Why are we (usually) reasonable?!

[Sair]

“Perhaps” is a pusillanimous evasion of your ferocious accusation:

I quote: “If statements are regularly unrefuted and questions regularly unanswered it is reasonable to believe they cannot be refuted or answered satisfactorily by the defaulters (my italics).” That is as close to an accusation of deliberate avoidance, from you, as I have ever come to an ad hominem.

BTW It should be “cesspit” - which is far more applicable to the notion that persons come from putrefaction!

You say cesspit, I say cess pit. And you underestimate the value of putrefaction in the continuation of natural processes.

Please cite the post in which I have stated that “God is ‘being-itself’”.

You do not believe this? In that case, I would be interested to find out what you think God is, exactly.

That is hardly surprising because it is a distortion of theism! It could be asserted with equal facility - and far more aptly from your point of view - that unintelligibility is a fundamental feature of reality. Is it really?

Then where do you think the ‘intelligibility’ of the universe came from? I’ve already explained why I think the universe is intelligible to intelligent beings that evolved within the universe. The theistic argument for intelligent design incorporates the notion that the intelligibility of the universe to beings that evolved within the same universe is highly unlikely. I have already explained my understanding that rationality, human reasoning, is fundamentally rooted in the comprehension of cause and effect as they happen within the universe we experience. I’m not sure how this could be considered a bizarre occurrence unless one assumes that humans are not of this universe, which I guess is, after all, a fundamental tenet of theism - that we belong in a supernatural heaven, and are only temporarily sojourning in the material realm.

There is a significant difference between “rationality” and “intelligibility”…

Really? I would have thought they were more or less two sides of the same coin. What is the significant difference?

Please give one precise detail of the explanatory mechanism. “could” is a very weak foundation for such dogmatic and trenchant materialism which is revered as totally exempt from being “surrounded by its attendant philosophic fog”! Matter is obviously self-explanatory, is it not?

Matter is proving to be far more complex than we used to suppose, as it happens. For one thing, it’s been demonstrated that matter and energy are pretty much the same thing. I’ve already offered, in previous posts (perhaps even on other threads) the very broad outline (inasmuch as I personally comprehend it) how the fluctuations within a quantum vacuum could have given rise to the Big Bang, to the universe as we know it. This is still considerably more of an explanation than any theist has offered. What exactly did the purported ‘intelligent designer’ do to bring about the birth of the universe?

Yet another distortion.
Please explain precisely **how **intelligence (a psychological power) can arise from complexity (a physical arrangement)?

What, do you think I’m a neuroscientist from 50 years in the future? If you’re so sure intelligence didn’t and couldn’t arise from physical phenomena, please explain exactly what it is and how it happens; if you can’t do that, then please accept that neuroscientists are still working on it. As it is, there is still no evidence whatsoever that intelligence exists in the absence of living, complex brains. Until you’ve communicated with a disembodied mind, you have nothing with which to counter this observation.

What is the precise evidence that the mind is merely the **product **of brain activity? A lump of tissue is your sole source of insight?!

As I’ve just pointed out, there is no evidence of minds or intelligence in the absence of living, complex brains. When you have it, please present it.

False! The response is that we have direct and indisputable experience of our own intangible thoughts, feelings, choices and decisions - which are** the sole and primary basis of all our conclusions**.

Of course we have direct and indisputable experience of what goes on in our own brains, even though we don’t understand how it occurs. Like I said, neuroscientists are working on this - they’ve generally found physical explanations far more productive than supernatural ones. Not only that, but, again, there is no evidence that mental activity occurs in the absence of a living, complex brain. What insight do you gain, if any, from supposing that your mental activity is fundamentally independent of your physical existence?

Please explain what they are… with detailed evidence… since apparently you know beyond all shadow of doubt…

Actually, I’m not the one who has claimed such knowledge - I’ve only pointed out that there is no evidence for mental activity in the absence of living, complex brains. Given this persistent observation, how could mental activity be independent of physical phenomena? If there were evidence of the continuation of mental activity beyond physical death, or beyond profound damage to the brain, I can think of a number of people, both deceased and otherwise, with whom I would dearly love to communicate in the present moment.

 

[tonyrey]

I quote: “If statements are regularly unrefuted and questions regularly unanswered it is reasonable to believe they cannot be refuted or answered satisfactorily by the defaulters (my italics).” That is as close to an accusation of deliberate avoidance, from you, as I have ever come to an ad hominem.

As you pointed out, most people have many other things to do and may well intend to reply sooner or later. It is still reasonable to believe they cannot refute or answer satisfactorily without evidence to that effect **if it occurs regularly **- but there is no hint of blame in my statement. “defaulter” need not be taken pejoratively. There seems to be no suitable synonym - unless you can suggest one…

BTW It should be “cesspit” - which is far more applicable to the notion that persons come from putrefaction!

You say cesspit, I say cess pit. And you underestimate the value of putrefaction in the continuation of natural processes.

Not at all. I simply think you overestimate the value of putrefaction in the origin of reason.

Please cite the post in which I have stated that “God is ‘being-itself’”.

You do not believe this? In that case, I would be interested to find out what you think God is, exactly.

Please cite the post in which I have stated that “God is ‘being-itself’”. Why not start another thread if you wish to pursue that topic?

That is hardly surprising because it is a distortion of theism! It could be asserted with equal facility - and far more aptly from your point of view - that unintelligibility is a fundamental feature of reality. Is it really?

Then where do you think the ‘intelligibility’ of the universe came from?

Certainly not from purposeless events! Intelligibility is far more adequately attributed to rational activity.

I’ve already explained why I think the universe is intelligible to intelligent beings that evolved within the universe. The theistic argument for intelligent design incorporates the notion that the intelligibility of the universe to beings that evolved within the same universe is highly unlikely.

Give one good reason why.

I have already explained my understanding that rationality, human reasoning, is fundamentally rooted in the comprehension of cause and effect as they happen within the universe we experience.

You have not explained the origin of the power of comprehension.

I’m not sure how this could be considered a bizarre occurrence unless one assumes that humans are not of this universe, which I guess is, after all, a fundamental tenet of theism - that we belong in a supernatural heaven, and are only temporarily sojourning in the material realm.

It is a bizarre occurrence when you consider it has never been witnessed by anyone and is a self-destructive hypothesis.

There is a significant difference between “rationality” and “intelligibility”…

Really? I would have thought they were more or less two sides of the same coin. What is the significant difference?

One is active and the other passive.

Please give one precise detail of the explanatory mechanism. “could” is a very weak foundation for such dogmatic and trenchant materialism which is revered as totally exempt from being “surrounded by its attendant philosophic fog”! Matter is obviously self-explanatory, is it not?

Matter is proving to be far more complex than we used to suppose, as it happens.

I wonder why…

For one thing, it’s been demonstrated that matter and energy are pretty much the same thing. I’ve already offered, in previous posts (perhaps even on other threads) the very broad outline (inasmuch as I personally comprehend it) how the fluctuations within a quantum vacuum could have given rise to the Big Bang, to the universe as we know it.

How did the quantum vacuum - with its characteristics - originate?

This is still considerably more of an explanation than any theist has offered.

Nonsense! It doesn’t explain the origin of the laws of nature, the increase in complexity (to which you have alluded) or the subsequent development of life or rational beings.

What exactly did the purported ‘intelligent designer’ do to bring about the birth of the universe?

Have you ever designed and created anything? You grossly underestimate the power of the human mind, let alone the power necessary to create this universe full of splendour and beauty - and individuals who disfigure this world.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

** I’m more than happy to accept intelligent design, if anyone can provide me with independent evidence for the existence of a designer (that is, evidence that doesn’t boil down to, “The universe is complex and intricate, and we know humans make complex and intricate things, therefore there must be a superhuman designer who made the universe!”) and an explanation based on scientific investigation of how the designer went about his work. That’s all.**

I have provided several times on this thread evidence that since Darwin many great scientific thinkers have postulated the existence of a designer God based on the observance that there appears to be no other explanation for the laws and vast intricacy of the universe than that Someone or Something designed it.

What you have provided is one principle and one principle only: the notion that all evolution everywhere in the universe is undesigned. Yet you offer no proof of same. The vast complexity of a computer programming system would never be explained as something that just happened without a designer. The complexity of the laws of the universe works toward the creation and evolution of life toward higher and higher forms of complex organisms vastly more intricate than any computer system … yet you are content to say this all happened without design and for no purpose.

Nature has no universal mind directing this universal evolution. It is reasonable to infer that the mind governing nature comes from a higher source. You don’t have to call it the Christian God if you don’t believe in such a God. But great minds tend to agree that Something or Someone brought everything into existence and sustains all through a governing or providential power.

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.” Albert Einstein

 

[tonyrey]

quote]

Please explain precisely how intelligence (a psychological power) can arise from complexity (a physical arrangement)?

A question based on blind faith in the power of neuroscience to explain the power of the neuroscientist - and everyone else’s power into the bargain. Is electricity the Supreme Factor in your scheme of things?

If you’re so sure intelligence didn’t and couldn’t arise from physical phenomena, please explain exactly what it is and how it happens…

Like you I cannot explain the nature of intelligence but I do know we are using our intelligence to discuss the nature of intelligence. Doesn’t that give you food for thought? Or is it a totally insignificant fact?

…if you can’t do that, then please accept that neuroscientists are still working on it.

They can work on it for as long as they like without requiring my approval or permission! I’m quite sure most of them are not dedicated to reducing intelligence to a network of electrical impulses. They have far more specialised topics of research…

As it is, there is still no evidence whatsoever that intelligence exists in the absence of living, complex brains

And there is still no evidence whatsoever that living complex brains exist in the absence of intelligence! Or have I missed a recent news item?

Until you’ve communicated with a disembodied mind, you have nothing with which to counter this observation.

What is there to counter? An established fact? Or an unverified theory? What is the precise evidence that the mind is merely the product of brain activity? A lump of tissue is your sole source of insight?!

As I’ve just pointed out, there is no evidence of minds or intelligence in the absence of living, complex brains. When you have it, please present it.

Your request implies that there can be tangible evidence of intangible reality. Do you deny that truth, equality, logical principles and mathematical facts exist? Can you observe them with your senses? Are your beliefs and conclusions detectable by anyone but yourself? According to your argument we’re not justified in believing they exist…

The response is that we have direct and indisputable experience of our own intangible thoughts, feelings, choices and decisions - which are the sole and primary basis of all our conclusions.

Of course we have direct and indisputable experience of what goes on in our own brains, even though we don’t understand how it occurs.

You are constantly assuming everything we experience goes on in our brains. But what precisely is a thought? Or a decision? Are they electrical impulses? If not what are they?** If a thought is not electrical what precisely is it?**

Like I said, neuroscientists are working on this - they’ve generally found physical explanations far more productive than supernatural ones.

Have they found physical explanations far more productive than personal explanations? Would you surrender your psychological independence to neuroscientific hypotheses?

Not only that, but, again, there is no evidence that mental activity occurs in the absence of a living, complex brain.

There is not one jot of evidence that the lump of tissue in the skull is capable of insight, conscious activity, self-control, rational insight, deep emotion, moral awareness and personal development and nobility of spirit.

What insight do you gain, if any, from supposing that your mental activity is fundamentally independent of your physical existence?

All the aspects of life that makes it precious and worthwhile. What insight do you gain, if any, from supposing all you have is a mindless body?

Please explain what they are… with detailed evidence… since apparently you know beyond all shadow of doubt…

Actually, I’m not the one who has claimed such knowledge - I’ve only pointed out that there is no evidence for mental activity in the absence of living, complex brains.

You are constantly proclaiming that the only cogent interpretation of life is physical - and attacking any belief to the contrary. That is why you are so active on this forum - for which I am genuinely grateful! You are making valuable contributions to the discussions - even when I disagree with them.

Given this persistent observation, how could mental activity be independent of physical phenomena?

Given that you cannot explain the nature of mental activity - and behave** as if you are independent** - you are not justified in assuming it is totally dependent on physical phenomena.

If there were evidence of the continuation of mental activity beyond physical death, or beyond profound damage to the brain, I can think of a number of people, both deceased and otherwise, with whom I would dearly love to communicate in the present moment.

What would constitute evidence for you?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

**Actually, I’m not the one who has claimed such knowledge - I’ve only pointed out that there is no evidence for mental activity in the absence of living, complex brains. **

Should a brain surgeon open a brain, will the laws of mathematics spill out?

 

[tonyrey]

Sair

**Actually, I’m not the one who has claimed such knowledge - I’ve only pointed out that there is no evidence for mental activity in the absence of living, complex brains. **

Should a brain surgeon open a brain, will the laws of mathematics spill out?

Having had the privilege of working in a neurosurgical unit I can assure you there was no evidence of any mental activity occurring in the brain.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

Having had the privilege of working in a neurosurgical unit I can assure you there was no evidence of any mental activity occurring in the brain.

I would go so far as to agree that mental activity is not possible without a brain. But that mental activity has its own independent existence, just as the notes you play on a piano require the piano, but they have their own separate existence once they are played. You can break open a piano, but all the wonderful music played on it will not spill out onto the floor. If anything, it lives on in spirit in the minds and hearts of those who have heard it.

 

[Sair]

tonyrey

Having had the privilege of working in a neurosurgical unit I can assure you there was no evidence of any mental activity occurring in the brain.

I would go so far as to agree that mental activity is not possible without a brain. But that mental activity has its own independent existence, just as the notes you play on a piano require the piano, but they have their own separate existence once they are played. You can break open a piano, but all the wonderful music played on it will not spill out onto the floor. If anything, it lives on in spirit in the minds and hearts of those who have heard it.

Well, that sounds like a remarkably atheistic notion of mental activity. Firstly, it can’t be ‘independent’ if it relies upon the brain for generation, as the notes on a piano rely upon the specific arrangement of parts in a piano. Likewise, if you break a piano, you won’t be generating any more pure notes on it - the same way if you break a brain, you’ll generate very different neural impulses and responses, if any at all. And finally, people’s memories of us after we’re gone are about as much of an afterlife as we can reasonably hope for.

 

[Sair]

Having had the privilege of working in a neurosurgical unit I can assure you there was no evidence of any mental activity occurring in the brain.

Well, duh - that’s because it looks different from the inside; without the rest of the body to help convey mental functioning to the rest of the world, we have remarkably little insight into what goes on in a person’s brain, certainly not in terms of what mental activity is like for that person. Perhaps when neurologists know more about how particular mental functions correspond to the activity of particular clusters of neurons, we might be able to interpret signals from a person’s brain - much like accomplished musicians can look at sheet music and mentally ‘hear’ how a piece of music should sound - such that we can map them precisely to specific thoughts. They’re on the way there already.

As for whether you’ll find ‘the laws of mathematics’ if you spill out the contents of a person’s brain…well, that’s actually kind of a silly question, if you’ll pardon the observation. You wouldn’t expect the rules of the Windows operating system to spill out in recognisable form if you broke open a PC, or snapped a CD ROM. Yet we know from our interaction with computer hardware and software that all that information is stored and processed and manipulated by a computer in functioning condition.

 

[Sair]

A question based on blind faith in the power of neuroscience to explain the power of the neuroscientist - and everyone else’s power into the bargain. Is electricity the Supreme Factor in your scheme of things?

Obviously it can’t be only electrical impulses - you need the hardware to run the software!

Like you I cannot explain the nature of intelligence but I do know we are using our intelligence to discuss the nature of intelligence. Doesn’t that give you food for thought? Or is it a totally insignificant fact?

I think this is what’s called ‘metacognition’ - thinking about thinking. It’s a self-referential feedback loop. But when it comes right down to it, we now have machines that build machines. Why should thinking about thinking be any more remarkable, really?

I’m quite sure most of them are not dedicated to reducing intelligence to a network of electrical impulses.

I don’t think they could ‘reduce’ intelligence even if they tried - to use a metaphor that’s come up a couple of times, that I think is a good illustration of the point, it would be like trying to ‘reduce’ a piano to its constituent parts - if you did, you’d have piles of wood, ivory and metal, but you wouldn’t have a piano capable of producing music. If anything, I could actually reverse the accusation of reductionism to say that the desire to define intelligence as a thing in itself is reductionist - in that it fails to appreciate the truly complex and many-faceted (and for that, fragile) nature of intelligence.

And there is still no evidence whatsoever that living complex brains exist in the absence of intelligence! Or have I missed a recent news item?

Leaving aside the obvious and derogatory retort about stupid people - because goodness knows, we’re all capable of stupidity - maybe that’s just the way things are. Maybe living, complex brains simply manifest intelligence as a matter of course.

What is there to counter? An established fact? Or an unverified theory? What is the precise evidence that the mind is merely the product of brain activity? A lump of tissue is your sole source of insight?!

Until another source of insight is documented, it’s all we have to go on. And if there is no evidence of any such thing as a disembodied mind, then the theory that brains generate minds goes unchallenged.

Your request implies that there can be tangible evidence of intangible reality. Do you deny that truth, equality, logical principles and mathematical facts exist? Can you observe them with your senses?

Of course we can observe them with our senses, because they exist within a physical matrix - indeed, they describe relationships within that matrix. Without any physical point of reference, concepts such as truth, equality, logic and mathematics would be meaningless.

You are constantly assuming everything we experience goes on in our brains. But what precisely is a thought? ** If a thought is not electrical what precisely is it?**

Thoughts, according to my limited knowledge and imperfect understanding, are our internal experiences of interaction between electrical impulses and the neural ‘wiring’ of our brains. One might well say, “A thought is an electrical impulse transmitted by neurons” but that would be much like saying, “A musical note is a vibration in matter, amplified by the air around it.” Actually, music is proving to be a very fruitful metaphor for the complexity of mental activity - yes, you can reduce it to its mechanical functioning and yes, it’s dependent upon physical components, but that does not describe or explain how and why we experience it as we do. We’re not there yet. Nor, however, can we say that our experience of thought or of music is something separate from the physical - because without the physical, neither thought nor music could exist.

Have they found physical explanations far more productive than personal explanations?

What’s a personal explanation, such that it is distinct and different from the physical?

Would you surrender your psychological independence to neuroscientific hypotheses?

I don’t know what you mean by ‘psychological independence’ - independent from what? It seems like what you want to say is that my mind is independent of my brain, but on the basis of the current state of evidence, both in my personal experience and what I’ve read of neuroscience, I don’t see how that’s possible.

 

[Sair]

There is not one jot of evidence that the lump of tissue in the skull is capable of insight, conscious activity, self-control, rational insight, deep emotion, moral awareness and personal development and nobility of spirit.

Only that when that ‘lump of tissue’ is damaged on a purely physical level, things like insight, conscious activity, self-control, rational insight, deep emotion, moral awareness and “nobility of spirit”, whatever that means, are compromised, if they’re present at all.

All the aspects of life that makes it precious and worthwhile. What insight do you gain, if any, from supposing all you have is a mindless body?

What are these ‘precious’ and ‘worthwhile’ aspects of life that would be not so were my mind reliant upon the functioning of my brain? Do I, for example, love my husband less because my feelings for him rely in large part upon my brain telling my body to increase the production of certain hormones when he is nearby? Should I devalue my mother’s experience of simple joy because her dementia-affected brain is not capable of processing and articulating what she is feeling happy about? And I most emphatically don’t suppose that I have a ‘mindless’ body - only that my mind is something dependent upon my body, manifested by it.

You are constantly proclaiming that the only cogent interpretation of life is physical - and attacking any belief to the contrary. That is why you are so active on this forum - for which I am genuinely grateful! You are making valuable contributions to the discussions - even when I disagree with them.

Thank you for the appreciation - it is good also, from my perspective, to have a constant stream of counterarguments against which to hone my own thoughts. And I do think there is much to be gained from a physical interpretation of our existence and experience - it seems thus far to have been the most fruitful, fascinating and - yes - beautiful avenue of enquiry.

Given that you cannot explain the nature of mental activity - and behave** as if you are independent** - you are not justified in assuming it is totally dependent on physical phenomena.

Again, I am really not sure what you mean by the assertion that I ‘behave as if I am independent’ - how would I behave if I weren’t? For all I know, my participation in this forum is the result of my brain generating an irresistible compulsion towards being argumentative.

What would constitute evidence for you?

If I could have a genuine conversation with my late aunt, who was one of the most interesting and companionable individuals I’ve ever met. I know there are those who claim to be ‘psychic’ and that they can communicate with the deceased, but it would have to be direct personal communication - of some detail the psychic could not possibly have known otherwise - or at least some manner of communication that could not be put down to cold reading or blind luck and guessing. So there would need to be multiple instances, obviously. Alternatively, some means of registering ‘independent’ mental activity would need to be devised - something that left no doubt that the personality of the individual survived the death of their body.

 

[Sair]

Sair

**Actually, I’m not the one who has claimed such knowledge - I’ve only pointed out that there is no evidence for mental activity in the absence of living, complex brains. **

Should a brain surgeon open a brain, will the laws of mathematics spill out?

Apologies, Charlemagne - I think I responded to this within my response to one of Tonyrey’s posts. But I’ll reiterate - I do think it’s a question that, though I initially considerded silly, I think is just a bit narrow. We don’t expect to see the structure and rules of a computer operating system in any recognisable form if we cut into a computer’s CPU - why, then, should we expect to see the information content of a brain in a recognisable form if we cut into it?

 

[tonyrey]

There is not one jot of evidence that the lump of tissue in the skull is capable of insight, conscious activity, self-control, rational insight, deep emotion, moral awareness and personal development and nobility of spirit.

Absence does not entail non-existence. The brain is a biological machine not a conscious, autonomous agent.

All the aspects of life that makes it precious and worthwhile. What insight do you gain, if any, from supposing all you have is a mindless body?

What are these ‘precious’ and ‘worthwhile’ aspects of life that would be not so were my mind reliant upon the functioning of my brain? Do I, for example, love my husband less because my feelings for him rely in large part upon my brain telling my body to increase the production of certain hormones when he is nearby?

“in large part” gives the game away! He wouldn’t be favourably impressed if you told him** all **your feelings are the result of your bodily functions!

Should I devalue my mother’s experience of simple joy because her dementia-affected brain is not capable of processing and articulating what she is feeling happy about?

“she” and “her” refer to a person with a mind and body, not just a body with a brain.

And I most emphatically don’t suppose that I have a ‘mindless’ body - only that my mind is something dependent upon my body, manifested by it.

What precisely is “something”?

Thank you for the appreciation - it is good also, from my perspective, to have a constant stream of counterarguments against which to hone my own thoughts. And I do think there is much to be gained from a physical interpretation of our existence and experience - it seems thus far to have been the most fruitful, fascinating and - yes - beautiful avenue of enquiry.

Is the personal interpretation superfluous?

Given that you cannot explain the nature of mental activity - and behave as if you are independent - you are not justified in assuming it is totally dependent on physical phenomena.

Again, I am really not sure what you mean by the assertion that I ‘behave as if I am independent’ - how would I behave if I weren’t?

Like a robot!

For all I know, my participation in this forum is the result of my brain generating an irresistible compulsion towards being argumentative.

Then your arguments are in the same boat - and as notoriously fallible as instincts.

What would constitute evidence for you?

If I could have a genuine conversation with my late aunt, who was one of the most interesting and companionable individuals I’ve ever met. I know there are those who claim to be ‘psychic’ and that they can communicate with the deceased, but it would have to be direct personal communication - of some detail the psychic could not possibly have known otherwise - or at least some manner of communication that could not be put down to cold reading or blind luck and guessing. So there would need to be multiple instances, obviously. Alternatively, some means of registering ‘independent’ mental activity would need to be devised - something that left no doubt that the personality of the individual survived the death of their body.

Do you believe only what you have experienced yourself?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair
**
And finally, people’s memories of us after we’re gone are about as much of an afterlife as we can reasonably hope for. **

Again, if a surgeon breaks open a person’s brain, will that person’s memories fall out?

will his imagination fall out? Will Beethoven’s 9th Symphony fall out?

Will the Last Supper fall out?

Will the Constitution of the United States fall out?

Etc. Etc.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

**We don’t expect to see the structure and rules of a computer operating system in any recognisable form if we cut into a computer’s CPU - why, then, should we expect to see the information content of a brain in a recognisable form if we cut into it? **

We shouldn’t see that information in any recognizable form for the simple reason that, being spirit rather than matter, it does not exist in any recognizable form. The same cannot be said for computers, the information on which will be recognizable under the laws of physics.

 

[Sair]

Sair
**
And finally, people’s memories of us after we’re gone are about as much of an afterlife as we can reasonably hope for. **

Again, if a surgeon breaks open a person’s brain, will that person’s memories fall out?

will his imagination fall out? Will Beethoven’s 9th Symphony fall out?

Will the Last Supper fall out?

Will the Constitution of the United States fall out?

Etc. Etc.

They won’t ‘fall out’, but then, why should they? Like the information stored within a computer, they are stored by the neurons of the brain - the fact that we have a much less complete understanding of the human brain than we have of CPUs does not change the fact that information is stored in such a way as to be capable of interpretation in a certain context - in this case, by a living, functioning brain. By the same token, you could ask whether, if you ran a stanley knife through the middle of a painting of St Peter’s Basilica, you could expect the Pope to emerge; if you broke the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, would the angels start pouring out? Ridiculous.

 

[Sair]

As you pointed out, most people have many other things to do and may well intend to reply sooner or later. It is still reasonable to believe they cannot refute or answer satisfactorily without evidence to that effect **if it occurs regularly **- but there is no hint of blame in my statement. “defaulter” need not be taken pejoratively. There seems to be no suitable synonym - unless you can suggest one…

There is also the problem that there are some assertions that are so far beyond what many people would consider reasonable, that they may be left to stand alone.

Not at all. I simply think you overestimate the value of putrefaction in the origin of reason.

There is no reason without life, and there is no life without death…and putrefaction.

Please cite the post in which I have stated that “God is ‘being-itself’”. Why not start another thread if you wish to pursue that topic?

Perhaps I will - although there are so many others who have pursued the idea of God as ‘being-itself’ that I suspect I have no need to do so. I accept that you may not yourself have stated any belief that God is ‘being-itself’, so I apologise if I have accused you of same. To my way of thinking, it is a very strange idea. But what, then, do you suppose God to be?

Certainly not from purposeless events! Intelligibility is far more adequately attributed to rational activity.

Just to be clear - what you are effectively stating here is that rational activity is something that has existed eternally. Am I correct? Whence said rational activity?

Give one good reason why.

What I said here is that ID theory incorporates the idea that the intelligibility of the universe to beings inhabiting the universe is highly improbable. There is no real justification for supposing so, and I have countered this claim by pointing out that if we evolved within this universe, it should not be a surprise that we evolved to understand this universe, in the sense that our very reasoning capacity itself has been shaped by experience of this universe.

You have not explained the origin of the power of comprehension.

Evolution.

It is a bizarre occurrence when you consider it has never been witnessed by anyone and is a self-destructive hypothesis.

So…you’re saying that the idea that our understanding of the universe evolved within the universe is a self-destructive hypothesis?

One is active and the other passive.

If that is the case, then the universe does not necessarily need to conform to any ‘rational’ model of intelligibility in order to be understood, surely. We just need to make the effort to understand it, which is the entire point of science.

How did the quantum vacuum - with its characteristics - originate?

It may have always existed - as you claim ‘rational activity’ to have done.

Nonsense! It doesn’t explain the origin of the laws of nature, the increase in complexity (to which you have alluded) or the subsequent development of life or rational beings.

The statement, ‘God designed the universe’ is an assertion devoid of explanation, yet you accuse those who are genuinely working towards actual explanations of having nothing of the kind. The design hypothesis offers no explanation of the laws of nature - no reason for God to create them one way and not another - whilst it may actually be the case that there are only a limited set of constants that could produce an expanding universe such as we have in the first place. As for the increase in complexity, diversification of life and development of rationality, well, that’s where evolutionary theory comes in.

Have you ever designed and created anything? You grossly underestimate the power of the human mind, let alone the power necessary to create this universe full of splendour and beauty - and individuals who disfigure this world.

That doesn’t answer my question. I am quite familiar with what I do when I compose a piece of writing, construct a garment, paint a picture or cook a delicious dinner; in that, I feel a deep appreciation for my very human abilities, limited though they are. But we’re not talking about human abilities when we’re discussing the creator of the universe. What did this creator do and how did he/she/it do it?

As for my ‘grossly underestimating’ the power necessary to create a universe, I can assure you this is not the case - I simply don’t attribute such power to a personal being. I can gaze upon an ancient landscape and feel awed and humbled by the power of nature, and most assuredly resentful of those who attempt to destroy it, or simply do not value it; but I can feel all this without belief in any profoundly human-like (as the God of Classical Theism most certainly is) deities…

 

[tonyrey]

There is also the problem that there are some assertions that are so far beyond what many people would consider reasonable, that they may be left to stand alone.

Please give examples from my posts.

There is no reason without life, and there is no life without death…and putrefaction.

There is no valid reason to equate rational existence with biological life.

But what, then, do you suppose God to be?

Off the topic but “the Source of rational existence” is related.

Just to be clear - what you are effectively stating here is that rational activity is something that has existed eternally. Am I correct? Whence said rational activity?

Rational activity is an incomparably more elegant, intelligible, coherent, fertile and comprehensive interpretation of existence which corresponds indisputably more precisely to the way every sane person thinks and lives than the sterile hypothesis of an irrational quantum vacuum…

What I said here is that ID theory incorporates the idea that the intelligibility of the universe to beings inhabiting the universe is highly improbable. There is no real justification for supposing so, and I have countered this claim by pointing out that if we evolved within this universe, it should not be a surprise that we evolved to understand this universe, in the sense that our very reasoning capacity itself has been shaped by experience of this universe.

Not a surprise! Do such events occur regularly? What reason is there to believe it is inevitable that freaks of nature, having emerged for no reason or purpose whatsoever, would be capable of understanding the entire universe? It takes for granted the emergence of our reasoning capacity. It also assumes that because events have occurred they are absolutely bound to occur as the result of physical necessity - which amounts to retrospective fatalism: of all possible universes this particular one is supposed to be accidentally (and conveniently) endowed with all the necessary components to create not only living organisms but also living organisms with the power of insight, self-control and self-determination, in a world otherwise entirely composed of mechanistic processes…

Evolution.

A word is not an explanation. What is the physical mechanism by which thought and consciousness originated?

So…you’re saying that the idea that our understanding of the universe evolved within the universe is a self-destructive hypothesis?

1. The alleged transformation of matter into mind has never been witnessed by anyone.
2. Understanding means “standing under” not “standing inside”. How does the brain get outside itself, become aware of itself and explain itself?
3. To attribute rational activity to irrational activity is undoubtedly self-destructive.

If that is the case, then the universe does not necessarily need to conform to any ‘rational’ model of intelligibility in order to be understood, surely.

Intelligibility presupposes order, coherence, continuity and organisation - not chaos and irregularity.

We just need to make the effort to understand it, which is the entire point of science.

What is the source of our power to make an intellectual effort?

How did the quantum vacuum - with its characteristics - originate?

It may have always existed - as you claim ‘rational activity’ to have done.

Which of the two corresponds more adequately to the success of science?

It doesn’t explain the origin of the laws of nature, the increase in complexity (to which you have alluded) or the subsequent development of life or rational beings.

…The design hypothesis offers no explanation of the laws of nature - no reason for God to create them one way and not another…

The laws of nature are the basis of life and necessary for rational existence in this world.

… whilst it may actually be the case that there are only a limited set of constants that could produce an expanding universe such as we have in the first place.

An expanding universe is not inevitable.

As for the increase in complexity, diversification of life and development of rationality, well, that’s where evolutionary theory comes in.

Evolution presupposes the increase in complexity.

You grossly underestimate the power of the human mind, let alone the power necessary to create this universe full of splendour and beauty - and individuals who disfigure this world.

That doesn’t answer my question. I am quite familiar with what I do when I compose a piece of writing, construct a garment, paint a picture or cook a delicious dinner; in that, I feel a deep appreciation for my very human abilities, limited though they are. But we’re not talking about human abilities when we’re discussing the creator of the universe. What did this creator do and how did he/she/it do it?

I have no more idea of how creation was effected than you have - given that I do not have privileged insight into reality - but I don’t take for granted the amazing power of creation displayed in nature, art, science, music, literature and philosophy.

As for my ‘grossly underestimating’ the power necessary to create a universe, I can assure you this is not the case - I simply don’t attribute such power to a personal being. I can gaze upon an ancient landscape and feel awed and humbled by the power of nature, and most assuredly resentful of those who attempt to destroy it, or simply do not value it; but I can feel all this without belief in any profoundly human-like (as the God of Classical Theism most certainly is) deities…

“human-like” is anthromorphic, often mistaken for “ratiocentric” - which corresponds beautifully to our experience of reality - in stark contrast to “eccentric” materialism…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair
**
They won’t ‘fall out’, but then, why should they? Like the information stored within a computer, they are stored by the neurons of the brain - the fact that we have a much less complete understanding of the human brain than we have of CPUs does not change the fact that information is stored in such a way as to be capable of interpretation in a certain context - in this case, by a living, functioning brain. By the same token, you could ask whether, if you ran a stanley knife through the middle of a painting of St Peter’s Basilica, you could expect the Pope to emerge; if you broke the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, would the angels start pouring out? Ridiculous. **

No, your argument holds no water whatever.

Nor do you explain how human knowledge is different from computer information except by such a facile canard as “we have a much less complete understanding of the human brain.”

This is the second time you have used personal slurs (“silly” and now “ridiculous”).

When you are literally stumped to find an answer, you should not reduce yourself to such easy and unanswerable insults.

 

[tonyrey]

Sair
**
They won’t ‘fall out’, but then, why should they? Like the information stored within a computer, they are stored by the neurons of the brain - the fact that we have a much less complete understanding of the human brain than we have of CPUs does not change the fact that information is stored in such a way as to be capable of interpretation in a certain context - in this case, by a living, functioning brain. By the same token, you could ask whether, if you ran a stanley knife through the middle of a painting of St Peter’s Basilica, you could expect the Pope to emerge; if you broke the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, would the angels start pouring out? Ridiculous. **

No, your argument holds no water whatever.

Nor do you explain how human knowledge is different from computer information except by such a facile canard as “we have a much less complete understanding of the human brain.”

This is the second time you have used personal slurs (“silly” and now “ridiculous”).

When you are literally stumped to find an answer, you should not reduce yourself to such easy and unanswerable insults.

A mechanistic view certainly doesn’t correspond to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights nor to the way civilised people treat one another!