Intelligent Design

[Interesting Ian]

I have no idea what "materialism" means to you...but I can see it might stand for "nonsense" if left for me to define.

The brain is the mind, the mind is the brain. They are one and the same, so I still have no idea what you are talking about.

Eh? From what I am reading your idea of "Universe" and "materialism" is completely foreign to me. We're talking different languages here.

I have no interest in this fantasy philosophizing stuff.

Then why are you arguing with me? You admit you don't know what I'm talking about - this being so how can you disagree with me?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Then why are you arguing with me? You admit you don't know what I'm talking about - this being so how can you disagree with me?

Because what you're saying sounds nutty. Care to explain?

 

[Elind]

I am talking about the mind. I said that materialism involves more than supposing mind has its source in the brain. Mind has to be appropriately similar to all other things in the Universe in order for materialism to be true, not merely come from the brain. Read my website when it's finished. It's going to be as simple as I can make it, yet not compromise too much on content. I'll let you know when it's complete.

Possibly you have explained this earlier but you've lost me too, and I presume that you also see this as a digression from the ID issue.

"Mind has to be appropriately similar to all other things in the Universe in order for materialism to be true, not merely come from the brain."

Honestly, this sounds like something even Dembski wouldn't say. Did you just make it up?

Please feel free to enlighten us if you actually want a debate.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Possibly you have explained this earlier but you've lost me too, and I presume that you also see this as a digression from the ID issue.

"Mind has to be appropriately similar to all other things in the Universe in order for materialism to be true, not merely come from the brain."

Honestly, this sounds like something even Dembski wouldn't say. Did you just make it up?

Please feel free to enlighten us if you actually want a debate.

It is possible that the mind is non-physical, yet still depend for its existence on the brain. So we couldn't have a "life after death" for example. For something to be material it is general held that it needs to be causally efficacious i.e play a fruitful role in a physical theory describing reality, or part of reality. The problem here is that since consciousness is only fully known by the subject (no-one knows what it's like to be me), then we encounter immense, and personally I think, impenetrable difficulties.

But this is an extremely complex subject which might be best left alone for this thread. It's off topic.

 

[Robin]

Robin:


The results of causality and design are in this universe. Anything 'eternal' by this definition would also be irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what? I am not sure what your point here is, I was clarifying a definition. Are you saying that we should never consider anything that is not part of our universe? A number of physicists would be out of a job if that were the case.

 

[Robin]

Interesting Ian
Are there are things in the Universe which cannot be reduced to micro-physics?

There are things that cannot be explained by current physics - it is still a work in progress. But since physics is an attempt to understand our (and possibly outside our) Universe then everything falls within the domain of physics.

If something is observable, even indirectly, then physics will want to know about it. Eventually.

If something is not observable then we have never heard of it.

 

[Elind]

It is possible that the mind is non-physical, yet still depend for its existence on the brain. So we couldn't have a "life after death" for example.

Or we can have a different "life" after death. Nothing new in this speculation, which is all it is.

For something to be material it is general held that it needs to be causally efficacious i.e play a fruitful role in a physical theory describing reality, or part of reality. The problem here is that since consciousness is only fully known by the subject (no-one knows what it's like to be me), then we encounter immense, and personally I think, impenetrable difficulties.

Consciousness is not the same as personality. I think you muddle words and their meanings, leading to impenetrable difficulties.

But this is an extremely complex subject which might be best left alone for this thread. It's off topic.

Yes, "Self Consciousness" would warrant another thread, but I doubt that it will lead to much more than more speculation and impenetrable conceptual difficulties since it is indeed an area where science has not penetrated very far, yet.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
It is possible that the mind is non-physical, yet still depend for its existence on the brain. So we couldn't have a "life after death" for example.

Elind
Or we can have a different "life" after death. Nothing new in this speculation, which is all it is.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Different "life after death" compared to what??

II
For something to be material it is general held that it needs to be causally efficacious i.e play a fruitful role in a physical theory describing reality, or part of reality. The problem here is that since consciousness is only fully known by the subject (no-one knows what it's like to be me), then we encounter immense, and personally I think, impenetrable difficulties.


Elind
Consciousness is not the same as personality. I think you muddle words and their meanings, leading to impenetrable difficulties.

Indeed consciousness is not the same as personality. Other people can know your personality since personality is simply defined by appropriate behaviour. But I was talking about consciousness. What we might call the raw feel of experience such as thinking, the various emotions, our perceptual sensations such as, to take an arbitrary example, our experience of greenness etc.

Yes, "Self Consciousness" would warrant another thread, but I doubt that it will lead to much more than more speculation and impenetrable conceptual difficulties since it is indeed an area where science has not penetrated very far, yet.

I was not talking about self consciousness, but rather merely consciousness. And scince cannot in principle make any progress on the question of consciousness because science only deals with the physical. We know that consciousness is not characterised by structure and function and thus is not physical, but this is all that science deals with, therefore consciousness is not susceptible to a scientific explanation.

 

[Elind]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Different "life after death" compared to what??

I think that is obvious.

Indeed consciousness is not the same as personality. Other people can know your personality since personality is simply defined by appropriate behaviour. But I was talking about consciousness. What we might call the raw feel of experience such as thinking, the various emotions, our perceptual sensations such as, to take an arbitrary example, our experience of greenness etc.

That's personality, in as much as it differs from one individual to another.

I was not talking about self consciousness, but rather merely consciousness. And scince cannot in principle make any progress on the question of consciousness because science only deals with the physical. We know that consciousness is not characterised by structure and function and thus is not physical, but this is all that science deals with, therefore consciousness is not susceptible to a scientific explanation.

And you think that does not require a "self" in front of it? I think this is a contortionist argument.

I think your logic about principles of science and consciousness is something you made up and that YOU think you know. Science deals with understanding. You seem to think it's mechanical engineering. You need to study more, and not just self study.

 

[fishbob]

Are you saying that we should never consider anything that is not part of our universe? A number of physicists would be out of a job if that were the case.

No, almost by definition - if physicists can find it, it will not be'eternal', but will be part of our universe. By the same logic, though, whatever might be 'eternal' can have no effect on the universe. This is useful for some though, because it gives mystics, spiritualists, religionists a place to put the stuff they have no evidence for.

 

[TLN]

And scince cannot in principle make any progress on the question of consciousness because science only deals with the physical.

Good thing the mind and consciousness are physical things then:

How The Mind Works.

 

[TLN]

And regarding evolution; it is held by reductive materialists that behaviour is reduicble to micro-physics, and hence fundamental physical laws.

Who holds this position? By name please...

Whenever you get that head out of the sand Ian...

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I have no idea what you are talking about. Different "life after death" compared to what??

Elind
I think that is obvious.

Sorry, I don't get your point. I was saying that the survival hypothesis (""life" after death") is not vindicated by the notion that the self is non-physical. Have you misunderstood me? Are we talking at cross purposes, or what?

Indeed consciousness is not the same as personality. Other people can know your personality since personality is simply defined by appropriate behaviour. But I was talking about consciousness. What we might call the raw feel of experience such as thinking, the various emotions, our perceptual sensations such as, to take an arbitrary example, our experience of greenness etc.

Elind

That's personality, in as much as it differs from one individual to another.

Ummm . .our raw experience of greenness is our personality?? I rather think this conversation is going nowhere; extremely quickly!

II
I was not talking about self consciousness, but rather merely consciousness. And science cannot in principle make any progress on the question of consciousness because science only deals with the physical. We know that consciousness is not characterised by structure and function and thus is not physical, but this is all that science deals with, therefore consciousness is not susceptible to a scientific explanation.

Elind
And you think that does not require a "self" in front of it? I think this is a contortionist argument.

Your knowledge of what self-consciousness means (as opposed to mere consciousness), is as lacking as your knowledge of what materialism means. Self-consciousness means the implicit awareness of yourself as an enduring entity. You have a notion that you are a self. Human beings are self-conscious, other animals are normally regarded as not being self-conscious, but merely conscious. Dogs for example are presumably not aware of themselves as distinct entities enduring through time. However, I would take issue with the thesis that something like dolphins are not self-conscious and are merely conscious. For example, they recognise themselves in mirrors, which tends to suggest they are self-conscious.

I think your logic about principles of science and consciousness is something you made up and that YOU think you know. Science deals with understanding. You seem to think it's mechanical engineering. You need to study more, and not just self study.

I have always preferred self-study. I don't need to know about science, I simply need to understand the underlying principles of the philosophy of science. If you think I don't know what I'm talking about, then I guess there's nothing I can do about that. If you're interested, do some reading up on philosophy. I would especially recommend reading up on my website once it's completed.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Oh yes, and read my sig as well

 

[Elind]

Oh yes, and read my sig as well

I read it and I am begining to think you are a New Age mole.

First; this back and forth about consciousness; I'm not much for metaphysics about how many angels fit on the head of a pin, and much of this sounds like that to me.

I'll stick with the dictionary definition of consciousness: "Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts." That is not the same as "life" and I don't see a difference between conscious and self conscious, except in degree, which we can call intelligence.

You philosophize about something else that you name consciousness. I don't know what it is. Soul? Spirit? Feelgood?

As to the sig; I'm not impressed. Science doesn't claim all knowledge, just the best proven path to gain it. Your sig is just a cynic that implies scientists are jerk for not listening. If I want to hear that I can listen to Falwell or Dembski.

 

[Robin]

No, almost by definition - if physicists can find it, it will not be'eternal', but will be part of our universe.

In the first place multiple universe speculation is quite respectable in physics so it would be a bit parochial to limit what physics can find to our universe.

In the second place you have missed the point of my definition 'out of time'. For all I know time may be so fundamental to everything that everything is subject to it. Or time may be localised There might be the possibility of entities that are not subject to time.

The point is I don't know and nobody really knows but to say that by definition non-temporal things cannot exist seems to be pre-judging the matter.

I was merely putting forward a definition of 'eternal' that is accepted by theologians and pointing out that there is no scientific reason why there cannot be a non-temporal entity.

 

[Robin]

Interesting Ian's sig:
The notion that adding a few simple molecules to developing nervous tissue can instantaneously switch on the light-bulb of elementary sentience, as it were, should strike all but the most complacent spirit as incomprehensibly weird

The man is perfectly right. And this is why nobody (to my knowledge) has ever suggested this or anything remotely like it.

 

[BillHoyt]

The man is perfectly right. And this is why nobody (to my knowledge) has ever suggested this or anything remotely like it.

Robin,

May I introduce the King of the Strawmen? King, Robin?

 

[Interesting Ian]

The man is perfectly right. And this is why nobody (to my knowledge) has ever suggested this or anything remotely like it.

I assume you suppose the developing human foetus achieves sentience at some stage? How does this happen if it is not a matter of adding a few simple molecules to the foetus' brain?

 

[TLN]

Whenever you get that head out of the sand Ian...

As expected, no answer.

Ian, the only people who believe that "behaviour is reduicble to micro-physics, and hence fundamental physical laws" exist only in your head. Who are you debating here, because it's not us. It some figment in your head.

Just go somewhere and talk to yourself. You'll make much more progress.