Evolution and Mind/Body Dualism

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Forensic science is voodoo?

No. But the concept of macroevolution, a view that evolutionists hold to, is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What? Adam and Eve (on the Christian view) came before all other humans...that doesn't stop them from being human because they "came before" humans.
Wolves are dogs...they may have been the first dogs...they may have been one of the original dog kinds...I don't know. But they are clearly the same kind of animal as what we call "dogs"...
which is why I keep resorting to the 3 year old...give a three year old a piece of paper with a picture of a wolf, coyote, husky, jackal, dingo, and lion...and ask the kid which animal is different, unless the kid inherited a "Darwinism" trait or something, the kid will point too the lion, recognizing the lion as the different "kind" of animal. We (animals included) tend to look like the ancestors that we came from, which is why the siberian husky and wolf look a lot alike...so there is absolutely no reason for the siberian husky to be a "kind of dog", but the wolf to not be a "kind of dog".
None whatsoever.

This is way too vague and doesn’t make much sense at all, as you seem to indicate. This is why we rely on biological classifications based on much more than the impressions of small children. Like I told you before, if we showed a small child a wild banana right next to a domesticated banana they’d probably have no idea that they are basically the exact same kind because they look so different. So we have to go on more than what a three year old may think.

In your “kinds” view, what makes a cat a different kind than a dog? They’re more similar than they are different, so are they the same kind? How about a fox? They look pretty similar too. Are they “dog kinds,” “cat kinds,” or “fox kinds?” A three year old might very well think they are all the same kind.

Why are we consulting three year olds about biology in the first place?

You stick with the scientists...like Darwin, Dawkins, Piguluci, Miller, etc...and I will stick with Jesus Christ, Paul, Peter, John, etc.

I will, thanks. They are/were vastly more educated than you are on the subject matter.

Jesus, Paul, Peter, John etc. knew absolutely nothing about biology or science.

 

[idav]

I will stick with Jesus Christ, Paul, Peter, John, etc.

Who should be evolutionists if they really knew anything.

 

[MD]

Yes, thank you.

What a crock of BULL keep your materialist dogma to yourself please

 

[MD]

No it does not. When we can't explain something fully that only means that we can't explain something fully, nothing more. It may just be too complex for us to understand. We (the human species) just might not be that smart. Or maybe we have just started to look into it.

When you try to draw the conclusion you have based on our ignorance (again I am referring to the human species) is not only arrogant (on behalf of the human species) but it is also a logical fallacy.

Yes it does. There is no feasible way for physicalism to explain consciousness and as such the entire belief that physicalism will explain everything is faith. 'Science will solve it' is a faith based position bud.

I think materialists are being arrogant by thinking that their methodology explains the universe and nothing else provides a valid response. They are shutting off other ideas because it's bad for business. For example a lot of A.I. companies rely on this archaic belief that consciousness is physical so that they continue to receive funding, when in reality most people in A.I. doubt if artificial consciousness is even possible. The Blue Brain project is one such example, it will be an epic fail, just recently a whole slew of neuroscientists came out writing about how it works. But yet it won a billion dollar grant against other more pressing issues like Climate Change because the judges who were responsible for choosing the program were duped by a very charismatic salesperson. And if you bring up the Turing test it will illustrate how you don't understand what the problems of consciousness are.

There are other reasons to push the materialist agenda, you think Dawkins would be taken seriously if people thought that dualism (any sort of dualism) or neutral monism had validity to it? I don't think so. That would imply consciousness is ubiquitous and animism would gain a lot of validity.

At least I accept that other possible philosophical views are very valid with regards to consciousness and they do a better job at addressing the hard problem than physicalism ever could.

 

[MD]

Sure. The criticism that physicalism is not complete does not even make sense.

Just because you don't understand an argument doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense.

It just means that it doesn't make sense to YOU.

 

[Bunyip]

Just because you don't understand an argument doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense.

It just means that it doesn't make sense to YOU.

Oh I understand the argument, but you don't seem to.

The hard problem does not challenge the fact that consciousness is a product of the mind.

Science could never fully explain the Mona Lisa in purely scientific terms for the same reason, and the same consequence - essentially nothing.

 

[Nomen Nescio]

Using the hard problem to argue that the brain doesn't cause consciousness is like someone saying that the planets do not revolve around the sun or that "god did it" on the basis of their ignorance of the mechanism by which they revolve around the sun, imo. And in fact some creationist have been using the same argument and David Chalmers himself has replied to that saying that the argument is BS. He wrote: (i'm quoting) "The simplest way to see this is to note that the "hard problem" does nothing to suggest that consciousness doesn't lawfully depend on physical processes, at least in the sense that certain physical states are reliably associated with certain states of consciousness in our world. Even if materialism is rejected, there is still good reason to believe that there is such a dependence, via laws of nature that connect physical processes and consciousness." - Not to mention that the very existence of a "hard problem" is controversial.

.

 

[cottage]

That is why I said "universe", I purposely said all SPACE, TIME, ENERGY, AND MATTER (STEM) just in case you were going to go that route. Apparently, it was a wasted effort.

You said:

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

Now I use the old philosophical term “world” while you use the more modern “Universe”, but essentially we’re talking conceptually about the same thing, i.e. everything existent, or all that there is. Now what you’re doing is inferring (falsely) from what is observed in the material world that anything that begins to exist including space, time, and energy requires a cause, and it does not follow from the world having a beginning that it must therefore have an external (or any) cause based on that premise.

Second, on the standard big bang model, STEM is exactly what began to exist, so it would be nonsensical to talk about "changes in material form" if there was a point at which no materia exists, which is what the model predicts.

The fact that no form or matter existed prior to the Big Bang is completely irrelevant to the issue here. I’m saying to you as clearly as I possibly can that your argument that a thing which begins to exist needs an external cause is not a self-evident truth but is erroneously inferred from causal observations in the material world. But since nothing in the material world begins to exist an external cause in the case of the world itself beginning to exist is a false inference. And while nothing in the material world begins to exist we say things can be shown to have an explanation in terms of some other thing, and we presume to extend this principle to things that can’t be shown to exist. So we say if things in the world have a reason or explanation, then the world itself must have a reason or explanation for being what it is. However that reason or explanation for the world must by the same token have a reason to explain itself in terms of explaining the world. And the God hypothesis fails this test spectacularly as I explain further down the page in response to your terse reply “I will wait”.

Third, you have an infinity problem, and no cosmological model can help you solve this problem, because a universe that is changing in form has to exist in time, and time cannot be logically extended into past eternity.

There is no infinity problem with the argument I’ve given you. If the world is uncaused then causal relations began with the world.

So what gave nature law its standards..I mean, that is what law is, right? A governing standard...so what gave natural law its standard? Especially coming from a chaotic, unintelligible big bang?

‘Laws’ are simply the uniformity of nature as observed. To ask “what gave the world” these laws is simply to beg the question.

Pay attention, cot. I said "IF THE UNIVERSE (STEM), BEGAN TO EXIST, THEN AN EXTERNAL CAUSE IS NECESSARY".

Now you can argue whether or not the universe began to exist all you like, but what you can't deny is the fact that if all natural reality began to exist, then it follows intuitively that there must have been an external cause. Otherwise, you are saying that the universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing...and if that is the price of unbelief, then by all means, have at it.

The emboldened, shouted capitals are not required. You said: “If the universe began to exist (all space, time, energy, matter [STEM]), then an external cause is absolutely NECESSARY”, and for the second time I am saying: No, it is not!

And with respect it would seem to be you who are not paying attention as I’ve made it perfectly clear that something cannot come from nothing, and it does not follow that the world’s beginning must answer to an external cause as I’ve already explained up the page. The inference is specious since it wants to say if things in the world have a cause of their beginning and the world itself had a beginning then the world itself must have a cause. But nothing in the material world is seen to have a beginning and thus it cannot be argued that the world had an external cause. Against that is the argument that the world is uncaused, which implies no contradiction and may very well be true.

Well, if the "world" began from a point of non-existence, then that cries for an explanation.

And so does a God, a self-sufficient, omni-everything being that supposedly takes an obsessive interest in one infinitesimally tiny part of the cosmos and needs to be glorified and worshipped by his inferior creation!

I will wait.

Two aspects, both of which run to a contradiction:
The Supreme Being, by very definition of the term, is a complete entity that wants for nothing and yet brought the world of creatures into being. But if nothing existed prior to the act of creation then there was nothing that could profit, gain, or benefit from the act other than God himself. Therefore if God intentionally created the world with a purpose, that could only be for his own sake or advantage, for it is clearly nonsense to say he created the world for the benefit of beings yet to exist. But as the Supreme Being is a self-sufficient concept already augmented without limit the created world is purposeless, absurd, and contradictory.
Secondly, it is argued by theists that God created the world ex nihilo, but that is absurd for even God cannot logically create something from nothing, and of course it wouldn’t be an explanation to say God created the world ex materia (out of existing matter) for that would require a further explanation. Rather than defend the ex nihilo argument as miracle and then have to account for a logical impossibility, some apologists argue that the world wasn’t created literally nothing but from God himself. But the world cannot come from God himself if the Supreme Being is conceptually perfect and simple that is to say without composition, having no parts. And further more God cannot cause something to come from himself that is not wholly God-like, and since there can be no parts to God, then there can be no parts of God that are inferior or contradictory to his essence and perfection. And yet the world is imperfect and contrary to the Deity’s supposed essence and perfection, which informs that no deity is the Supreme Being.

Then pick a position and stick with it, because as far as im concerned you are clearly double-talking. If the universe did not come from nothing nor did it create itself, then it always had to be here. Point blank, period. If you exclude the other, the other one wins by default (law of excluded middle).

There are three possible answers, not two: an eternal world, an externally caused world or an uncaused world. It is the last hypothesis that I’m arguing. Why, because that conclusion has no contradictions unlike the others.

I still dont get it, not that it negates the problem of infinity anyway.

There is no infinite regress with the hypothesis I’ve given you.

So if your self is not identifiable, then who are you? If you even begin to answer that question, you are setting up a defeater for your own point.

Basically Hume’s Bundle Theory. “But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot, therefore, be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is derived; and consequently there is no idea.”
In more modern terms: “The notion of identity is a useful grammatical convention that we use to describe and understand the series of our ever changing sense-impressions though in reality it cannot be found in any of our impressions and therefore does not constitute a legitimate idea.”

But what determines the actual choice...you, or the neurons in your brain?

“You” = a person. Neurons responding to stimuli are corporeal, brains are corporeal, the person as a whole is corporeal; therefore it is the corporeal person that thinks and acts. And note those last two terms “thinks” and “acts”! A thing that thinks but cannot physically act in any respect on the neurones firing is by any standards not a person.

Its not the same...as I told others, I expect scientific claims to have scientific explanations.

And I expect supernatural claims to have logical, non-contradictory explanations.

That is basically the entire issue...the answer is "give it enough time, and it can happen". That isn't any more reasonable to my ears than me telling an unbeliever "give it enough time, and Jesus will return".

The difference is that I’m talking about what can be reasonably said to have already occurred. While we are unable to observe mutations that happen over millions of years we see them all the time on a lesser scale in the case of animal breeding and the cross fertilisation of plant material. So if the principle is established that if living things and the environment can change significantly over relatively very brief periods of time, then the argument that species themselves can evolve even more extensively over billions of years would seem to be a valid argument underpinned by the knowledge that we already have, which is that all creatures and living things on this planet of ours are genetically related.

 

[Willamena]

No. But the concept of macroevolution, a view that evolutionists hold to, is.

Macro-evolution is just an extrapolation of evolution. Why is it a problem for you?

 

[fantome profane]

Yes it does. There is no feasible way for physicalism to explain consciousness and as such the entire belief that physicalism will explain everything is faith. 'Science will solve it' is a faith based position bud.

I think materialists are being arrogant by thinking that their methodology explains the universe and nothing else provides a valid response. They are shutting off other ideas because it's bad for business. For example a lot of A.I. companies rely on this archaic belief that consciousness is physical so that they continue to receive funding, when in reality most people in A.I. doubt if artificial consciousness is even possible. The Blue Brain project is one such example, it will be an epic fail, just recently a whole slew of neuroscientists came out writing about how it works. But yet it won a billion dollar grant against other more pressing issues like Climate Change because the judges who were responsible for choosing the program were duped by a very charismatic salesperson. And if you bring up the Turing test it will illustrate how you don't understand what the problems of consciousness are.

There are other reasons to push the materialist agenda, you think Dawkins would be taken seriously if people thought that dualism (any sort of dualism) or neutral monism had validity to it? I don't think so. That would imply consciousness is ubiquitous and animism would gain a lot of validity.

At least I accept that other possible philosophical views are very valid with regards to consciousness and they do a better job at addressing the hard problem than physicalism ever could.

Ok, so apparently you don't understand the logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance". That is fine, lets move on.

Can you tell us how dualism explains consciousness? What kind of research methodology would you propose moving forward based on a dualistic perspective? Do you believe this approach will lead to greater understanding, or is dualism just as much or more of a dead end than materialism is?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Macro-evolution is just an extrapolation of evolution. Why is it a problem for you?

That is the theory. I'd like evidence for the theory. Why is that a problem for you to provide?

 

[idav]

That is the theory. I'd like evidence for the theory. Why is that a problem for you to provide?

It's been provided. Why is it a problem to accept all sciences and not just nit pick the ones that support your preconceived assumptions?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This is way too vague and doesn’t make much sense at all, as you seem to indicate.

It does, because as I said and you already know...we tend to look like our ancestors, don't we? When I trace my heritage back in time over thousands of years, I expect to see humans every single time. I have no reason to believe that as I go back in time, I will start seeing things OTHER than humans.

You seem to believe the exact opposite..you believe that as you trace your heritage back in time, eventually some non-humans will start to come out of the rat hole. If that is what you believe, fine...but don't call it science. There is no evidence of this whatsoever.

This is why we rely on biological classifications based on much more than the impressions of small children.

Biological classications? Ok, so I look at a siberian husky, and I look at a wolf...why am I not to believe that both are the same kind of animal? Why am I not to believe that they are both dogs? They may be different types of the same kind, but they are still the same kind of animal.

The bio-babble is unjustified...just stuff to make people feel smart. If every single organism disappeared from the face of the earth EXCEPT dogs...and all of the dogs started copulating...why am I to think that "more dogs" wouldn't be a end result to this??

Dogs produce dogs. Many different varieties of dogs make arise...but they will all be dogs.

Like I told you before, if we showed a small child a wild banana right next to a domesticated banana they’d probably have no idea that they are basically the exact same kind because they look so different.

I can't bring children into the mix, but you can bring....fruit?

In your “kinds” view, what makes a cat a different kind than a dog? They’re more similar than they are different, so are they the same kind?

Night and day.

How about a fox? They look pretty similar too. Are they “dog kinds,” “cat kinds,” or “fox kinds?”

A fox looks like a dog to me. A type of dog.

A three year old might very well think they are all the same kind.

Try it. Take a picture of a husky, wolf, dingo, coyote, fox, and lion...take it to any kid in your family between the ages of 4-7. Tell the kid to circle the different looking animal.

Dont be surprised about the results.

Why are we consulting three year olds about biology in the first place?

Why do we believe that the animals of today came from different kinds of animals in the first place?

I will, thanks. They are/were vastly more educated than you are on the subject matter.

LOL

Jesus, Paul, Peter, John etc. knew absolutely nothing about biology or science.

I am sure all four in question knew that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc. I betcha by golly wow Jesus knew, for obvious reasons :yes:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It's been provided. Why is it a problem to accept all sciences and not just nit pick the ones that support your preconceived assumptions?

Who is nit picking? I am a fan of science, but some things I don't accept. Just like I am a fan of anyone who is smart enough to believe in Intelligent Design, I just don't accept some concepts of "Designers" (other religions).

Scientific confirmations are supposed to be based on experiment/observation. No experiment or observation can corroborate the claims, which is why macroevolution isn't science.

No one has ever seen an animal produce something that it isn't, and there has been no experiment that has been conducted that would give you a different kind of animal.

Dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. No need for voodoo.

 

[idav]

Scientific confirmations are supposed to be based on experiment/observation. No experiment or observation can corroborate the claims, which is why macroevolution isn't science.

Paleontologists use experimental science, just like Willamena mentioned forensics. Fossils are as good as fingerprints. Tells us what was where and when. Thats all we need and evolution becomes fact because we keep digging up more and more corroborating evidence.

To corroborate the bible mythology we need to find any humanoid miraculously with dinosaurs and there you have it. Human evolution debunked, but creationists don't have the luxury of finding such evidence cause it doesn't appear to exist. Such a finding would not fit the evolutionary timeline.

 

[idav]

Night and day.

Not really.

More evidence for you to ignore.
Dog and cat DNA studies reveal relationship » Archive » Cumberland Times-News

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No one has ever seen an animal produce something that it isn't, and there has been no experiment that has been conducted that would give you a different kind of animal.

No, but what we do see is every living thing reproducing VARIATIONS of what they are. This is what evolution states, and what every piece of available evidence in forensics tells us is responsible for the diversity of life as we see it today. Your ignorance is no longer an excuse, since this has been explained to you on countless occasions and yet you still refuse to understand it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What a crock of BULL keep your materialist dogma to yourself please

Right back at ya buddy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It does, because as I said and you already know...we tend to look like our ancestors, don't we? When I trace my heritage back in time over thousands of years, I expect to see humans every single time. I have no reason to believe that as I go back in time, I will start seeing things OTHER than humans.

You seem to believe the exact opposite..you believe that as you trace your heritage back in time, eventually some non-humans will start to come out of the rat hole. If that is what you believe, fine...but don't call it science. There is no evidence of this whatsoever.



Biological classications? Ok, so I look at a siberian husky, and I look at a wolf...why am I not to believe that both are the same kind of animal? Why am I not to believe that they are both dogs? They may be different types of the same kind, but they are still the same kind of animal.

The bio-babble is unjustified...just stuff to make people feel smart. If every single organism disappeared from the face of the earth EXCEPT dogs...and all of the dogs started copulating...why am I to think that "more dogs" wouldn't be a end result to this??

Dogs produce dogs. Many different varieties of dogs make arise...but they will all be dogs.



I can't bring children into the mix, but you can bring....fruit?







Night and day.



A fox looks like a dog to me. A type of dog.



Try it. Take a picture of a husky, wolf, dingo, coyote, fox, and lion...take it to any kid in your family between the ages of 4-7. Tell the kid to circle the different looking animal.

Dont be surprised about the results.



Why do we believe that the animals of today came from different kinds of animals in the first place?



LOL



I am sure all four in question knew that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc. I betcha by golly wow Jesus knew, for obvious reasons :yes:

Wow, more non-answers. Thanks for nothing.

Like I said, I'm going to forego the childish games in favour of actual scientific observation and demonstration. You can stick with 3 year olds if you like.