last full post.
There’s no point debating with someone who has no interest in reaching a conclusion.

I am trying to reach a conclusion but cannot do so when I do not receive answers to straightforward questions…

How is it arbitrary when you regard human beings as biological machines? Don’t you believe the brain functions mechanistically?

If you keep introducing adjectives, then there’s no point my continuing the discussion.

There’s is obviously no point in trying to reason with a person who refuses to answer a straightforward question…

The immense value of existence answers that question.

Sorry, I asked for an explanation. Remember my criteria - “answers to these questions need to be empirically provable.” That’s how science operates, it’s only fair to judge in a consistent way.

The immense value of existence is empirically provable because existence is the source of opportunities for all our activities - including reaching conclusions about the nature of reality.

How did matter create itself?

I’m not the one claiming that matter created itself.

You are a materialist and cannot account for the origin of matter yet you criticise theists who cannot account for the origin of God!

When the universe was created and as long as it is sustained in existence.

Which is when?

When the Big Bang occurred - as far as we know…

How long? Empirically-supported answers please.

No one knows…

How is naturalism empirically provable

?
In its entirety, it isn’t.

So the dogmatic assertion that evolution is purposeless is unjustified.

It’s the opinion of molecular biologists and evolutionary zoologists - in other words, people for whom this very subject is their job. The appearance of design is not design.

Scientists are not metaphysicians. The fact of purposeful activity in living organisms and of design is evidence of Design.

[Yes - evolution is purposeless.

So the belief that evolution is purposeless is produced by a purposeful organism which is produced by purposeless evolution!

Naturalism is far less probable because the success of science is due to intelligence rather than chance and necessity

Perhaps you could explain how intelligence makes naturalism less likely than God?Naturalism is the product of intelligence which regards itself as the product of unintelligent processes. Theism is the product of intelligence which regards itself as the product of an Intelligent Being. Intelligence is clearly superior to that which lacks intelligence.

Benefit is associated with benefactor…

Only in some contexts… In the context of the development of an immensely valuable existence benefit is the most reasonable interpretation.
[/quote]

 

[hecd2]

I really do think that what we each believe to be efficacious means of acquiring knowledge are so far apart that much further discussion is pointless as it is most likely to be an exercise in talking past one another. However, I will respond to a couple of points here just to clarify my position on the fundamental issue of the independence of the mind. It seems to me that your insistence on an extreme substance dualism goes beyond what Catholic philosophy claims, which, as I understand it, is that body and spirit are separate ontological substances but that both are needed and both work intimately together in a human being. That is, for example, intinerant’s position, so perhaps you guys need a discussion.

You are so deeply entrenched in your materialism that you cannot even allow for the possibility that the mind can function independently…

On the contrary, I acknowledge as a hypothesis that the mind can function independently, but I reject that hypothesis for total lack of evidence. If you have evidence that the mind can function independently, then, as I said, that would be pretty revolutionary, as it would be an utter defeater of monism, and honest thinkers would all have to accept a radical substance dualism. So now is the time to produce that evidence.

it is not a question of what ought to be the case but of evidence for the independent activity of the mind

Exactly so - so what is that evidence for the independent activity of the mind - ie mind processes dissociated from any brain activity?

The evidence shows merely that the mind cannot communicate via the brain if the brain is not functioning normally. If an instrument is damaged one does not expect to hear good music…

I think that it’s pretty clear that fiddling about with the brain using drugs, hormones, disease and trauma can do more than merely interfere with a communication process while leaving the mind entirely functional, although it can have that effect. It can affect the underlying ability of the mind to carry out cognitive tasks such as organising thoughts, developing multi-layered concepts, reasoning, using symbolism and so on. It can also affect its ability to process visual, audible, spatial, temporal and numerate information, and affect the memory of the subject, their personality, their sense of self, their theory of mind, their social intelligence, their decision making, in fact everything that makes them the individual person that they are.

If you do not answer my questions I leave others to reach their own conclusions…

Well of course others must judge for themselves, but I think we flatter ourselves if we think that what we have to say here changes anyone’s mind. But in any case, I see no point in embarking on a discussion about mind/body problems if you insist on the functioning of the mind independent of a working brain. Such a discussion is doomed to reach an impasse almost immediately, because our epistemological standards are quite incompatible.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[tonyrey]

I really do think that what we each believe to be efficacious means of acquiring knowledge are so far apart that much further discussion is pointless as it is most likely to be an exercise in talking past one another.

It is important to clarify our views so that we know precisely where we differ.

However, I will respond to a couple of points here just to clarify my position on the fundamental issue of the independence of the mind. It seems to me that your insistence on an extreme substance dualism goes beyond what Catholic philosophy claims, which, as I understand it, is that body and spirit are separate ontological substances but that both are needed and both work intimately together in a human being.

Not at all. I believe body and spirit are both real but the Ultimate Reality is God Who is intangible and “spiritual” in the sense that we possess and reflect to a very limited extent His creative power.

On the contrary, I acknowledge as a hypothesis that the mind can function independently, but I reject that hypothesis for total lack of evidence. If you have evidence that the mind can function independently, then, as I said, that would be pretty revolutionary, as it would be an utter defeater of monism, and honest thinkers would all have to accept a radical substance dualism. So now is the time to produce that evidence.

My position is not so revolutionary as you believe because everyone who believes in one God is a monist. God is defined as the Supreme Being who creates everything. It is misleading even to regard God as the Supreme Mind or Spirit because these are human categories which cannot describe Ultimate Reality adequately. They are analogous terms which conceal our inability to comprehend the Incomprehensible.
Theists believe both mind and matter are created by God but not simultaneously. The vast majority of human beings have always believed in the reality of both mind and body, spirit and matter - and in their interaction. That interaction is not confined to human beings because animals are not generally regarded as machines. They are autonomous, sentient and purposeful - although their purposes are instinctive rather than rational. Unlike inanimate molecular compounds all living organisms have a goal which integrates and directs their activity. This fact alone reveals the inadequacy of materialism without even having to consider rational autonomy and responsibility.

Exactly so - so what is that evidence for the independent activity of the mind - ie mind processes dissociated from any brain activity? I think that it’s pretty clear that fiddling about with the brain using drugs, hormones, disease and trauma can do more than merely interfere with a communication process while leaving the mind entirely functional, although it can have that effect. It can affect the underlying ability of the mind to carry out cognitive tasks such as organising thoughts, developing multi-layered concepts, reasoning, using symbolism and so on. It can also affect its ability to process visual, audible, spatial, temporal and numerate information, and affect the memory of the subject, their personality, their sense of self, their theory of mind, their social intelligence, their decision making, in fact everything that makes them the individual person that they are.

So you conclude that a person ceases to exist if all rational activity ceases? That anyone who is born mentally defective or becomes insane, senile or severely brain damaged does not have the right to life? That the inability to understand anything or express oneself demonstrates that the capacity for reasoning either never existed or has ceased to exist? That the state of brain alone determines whether a person is a person and explains consciousness, intentionality, rationality, free will, responsibility and the capacity for love?

Well of course others must judge for themselves, but I think we flatter ourselves if we think that what we have to say here changes anyone’s mind.

It depends how rational and objective we are. The truth is not affected by what we believe or disbelieve. It shines by its own light - like goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love. We may deny these realities but in our daily lives we value them no matter how much we claim they are human artefacts.

But in any case, I see no point in embarking on a discussion about mind/body problems if you insist on the functioning of the mind independent of a working brain. Such a discussion is doomed to reach an impasse almost immediately, because our epistemological standards are quite incompatible.

Would you agree that we agree on the need for adequacy, clarity, consistency, coherence, simplicity, economy, verifiability and fertility? If so our standards are not entirely incompatible…