Evolution and Mind/Body Dualism

[SkepticThinker]

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.

This has been explained to him by myself and countless others more times than I can count at this point. Willful ignorance is really something, isn't it?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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.

I am saying that according to the best empirical evidence, we have reasons to believe that the universe began to exist...not just everything within the world, but the world itself. Also, there is a philosophical backing that corroborates this as well.

So until I have a defeater of these reasons, then I have no reason to believe otherwise.

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.

So my question is simply this; can something come from nothing? Can a horse pop into being uncaused out of nothing in your living room right now?? Yes or no...if the answer is yes, then I will then ask you more questions than you will be able to provide answers for. If the answer is no, then what are you talking about?

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.

The argument is that the material world began to exist, cot. The material world ITSELF.

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.

For the third time in this this post, the material world began to exist, cot.

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

Yes there is. If the world is uncaused then nothing actually "began" in the first place. What are you talking about?????????????? You are using "uncaused" and "began" in the same context..erraneously.

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

I fail to see how saying "laws are the uniformity of nature as observed" negates the fact that laws have lawgivers. The laws are engineered, perfectly tailored to be fine tuned for human life. That kind of mathematical precision, that kind of specified complexity....yeah...nature did it, right?

The emboldened, shouted capitals are not required.

No need in being a tough guy, cot. You don't want those kind of problems either.

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!

So then, it popped in to being uncaused out of nothing. Again, if that is the price of unbelief, I will leave you to your absurdities.

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.

I am paying attention. As I've said time and time again, you appear to be double talking. You just said that it is not necessary for a universe which begins to exist to have an external cause...now based on the law of excluded middle, the only other option is for it to pop in to being uncaused out of nothing...but then you just said in the above quote that you don't believe that something can come from nothing.

And quite frankly, I don't have the patience to keep trying to figure you out, as this is at least the third or fourth time we've had this same conversation and neither time have I come any close to understanding what you are trying to say.

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.

5th time....the argument states that the universe began to exist, cot. You keep talking about things "in the material world"...when I am talking about the finitude of the whole she-bang...the entire world...the world itself...the world IN GENERAL.

Against that is the argument that the world is uncaused, which implies no contradiction and may very well be true.

Infinity problem.

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!

God didn't begin to exist, cot.

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.

God did not create the world for himself, he created it for us. So as long as he created it for us, that would negate the idea that "God could not be self-sufficient because if he were, he wouldn't need/want to create anything". If he isn't creating it for himself, then that argument is defeated.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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.

Ok, so let’s go over it then.

1. The universe existed eternally in time.

2. The universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing

3. The universe has an external cause

#1 and #2 are logically absurd. #3 is more plausible than the other two and I am prepared to make the case if need be. You are saying that God cannot logically create from nothing, yet you find an uncaused world which exists in time logical? Do you not realize the problem you have with infinity?

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.

I don’t even know what that means.

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.

I need justification on how the conclusion follows from the premises. You’ve provided no justification, just making statements.

There are three possible answers, not two: an eternal world

Logically absurd.

an externally caused world

Logically coherent and more plausible based on our current knowledge.

or an uncaused world.

And that is the problem right there. A world that is eternal is uncaused…you are making a distinction between the two when they are not the same…so again, what are you talking about?

It is the last hypothesis that I’m arguing. Why, because that conclusion has no contradictions unlike the others.

Oh really?

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

First I need to know the difference between an eternal world, and a uncaused world.

“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.

Ok, so when I am happy, is the neurons happy? What exactly is happy? If the neurons themselves are not happy, then what about me is “happy”…and if the neurons are happy, then I must be the neurons, because whichever state the neurons are in has to be identical with the state that “I” and in.

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

They are.

The difference is that I’m talking about what can be reasonably said to have already occurred.

I am sorry but I don’t find it to be reasonable at all.

While we are unable to observe mutations that happen over millions of years

“Mutations” is not to be interchangeable with “macroevolution”, which is what I am arguing against.

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.

I don’t see how that follows. It seems like faith to me. I agree, there are definitely changes over time, but there are limitations to the changes and those limitations are limited to specific “kinds”. That is all we see and there is just no reason to believe otherwise unless you have an agenda to push.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not really.

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

Common designer.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, but what we do see is every living thing reproducing VARIATIONS of what they are.

Right, which is why there are many different variations within the "dog" kind...the "cat" kind...the "snake" kind...but these variations are limited to the kind.

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.

Evolution states that we all share a common ancestor...so basically, an elephant and a snake has the same grandparents, despite the vast differences between them which are night and day, btw. That is about the most ridiculous theory as any religious hypothesis I've ever heard of.

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.

I don't believe everything people tell me. If it doesn't make sense, I question it..and if I am unable to get satisfactory answers after an intense investigation, then I put it in the "no reasons to accept/believe" pile and keep it moving.

 

[Willamena]

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

Okay. I Google "evidence of macro evolution" and these are the results:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Macroevolution

Was that so hard?

 

[MD]

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.

What? You are conflating mind and consciousness. Make up your mind (pun intended).

And your Mona Lisa analogy makes 0 sense, you really have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

[MD]

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.

.

What an idiotic response.

I never denied physical processes weren't involved. And in fact Chalmers has repeatedly called for his own brand of Naturalistic Dualism. He has convinced renowned neuroscientists such as Koch to incorporate that into IIT, which is a theory on consciousness. So you fail.

And oh, the Hard Problem isn't really much of a controversy anymore. Only the ignorant and some people in AI find it 'controversial'.

 

[MD]

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?

And you don't want to accept that you are following a faith based belief as well, that Physical processed can and will explain consciousness.

Dualism is a better option because that way we accept that the mental is a property of the universe, like charge or energy. That way we can give it a value and use it to measure conscious properties in complex systems. IIT by Tononi and Koch have already attempted this by assigning the value of Phi to the quantitative measurement of consciousness. Dualism is back much stronger now than before, because neuroscientific research has shown that physicalism has limitations. Not necessarily substance dualism, but perhaps property dualism or neutral monism.

And what don't you understand about not being able to explain everything about consciousness? Science cannot explain everything, the color red has 0 physical basis in reality. Physically it is a wavelength of light. But to us, it is a color, it is an experience. You cannot even know if I am truly conscious, you just take my word for it.

Arguing with you people now gives me appreciation for those who argue with Climate Change denial.

 

[idav]

Common designer.

That doesn't discredit evolution so whats your point.

 

[idav]

Dualism is a better option because that way we accept that the mental is a property of the universe, like charge or energy. That way we can give it a value and use it to measure conscious properties in complex systems. IIT by Tononi and Koch have already attempted this by assigning the value of Phi to the quantitative measurement of consciousness. Dualism is back much stronger now than before, because neuroscientific research has shown that physicalism has limitations. Not necessarily substance dualism, but perhaps property dualism or neutral monism.

Monism doesn't have an issue with mind being a measurable property. There simply is no evidence to suggest we have to separate mind from brain. Except for your assumption that mind must be distinct from the brain. What is the evidence for that premise other than philosophy?

And what don't you understand about not being able to explain everything about consciousness? Science cannot explain everything, the color red has 0 physical basis in reality. Physically it is a wavelength of light. But to us, it is a color, it is an experience. You cannot even know if I am truly conscious, you just take my word for it.

Yeah great a solipsism argument. All arguments could simply end by saying nothing really exists which really isn't helpful.

I'd be interested to know if animals without self awareness have qualia which could eliminate the illusion right there. If only self aware beings have qualia then it is the illusion of self awareness. Regardless even dualists admit self to be an illusion, we all agree on that much, so qualia is a trick.

Could be when Ramachandran says a fruit fly doesn't have qualia but that qualia is a specific production of certain regions of a human brain. There you go mind a product of brain, very simple.

[youtube]jTWmTJALe1w[/youtube]
Consciousness, Qualia, and Self (V.S. Ramachandran) - YouTube

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Right, which is why there are many different variations within the "dog" kind...the "cat" kind...the "snake" kind...but these variations are limited to the kind.

Which is not a problem at all whatsoever, unless you want to groundlessly assert that "kinds" just pop into existence out of nothing rather than coming from variations on living things that came before them, like evolution claims and the evidence clearly shows.

Evolution states that we all share a common ancestor...so basically, an elephant and a snake has the same grandparents,

No. An elephant and a snake share a common ancestor, but that ancestor most definitely isn't their "grandparents" or anything even remotely close - and such a childish and obvious over-simplification is evidence only of your unwillingness to actually understand the concepts involved in evolution.

despite the vast differences between them which are night and day, btw. That is about the most ridiculous theory as any religious hypothesis I've ever heard of.

I don't care what you think. What matters to me is the evidence and where it leads, and right now every piece of available evidence indicates that all life shares a common ancestor, and absolutely no evidence shows that any "kinds" came into existence out of nothing or appeared fully formed.

I don't believe everything people tell me. If it doesn't make sense, I question it..and if I am unable to get satisfactory answers after an intense investigation, then I put it in the "no reasons to accept/believe" pile and keep it moving.

Wrong. What you do is keep to your prior assumptions, make no attempt to understand anything that conflicts with those prior assumptions, and continue to deny and dismiss anything that doesn't fit with your preconceived worldview. Hence why you STILL do not understand how saying something as inane as "dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats" over and over and over again - despite having the fact that all living things reproduce variations of themselves explained to you countless times - is not going to overturn over a hundred years of scientific research and the work of millions of credible biologists, geologists, anthropologists, paleontologists and geneticists.

If you still do not understand, then the only explanation is that you refuse to understand - not because it "doesn't make sense" when it has been explained at length to you so many times. It makes perfect sense to anyone who knows the facts, and we have shown and explained to you those facts over and over so many times that you no longer have the excuse of not understanding. You're just willfully ignorant.

 

[Bunyip]

What? You are conflating mind and consciousness. Make up your mind (pun intended).

And your Mona Lisa analogy makes 0 sense, you really have no idea what I'm talking about.

The only response you seem to be able to deliver is something along the lines of 'you don't know what you're talking about', as opposed to making any form of logical defence.


It is boring me to tears, so I will just disengage.

 

[Willamena]

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.

What do you mean, about the Mona Lisa?

 

[Bunyip]

What do you mean, about the Mona Lisa?

That like consciousness the Mona Lisa, or for that matter the beauty of a cold winter dawn can never be fully explained in purely scientific terms.

The Mona Lisa is just pigment and wood, but to describe it as such would be inadequate.

Consciousness is a product of the physical brain, but to describe it as such is as inadequate - it does not fully explain such a complex and subtle phenomenon.

Shahz mistakes the 'hard problem' as some sort of counter evidence to suggest that consciousness is not merely a product of the brain, he is mistaken - the 'hard problem' is simply that consciousness can not be fully explained in scientific terms alone. It is not at all a 'limit to physicalism' as Shahz suggested. And it does not infer any supernatural dimension whatsoever, anymore than does the beauty of the Monal Lisa infer any supernatural dimension. It is just not describable in purely scientific terms,

 

[Willamena]

That like consciousness the Mona Lisa, or for that matter the beauty of a cold winter dawn can never be fully explained in purely scientific terms.

The Mona Lisa is just pigment and wood, but to describe it as such would be inadequate.

Consciousness is a product of the physical brain, but to describe it as such is as inadequate - it does not fully explain such a complex and subtle phenomenon.

Shahz mistakes the 'hard problem' as some sort of counter evidence to suggest that consciousness is not merely a product of the brain, he is mistaken - the 'hard problem' is simply that consciousness can not be fully explained in scientific terms alone. It is not at all a 'limit to physicalism' as Shahz suggested. And it does not infer any supernatural dimension whatsoever, anymore than does the beauty of the Monal Lisa infer any supernatural dimension. It is just not describable in purely scientific terms,

I agree with most of this. But I'd dispute your earlier statement that consciousness is a product of mind. It may be a product of BIOS-like processes that the brain executes, but mind is just the database of information stored in memory. As such, it has no limit determined by the information processed.

 

[fantome profane]

And you don't want to accept that you are following a faith based belief as well, that Physical processed can and will explain consciousness.

You quoted me, but in reading this it seems like this is a response to a different person. I have never said anything about your belief being based on faith, that is not the issue.

Dualism is a better option because that way we accept that the mental is a property of the universe, like charge or energy. That way we can give it a value and use it to measure conscious properties in complex systems. IIT by Tononi and Koch have already attempted this by assigning the value of Phi to the quantitative measurement of consciousness. Dualism is back much stronger now than before, because neuroscientific research has shown that physicalism has limitations. Not necessarily substance dualism, but perhaps property dualism or neutral monism.

You can give it a value, but can you measure that value? Can you tell me if that value is the correct value, and what conclusions can you draw about consciousness based on that value. How is this value produced? And how does it in turn produce consciousness?

And what don't you understand about not being able to explain everything about consciousness? Science cannot explain everything, the color red has 0 physical basis in reality. Physically it is a wavelength of light. But to us, it is a color, it is an experience. You cannot even know if I am truly conscious, you just take my word for it.

Arguing with you people now gives me appreciation for those who argue with Climate Change denial.

I understand that we cannot explain consciousness, I accept that. I have never claimed that science can explain everything, and I have never claimed that we can explain consciousness. It seems you have me confused with someone else.

But it seems to me that you are trying pretend that our inability to explain consciousness is in itself somehow an explanation. If we can't explain it, we can't explain it. It is invalid to draw a conclusion based on a lack of an explanation. Can you understand that?

And even if we cannot explain the phenomenon of consciousness through methodological naturalism, it does not follow from that that we will be able to explain it through dualism. If Bob cannot explain consciousness, that does not mean that Doug can explain it. I don't see how you are going to explain consciousness by making an appeal to something else that you cannot detect, much less explain.

 

[Nomen Nescio]

What an idiotic response.

It wasn't a direct response to you.

But thanks for your ad hominem style response.

I never denied physical processes weren't involved.

Yes, you accept that the brain gives rise to the mind and consciousness, but as i understand your position you seem to fall in the panpsychism or property dualism camp. You are using the "hard problem" (meaning: your ignorance of how physical processes alone could be responsible for consciousness) in arguing that there is something more "involved", along with the typical property dualism argument that consciousness seems to be something more than brain activity.

And that's fine. Even though it's still a bit fallacious.

And oh, the Hard Problem isn't really much of a controversy anymore. Only the ignorant and some people in AI find it 'controversial'.

Only the ignorant and some AI people? never heard of Daniel Dennett, Peter Hacker or Stanislas Dehaene? you may not like their position, but at least show some respect.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That doesn't discredit evolution so whats your point.

But it does discredit naturalism.

 

[idav]

But it does discredit naturalism.

No it doesn't. Lets say there is a template for life, well great, then from that template evolution naturally occurred. Lets say there was a template for the universe, big bang is still true and the universe evolved to what we see today through natural means. You need to submit solid evidence of any sort of divine or supernatural intervention to discredit naturalism, there is none and people have been searching cause most people are theists.