Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

[Robin]

That is not what he is saying, he is saying you can't give something you don't have. If neurons don't possess intelligence then they can't give it-- that is basically what he is saying.

Individually neurons don't possess intelligence and nobody ever suggested that they do.

The complex neural architecture, part of which they form, does have intelligence.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Have a look at how mutating dumb algorithms guided only by selection pressure can produce apparent intelligence:


I would reckon, that dumb molecules can act in seemingly intelligent ways is pretty much a given. Exactly how conciousness might arise is the tough question.

 

[Mojo]

Individually neurons don't possess intelligence and nobody ever suggested that they do.

The complex neural architecture, part of which they form, does have intelligence.

Another proposition that DOC has yet to provide evidence for.

 

[joobz]

You have to read the other 420 pages of the book for that.

Like you said:

Garbage in: Garbage out

That is not what he is saying, he is saying you can't give something you don't have. If neurons don't possess intelligence then they can't give it-- that is basically what he is saying.

And that is an example of Geisler's garbage.

Using this same reasoning carbon (which is black), would never be able to assemble into a crystalline structure that is optically clear (diamond).

 

[Akhenaten]

And that is an example of Geisler's garbage.

Using this same reasoning carbon (which is black), would never be able to assemble into a crystalline structure that is optically clear (diamond).

And putting sodium and chlorine on your food would have to be suicidally stupid.

 

[Akhenaten]

Attack the messenger starting already. And this topic is relatively deep so it will take some time.

Don't flatter yourself, DOC. You're no messenger and the topic as about as deep as a bumper sticker.

Nevertheless, would you like me to order a Tropicana for you?

 

[Tricky]

"...if materialism is true, then reason itself is impossible. For if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true (including the theory of materialism). Chemicals can't evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Chemicals don't reason, they react.

Atoms obey the laws of physics
You are made of atoms
Therefore, you obey the laws of physics.



Yes, I'm quoting Franko to demonstrate that well-known logical fallacy, the fallacy of composition.

It is impossible to reason with someone who insists on using that fallacy in their arguments. Doc, if you need some explanation why your OP is a prime example of the fallacy of composition, then I'm sure there are many here who will explain it to you. I'm equally sure that you won't listen.

 

[Foster Zygote]

That is not what he is saying, he is saying you can't give something you don't have. If neurons don't possess intelligence then they can't give it-- that is basically what he is saying.

That is exactly what I said. Rewording it does not make it any less ridiculous a statement. Geisler is just flat out wrong.

A transistor can't play chess, but if you network enough of them together they can beat the best human chess players. In a computer, each transistor on the IC board is connected to maybe ten other transistors. In a human brain, each neuron is connected to about ten thousand other neurons and there are around one hundred billion neurons in the average human brain. There isn't anything supernatural about the emergence of cognition from the structure of the brain.

 

[Craig4]

So why if thoughts aren't the products of chemicals does adding chemicals to the body alter thoughts? Give a schizophrenic an anti psychotic and presto no more (or reduced) paranoid delusions. Give me alcohol and I suddenly think it's a good idea to dance on tables. If these are not chemical processes why does adding a chemical to the process cause thoughts to alter?

 

[Beerina]

And this topic is relatively deep so it will take some time.

No it won't. If you study computational theory, you will see the chemicals in the brain are a perfectly computationally powerful method. Neural network theory, modeled on how the neurons of the brain operate, is fully Turing machine-equivalent.

That's how you define computation.


Now if you want to delve deeply into it, then yes, that will take some time as the introduction is a 4-credit, 400-level computer science course.

 

[Aepervius]

Yes, I'm quoting Franko to demonstrate that well-known logical fallacy, the fallacy of composition.

I was pretty sure DOC was heading to something similar. I did not knew the fallacy name, thank you very much. It seems to be used very often by the "soul" proponent (can't make reason out of non reasonning component) or even the "life breath" proponent (can't make living stuff out of inanimate stuff).

This is naturally utter balderdash.

 

[Lowpro]

Purely out of curiosity, how is it that books by these two authors haven't moved been relegated to fringe/pulp status purely on their lack of relevance? Obviously people like Doc are reading them, and they aren't placed in the fiction section (along with religious texts) why are they being mobilized in the first place?

Things like these arguments should have been dead and buried 30 years ago (I almost said 20 years ago but I realized the 80's were 30 years and...oh nevermind -.- time makes fools of us all...) but here it is, bold as the day it was first introduced inspiring the credulous.

 

[Aepervius]

Purely out of curiosity, how is it that books by these two authors haven't moved been relegated to fringe/pulp status purely on their lack of relevance? Obviously people like Doc are reading them, and they aren't placed in the fiction section (along with religious texts) why are they being mobilized in the first place?

Things like these arguments should have been dead and buried 30 years ago (I almost said 20 years ago but I realized the 80's were 30 years and...oh nevermind -.- time makes fools of us all...) but here it is, bold as the day it was first introduced inspiring the credulous.

The same reason some people still hold the danikhen argument or even the face on mars to be true : not keeping up with the latest research and be too lazy : an answer already pre-chewed by an author looks much more itnerresting than to look for info the hard way.

ETA: plus those author offer *THE* answer final and so on, whereas science as you can read above neither offer a complete answer, nor is final, nor is easy to get or udnerstand.

 

[marplots]

That is not what he is saying, he is saying you can't give something you don't have. If neurons don't possess intelligence then they can't give it-- that is basically what he is saying.

This is why the idea of emergent behavior is so powerful. It describes new properties that arise which are not embodied in smaller units. We do not think an individual bird understands their role in shaping the v formation of a flock in flight. We do not think a single water molecule is "wet."

Materialism is pretty simple on its face. "Here is a box that reason comes out of. Let us look in the box and see what is in there."

If we have to add things that we cannot see, but must construct by reason alone, we are cheating. We should be very careful about thinking we know what's going on before we find it in the box. That's really all materialism demands -- not that we can answer every question we have, but that the answer has to match up with what we've found, not what we want or imagine.

The problem with imagining "must be's" is that we might not have enough information to inform our guesses. Our imagination and logic may not be up to the task. The bumble bee might fly even though we convince ourselves it cannot. To reason well about the world, we have to look and see how the world actually is.

 

[welshdean]

The same reason some people still hold the danikhen argument or even the face on mars to be true : not keeping up with the latest research and be too lazy : an answer already pre-chewed by an author looks much more itnerresting than to look for info the hard way.

ETA: plus those author offer *THE* answer final and so on, whereas science as you can read above neither offer a complete answer, nor is final, nor is easy to get or udnerstand.

Aepervius, I respectfully disagree with your ETA mate. Stenger explains DOC's quandary quite eloquently. I'm certified 'thick as hog droppings' and I understood it. See my post (No.57) for his explanation. Although in the last para quoted he does echo the concerns [in your ETA].

 

[Nonpareil]

That is not what he is saying, he is saying you can't give something you don't have. If neurons don't possess intelligence then they can't give it-- that is basically what he is saying.

Do atoms possess the quality of being blue?

Garbage in: Garbage out is a term used by some computer people. Computers are only as good as their programmers.

Does silicon possess the quality of being capable of processing computer code?

 

[welshdean]

DOC, do yourself a favour and wiki Gestalt Theory. I've linked it to save your very valuable time. Again, because I'm fully aware how very, very busy you are, just read the first paragraph. No, because you're so pushed for time, just the last line of the first paragraph.
What the hell I'll copy it here for you:

The phrase "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts" is often used when explaining Gestalt theory.

 

[Aepervius]

Aepervius, I respectfully disagree with your ETA mate. Stenger explains DOC's quandary quite eloquently. I'm certified 'thick as hog droppings' and I understood it. See my post (No.57) for his explanation. Although in the last para quoted he does echo the concerns [in your ETA].

I see what you mean. I have to admit I am an utter "lay" persons when it comes to psychological evaluation. It is jsut seem to me the persons react as described.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually Geisler has a PhD. in Philosophy and has authored over 60 books. I don't believe he or Turek are preachers.

Perhaps he also got an "A" in some logic course?

 

[Robin]

The book cited in post #1 goes on to say this on pgs. 129-130.

"Not only is reason impossible in a Darwinian world, but the Darwinist's assertion that we should rely on reason alone cannot be justified.

I am not sure who these mysterious "Darwinists" are, but I don't think that atheists ever say "reason alone", atheists mostly say "reason backed by empirical verification".

Why not? Because reason actually requires faith. As J. Budziszewski points out, "The motto 'Reason Alone!' is nonsense anyway. Reason itself presupposes faith. Why? Because a defense of reason by reason is circular, therefore worthless.

The pragmatic measure of "it works" does not require faith. It does not require faith to observe that science delivers results.

Our only guarantee that human reason works is God who made it.""

Again they are assuming their conclusion - in this case that God made human reason.

Their mistake is to assume that atheists, like theists, think that there must be a guarantee.

There are no guarantees.