Challenge to Evolutionsts

[Nick Soapdish]

Ah, so there is no such thing as a supernatural mechanism. Therefore: 1) the term "natural mechanisms" is redundant, and 2) there is no practical, meaningful alternative to natural mechanisms (redundancy aside). If you feel I'm wrong on that last point, feel free to offer a specific alternative that is not merely a bald assertion or a reliance on the "God of the Gaps" argument.

I am not following your line of thought. I am sure it make sense to you, but I am not getting it.

Maybe this will help. I believe each moment of consciousness is supernatural. In other words, we cannot conceive a natural law, or mathematic equation, to totally represent our conscious experience. It doesn't mean it is not real, or part of reality, it just simply means there are things going on that we can't equate.

You may think that is an appeal to the "God of the Gaps" idea (which I think is a bogus argument), but let me assure you, I am all for neurological research and the development of AI. I myself have written several artificial neural nets. The point is, we can discover every possible mechanism involved in our cognition, yet we can never verify whether something is actually conscious (whether it be a lizard, a computer, or my Uncle Bill). That lack of capability to verify it automatically puts it outside of the scientific method.

The reason the "God of the Gaps" does not apply is because that recognition of the consciousness element does not limit us in discovering any and all mechanisms to be found in the brain.

 

[Autodidact]

You should say what you mean because no theist gives invisible pink unicorn arguments any credit. The analogy is just silly and serves only to ridicule those that believe in a divine creator rather than provide a meaningful logical argument.

Really? Why is your personal revelation any better than mine? And, most importantly, how do you tell? Saying the analogy is silly is not the same thing as showing that it is. If you think my argument is incorrect, demonstrate that it is.

That regular old reality is actually pretty comprehensible. But, by itself, it is indifferent, mindless and without purpose. I find it strange that you or anyone else would be satisfied and content with that "reality" (both on an intellectual and a emotional basis), but then again, I am not you or anyone else.

I don't find it comprehensible at all. The more I learn about science, the more I realize how much we don't know. The more we find out, the more questions arise. The ancients didn't have to worry about quarks or dark matter; we are discomfited by them. I don't in the least comprehend the infinity of the universe, its origins or basic nature, and neither do the best cosmologists. I don't really understand gravity, and neither do the top physicists. No one understand the fundamental forces of nature and their relation to each other. We cannot penetrate further than sub-atomic particles, or into a black hole. "The world is[SIZE=-1] not only queerer thanwe suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." (J.B.S. Haldane)

Whether the universe is mindless or without purpose is something I cannot tell. I do know that it is infinitely more complicated, elegant, marvelous, bizarre, interesting and cool than any human story, including every holy text ever written. The actual story of the actual origin of the universe turned out to be way better and weirder than Genesis.

What I am satisfied with is simply the truth. If it turns out that there is some sort of incomprehensible super-intelligence behind it all, I will be interested to learn that. If not, then I'm interested in the actual nature of things. Making stuff up just so I feel like there's some point to my little tiny life does not interest or satisfy me. Yes, I'll take reality over some fairy story any day of the week. How can you make yourself believe stuff that's obviously made up, just to "satisfy" you?
[/SIZE]

 

[Autodidact]

I am not following your line of thought. I am sure it make sense to you, but I am not getting it.

Maybe this will help. I believe each moment of consciousness is supernatural. In other words, we cannot conceive a natural law, or mathematic equation, to totally represent our conscious experience. It doesn't mean it is not real, or part of reality, it just simply means there are things going on that we can't equate.

You may think that is an appeal to the "God of the Gaps" idea (which I think is a bogus argument), but let me assure you, I am all for neurological research and the development of AI. I myself have written several artificial neural nets. The point is, we can discover every possible mechanism involved in our cognition, yet we can never verify whether something is actually conscious (whether it be a lizard, a computer, or my Uncle Bill). That lack of capability to verify it automatically puts it outside of the scientific method.

The reason the "God of the Gaps" does not apply is because that recognition of the consciousness element does not limit us in discovering any and all mechanisms to be found in the brain.

Well, once again Nick, I almost sort of agree with you. There's definitely more going on here, whether inside our brains, inside the atom, inside a cell, or inside a black hole, than we can know. I leave a blank spot there in my thinking, you label it "supernatural." Maybe we can agree to call it the Ineffable Mystery at the Heart of Reality, how does that sound?

While we do not fully understand consciousness, we have observed that it is always associated with a brain. I think that's significant. You?

 

[Valjean]

That doesn't make any sense. If a supernatural occurrence was mechanical, then it would be natural and we should reclassify it. Supernature goes against our ability to apply natural laws (i.e. mechanisms) against it, and that, in my opinion, is the distinguishing factor between it and nature.

"Supernature" -- a clever neologism, Nick, but English already has a term that precisely describes the concept you term supernature: "magic."

 

[Jose Fly]

Nick,

I am not following your line of thought. I am sure it make sense to you, but I am not getting it.

When I asked for the supernatural alternative to natural mechanisms, you objected and stated that if something is a mechanism, it cannot be supernatural. If that is true, then the only mechanisms that exist are natural.

I believe each moment of consciousness is supernatural.

That's fine and good, but people believe all sorts of things.

In other words, we cannot conceive a natural law, or mathematic equation, to totally represent our conscious experience. It doesn't mean it is not real, or part of reality, it just simply means there are things going on that we can't equate.

That is precisely the "God of the Gaps" argument. IOW, "We can't explain/equate X, therefore it is supernatural".

But it is interesting how when one changes the physical nature of various parts of the body, the "conscious experience" changes. Seems to be a pretty strong link there.

You may think that is an appeal to the "God of the Gaps" idea (which I think is a bogus argument), but let me assure you, I am all for neurological research and the development of AI.

The "God of the Gaps" is not "I'm against research", it's "We don't know/understand X, therefore it is supernatural", which as far as I can tell is what you argued above.

The point is, we can discover every possible mechanism involved in our cognition, yet we can never verify whether something is actually conscious (whether it be a lizard, a computer, or my Uncle Bill). That lack of capability to verify it automatically puts it outside of the scientific method.

Why can't we? Do you mean we can never say something is "conscious", no matter what? If that is so, doesn't that make the term "conscious" kind of meaningless?

The reason the "God of the Gaps" does not apply is because that recognition of the consciousness element does not limit us in discovering any and all mechanisms to be found in the brain

Again, you misunderstand what the "God of the Gaps" entails.

 

[painted wolf]

um... by saying we don't understand consciousness and that means there is a god... isn't that a god of the gaps argument?

We don't know why it works, so it must be supernatural and therefore it must be god.... of the gaps.

wa:do

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Really? Why is your personal revelation any better than mine? And, most importantly, how do you tell? Saying the analogy is silly is not the same thing as showing that it is. If you think my argument is incorrect, demonstrate that it is.

I know you don't believe in IPUs (and I doubt anyone on our planet does). Doesn't that make you think maybe there is some reason why millions of people believe in God and no one believes in IPUs. What is your explanation for the difference?

Here are a couple of my ideas. First off, IPUs are material creatures (they have the body of a horse and horn on their head), and are therefore subject to scientific investigation. Therefore, we can apply our immense understanding of science and the physical world to propose whether such creatures exist. And of course they don't and we know with a great amount of certainty they don't. God lives outside of the physical Universe and we cannot "discover" Him as if he were a obscure creature or law of nature.

Secondly, people have an innate craving to know God. We have a spiritual draw. There is no innate craving to know IPUs.

[SIZE=-1]The actual story of the actual origin of the universe turned out to be way better and weirder than Genesis.

Genesis serves as a moral story not a scientific doctrine. I too am attracted to science and in awe about it.. all the more reason to believe in God, rather than to think nature invented itself in this particular way--mindlessly and without any consideration for difference.

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]What I am satisfied with is simply the truth. If it turns out that there is some sort of incomprehensible super-intelligence behind it all, I will be interested to learn that.[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]

But what if you cannot learn that through any application of the scientific method, yet it was still true.
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Making stuff up just so I feel like there's some point to my little tiny life does not interest or satisfy me. Yes, I'll take reality over some fairy story any day of the week. How can you make yourself believe stuff that's obviously made up, just to "satisfy" you?[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]

First off it is not obviously made up to me, or millions others.

I have a deep conviction that the Bible is true. I have a very different world view than you do but I believe it is logically consistent and in tune with all of the data I have about the world and what my common sense and intuition tell me.

To me, naturalism is an odd world view that just doesn't make sense.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

While we do not fully understand consciousness, we have observed that it is always associated with a brain. I think that's significant. You?

I think the brain is a very important mechanism that is use to accumulate, assimilate, and make sense of the world around us, as well as store our personal experiences. But under the veil of the physical world, there is a spiritual world that is intrinsically integrated to it.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

"Supernature" -- a clever neologism, Nick, but English already has a term that precisely describes the concept you term supernature: "magic."

Check the dictionary, they clearly have different definitions. You may not recognize the difference, but to communicate with those that do recognize a difference you may want to understand the difference.

If you are simply making the point that believing in supernature is as preposterous as believing in magic, then state your case.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

But it is interesting how when one changes the physical nature of various parts of the body, the "conscious experience" changes. Seems to be a pretty strong link there.

Well, of course there is a link. Our consciousness is integrated with the brain.

Why can't we? Do you mean we can never say something is "conscious", no matter what? If that is so, doesn't that make the term "conscious" kind of meaningless?

No, because I know that I experience consciousness. We "feel" things but cannot quantify those feelings in any sort of precise way. How do you know you "feel" the color blue the same way as the person next to you? If science advances far enough, you may be able to determine that the same pattern of neuron firings occur. Using common sense we can say they must be the same. But there is no way to verify it. Consciousness is outside the realm of scientific verification.

Again, you misunderstand what the "God of the Gaps" entails.

I would like to start a new thread to discuss the "God of the Gaps" argument"....

 

[Autodidact]

I know you don't believe in IPUs (and I doubt anyone on our planet does). Doesn't that make you think maybe there is some reason why millions of people believe in God and no one believes in IPUs. What is your explanation for the difference?

People have believed, and do believe, in much sillier things. I think it's because I didn't invent a story of divine revelation, write a book, start a religion, etc. But we know it can be done, because L. Ron Hubbard did it.

Here are a couple of my ideas. First off, IPUs are material creatures (they have the body of a horse and horn on their head), and are therefore subject to scientific investigation. Therefore, we can apply our immense understanding of science and the physical world to propose whether such creatures exist. And of course they don't and we know with a great amount of certainty they don't. God lives outside of the physical Universe and we cannot "discover" Him as if he were a obscure creature or law of nature.

Oh no, they're completely immaterial. The key thing to know about the IPU (there is only one) is that She is invisible. Also not perceivable with any sense. She has the form of a unicorn, but only in spirit. You cannot perceive Her with your senses because She's supernatural. She is real and powerful, however. She is outside the scope of science, and it is silly to think that science can detect the supernatural. She lives way, way, outside the physical universe, but She affects it. Kinda like God. You can't "discover" Her that way--you have to pray and receive the truth from Her holy spirit, which will fill you from within. You know it when you feel it, believe me. I know, it happened to me, and changed my life. If you want your life changed for the better, sincerely approach the IPU.

Secondly, people have an innate craving to know God. We have a spiritual draw. There is no innate craving to know IPUs.

Same craving, different expression. And would you stop offending me by implying there can be more than one IPU? She is One.

Genesis serves as a moral story not a scientific doctrine. I too am attracted to science and in awe about it.. all the more reason to believe in God, rather than to think nature invented itself in this particular way--mindlessly and without any consideration for difference.

We are having two conversations at once, which is confusing. It would be far better to split the thread. One is about evolution. Has nothing to do with the existence of God. The other has to do with metaphysical naturalism vs. the supernatural, including God and the IPU.

For the purposes of the first, I will spot you God. That is, I will agree for the purpose of discussion that your God created the universe and everything in it.

Once we establish that ToE is correct, then we can turn around and deal with the theological ramifications, including the existence of a specific God or God in general.

But what if you cannot learn that through any application of the scientific method, yet it was still true.

But in that case, how could you learn it? And how could you tell whether it was true?

First off it is not obviously made up to me, or millions others.

Well, we're trying to figure out whether you and millions of others are right or wrong.

I have a deep conviction that the Bible is true. I have a very different world view than you do but I believe it is logically consistent and in tune with all of the data I have about the world and what my common sense and intuition tell me.

Millions of other people have equally deeply held convictions that you are pretty sure are wrong. How do we tell which convictions are correct? O.K., if you think it's in tune with the data, show us how. If something is, then it should be apparent to anyone of any belief system.

To me, naturalism is an odd world view that just doesn't make sense.

Why?

 

[Autodidact]

I think the brain is a very important mechanism that is use to accumulate, assimilate, and make sense of the world around us, as well as store our personal experiences. But under the veil of the physical world, there is a spiritual world that is intrinsically integrated to it.

How can you know whether this is true?

 

[Autodidact]

Not only have we never observed a consciousness apart from a brain, but we can affect perception, emotion, affect, attitudes--all by affecting the brain. We know which parts of the brain "contain" hunger, anger, and love. We can even induce and measure spiritual experiences, even near death experiences, in the brain. It is impossible to feel love without inducing a measurable activity in a specific area of the brain. Isn't that wild?

It's kind of like what I said about God and X. If X is completely explainable without reference to God, then what use is God with reference to X? Occam sez throw Him out. If emotion and cognition are explainable without resort to an invisible spirit substance, then what use is it in explaining emotion and cognition? Throw it out.

 

[Autodidact]

Nick: I am greatly enjoying our conversation, and do not in any way want to belittle your belief. But. Basically, your argument boils down to: B-b-but, I just know the Bible's true. I really, really, do?

Really? How?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Nick: I am greatly enjoying our conversation, and do not in any way want to belittle your belief. But. Basically, your argument boils down to: B-b-but, I just know the Bible's true. I really, really, do?

Really? How?

I appreciate the joust as well! I am finding that I am having trouble keeping up with you.

And I believe you are right. The majority of your counter points are "that is all fine and good, but how do you know it is true?"

It really is based on faith. Intrerestingly enough I remember declaring in college, "If God meant for us to know about Him, it would be obvious and we wouldn't have all of these different religions". I think that is kind of what you are saying.

However, I believe there was a fault in my thinking. If God exists, there was a good reason it wasn't obviously evident that He was real and that we were to worship Him in a certain way. I never considered why that would be. I was in a philosophy club and stayed up late at night drinking pints with friends discussing big questions. It was then that materialism no longer made sense. It had a poor explanation for consciousness; it was powerless to explain the origin of the particular world that we are in; and probably most significantly, it said that my freewill was an illusion. God started to make sense.

It was years later that Christianity provided the reason God's existence wasn't obvious. It was obvious to Adam and Eve, but after the fall, it was possible for us to say in our heart, "there is no God". Plus my grandmother was a huge inspiration and showed me what it was like to live as a Christian. I can't explain it in a way that will prove God to everyone else, but things just made sense at that point.

Oh, and I will make sure not to refer to multiple IPUs.
It sounds like your concept of the IPU is that the IPU is God, or some other divine being. The thing that throws me off is what the relevance of the Unicorn form and the pink color (since pink is really the result of light reflection, a purely material phenomenon and horses are a material form).

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Not only have we never observed a consciousness apart from a brain, but we can affect perception, emotion, affect, attitudes--all by affecting the brain. We know which parts of the brain "contain" hunger, anger, and love. We can even induce and measure spiritual experiences, even near death experiences, in the brain. It is impossible to feel love without inducing a measurable activity in a specific area of the brain. Isn't that wild?

I think there is a good reason for this and it has to do with our power of volition. If there was no mechanism (or nature if you prefer) to our inclinations and behaviors, we would be powerless to have meaningful relationships. We would never know how our actions would make other people feel. But because our brain has emotional mechanisms, and predictable means of perception, we can have meaningful relationships. This is a necessary design for us.

It's kind of like what I said about God and X. If X is completely explainable without reference to God, then what use is God with reference to X? Occam sez throw Him out. If emotion and cognition are explainable without resort to an invisible spirit substance, then what use is it in explaining emotion and cognition? Throw it out.

But what about the quality of feelings? Science depends on quantification. Is blue a number? Not the wavelength, and not the pattern of neurons that fire when we feel blue, but rather the actual feeling? Something you could describe in a comprehensible manner to someone who was color blind?

 

[Jose Fly]

Nick,

No, because I know that I experience consciousness.

But you just said, "we can never say something is conscious". Now you're saying "I know I am conscious".

How do you know you "feel" the color blue the same way as the person next to you? If science advances far enough, you may be able to determine that the same pattern of neuron firings occur. Using common sense we can say they must be the same. But there is no way to verify it. Consciousness is outside the realm of scientific verification.

That doesn't make any sense. We can determine the pattern of neuron firings, but we can't verify them?

 

[Autodidact]

I appreciate the joust as well! I am finding that I am having trouble keeping up with you.

And I believe you are right. The majority of your counter points are "that is all fine and good, but how do you know it is true?"

It really is based on faith. Intrerestingly enough I remember declaring in college, "If God meant for us to know about Him, it would be obvious and we wouldn't have all of these different religions". I think that is kind of what you are saying.

However, I believe there was a fault in my thinking. If God exists, there was a good reason it wasn't obviously evident that He was real and that we were to worship Him in a certain way. I never considered why that would be. I was in a philosophy club and stayed up late at night drinking pints with friends discussing big questions. It was then that materialism no longer made sense. It had a poor explanation for consciousness; it was powerless to explain the origin of the particular world that we are in; and probably most significantly, it said that my freewill was an illusion. God started to make sense.

It was years later that Christianity provided the reason God's existence wasn't obvious. It was obvious to Adam and Eve, but after the fall, it was possible for us to say in our heart, "there is no God". Plus my grandmother was a huge inspiration and showed me what it was like to live as a Christian. I can't explain it in a way that will prove God to everyone else, but things just made sense at that point.

Oh, and I will make sure not to refer to multiple IPUs.
It sounds like your concept of the IPU is that the IPU is God, or some other divine being. The thing that throws me off is what the relevance of the Unicorn form and the pink color (since pink is really the result of light reflection, a purely material phenomenon and horses are a material form).

You make some interesting points. Consciousness, or the problem of consciousness, is considered to be one of the most puzzling questions for philosophy and neuroscience. What does it mean to be aware of oneself? What is the self? Etc. etc. Tough stuff. I'll just make a couple of tentative pointettes.
1. No answer is better than a wrong answer. Just because a story provides an answer to a puzzling question doesn't make it right, and sometimes the best answer is "I don't know." Maybe we'll never know, and maybe we just don't know now. (Remember our friends with their ancestors. They answered a lot of questions for them that we find puzzling, such as why bad things happen to good people. That doesn't make it right.)
2. To the extent that consciousness means "thinking" or "cognition," it seems to be 100% associated with brains. It has never been observed apart from a brain. Damaging the brain damages our ability to think. We can use technology to observe activity in the brains triggered by specific kinds of thinking. In fact, Dr. Helen Fisher has used MRIs to observe brain activity by people thinking about their beloved! So I think the evidence we do have gives us just a huge, huge clue that consciousness is an activity or property of brains.

Science is certainly chipping away at very difficult origins questions. If we believe the cosmologists and all those people, we know the beginning of the universe, how our planet was formed, the origin of species and our species in particular, and we have a pretty high degree of confidence that they're right, not that I understand half of what they're saying. Maybe you mean that we don't know before that, or where that came from, or why there is anything as opposed to nothing, but it seems logical to me that there would be a lot of stuff we don't know or don't know yet, and that doesn't bother me.

I'm sorry, I can't see Adam and Eve and Jesus and all that as anything other than an ancient, primitive, tribal myth. I mean, if Adam and Eve were real people who talked to a real snake and ate a real fruit, why on earth would that have any effect on me? I'm not them. That's just silly. That's like a myth about how the first tiger got its stripes or something. And if they weren't, then it's just a myth, with possibly some psychological resonance, but no more than the Hope or Latvian or Japanese creation myth.

I mean, how can you talk about quantum mechanics and the Garden of Eden in the same thread?

I do not in the least agree that a materialistic naturalism means neither you nor I have free will. btw although you don't like Dennett it may interest you to learn that his latest book is about his philosophical analysis of free will as being compatible with ToE and metaphysical naturalism?

But that's another complicated problem worthy of another thread.

Yes, of course the IPU is a God. After all, it's a religion. How can something invisible be pink, you ask? That's part of Her mystery.

Hey, Jesus had a form, and He was God, n'est-ce pas? Shouldn't be a problem for a Christian. Hey, some Christians think it's really important to emphasize that He was a man, meaning that He had a penis. How is that any weirder than a horn?

Remember me pointing out earlier how your intuition just happened to coincide with the culture you (and your grandmother) were raised in? Had your Grandmother modeled how to be a true Muslim, and had your college discussions taken place in Karachi, would you be a Muslim today? Or do you secretly believe you would be that rare exception, the person who leaves the religion of their native culture to join another? Did you now that the best predictor of a person's religious beliefs are those of the culture and family they were raised in?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

But you just said, "we can never say something is conscious". Now you're saying "I know I am conscious".

No, we can never tell if someone else is conscious. We only know that we ourselves are conscious.

That doesn't make any sense. We can determine the pattern of neuron firings, but we can't verify them?

We can verify the neuron firings, but we can verify the conscious experience (i.e. if the color blue feels the same or not).

 

[Nick Soapdish]

You make some interesting points. Consciousness, or the problem of consciousness, is considered to be one of the most puzzling questions for philosophy and neuroscience. What does it mean to be aware of oneself? What is the self? Etc. etc. Tough stuff. I'll just make a couple of tentative pointettes.
1. No answer is better than a wrong answer. Just because a story provides an answer to a puzzling question doesn't make it right, and sometimes the best answer is "I don't know." Maybe we'll never know, and maybe we just don't know now. (Remember our friends with their ancestors. They answered a lot of questions for them that we find puzzling, such as why bad things happen to good people. That doesn't make it right.)

I agree. I don't claim to have solved the mystery of consciousness and give an account of how it works. I am only saying that my awareness of the self and the sense of freewill is at odds with metaphysical naturalism.

2. To the extent that consciousness means "thinking" or "cognition," it seems to be 100% associated with brains. It has never been observed apart from a brain. Damaging the brain damages our ability to think. We can use technology to observe activity in the brains triggered by specific kinds of thinking. In fact, Dr. Helen Fisher has used MRIs to observe brain activity by people thinking about their beloved! So I think the evidence we do have gives us just a huge, huge clue that consciousness is an activity or property of brains.

True. However, this does not mean a soul does not exist. Only that our mind has some very intricate mechanical counterparts that are operated through the brain.

I do not in the least agree that a materialistic naturalism means neither you nor I have free will. btw although you don't like Dennett it may interest you to learn that his latest book is about his philosophical analysis of free will as being compatible with ToE and metaphysical naturalism?

Dennett has a way of redefining things so that they fit within metaphysical naturalism. He claims that the consciousness problem is solved in his "Consciousness Explained" book. I cannot see true freewill (we are free agents) being compatible with any theory that describes the mind as being completely reducible to smaller, indifferent, thoughtless moving parts.

Yes, of course the IPU is a God. After all, it's a religion. How can something invisible be pink, you ask? That's part of Her mystery.

Hey, Jesus had a form, and He was God, n'est-ce pas? Shouldn't be a problem for a Christian. Hey, some Christians think it's really important to emphasize that He was a man, meaning that He had a penis. How is that any weirder than a horn?

See, I am learning more about the IPU with every post.

Remember me pointing out earlier how your intuition just happened to coincide with the culture you (and your grandmother) were raised in? Had your Grandmother modeled how to be a true Muslim, and had your college discussions taken place in Karachi, would you be a Muslim today? Or do you secretly believe you would be that rare exception, the person who leaves the religion of their native culture to join another? Did you now that the best predictor of a person's religious beliefs are those of the culture and family they were raised in?

And the same goes for you. If you were raised in India, I am betting there was a significant chance that you would be Hindu and not atheist. Does that mean atheism is wrong?