Evolution and Mind/Body Dualism

[Riverwolf]

That is basically what you did. You used "natural selection" to plug in your lack of knowledge. Your "natural selection" answer could be false..so therefore your answer is no better than my answer of goddidit.

Actually it is significantly, by virtue of being demonstrably true everywhere else, and the goddidit having never been demonstrated once.

ALL scientific theories have chances of being false. That's why they're not called "laws" anymore. But the chances of it being natural selection are far higher than the involvement of supernatural agency.

Ok, so when I am watching Forensic Files on tv, when I see scientists using DNA to prove a person committed a crime, it is all illusory. Gotcha.

No, you don't got me at all, because what you're describing isn't explanation, but demonstration.

Wait a minute, so eyes doesn't have a specific purpose? Just a matter of convenience, right?

They have a function, not a purpose, and that function developed over time. Different animals, and even different people, have different levels of vision: in the case of most humans, that function is the ability to detect two aspects of light: color and brightness. But even that can vary wildly.

It's also far more significant than simple convenience.

Possible world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mathematical skills...what?

Possible world semantics is basically saying things could have been different...or, it is POSSIBLE for things to have been different. For example, there is a possible world at which I wouldn't have joined the military. In other words, "it could have happened", or, "it could have not happened".

Ah. Thanks. Though for the record, it seems this sort of thing is connected to multiverse theory, after all, which could explain why I thought you were referring to it, as others on the internet could have used them interchangeably.

What I am saying is, there is no possible world that life/consciousness could have originated naturally. If it is possible, then I should be able to conceive of a possible world/scenario at which it COULD happened

As has been explained, the ability for the human mind to conceive of something is entirely irrelevant to its possibility, and you've yet to satisfactorily argue that.

No

Right, because one doesn't exist. It's the same in natural selection: the line between thought and no-thought in development does not exist.


I never said I could measure it, I said it is easily defined. [/quote]

I think you misunderstood me. I said:

I said adequately. That means it is defined, but the definition isn't clear enough to be measurable.

And you responded with:

Speak for yourself. It is clear enough to me :yes:

The qualification I provided for being "clear enough" is the ability to measure it. Since you responded directly, you implicitly said that the definition was clear enough for you to measure. That means there should be actual numbers connected with standardized units involved.

Being clear enough to understand a concept intuitively doesn't mean it's clear enough to be measured, which is the minimum amount of understanding required for hard scientific inquiry.

Two entirely correct claims. Saying that the universe began to exist and is expanding...thousands of years before this was proven/observed to be true...quite compelling.

Hardly, since I never saw the "expanding" bit. Besides, even if it got everything right, it would still have no place in scientific inquiry.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Actually it is significantly, by virtue of being demonstrably true everywhere else, and the goddidit having never been demonstrated once.

"Everywhere else" that it is demonstrable, and not "everywhere" that it isn't demonstrable, as in the case in question.

ALL scientific theories have chances of being false. That's why they're not called "laws" anymore. But the chances of it being natural selection are far higher than the involvement of supernatural agency.

I don't think natural selection is the simplest explanation..but hey.

No, you don't got me at all, because what you're describing isn't explanation, but demonstration.

Those two terms aren't exactly mutually exclusive now, are they?

They have a function, not a purpose, and that function developed over time.

Ok, but you saying they have functions does not rule out functions that are ultimately based on and orignating from an Intelligent designer.

Different animals, and even different people, have different levels of vision: in the case of most humans, that function is the ability to detect two aspects of light: color and brightness. But even that can vary wildly.

Different modes of transportation have different functions as well.

It's also far more significant than simple convenience.

Well, you explain to me how the concept of "vision" will begin to develop within the body of a inanimate object that came to life.

You must be a mathematician, because you have a lot of problems you have to work out. Haha

Ah. Thanks. Though for the record, it seems this sort of thing is connected to multiverse theory, after all, which could explain why I thought you were referring to it, as others on the internet could have used them interchangeably.

I guess you can kinda/sorta think of it as a multiverse, but only in terms to increase possibilities...not in a literal sense.

As has been explained, the ability for the human mind to conceive of something is entirely irrelevant to its possibility, and you've yet to satisfactorily argue that.

But my point is, if it was possible, then I SHOULD be able to conceive of it. I can't think of a scenario at which 2+2=9, because it isn't possible. There is no possible world at which 2+2=9, and since there is no possible world at which this is the case, then I can't conceive of the thought, because if I could conceive of the thought, then it follows that there is a possible world at which 2+2=9. My "thought" that it could be true is itself a "possible world".

I am 100% convinced that there is no way you can start off with a big bang, from a point at which literally no life or consciousness exists, to suddenly this present day we are here with life and consiciousness. The ingredients to life and the ingredients to consciousness are not something you can go in a lab and "whip up". I am quite convinced by the arguments, actually.

Right, because one doesn't exist. It's the same in natural selection: the line between thought and no-thought in development does not exist.

So there was never a first thought? So how do you get to the point of presently thinking if you didn't begin with a first thought?

The qualification I provided for being "clear enough" is the ability to measure it. Since you responded directly, you implicitly said that the definition was clear enough for you to measure. That means there should be actual numbers connected with standardized units involved.

I am sorry you interpreted that way lol.

Hardly, since I never saw the "expanding" bit. Besides, even if it got everything right, it would still have no place in scientific inquiry.

Google "the bible expanding universe".

 

[Riverwolf]

"Everywhere else" that it is demonstrable, and not "everywhere" that it isn't demonstrable, as in the case in question.

No viable alternative has been put forth.

I don't think natural selection is the simplest explanation..but hey.

I believe you're referencing Occam's Razor, and I also believe that you misunderstand it.

1. The qualification for Occam's Razor to take effect is that all things have to be equal. In this case, they are not.
2. The simplest explanation tends to be the right one, but isn't necessarily.

Those two terms aren't exactly mutually exclusive now, are they?

They are. Explanation and demonstration are two very distinct concepts.

Ok, but you saying they have functions does not rule out functions that are ultimately based on and orignating from an Intelligent designer.

It doesn't rule it out, but it doesn't imply that, either, as "design" does.

Different modes of transportation have different functions as well.

Again, false analogy.

Well, you explain to me how the concept of "vision" will begin to develop within the body of a inanimate object that came to life.

I'm afraid I don't understand the question, here. Could you rephrase it?

You must be a mathematician, because you have a lot of problems you have to work out. Haha

No, I'm not, and no I don't.

I guess you can kinda/sorta think of it as a multiverse, but only in terms to increase possibilities...not in a literal sense.

Doesn't matter, because possibility and probability aren't the same thing.

But my point is, if it was possible, then I SHOULD be able to conceive of it.

Not necessarily, because the human mind is limited to conceptualization of things based on comparison to previously established concepts.

I am 100% convinced

And therein lies the biggest problem with your argument. Once 100% conviction is reached, all questions become worthless, because no answer that contrary to the conviction, no matter how obvious, measurable, rational, or whatever, is acceptable.

So there was never a first thought? So how do you get to the point of presently thinking if you didn't begin with a first thought?

Define that point, first.

Or rather, demonstrate that such a point exists.

Google "the bible expanding universe".

No, because I just said: it wouldn't matter if it were 100% right; it would still have no place whatsoever in scientific inquiry, just as Origin of Species has no place in scientific inquiry.

 

[cottage]

What I am saying is, there is no possible world that life/consciousness could have originated naturally. If it is possible, then I should be able to conceive of a possible world/scenario at which it COULD happened, and for the life of me, I can't...which is why I've invited you and others on here to give me the scenario...which, out of about two dozen times, hasn't been answered yet.

There is certainly no modal impediment in conceiving of a self-existent, naturalistically developed world. But the term “naturalism” as an antecedent would seem to be a misnomer since the uncaused beginning of natural processes hardly warrants the term “natural” as we understand it, because to say a thing is “natural” is to say that it follows inductively ascertained patterns, which is only to say they are subsequent.

So here the term “supernatural” is quite acceptable to my atheistic view, for to say the world is uncaused is to say it answers to no producing agent. But if any logically possible world can come to exist uncaused then it follows that there is a possible world where life and consciousness itself can come to exist uncaused.


A further point, you stated this in post 191:

“It makes a lot of sense. I am saying if I can imagine myself to exist even if my body doesn't, then it means that mind/body naturalism isn't NECESSARILY true, and if it isn't necessarily true, then that mean that mind/body dualism COULD be true, and if it COULD be true, then the naturalistic worldview could be false.”

Before I give a full response to this, pleas tell me exactly what you mean by “myself”, what is this essential-self or “I” thing?

 

[idav]

There is certainly no modal impediment in conceiving of a self-existent, naturalistically developed world. But the term “naturalism” as an antecedent would seem to be a misnomer since the uncaused beginning of natural processes hardly warrants the term “natural” as we understand it, because to say a thing is “natural” is to say that it follows inductively ascertained patterns, which is only to say they are subsequent.

So here the term “supernatural” is quite acceptable to my atheistic view, for to say the world is uncaused is to say it answers to no producing agent. But if any logically possible world can come to exist uncaused then it follows that there is a possible world where life and consciousness itself can come to exist uncaused.

This is interesting that you say this, thats stuff I wonder about.

With the last sentence thats what it boils down to really. If god or nature or whatever is uncaused, inevitably consciousness is uncaused.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No viable alternative has been put forth.

I am not sold on the alternative that you hold too...I don't find it viable at all.

I believe you're referencing Occam's Razor, and I also believe that you misunderstand it.

1. The qualification for Occam's Razor to take effect is that all things have to be equal. In this case, they are not.
2. The simplest explanation tends to be the right one, but isn't necessarily.

However you want to put it lol. I don't think that "natural dualism" is the simplest explanation relative to intelligent design based on the question of "origins". I have a hard time believing that inanimate matter can NATURALLY come to life and begin thinking...I wouldn't believe that even if it I weren't a Christian.

They are. Explanation and demonstration are two very distinct concepts.

They are close enough for me.

It doesn't rule it out, but it doesn't imply that, either, as "design" does.

Well, that is why I appeal to the best explantion, which is subjective, yes...but hey, as it stands today, I have no reason to believe that life can come from life, and consciousness can come from unconsciousness...the concept does not make a bit of sense to me, and not just that, but I actually have good reasons to believe otherwise.

Again, false analogy.

No it isn't. Each mode of transportation has a different function, just like each part of the body has a different function. You don't get that kind of specification from a process that doesn't know what the heck it is doing...which is EXACTLY why you nor anyone else can scientifically explain the origins of life/consciousness.

I'm afraid I don't understand the question, here. Could you rephrase it?

How will a person that just evolved the ability to think eventually evolve to a point where it has the sense of sight? Two entirely different concepts.

Doesn't matter, because possibility and probability aren't the same thing.

Again, close enough.

Not necessarily, because the human mind is limited to conceptualization of things based on comparison to previously established concepts.

Ok, so if I lived 3 thousand years ago and there is no electricity..and I am walking through a field and I see a space shuttle...I had no prior conceptualization of this thing whatsoever, yet...I would be a fool to think it wasn't designed.

And therein lies the biggest problem with your argument. Once 100% conviction is reached, all questions become worthless, because no answer that contrary to the conviction, no matter how obvious, measurable, rational, or whatever, is acceptable.

Oh, I agree, it is worthless...however, my argument isn't that what I believe in is true because I am 100% convinced...my argument is, based on the EVIDENCE that has been presented to me, and I am CONVINCED...and also based on the fact that there are no good arguments against my position, not from you nor anyone else, that I am definitely on the right track.

Define that point, first.
Or rather, demonstrate that such a point exists.

The first initial "point" of thought. If you see are watching a person walking...and you left, and came back, and now you observe the person running...what was the first initial point that we can distinguish from the act of walking, and the act of running. When did the initial burst of speed begin?

No, because I just said: it wouldn't matter if it were 100% right; it would still have no place whatsoever in scientific inquiry, just as Origin of Species has no place in scientific inquiry.

Well, I never said that the bible had a place in scientific inquiry...my point is, why is scientific discoveries just now corroborating what the bible has been saying for over 2,000 years?

It was a surprise when a finite universe was discovered...it was a surpise to scientists...but it wasn't a surprise to theologians. It was old news.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There is certainly no modal impediment in conceiving of a self-existent, naturalistically developed world.

Then that would contradict contemporary cosmology, and as of now all evidence points towards a finite world/universe.

But the term “naturalism” as an antecedent would seem to be a misnomer since the uncaused beginning of natural processes hardly warrants the term “natural” as we understand it, because to say a thing is “natural” is to say that it follows inductively ascertained patterns, which is only to say they are subsequent.

Right, and these "inductively ascertained patterns" operate according to what we call "natural law", and if the universe began to exist, then before it BEGAN, there was NO natural law...so natural law is dependent upon an existence universe to operate in.

So here the term “supernatural” is quite acceptable to my atheistic view, for to say the world is uncaused is to say it answers to no producing agent.

Which was the leading view in science before the early 1920's....

But if any logically possible world can come to exist uncaused then it follows that there is a possible world where life and consciousness itself can come to exist uncaused.

Wait a minute, cot, are you saying that it is more plausible for a world to come into existence uncaused out of nothing that it is for a transcendent cause as the source? Is that the price of skepticism?

A further point, you stated this in post 191:

“It makes a lot of sense. I am saying if I can imagine myself to exist even if my body doesn't, then it means that mind/body naturalism isn't NECESSARILY true, and if it isn't necessarily true, then that mean that mind/body dualism COULD be true, and if it COULD be true, then the naturalistic worldview could be false.”

Before I give a full response to this, pleas tell me exactly what you mean by “myself”, what is this essential-self or “I” thing?

I am speaking more metaphysical, in that regard. I don't have a "knock down" argument for the very essence of the "I"...but I do have a argument for the external "I" from the body...but I don't know what form the "I"/"myself" is manifested in.

How I've come to think of it, is the "traditional" view...that every person has an immaterial "self"...so think of yourself, now think of yourself as a immaterial person, a person that isn't physical, but spiritual. The only difference between P and S is the P aspect.

You still look the same...talk the same...think the same...act the same...retain all of your thoughts, sensations, feelings, emotions...you are just not physical.

That is at least my take on it.

 

[Riverwolf]

No it isn't. Each mode of transportation has a different function, just like each part of the body has a different function. You don't get that kind of specification from a process that doesn't know what the heck it is doing...which is EXACTLY why you nor anyone else can scientifically explain the origins of life/consciousness.

You're not comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing apples to baseballs. Like I said, the simple fact that tools are not self-replicating and not autonomous makes them very different from living organisms, which are self-replicating and autonomous. Therefore, they are not comparable in this topic.

Besides, like I said, there's no such thing as scientific explanation. Scientists report on the data that they find, and theories as to what the data means. The only thing that needs explaining in the sciences is the scientific way to think.

How will a person that just evolved the ability to think eventually evolve to a point where it has the sense of sight? Two entirely different concepts.

A person won't, because individuals doesn't evolve. At best, individuals undergo metamorphosis.

Again, close enough.

As my old teacher used to say, "close means wrong." In scientific inquiry, "close enough" cannot exist.

Or do you believe that having a 1% chance is "close enough" to 99% chance and that "show, don't tell" is akin to saying "throw, don't toss"?

Ok, so if I lived 3 thousand years ago and there is no electricity..and I am walking through a field and I see a space shuttle...I had no prior conceptualization of this thing whatsoever, yet...I would be a fool to think it wasn't designed.

3 thousand years ago, there was probably no conceptualization of self-replication beyond an external designer.

Besides, because you had no prior conceptualization, you might not even see the space shuttle. Instead, you'd see a bird, or a dragon. Or perhaps some massive, terrible monster that defies all logic and description. This is not stupidity; it's a part of our psychology and remains with us, today. Good horror stories make use of it all the time, with the most important examples including the work of H.P. Lovecraft.

Oh, I agree, it is worthless...however, my argument isn't that what I believe in is true because I am 100% convinced...my argument is, based on the EVIDENCE that has been presented to me, and I am CONVINCED...and also based on the fact that there are no good arguments against my position, not from you nor anyone else, that I am definitely on the right track.

Let me put it another way.

Once you're 100% convinced that basket balls don't exist, even if you got hit in the face with one, you'd still believe that basket balls don't exist.

I've never seen that evidence you accept. THAT'S how this sort of inquiry should be stated. I don't say that this evidence doesn't exist because I don't know that for sure; I say that I've never seen it. This leaves open the possibility that I'm wrong, which I am willing to be, and fully admit that there is that chance.

It is logically fallacious to reason that something doesn't exist just because you haven't seen it or are capable of imagining it, and also intellectually crippling to reason that one's position has absolutely no chance of being incorrect.

The first initial "point" of thought. If you see are watching a person walking...and you left, and came back, and now you observe the person running...what was the first initial point that we can distinguish from the act of walking, and the act of running. When did the initial burst of speed begin?

There wasn't one, but rather an increase in speed over time, even if it took place in under a second.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You're not comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing apples to baseballs. Like I said, the simple fact that tools are not self-replicating and not autonomous makes them very different from living organisms, which are self-replicating and autonomous. Therefore, they are not comparable in this topic.

First off, I am speaking about life from non-life, and consciousness from unconsciousness...and mentioning the fact that organisms "self-replicate and are autonomous" doesn't in any way begin to answer these kinds of questions.

So you mentioning that is quite meaningless.

Besides, like I said, there's no such thing as scientific explanation.
Scientists report on the data that they find, and theories as to what the data means. The only thing that needs explaining in the sciences is the scientific way to think.

I watch Forsenci Files every day...dang good show. For there to be no such thing as a "scientific explanation", they do an awful lot of explaining.

A person won't, because individuals doesn't evolve. At best, individuals undergo metamorphosis.

There is no scientific evidence for evolution, or metapmorphosis. Certainly no observational evidence.

As my old teacher used to say, "close means wrong." In scientific inquiry, "close enough" cannot exist.

Its funny, I say the same thing when people bring up the "Miller experiment". Not that he was close, anyway.

Or do you believe that having a 1% chance is "close enough" to 99% chance and that "show, don't tell" is akin to saying "throw, don't toss"?

Semantic babble?

3 thousand years ago, there was probably no conceptualization of self-replication beyond an external designer.

We are talking about the origins of nature, not what happened after nature originiated. So again, meaningless.

Besides, because you had no prior conceptualization, you might not even see the space shuttle. Instead, you'd see a bird, or a dragon.

Wait a minute, so if I lived 3,000 years ago and I was walking through a field and I saw a space shuttle, since I've never seen the space shuttle before I would think this object was a bird, or a dragon?

Wow.

Or perhaps some massive, terrible monster that defies all logic and description. This is not stupidity; it's a part of our psychology and remains with us, today. Good horror stories make use of it all the time, with the most important examples including the work of H.P. Lovecraft.

Well, look at the bright side, you've managed to convince one person of that psychological theory...yourself.

Let me put it another way.

Once you're 100% convinced that basket balls don't exist, even if you got hit in the face with one, you'd still believe that basket balls don't exist.

Bad analogy, my friend. I can't convince myself that the basketball is a "triangular" object if it isn't.

I've never seen that evidence you accept. THAT'S how this sort of inquiry should be stated. I don't say that this evidence doesn't exist because I don't know that for sure; I say that I've never seen it. This leaves open the possibility that I'm wrong, which I am willing to be, and fully admit that there is that chance.

I have a flurry of other arguments that I can use to support this one, despite the fact that this argument is enough to make a case for theism...

1. The God hypothesis is more plausible based on the origins of the universe (The Kalam Argument)

2. The God hypothesis is more plausible based on the fine tuning of the universe (The Teleological Argument)

3. The God hypothesis is more plausible based on the origins of life and consciousness (The argument from Consciousness)

4. The God hypothesis is more plausible based the possibility of an existing Necessary Being (The Ontological Argument)

5. The God hypotehsis is more plausible based on the existence of objective moral values (The Moral Argument)

6. Christianity is more plausible than other religions based on the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (The argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ)

It is the rational, soundness, and validity of all these arguments why I am convinced that the God hypothesis is the best explanation of all of these things. Naturalism doesn't even come close to explaining any of those things.

So why should I change from a position that's never been wrong to a position that's never been proven right?

It is logically fallacious to reason that something doesn't exist just because you haven't seen it or are capable of imagining it, and also intellectually crippling to reason that one's position has absolutely no chance of being incorrect.

I am saying that I can't conceive of life from nonlife and consciousness from unconsciousness...and I expect to be able to conceive of things that are logically possible.

There wasn't one, but rather an increase in speed over time, even if it took place in under a second.

Wow.

 

[Bunyip]

First off, I am speaking about life from non-life, and consciousness from unconsciousness...and mentioning the fact that organisms "self-replicate and are autonomous" doesn't in any way begin to answer these kinds of questions.

So you mentioning that is quite meaningless.



I watch Forsenci Files every day...dang good show. For there to be no such thing as a "scientific explanation", they do an awful lot of explaining.



There is no scientific evidence for evolution, or metapmorphosis. Certainly no observational evidence.

AI have to ask why you keep repeating that same lie over and over? Of course there is scientific evidence for evolution, the entire theory is drawn from observed scientific evidence.

No matter how often this is pointed out to you, you repeat the same untruth - so it can not be ignorance.

Its funny, I say the same thing when people bring up the "Miller experiment". Not that he was close, anyway.



Semantic babble?



We are talking about the origins of nature, not what happened after nature originiated. So again, meaningless.



Wait a minute, so if I lived 3,000 years ago and I was walking through a field and I saw a space shuttle, since I've never seen the space shuttle before I would think this object was a bird, or a dragon?

Wow.



Well, look at the bright side, you've managed to convince one person of that psychological theory...yourself.



Bad analogy, my friend. I can't convince myself that the basketball is a "triangular" object if it isn't.



I have a flurry of other arguments that I can use to support this one, despite the fact that this argument is enough to make a case for theism...

1. The God hypothesis is more plausible based on the origins of the universe (The Kalam Argument)

2. The God hypothesis is more plausible based on the fine tuning of the universe (The Teleological Argument)

3. The God hypothesis is more plausible based on the origins of life and consciousness (The argument from Consciousness)

4. The God hypothesis is more plausible based the possibility of an existing Necessary Being (The Ontological Argument)

5. The God hypotehsis is more plausible based on the existence of objective moral values (The Moral Argument)

6. Christianity is more plausible than other religions based on the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (The argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ)

It is the rational, soundness, and validity of all these arguments why I am convinced that the God hypothesis is the best explanation of all of these things. Naturalism doesn't even come close to explaining any of those things.

So why should I change from a position that's never been wrong to a position that's never been proven right?



I am saying that I can't conceive of life from nonlife and consciousness from unconsciousness...and I expect to be able to conceive of things that are logically possible.



Wow.

 

[outhouse]

- so it can not be ignorance.

There is more then enough wilful ignorance here.

Minds closed so tight, no education or knowledge gets in.

 

[Parsimony]

Can anyone propose any logically sensible mechanism that would allow qualia to exist at all, either naturally or supernaturally? How can it be generated? What sustains it? Why aren't we just philosophical zombies? It seems so bizarre. I can't imagine any way that it could exist, yet it somehow does. Looks like reality beat my ability to imagine in that department.

 

[cottage]

Then that would contradict contemporary cosmology, and as of now all evidence points towards a finite world/universe.

What I mean by self-existent is that the world doesn’t answer to anything outside of itself. The matter of finitude is another question; but for now we’ll just say, uncontroversially, that the world’s existence is indefinite.

Right, and these "inductively ascertained patterns" operate according to what we call "natural law", and if the universe began to exist, then before it BEGAN, there was NO natural law...so natural law is dependent upon an existence universe to operate in.

But aren’t you just repeating to me what I said to you? Of course there would be no natural laws before the world existed.

Wait a minute, cot, are you saying that it is more plausible for a world to come into existence uncaused out of nothing that it is for a transcendent cause as the source? Is that the price of skepticism?

What I’m saying, and I’ve been entirely consistent in this view ever since I’ve been a contributor to this forum, is that once the principle of an uncaused cause is presented as possible then it cannot be arbitrarily made exclusive to any particular argument or to a preferred entity.

So what brought the world into existence? One who asks the question wants to say that a thing cannot spring into existence without being caused by some other thing. But if there was once nothing at all then there would have been no contingent laws such as causation but also no logically necessary truths or mind dependent principles of thought. And thus with no demonstrable law of causation no objection can be made to the impossibility of a thing being the cause of itself since that argument, the very concept of causation itself, is rejected; and for the same reason the objection that a thing cannot come from nothing is also made irrelevant as the entire causal principle is without meaning in prior nothingness. But if we reject the idea of a prior nothingness and propose a pre-existing cause of the world then the laws of thought apply to that cause just as they apply to the world, but that leads to an absurdity for not only will that First Cause be dependent upon the world and its contingent features in order to make the argument but also upon the logical laws that enable their denial. So we can hypothesise from this actual world to think of it as once not existing and from which it follows that there would have been no logical laws to be affirmed or denied. Possible worlds exist or might exist and where there are possible worlds there will be logical principles entailing that possibility since ‘possibility’ is a logical predicate; but if there were no worlds other than this, the actual world, then necessity and contingency will only have meaning as concepts within the world and cannot therefore be an explanation for beings external to the world.

I am speaking more metaphysical, in that regard. I don't have a "knock down" argument for the very essence of the "I"...but I do have a argument for the external "I" from the body...but I don't know what form the "I"/"myself" is manifested in.

How I've come to think of it, is the "traditional" view...that every person has an immaterial "self"...so think of yourself, now think of yourself as a immaterial person, a person that isn't physical, but spiritual. The only difference between P and S is the P aspect.

You still look the same...talk the same...think the same...act the same...retain all of your thoughts, sensations, feelings, emotions...you are just not physical.

That is at least my take on it.

There is no argument that I’m aware of that demonstrates personal identity, or a Self; there is only a collection of ideas. And what does it actually mean to be an “immaterial self”? A person is the sum of its parts, represented by its actions, and the actions and determinations of the mind can no more be causally separated from actions of the body than can one of the angles be separated from a triangle. Someone accused of murder cannot claim that his body acted independently of his mind when the act was committed, and so the mind and body together will always represent the murderer. And what would pure disembodied consciousness consist of once it is detached from the physical? Take the concepts of love and care; those are demonstrative actions requiring a body, an absolute minimum of two bodies in fact! And merely thinking of charitable platitudes is meaningless without physically being able to act upon them. Disembodied existence is an impotent and worthless concept that is more in keeping with vain hope or speculation than with actuality.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

AI have to ask why you keep repeating that same lie over and over? Of course there is scientific evidence for evolution, the entire theory is drawn from observed scientific evidence.

No matter how often this is pointed out to you, you repeat the same untruth - so it can not be ignorance.

You continue to place your faith in Charles Darwin, and I will continue to place my faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There is more then enough wilful ignorance here.

Half of the ignorance comes right off of your fingertips.

 

[idav]

You continue to place your faith in Charles Darwin, and I will continue to place my faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus should know he used evolution. Thats how strong the evidence is.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What I mean by self-existent is that the world doesn’t answer to anything outside of itself.

The universe began to exist, cot....and anything that begins to exist has an external cause.

The matter of finitude is another question; but for now we’ll just say, uncontroversially, that the world’s existence is indefinite.

The finitude is the meat and potatos of the issue.

But aren’t you just repeating to me what I said to you? Of course there would be no natural laws before the world existed.

Right, and the fact that there ARE natural laws that govern the world...this cries out for an explanation....laws have law givers.

What I’m saying, and I’ve been entirely consistent in this view ever since I’ve been a contributor to this forum, is that once the principle of an uncaused cause is presented as possible then it cannot be arbitrarily made exclusive to any particular argument or to a preferred entity.

I've been consistent too, and I will say again; Either the universe began to exist, or it didn't begin to exist. If the universe began to exist (all space, time, energy, matter [STEM]), then an external cause is absolutely NECESSARY, and this cause could not itself be made up of the same "stuff" that the universe is made up of...it could not be of the same essence.

Now, it amazes me that God, at least the Christian God, just HAPPENS to have all of the attributes NEEED to create a physical world...and I think that is more than just a coincidence...but anyway..

If the universe DIDN'T begin to exist, then one will have to explain the traversing of infinity, as that kind of absurdity will result, and the only way to dodge the absurdity is to posit an external and timeless cause, which is right back to the God hypothesis.

So either way, the naturalist is screwed...and the good thing about the argument against infinity is the argument is completely independent of science...so no cosmological model that a brilliant cosmologist comes up with will negate the fact.

It seems pretty cut and dry to me, cot.

So what brought the world into existence? One who asks the question wants to say that a thing cannot spring into existence without being caused by some other thing. But if there was once nothing at all then there would have been no contingent laws such as causation but also no logically necessary truths or mind dependent principles of thought.

Right!! That is the point, actually, and I am glad that you bring this up. If there was once absolutely NOTHING, then it isn't possible that "something" can originate from this nothingness. So basically, something is eternal...whether the world/God. Something had to always be there. Something had to always be there, and this entity does not owe its existence to anything external to itself.

So the question is, which is the more plausible explanation...and I think the God hypothesis is in fact the most plausible/reasonable explanation, considering what we know.

And thus with no demonstrable law of causation no objection can be made to the impossibility of a thing being the cause of itself since that argument, the very concept of causation itself, is rejected;

For the life of me, I just don't understand what you are saying...and I really want too. Please state it in a different way.

and for the same reason the objection that a thing cannot come from nothing is also made irrelevant as the entire causal principle is without meaning in prior nothingness. But if we reject the idea of a prior nothingness and propose a pre-existing cause of the world then the laws of thought apply to that cause just as they apply to the world, but that leads to an absurdity for not only will that First Cause be dependent upon the world and its contingent features in order to make the argument but also upon the logical laws that enable their denial. So we can hypothesise from this actual world to think of it as once not existing and from which it follows that there would have been no logical laws to be affirmed or denied. Possible worlds exist or might exist and where there are possible worlds there will be logical principles entailing that possibility since ‘possibility’ is a logical predicate; but if there were no worlds other than this, the actual world, then necessity and contingency will only have meaning as concepts within the world and cannot therefore be an explanation for beings external to the world.

This too. I tried, cot. I read it slowly...but I am completely lost.

There is no argument that I’m aware of that demonstrates personal identity, or a Self; there is only a collection of ideas. And what does it actually mean to be an “immaterial self”?

So you don't have a personal identity? Odd.

A person is the sum of its parts, represented by its actions, and the actions and determinations of the mind can no more be causally separated from actions of the body than can one of the angles be separated from a triangle. Someone accused of murder cannot claim that his body acted independently of his mind when the act was committed, and so the mind and body together will always represent the murderer.

On naturalism, if a person's actions is solely dependent upon brain activity, then there is no free will, so a person that committed murder would not be responsible for the crime if this person was acting according to the formation or circulation of electrons/neutrons in the brain. If every single act that we commit is a result of our brain activity, then it is our brains that causes our body to act, not our "personal" choice.

So at the end of the day, who is in control, us, or our brains?

And what would pure disembodied consciousness consist of once it is detached from the physical?

I don't know...the answer to that question lies beyond science and everyday experience, just the the answer to the ORIGINS of consciousness does.

Take the concepts of love and care; those are demonstrative actions requiring a body, an absolute minimum of two bodies in fact!

The two bodies doesn't NECESSARILY have to be physical. And second, if consciousness is contingent, on naturalism...then how would the concept of love and care even originate? I am talking about the mere concept, how do you get the mere concept of love and care from matter? Where would the concept come squirting into existence??

And merely thinking of charitable platitudes is meaningless without physically being able to act upon them. Disembodied existence is an impotent and worthless concept that is more in keeping with vain hope or speculation than with actuality.

Well based on the argument from consciousness, the mind itself is disembodied. Again, you have to explain the origin of the mind...and using the brain as an answer to this question won't get the job done...if it can, then prove it.

The same thing I told others, I expect a scientific explanation of how the mind could have originated from inanimate matter...so basically what you are saying is...a big bang imploded/exploded (whatever), and gave rise to all of this inanimate matter and energy....and after a long gradual process, this matter and energy CAME TO LIFE, and begin thinking, talking, eating, reproducing, ect.

It just seems as if there is a lot of faith going on here.

 

[idav]

Can anyone propose any logically sensible mechanism that would allow qualia to exist at all, either naturally or supernaturally? How can it be generated? What sustains it? Why aren't we just philosophical zombies? It seems so bizarre. I can't imagine any way that it could exist, yet it somehow does. Looks like reality beat my ability to imagine in that department.

There are things give us clues to how it works. There is a difference between just having basic perception and having full self awareness, which is being aware that you have basic perception. To me seems like a loop of some sort. Since plants are aware I have to believe they have at least basic perception but dont have a nervous system or anything to indicate self awareness. Plants just basically use chemical responses to their environment which shows rudimentary aspects of awareness. Multiply that complexity a few hundred thousand times or more and you it should be a little easier to imagine a point where a nervous system allows for a more fuller perception.

Qualia is certainly not an easy thing to imagine but looking at more basic organisms we can see the basics emerging. I sited the mimosa plant has long term memory and can learn, and that is without qualia as far as I can tell. Simply put the idea is basic interactions equal perception and perception of that perception, especially streamed as real time memory retrieval is qualia. For me as a pantheist it is easier to say fundamental interactions of matter and energy equal perception of sorts at all levels. Even complex experiments of quantum activity confirm something of the sorts.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Jesus should know he used evolution. Thats how strong the evidence is.

Well, according to my bible, God said "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

And

"Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

Now the book of Genesis was written over 3,000 years ago. Fast foward to 2014, and what do we see? We see animals "producing other animals, according to its kind"....which is why we see dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, turtles producing turtles.

If you put away the presuppositions, faith, and speculation...this is all anyone has EVER observed...soooo? Why should we..." Um, never mind.

 

[idav]

Well, according to my bible, God said "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

And

"Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

Now the book of Genesis was written over 3,000 years ago. Fast foward to 2014, and what do we see? We see animals "producing other animals, according to its kind"....which is why we see dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, turtles producing turtles.

If you put away the presuppositions, faith, and speculation...this is all anyone has EVER observed...soooo? Why should we..." Um, never mind.

Regardless of the kinds thing. The only way to reconcile the facts with scripture is to say that "created from dust" is the evolution process. Especially considering the "days" must be manipulated to mean 4 billion earth years. Science agrees we would have essentially come from sun dust which made the earth which made lifeforms, but from one common ancestor, you have to ignore facts to think otherwise. If you say created in kinds from dust you have to believe the earth is only 6000 years old.