Are We More Than Just a Machine?

[Mercutio]

Oh, I am merely saying it is possible to be mistaken. So yes, in that sense all beliefs are equal ...

Do you honestly think that each of those types of belief is equally likely to be mistaken? You certainly act that way. They are quite clearly not equal in this respect, and the track record of science is evidence of this. So please, quit hiding behind this straw argument.

 

[Mercutio]

God does exist ... by the way. Which, is the only thing different that I'm stipulating from what anyone else is stipulating around here.

Note that this sort of belief is made either independently of evidence or against evidence, depending on Iacchus's definition of god.

So, Iacchus, with this particular belief of yours, is it possible that you are mistaken?

 

[Iacchus]

Do you honestly think that each of those types of belief is equally likely to be mistaken? You certainly act that way. They are quite clearly not equal in this respect, and the track record of science is evidence of this. So please, quit hiding behind this straw argument.

Yes. If in fact we are living in a type of matrix which, I believe we are, then anything is suspect. And, while I believe science helps define the grounds rules which are laid out by the matrix, it has yet to discover what drives the matrix.

 

[Iacchus]

Note that this sort of belief is made either independently of evidence or against evidence, depending on Iacchus's definition of god.

So, Iacchus, with this particular belief of yours, is it possible that you are mistaken?

Well, it is possible that I was never here. But, I think we both know better than that, at least in accord with the ground rules exhibited by the matrix.

 

[Iacchus]

Do you honestly think that each of those types of belief is equally likely to be mistaken? You certainly act that way. They are quite clearly not equal in this respect, and the track record of science is evidence of this. So please, quit hiding behind this straw argument.

Oh, yes, and if God does exist? That relinquishes your whole argument.

 

[BillyJoe]

Iacchus is a sort of postmodernist. All beliefs are equal. But Iacchus' own beliefs are very special for him because....well....they are his very own beliefs. And no-one can argue against his beliefs because.....all beliefs are equal.

.....or something like that.

BJ

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus is a sort of postmodernist. All beliefs are equal. But Iacchus' own beliefs are very special for him because....well....they are his very own beliefs. And no-one can argue against his beliefs because.....all beliefs are equal.

.....or something like that.

BJ

Actually I'm a dualist. So there's no need in that respect to discount the material. However, without the reality of the mind, there would be no physical reality to speak of. And since we all know -- or, so we say -- the mind is capable of playing tricks on us, how do we know that the world we see with our "physical eyes" is the only reality there is? The fact is we don't, and it's wholly a matter of what we choose to believe ... unless of course we are given to probe the mysteries of the matrix.

 

[RandFan]

Actually I'm a dualist. So there's no need in that respect to discount the material. However, without the reality of the mind, there would be no physical reality to speak of. And since we all know -- or, so we say -- the mind is capable of playing tricks on us, how do we know that the world we see with our "physical eyes" is the only reality there is? The fact is we don't, and it's wholly a matter of what we choose to believe ... unless of course we are given to probe the mysteries of the matrix.

This is inaccurate. We choose to believe what is likely. We can use reason to determine that one possibility is far greater than all others.

Sure our perceptions could be fooling us. But why and how? We have mountains of evidence to explain much of what we observe. We observe order and we can make predictions on that order.

To assume that everything we observe is false we have to assume that there are unseen, unknown and inexplicable forces causing the illusion. And to what end? We have to deduce that too.

We have two basic choices.

1. Believe that which we observe.
   
2. Disbelieve that which we observe.[/list=1] Disbelieving that which we observer solves nothing. It answers nothing and only leaves one in a state of filling in the blanks with speculation and conjecture. It is not parsimonious and assumes a lying and deceitful god, assuming that god is your preferred answer to the mystery. Further there is no unifying theory that can fill the void. There are thousands of religions and philosophies. Yet not one advances our understanding beyond speculation and conjecture. Not a single philosophy or theology adequately uncontrovertibly explains anything.
   
   Can I make an honest request of you Ichaus? Could you dispense with the wink every time you assert that god exists? Absent an explanation for why you use it I find it condescending and patronizing. I think it rude as if we who disagree with you actually agree with you but we can't bring ourselves to admit the agreement. I have no reason to huddle in the dark fearing demons and talking to an invisible guy in the sky to find comfort. If there is/was a god he most certainly would not be a god that cared about us or had any influence on or in our lives. If such a being existed he would inarguably be a capricious one. I say inarguably because I don't think "mysterious ways" is a valid argument.

 

[Iacchus]

Sure our perceptions could be fooling us. But why and how? We have mountains of evidence to explain much of what we observe. We observe order and we can make predictions on that order.

As lifegazer says, we can only observe the order within our minds ... which, in fact by the claims I have made, is all that I have done.

 

[RandFan]

As lifegazer says, we only observe the order within our minds ... which, in fact by the claims I have made, is all that I have done.

Which means nothing and answers nothing. We observe order. That process takes place in our minds. So what? Answer: Absent evidence to the contrary there is NO reason to assume that the order that we observe is not a fairly accurate truth. To believe that it is not the truth we must make many fanciful assumptions and unwarranted speculation.

Again, to what end?

 

[Iacchus]

Which means nothing and answers nothing. We observe order. That process takes place in our minds. So what? Answer: Absent evidence to the contrary there is NO reason to assume that the order that we observe is not a fairly accurate truth. To believe that it is not the truth we must make many fanciful assumptions and unwarranted speculation.

Only if you find no need to question it. I guess that's no longer science's bag, eh?

Again, to what end?

As I have said, and I continue to say, I have no problem with physical observations. However, I don't believe that the physical is all there is.

 

[BillyJoe]

I cannot use some sort of material device to detect the nonmaterial, but I can use nonmaterial means to detect the nonmaterial.

Then you must be assuming the existence of an immaterial entity in your brain. A ghost in the machine. That is the only way you could "use nonmaterial means to detect the nonmaterial".
But, this means you are assuming your conclusion.

Actually, strictly speaking, even that is not true. Many people believe that the nonmaterial can affect the material. When James Randi conducts an experiment searching for psychic powers, he is measure the effects of someone's powers on the material world. If there is no "ordinary" explanation, then the believer will assert, with some foundation, that their is something nonmaterial.

Or merely that an "ordinary" explanation cannot be found. If your claim is extraordinary, then you will require extraordinary evidence to prove it, otherwise I'll assume that the "ordinary" explanation has not yet been found. If you tell me you saw a dog cross main street, I have no reason to doubt you. If you tell me you saw a sabre-toothed tiger cross main street, I'll require some strong corroborating evidence. If you're making claims about an alien spacecraft, I'll expect some extraordinary evidence.

i.e. if someone really could provide accurate, verifiable information that could only have been obtained by speaking to their dead uncle Vince, then it would be reasonable to assume that Uncle Vince still exists in a nonmaterial form, and was communicating to those of us who are not yet in the spirit realm.

Yes, I would require extraordinarily, accurate, verifiable evidence.

Exactly [The immaterial will have acquired evidence of the immaterial!]. If the immaterial exists, then it can acquire evidence of the immaterial, contradicting the assertion that it is impossible to acquire evidence of the immaterial.

And what would you say would be the point of the immaterial acquiring evidence of the immaterial. It's own existence is proof already. Just as we (being material) do not require proof of the material because we ourselves are proof that the material exists.

But we cannot assert that the something doesn't exist just because we can't prove it exists. It may or may not exist.

And I have not said that. Scepticism, for me, is working with what can be supported with evidence. Pure conjecture is no basis for making important decisions - such as how I will live my life.

Thought for the day. Condi Rice as a Baptist preacher: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a lake of fire and brimstone!"

That sounds like the easily rebuttable Pascal's Wager to me.

You made an assertion that it was impossible to acquire evidence of the immaterial. However, James Randi is trying to do exactly that. Or at least, his claimants are trying to do exactly that. If there is no such thing as the immaterial, then clearly it will not be possible to find any such evidence. However, if we assert that it is impossible to find such evidence, we are assuming that the evidence cannot exist. It's a form of circular reasoning.

Fair enough. Of course, this would be possible only if the immaterial could interact with the material. I think this is not possible but, for the purpose of the exercise, we have to assume that it may be possible

I think you are misapplying 2C.

c. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.

You aren't creating an assumption of doubt with respect to materialism vs dualism. You are creating an assumption of non-belief in dualism, which is not the same as doubt.

First of all, I wasn't talking about materialism vs dualism, I was giving my definition of scepticism. Secondly at no point did I make an assumption of non-belief. I specifically said "do not hold a belief in". If I was talking about dualism, I would have said that I do not hold a belief in dualism (because there is no evidence that dualism is true). This is not the same as holding a non-belief in dualism (to hold this, there would have to be evidence the dualism is false).

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

Iacchus,

Actually I'm a dualist.

Thye two are not mutually exclusive. You can be a dualist and a postmodernist.

So there's no need in that respect to discount the material. However, without the reality of the mind, there would be no physical reality to speak of. And since we all know -- or, so we say -- the mind is capable of playing tricks on us, how do we know that the world we see with our "physical eyes" is the only reality there is? The fact is we don't, and it's wholly a matter of what we choose to believe ...

By objective evidence we are able to confirm or correct our subjective impressions.

BJ

 

[RandFan]

Only if you find no need to question it. I guess that's no longer science's bag, eh?

Question what? Existence? Science is about questioning anything. Practical science is about questioning that which is observable or theoretically supported by physics, math or other evidence.

Science could question the existence of invisible pink unicorns. I ask you again, to what end?

As I have said, and I continue to say, I have no problem with physical observations. However, I don't believe that the physical is all there is.

Welcome to philosophy. Think away, theorize, hypothosize to your hearts content. But don't think think that there is reason for any of us to agree with you absent any reasons.

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus,

Thye two are not mutually exclusive. You can be a dualist and a postmodernist.

Actually, I don't believe that anything goes, at least in the physical sense. However, since the only means we have of determining this is with our minds, we should be very careful about what we discount there as well. The fact is, in so far as I've been able to determine, our imagination is a living and real entity, having a dimension unto itself, where we're apt to encounter a whole slew of things, that we wouldn't otherwise encounter in the physical sense.

By objective evidence we are able to confirm or correct our subjective impressions.

BJ

Without our subjective impressions, we would not exist.

 

[BillyJoe]

Iacchus,

Without our subjective impressions, we would not exist.

But, without comparing our impressions to those of other subjects, we will have no objective measure of how reliable our impressions really are.

BJ

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Without our subjective impressions, we would not exist.

How would we know?

 

[Iacchus]

How would we know?

Well, we certainly wouldn't be here to speak about it anyway. And as far as I'm concerned, that's all we've got.

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus,

But, without comparing our impressions to those of other subjects, we will have no objective measure of how reliable our impressions really are.

BJ

Yes, but who or "what" is doing the comparing? There has to be something there capable of experiencing reality before it is even capable of expressing it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Then you must be assuming the existence of an immaterial entity in your brain. A ghost in the machine. That is the only way you could "use nonmaterial means to detect the nonmaterial".
But, this means you are assuming your conclusion.

Good point. I should have said that the immaterial can find existence of the immaterial, if it exists.

I was under the impression that you held a specific belief in materialism and a non-belief in dualism, and that you believed your beliefs were supported by evidence. If that is not what you believe, then I have misunderstood.

I based my impression on this quote.

"Materialism is saying nothing more than the available evidence. Dualism goes beyond the evidence."

In my opinion, materialism and dualism both go beyond the available evidence.


And what would you say would be the point of the immaterial acquiring evidence of the immaterial.

The material world obviously exists. If at some point our consciousness continues to exist despite its nonmaterial nature, then our consciousness would have learned something. We would at that point say, "Now this is obvious, but in my previous life, I didn't see it that way."