The watch analogy

[Surya Deva]

This argument is an old one, but it does not take into account our more modern understanding of systemic emergence from chaotic conditions.

The argument still applies. It is obvious that matter is always changing but this change is not random, but always takes place in a ratio. There is a structure to reality, without which it would collapse. If matter was trully random the entire world would be chaos and there would be no systems. Do you really think something is complex and intricate as the human body replete with organs all connected to one another by the nervous system, connected to a central processor in the head, connected to every limb and in turn synchronized to wider environment could arise by chance?
The suggestion is as absurd as the clay forming the pot by chance, the mountain forming a statue of Buddha by chance, the monkeys typing out the complete works of Shakespeare by chance.

The human body is the most complex design we know in existence. Far more complex than a sculpture, a watch or the complete works of Shakespeare. If even lesser complex objects cannot arise by chance, how would the human body arise by chance?

 

[painted wolf]

The argument still applies. It is obvious that matter is always changing but this change is not random, but always takes place in a ratio. There is a structure to reality, without which it would collapse. If matter was trully random the entire would be chaos and there would be no systems. Do you really think something is complex and intricate as the human body replete with organs all connected to one another by the nervous system, connected to a central processor in the head, connected to every limb and in turn synchronized to wider environment could arise by chance?
The suggestion is as absurd as the clay forming the pot by chance, the mountain forming a statue of Buddha by chance, the monkeys typing out the complete works of Shakespeare by chance.

The human body is the most complex design we know in existence. Far more complex than a sculpture, a watch or the complete works of Shakespeare. If even lesser complex objects cannot arise by chance, how would the human body arise by chance?

It didn't... it arose out of natural selection, sexual recombination and chemistry over several billion years.

wa:do

 

[Copernicus]

...efficient cause(creator/agent) and instrumental cause...

Just a terminological note: the term "efficient cause" is normally applied to non-agentive, immediate causes. You are applying it to agentive causes.

There is a very brilliant refutation of this argument in Samkhya philosophy and that is that there is no created agent...

However, we observe in nature that all agents are born and exist as material beings. So the refutation can only be "brilliant" if the premise is something more than the gratuitous assumption that it appears to be.

...However, there is one thing that does not rise and fall and that is the observer itself. The observer remains constant between all events. I am the common witness that observes the changing seasons, the changing events in society, my body changing, my personality changing, mental states changing. Thus the observer itself is not reducible to matter. It does not have the property of change. Rather, it is has the property of substance, continuity.

This is false on a great many levels. The observers are people, who you have already admitted to be material. We have no memories earlier than birth, and we know that observers forget things. Brain injuries can cause profound changes in observers, including unconsciousness. The ultimate brain injury is death, and that most likely results in permanent loss of consciousness (i.e. the ability to observe).

If we reduce matter to its ultimate state then matter is completely potential and in a superpositioned state. There is no cause within matter to collapse that potential state because that cause itself would be superpositioned. This uniform and unmanifest state that demands an initial movement to collapse it, and this can only be provided by an efficient cause which itself is outside of matter.

I have no idea what you mean by "reduce matter to its ultimate state", so an argument based on such a concept is meaningless to me. As I have already pointed out, minds depend on the physical state of a brain. Without the brain, they cease to exist. Scientists have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that physical activity in brains corresponds to specific mental functions.

One of the doctrine of Hinduism is the law of karma, cause and effect. If there is an effect, there is absolutely a cause. This is to be observed clearly in nature that nothing issues randomly from anything. Everything has a cause. The arrow does not lead the bow without the bowman providing the momentum energy. The barren woman does not conceive.

Causal theory exists independently of karma. Karma is about the consequences of behavior, and it rests on the gratuitous assumption that living beings undergo reincarnation. We observe nothing in nature to license such a belief.

But still it appears that new properties are emerging in nature all the time. This is the position that Nyaya-Vaiseshika(realists) took. That the effect is different from the cause. If two particles interact the compound that forms has different properties to the parent particles. However, is that really true, or only appears to be true?

The real question here is why one should believe that things are not as they appear to be. Experience corroborates the assumption that things normally are as they appear.

In actuality what appear to be different properties are just the same atoms consisting of different permutations of protons, electrons and neutrons. All of matter is just these really...

This kind of naive reductionism ignores the phenomenon of emergence--that systems can be described at a high level without reducing them to their constituent parts. While reductionism helps to explain why systems behave the way they do, the system should not be confused with its collection of parts.

Now Samkhya takes this reduction even further and shows that everything really is vibrations of the gunas within quantum matter. It is observed that if you take the chain of cause and effect in the world of all produced things you eventually come to an ultimate cause. This ultimate cause is purely potential and not yet manifest.

You aren't making a lot of sense with pseudoscientific expressions like "quantum matter". Ancient Hindus did not have a theory of quantum events or a basis for making testable claims about atomic or subatomic particles. It is very common for people of all religious faiths to make claims of overlap between their ancient scripture and modern scientific theory, because science has become something of a modern religion. Hence, one can lend credibility to a religious doctrine by making claims about its relationship to modern science. There is a big difference between science, which strives to make testable claims about nature, and religion, which strives to make untestable claims about it.

Always it is the case that the potential state where all potential things are superpositioned requires an external efficient cause to collapse it. The seed will not grow until it is watered and it has suitable soil and climate. These are external efficient causes. The seed cannot just start growing by itself. Similarly, matter cannot just begin evolving by itself. It requires an efficient cause to start the process.

Not true. Causal events take place quite independently of your "efficient cause". You are merely jumping to the conclusion that you started out with as a premise--that physical reality depends on a non-physical observer for its existence. And you ignore the new issue that your argument entails--whether or not the observer depends on anything. If it does, then you risk a "turtles all the way down" argument, an infinite regression. If it does not, then you might as will start with the assumption that some version of physical reality has always existed, and that is what has given rise to "efficient causes" such as ourselves.

Imagine I put a lump of clay in front of you. See if it does anything. Day 1. Day 2. Day 3. Day 4...... Day 1000. Did it aggregate into anything? No the lump of clay remained put and nothing happen. It is only when you apply an external cause that something happens to the clay.

Right. The water in the clay will evaporate, producing a rigid object. I concede your point that causal events happen, but not that an observing "agent" is necessary to make them happen.

Let us try another thought experiment. There is a mountain. This mountain experiences over a course of 1000 years erosion, bombardment which changes its shape and form. Will that shape and form ever become a fully shaped Buddha sculpture? No, the moutain shape and form will change, but it will require an efficient cause to shape it into an intelligent design.

On the other hand, lots of people quite gratuitously assume that the mountain's natural shape was the intentional outcome of the will of a deity. Amazing, isn't it?

You are right the clay will experience some changes to its form(natural erosion over time and natural accidents) but never ever will it turn into a pot unless there is a potter with a potters wheel.

But this does not prove your point that an "efficient cause" is necessary for any causation at all to occur. Please don't forget that that is what you started out trying to prove, and you have not advanced the argument further than to observe that things change. Causation happens. Nobody disputes that.

Similarly matter can never form any kind of intelligent design without there being an intelligence. It will form only chaos and nothing else.

This is just flat out wrong. There are plenty of things in nature that people confuse with intelligent design. Wind erosion caused the so-called "Garden of the Gods" rock formations in Colorado. There is no reason to believe that any god had anything to do with those rock formations and every reason to believe that unintelligent forces of nature shaped them. My position here is that human form itself is an unintelligent design caused by natural selection--not unlike the forces to produce pretty rock formations.

Another example given often by chaos theory proponents is 1 million monkeys typing away at their typewriter for billions of years eventually one of those moneys will produce the complete works of Shakespeare by chance. This is absolutely unfounded. I once tried this experiment myself I sat before my keyboard on my computer and started randomy typing like a monkey would for a long time, I got nothing but chaos...

Well, I would advise you to keep at it for billions of years and then report back to us. Your experiment has not been completed. If you turn it in now, you will get a failing grade.

I have no reason to believe the result would be any different if I did this over 1 billion years. I would never end up with the complete works Shakespeare because it is an intelligent design.

I will grant you only that you will not arrive at those works as quickly as Shakespeare did. Then again, consider the amount of time that the unplanned universe had to produce Shakespeare. :sarcastic

T...If even lesser complex objects cannot arise by chance, how would the human body arise by chance?

I recommend that you read one of Richard Dawkins' many books on the subject. The Blind Watchmaker is not too out of date, and it still explains evolution in very clear terms. Dawkins does make the point that things do not arise by chance. They arise by natural selection. That's really a very important point to get if you want to understand the argument that human beings are not the product of intelligent design.

 

[Surya Deva]

Just a terminological note: the term "efficient cause" is normally applied to non-agentive, immediate causes. You are applying it to agentive causes.

In the case of the Hindu theory of creation requiring three conditions: material cause, instrumental cause and efficient cause. Here efficient cause refers to an intelligent being.
You may understand "efficient cause" to mean something different, but in the Hindu context here it means an intelligent being or creator.

However, we observe in nature that all agents are born and exist as material beings. So the refutation can only be "brilliant" if the premise is something more than the gratuitous assumption that it appears to be

Nope, we observe that bodies are born. We have never observed an agent. I cannot observe your consciousness. If we meet I will observe your body. I cannot see your consciousness or your mind. As consciousness is not something that can be observed we cannot make any certain statements that it ever ceases to exist. Just because a body has ceased to exist does not mean consciousness has ceased to exist. It is possible that consciousness continues. As long as that possibility is there, we cannot make any certain statements that consciousness definitely ceases to exist after the death of the body. To claim that consciousness ceases to exist at the death of the body can only be stated as faith, but not a fact. As an atheist you may believe this is the case, but it is not a fact.

This is false on a great many levels. The observers are people, who you have already admitted to be material. We have no memories earlier than birth, and we know that observers forget things. Brain injuries can cause profound changes in observers, including unconsciousness. The ultimate brain injury is death, and that most likely results in permanent loss of consciousness (i.e. the ability to observe).

I have not admitted observers to be material. In fact because we cannot observe observers, they are by definition immateral. If they are material then we should be able to see and measure them. But we do not see observers; we see bodies. In addition to bodies we see with our mind thoughts, memories, dreams and awareness states of consciousness, subconscious, unconsciousness. Again these are all things that are observed, and thus because they are all objects of observation, they are not the observer tiself.

All things that are observed have the property of change(physical states and mental states) but to know that change has taken place, there has to be a constant observer between changes of states. Now as every object yhat we observe is in a constant state of change it cannot be an observer. The observer therefore must be constant and unchanging. The opposite of the object. As something which is constant and unchanging the observer always is. There never is a time when the observer is not, because the the observer is not in time and space. What is in time and space are physical states and mental states. They appear and disappear all the time. The observer remains unaffected.

have no idea what you mean by "reduce matter to its ultimate state", so an argument based on such a concept is meaningless to me. .

Sorry I assumed you would be familiar with quantum mechanics.

To reduce matter to its ultimate state is to reduce it to what it really is at the substratum of reality. If you reduce a piece of wood you will reduce it to its molecules. If you reduce it further you will reduce it to its atoms. If you reduce it further you will reduce it to subatomic particles. If you reduce it further you get quarks. Still if you reduce it further you get the quantum where matter is no longer massive, but it is a wave of possibility and it is superpositioned. In this state matter exists everywhere at once(a wavefunction is distributed across time and space) This state needs to collapse before any particles appear at all.
Now what can collapse this state? Matter itself cannot collapse itself because it exist in a superpositioned state where everything in the universe is quantumly entangled. The collapse only takes place when a conscious observer observes it and therefore the conscious observer itself is not matter, but exists outside of it.

This conclusion was most impalpable to physicists, especially to Schodinger who forumulated his famous Schodingers cat paradox in order to show this situation was absurd. He suggested "hidden variable theory" that matter collapses itself somehow. Since this theory has been disproven by various experiments in quantun mechanics, showing that it is indeed observation that causes matter to manfiest as a particle. If there is no observer than there is no universe. Period.

As I have already pointed out, minds depend on the physical state of a brain. Without the brain, they cease to exist. Scientists have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that physical activity in brains corresponds to specific mental functions.

This is only partly true. It is true that brain states correspond to mental states. It is not true that this proves the mind depends upon the brain. In fact observation shows us that mind and the brain interact. Mental states can lead to brain states, just as brain states can lead to mental states. It is not just one way traffic. What has not been proven is that the mind and the brain are the same entity. This is known as the hard problem of consciousness. In absence of this proof the mind and brain can only be treated as two different things. To say the brain is the mind can be stated as faith.

The real question here is why one should believe that things are not as they appear to be. Experience corroborates the assumption that things normally are as they appear.

The answer to this is very obvious: senses deceive. The senses show us reality as it appears - and then there is reality as it is. The senses show us the sun going around the earth, when the truth is vis versa. The senses show us a flat earth, when the truth is it is is not. The senses show us the sky is blue, when actually it is not. It is now discovered in modern science that matter is in constant activity. Every moment electrons are flying about left, right and centre in the atom. Yet our senses show us solid and static matter. In quantum mechanics it is now proven that there is no such thing as objective or physical reality, but our senses show us an objective and physical reality.

This kind of naive reductionism ignores the phenomenon of emergence--that systems can be described at a high level without reducing them to their constituent parts. While reductionism helps to explain why systems behave the way they do, the system should not be confused with its collection of parts.

There is nothing naive about it. All so-called emergent properties are ultimately just permutations of the same stuff. The emergent property is only apparent. If I take atoms of hydrogen(gas) combine it oxygen(gas) I get water. The property of liquid appears to be emergent. In actual fact, there is no emergence. The atoms of hydogen reacted with the atoms of oxygen and the atoms in the resultant compound has less kinetic energy so it appears like a liquid,. Similarly a solid is just atoms with even lesser kinetic energy.

Ultimately whatever matter you look at it ultimately just the same stuff in different permutations: protons, electrons and neutrons. They in turn are the same quarks. These in turn are the same waves of possibility in the quantum field. Ultimately all matter is reducible to the same stuff. All so called emergent properties are once again the deception of the senses.

 

[Surya Deva]

You aren't making a lot of sense with pseudoscientific expressions like "quantum matter". Ancient Hindus did not have a theory of quantum events or a basis for making testable claims about atomic or subatomic particles. It is very common for people of all religious faiths to make claims of overlap between their ancient scripture and modern scientific theory, because science has become something of a modern religion. Hence, one can lend credibility to a religious doctrine by making claims about its relationship to modern science. There is a big difference between science, which strives to make testable claims about nature, and religion, which strives to make untestable claims about it.

Please check out the thread, "Does Hinduism have scientific proof" in the Hinduism forum. I have posted a rather detailed post describing the ancient Hindu theories on molcules, atoms, subatomic particles, mechanics, quantum matter etc. Suffice it to say Hindus did indeed have a theory of quantum matter. This matter was called moolaprakriti meaning root or quantum matter. This quantum matter originally exists in an unmanifest and potential state(avyaktam) and its constituents force(gunas) are in a state of supersymmetey and all existent things are superpositioned. Then the observer(Purusha) collapses it by simply observing it. Then matter becomes manifest(vyaktam) and supersymmetry of its forces breaks splitting up into three forces(rajas, sattva, and tamas) and one of these forces(rajas or activity) becomes preponderant leading to the evolution of matter aggregating first as minute particles and then taking on more massive form.(In Hindu theory mind is the first evolute and not the last)
This is common knowledge in samkhya philosophy. In fact Schrodinger was inspired by samkhya philosophy in formulating his wave mechanics, according to his biographer Walter Moore.
Like quantum mechanics has discovered matter originally is purely potential - a wave of possibility. It then collapses on observation and starts to evolve from minute to massive.

Not true. Causal events take place quite independently of your "efficient cause".

Really? In that case:

Right. The water in the clay will evaporate, producing a rigid object. I concede your point that causal events happen, but not that an observing "agent" is necessary to make them happen.

Why does that lump of clay never become a pot?

On the other hand, lots of people quite gratuitously assume that the mountain's natural shape was the intentional outcome of the will of a deity. Amazing, isn't it?

Why does a sculpture of the Buddha not appear in the mountain?

Well, I would advise you to keep at it for billions of years and then report back to us. Your experiment has not been completed. If you turn it in now, you will get a fail

Why does the complete works of shakespeare not get written down by the 1 million monkeys typing for a billion years?

You have a burden of proof to show that an intelligent design could form through random chance. In all our examples above not in a single instance can anything that requires an intelligence to craft it(efficient cause) arise without an intelligence. The clay never becomes a pot. The mountain never becomes a scupture of the Buddha and the monkeys on the typewriter never writes out the complete works of Shakespeare.

Now to argue that if we give it billions of years than the pot, the sculpture of the Buddha and the complete works of shakespeare would form is what is called a time deferral fallacy. As I cannot look 1 billion years ahead into the future to see whether these things have happened, I cannot falsify your claim. Therefore your claim is not testable and hence invalid.
Ultimately, I think you need to admit that it is your faith that intelligent designs can arise by random chance or natural selection. There is absolutely not a single shred of evidence to support this claim. On the contrary all evidence shows us that all intelligent designs ONLY ever arise when there is an intelligence behind it.
　
　

Causal theory exists independently of karma. Karma is about the consequences of behavior, and it rests on the gratuitous assumption that living beings undergo reincarnation. We observe nothing in nature to license such a belief.

The word karma is a technical Hindu philosophical term and it simply means cause and effect or action/reaction. In the Vaiseshika philosophy it is used to describe actions in terms of forces acting on an object. In the Samkhya philosophy karma is used to explain the cause of the effect of embodiment. In the Yoga philosophy karma is used to explain the cause of the effects of behaviour.

 

[Valjean]

The human body is the most complex design we know in existence.

Where'd you come up with that idea? How is a human more complex than any other mammal, or bird, or.....?
And what does complexity prove, anyway? Complexity is easy to generate just by reiterating simple processes or reactions over and over again. Think fractals.

If even lesser complex objects cannot arise by chance, how would the human body arise by chance?

The whole ToE describes the processes! -- and it's not random chance. Where have you been?

 

[Surya Deva]

The human orgnaism is more complex than any other organsm because it is a more sophisticated biological system with a more developed brain which enables the human organism to do things that other organisms cannot - such as create religions

 

[Valjean]

No it's not. We have the same physiology. We have the same anatomy. Same parts and same chemical processes.
Just because part of our brain is larger doesn't make us more sophisticated any more than the "more sophisticated" nose of a dog, eye of a cat, &c. There are even plenty of animals that can mentally outperform humans in many areas.
Just because we're good at language or reasoning or fantasizing doesn't make us any more complex than any other mammal.

 

[Surya Deva]

There are even plenty of animals that can mentally outperform humans in many areas.

Next thing you are going to tell me that horses can do calculus

It is a no-brainer that humans are a much more evolved organism than other animals are. We are capable of rational thinking(because our apparatus is advanced enough to to allow that) we are capable of religion, philosophy, arts, science, sports etc. No other animal is capable of this.
The capacity for meta-cognition(thinking about thinking) is something that is most developed in humans.

 

[Valjean]

Next thing you are going to tell me that horses can do calculus

LOL -- Google "clever Hans"



A serious example, though: [youtube]GMHiOCD-0aI[/youtube]
YouTube - Chimps Are Smarter Than Us
Some things we do better. Some things animals do better. Skills develop as lifestyle demands.

It is a no-brainer that humans are a much more evolved organism than other animals are. We are capable of rational thinking(because our apparatus is advanced enough to to allow that) we are capable of religion, philosophy, arts, science, sports etc. No other animal is capable of this.

We're all equally evolved -- dogs, pigeons and fruit flies have been evolving just as long as we have.
Now, if you're defining "evolved" as 'changed from a prototype' you'd have to say a horse is more evolved because its hooves are much more altered ("developed) from the original 5-digit prototype than our salamander-style hands are.

The capacity for meta-cognition (thinking about thinking) is something that is most developed in humans

Yes, we're really good at metacognition, but other animals are better at memory, or navigation, or pattern-recognition. Superior meta-cognition is not the sine qua non of evolution. It's just one feature. Biologically we're just another mammal. A Martian biologist dissecting Earth specimens wouldn't find us any more complex or developed than a rat.

 

[Surya Deva]

Even human beings are capable of photographic memory I guess these chimps have a natural ability for it, whereas humans have lost this ability. Of course it is true that some animals far outstrip us when it comes to memory, pattern recognition, strength, amongst many other things. However, these animals because they lack metacognition, are not conscious doing it, but doing it instinctually. The fact that we can think about our thoughts gives us self-awareness, which means that we are capable of creative action, planning, organizing and discrimination. This is not just a minor advantage, but a huge advantage for it gives humans the ability to innovate technology and techniques to maximise our survival and dominate the entire animal kingdom. Animals are at the mercy of nature, but humans are not. The dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteorite and could do nothing about it. Humans, however can predict when a meteroite will arrive and prepare will in advance.

The most beautiful gift of being human is the ability to search for the truth. We can study this universe and work out how it works, what is the origin and where it is heading. Animals cannot do that. A human can become a god itself cloning and designing its own life forms, even creating ones own planets and suns. Thus the human organism is the most exalted organism.

This capacity for metacongition that the human has is not just another feature amongst many, but it is an entire transformation of biological matter so that it becomes self-aware, and this is owing to the fact that we have more sophisticated biological apparatuses than animals. Otherwise, why does this ability not develop in animals?

 

[Copernicus]

Nope, we observe that bodies are born. We have never observed an agent. I cannot observe your consciousness...

Surya, this seems to be the crux of our argument. You keep thinking that we cannot "observe" observers and agents, but that is just false. You directly experience your own agency, and you are an observer. You cannot claim not to have observed yourself. Unless you are a solipsist, it is trivial to infer the existence of other agents and observers. You interact with them all the time. They happen to be physical beings, like yourself, who have brains. Those brains are what minds depend on for their existence. Surely, you know this, because you can observe the relationship between your own mind and the physical state of your brain. If someone konks you on the head hard enough, you are going to pass out. If you drink too much alcohol, you are going to get drunk. You can deny the evidence, but you cannot ignore it. Your functionality as an agent and as an observer is dependent on your physical functioning brain.

I have not admitted observers to be material. In fact because we cannot observe observers, they are by definition immateral...

The question here is whether the mental state of an observer is necessarily grounded in physical reality. Can observers exist independently of a physical substrate? My position is that observers can only exist as dependencies on the physical universe, and I ground this position in the observation of the relationship between mental function and physical brain activity.

All things that are observed have the property of change(physical states and mental states) but to know that change has taken place, there has to be a constant observer between changes of states...

No, there doesn't. Lot's of things happen when we aren't looking. There is no reason to believe that those events would not happen unless there was an observer of those events. You simply declare that an oberver is necessary, but you have not yet put forward a serious argument to support that declaration.

Now as every object yhat we observe is in a constant state of change it cannot be an observer. The observer therefore must be constant and unchanging. The opposite of the object. As something which is constant and unchanging the observer always is. There never is a time when the observer is not, because the the observer is not in time and space. What is in time and space are physical states and mental states. They appear and disappear all the time. The observer remains unaffected.

That is just not true. An observer undergoes changes of states--for example, the accumulation of memories. Before an event is observed, the observer has no memory of it having happened. The mind is very definitely affected by what it observes. And memories get stored in physical brains. We know that brain damage destroys memories. Again, minds are fully dependent on functioning brains for their existence.

Sorry I assumed you would be familiar with quantum mechanics.

I am probably as familiar with quantum mechanics as you, but I'm not going to claim expertise in a subject that I am not an expert in. I have seen this pseudo-scientific attempt to use quantum theory to justify deities before.

Now what can collapse this state? Matter itself cannot collapse itself because it exist in a superpositioned state where everything in the universe is quantumly entangled. The collapse only takes place when a conscious observer observes it and therefore the conscious observer itself is not matter, but exists outside of it.

I don't think that you have the slightest idea what you are talking about here. If your argument were going to make any sense, then quantum effects would never be observed by us, because your deity would already be collapsing all of those probability waves. Do you not see this transparent flaw in your argument? It actually works against the claim that there is an observer independent of human observers who do experiments like Bell's.

This conclusion was most impalpable to physicists, especially to Schodinger who forumulated his famous Schodingers cat paradox in order to show this situation was absurd. He suggested "hidden variable theory" that matter collapses itself somehow. Since this theory has been disproven by various experiments in quantun mechanics, showing that it is indeed observation that causes matter to manfiest as a particle. If there is no observer than there is no universe. Period.

And if there were divine observer of Bell, then his experiment would have failed. Period. But there have been plenty of objections and alternative explanations for quantum effects. That is why those who have backed the Copenhagen interpretation have been praised for "good science" and "bad philosophy". The Copenhagen interpretation is nothing more than philosophical speculation, not science.

This is only partly true. It is true that brain states correspond to mental states. It is not true that this proves the mind depends upon the brain. In fact observation shows us that mind and the brain interact. Mental states can lead to brain states, just as brain states can lead to mental states. It is not just one way traffic. What has not been proven is that the mind and the brain are the same entity. This is known as the hard problem of consciousness. In absence of this proof the mind and brain can only be treated as two different things. To say the brain is the mind can be stated as faith.

Until you offer some kind of evidence to back up your claim that a mind can act independently of physical brain activity, it is pointless to make these bald assertions. I can offer plenty of evidence to prove that physical effects on brains control mental states, but you can offer none to show the reverse. I have repeatedly denied that the mind and the brain are the same thing, so I would ask you to not keep going on as if I had. I have not claimed that brains "act on" minds, as you have. I have claimed that they are a systemic effect of a functioning brain.

The answer to this is very obvious: senses deceive. The senses show us reality as it appears - and then there is reality as it is. The senses show us the sun going around the earth, when the truth is vis versa. The senses show us a flat earth, when the truth is it is is not. The senses show us the sky is blue, when actually it is not. It is now discovered in modern science that matter is in constant activity. Every moment electrons are flying about left, right and centre in the atom. Yet our senses show us solid and static matter. In quantum mechanics it is now proven that there is no such thing as objective or physical reality, but our senses show us an objective and physical reality.

Wikipedia gets a lot of criticism, but it is actually a great reference for concepts such as perception. You appear to hold the same naive view of perception that most people do--that it is a passive phenomenon. Under that view, the senses report raw data to the brain as objective reality, and you have somehow taken this to mean that your pseudoscientific quantum argument is supported by the fact that our perceptions are subjective and sometimes unreliable. Scientists have known for a long time that perception is "active"--that is the brain generates models of reality to match up against incoming sense data. All sorts of things can go wrong with that process, and that is what makes us so prone to hallucinations--false interpretations of sense data.

Now to argue that if we give it billions of years than the pot, the sculpture of the Buddha and the complete works of shakespeare would form is what is called a time deferral fallacy. As I cannot look 1 billion years ahead into the future to see whether these things have happened, I cannot falsify your claim. Therefore your claim is not testable and hence invalid.

First of all, the monkeys-produce-Shakespeare claim is simply false, because human language is recursive. That is, there is no finite set of English sentences, so it isn't within the realm of probability that random typing would produce Shakespeare's works. I just thought that your reference to this hackneyed old argument was silly, so I was having a little fun with you. But, more importantly, you do not understand the crucial role that natural selection plays in shaping evolution. It is not a random process. Nobody is really claiming that a tornado could assemble a 747, given a lengthy period of time (as Fred Hoyle once seemed to be arguing). I am not arguing that such things could arise by random chance or natural selection, but that is a common straw man assertion that creationists such as yourself like to throw into these discussions. Evolution is about flawed self-replicating processes that interact with each other over time. Biological evolution has been going on for an inconceivable amount of time in terms of human lifespans, which is how humans tend to measure probable events.

The word karma is a technical Hindu philosophical term and it simply means cause and effect or action/reaction. In the Vaiseshika philosophy it is used to describe actions in terms of forces acting on an object. In the Samkhya philosophy karma is used to explain the cause of the effect of embodiment. In the Yoga philosophy karma is used to explain the cause of the effects of behaviour.

Words usually have more than one meaning, so let's not fall into the trap of a terminological argument. It is very clear from the way Hindus use the word as a religious concept that they mean something more than simple cause and effect by it.

 

[Surya Deva]

You directly experience your own agency, and you are an observer

Yes, I do not observe it, but experience that I am. I do not require any proof to prove that I am. It is a self-evident notion.

not claim not to have observed yourself. Unless you are a solipsist, it is trivial to infer the existence of other agents and observers. You interact with them all the time.

I am not a solipsist which is a position that nobody other than me exists. However, nobody has ever observed themselves. This is a very old philosophical truth that has been discovered by Hindus, Buddhists, Hume and skeptics. If you ever try to observe yourself all you ever find is changing content, changing sensations, changing thoughts, changing experiences. There is no " enduring self" to be seen.
This is not because the "self" does not exist, otherwise the fact of awareness would be impossible, it is because the self is not an object of senses. The self is an awareness - a sense of beingness. It is just there always in the background of our life and we take it for granted.

I have never ever observed anybodies "self" including my own. I have awareness of my self, but I do not have awareness of anybody else's self. All I ever observe of others are bodies exhibiting behaviour. Now, there are two positions I can take here: solipicism that only I actually exist and everybody else is my dream or that all selves exist but the self is not an object in time and space.

There is absolutely no proof the self is in time and space. For to declare that conclusion you need your senses to show the self is yet another object produced in matter, but as the senses never ever see a self, there is no reason to believe the self is in time and space.

Those brains are what minds depend on for their existence. Surely, you know this, because you can observe the relationship between your own mind and the physical state of your brain. If someone konks you on the head hard enough, you are going to pass out. If you drink too much alcohol, you are going to get drunk. You can deny the evidence, but you cannot ignore it. Your functionality as an agent and as an observer is dependent on your physical functioning brain.

You are conflating terms here mind and brain. As I said earlier there is no proof at all that the mind and brain are the same things. The first person to prove this is going to get a nobel prize, as this is the single most hardest problem in philosophy, neurobiology and consciousness studies. We know about the neural correlates of mind, but what we don't know is the mind depends on the brain. It is true that if someone knocks me on the head hard enough, I am going to pass out. It is also true that I can pass out by just having a very terrible memory appear in my mind. It is true that if I take a physical substance that affects my breathing it will entail certain mental states. It is also true that I can change my breathing pattern consciously.

There are two entities here mind and body(the brain is another part of the body) and not just one. These two entities interact. To say there is only body here is devoid of evidence. Such a thing can only be stated as faith. You can say to me, "Yes, we have no proof, but one day we will" and plenty of materialists have used this one with me, but this is an argument from faith not reason.

The argument that a trauma to the head makes unconscious has already been countered by the classic argument of the analogy of a radio. A trauma to the circuit of the radio causes the radio to stop playing music. Does this mean the music depends on the radio or is produced by the radio? No, it just means the apparatus has been damanged and it no longer is fit to receive the signals of the music. Similarly, mind is just like the music in the brain. The brain gets damaged, the mind is affected, but it does not mean the mind is actually in the brain.

There is another very powerful argument. If one thing is actually an epiphenomena of another thing(in this case consciousness is epiphenoema of brain activity like software running on hardware) then that thing has no causal efficacy. It is totally dependent on the other thing and nor can it even know of that thing as an other. But this is false consciousness does have causal efficacy - it can directly interact with the brain. It is aware of the brain like all other objects. Thus to say that consciousness is an epiphenomena is as as absurd as suggesting software can know its hardware.

A Hindu argument goes as follows: the effect cannot know the cause, unless the effect ceases to exist. You an "effect" cannot know the actual cause of "you" because you cannot see your own cause. Just as the eyes cannot see itself. You have no power over the cause, because you are just an effect of it. So if it was really true you were really brain activity, it would have been impossible for you 1) know of your brain and 2) interact with your brain.

I can see my brain if I want. All I need is a MRI scanner to show me it, or I can open the top of my skull and see the brain inside. Who is the one seeing the brain? Is the brain seeing the brain? Absurd.

No, there doesn't. Lot's of things happen when we aren't looking. There is no reason to believe that those events would not happen unless there was an observer of those events. You simply declare that an oberver is necessary, but you have not yet put forward a serious argument to support that declaration.

This is not the argument I was making. I said the proof of the constance of the observer between two state changes(mental or physical) proves that there something that is aware of the state changes, and itself therefore is not changing, but constant. If it also was change then there would be nothing constant to be aware of change. I never said here that things don't exist if we don't look at them.

That is just not true. An observer undergoes changes of states--for example, the accumulation of memories. Before an event is observed, the observer has no memory of it having happened. The mind is very definitely affected by what it observes. And memories get stored in physical brains. We know that brain damage destroys memories. Again, minds are fully dependent on functioning brains for their existence.

Here again you are conflating terms. Now you are conflating mind with the observer.
It is not the observer that changes. It is the mind content that changes. The mind is again another object that the observer is aware of. I am not my memories or thoughts, I am the observer of my memories and thoughts. If I don't like a thought, I can change it. If I want a certain thought, I can call it.

It is clear the mind and the body are interacting. I am aware of this fact. But I am neither the mind or the body. I observe the body with my 5 senses and I observe the mind with my internal sense. What is common between the 5 senses and the internal sense is that they are both objects of my awareness and both unconscious.
It's obviously not true my thoughts and memories are conscious thing, otherwise everyone of my thoughts would be their own agents and do their own thing, decide for themselves. Clearly neither the mind or the body is not conscious itself, they are just blind and inert matter. It is "I" who control them. If I want to go left - I make the body go left. I want to go right - I make the body go right. If I want to call a scene of a beach to my mind - I recall a scene of a beach. If I want to call a scene of a mountain - I recall a sense of a mountain. I am the controller here of the body and mind, and they are the controlled.

I am probably as familiar with quantum mechanics as you, but I'm not going to claim expertise in a subject that I am not an expert in. I have seen this pseudo-scientific attempt to use quantum theory to justify deities before.

I wrote my dissertation on quantum mechanics for philosophy of science so I am familiar with the academic literature, history and important discoveries and theories. I got a distinction for it, so I think this demonstrates that my knowledge is of QM is considered good enough.

I don't think that you have the slightest idea what you are talking about here. If your argument were going to make any sense, then quantum effects would never be observed by us, because your deity would already be collapsing all of those probability waves. Do you not see this transparent flaw in your argument? It actually works against the claim that there is an observer independent of human observers who do experiments like Bell's.

I never said there was a deity. The Hindu philosophy that I am telling you here is Samkhya which is atheist(only observers, no deity or deities) In this case what we observe are things after they have been collapsed from their quantum state(decoherence) We cannot observe things in their quantum state. We can use the quantum domain to send information via it(quantum teleportation) but as soon as that information becomes quantum, we can no longer observe it. As it is no longer in 4D time and space. This was demonstrated by Bell that no violation of GR was taking place, because information travelling in the quantum is not taking place in 4D time and space. It is taking place in a special domain that is non-local time and space.

This is a dead ringer for Samkhya's akasha, a domain beyond physical reality which is non-local time and space. Nobody can observe the akasha, just as nobody can observe the quantum.

 

[Surya Deva]

And if there were divine observer of Bell, then his experiment would have failed. Period. But there have been plenty of objections and alternative explanations for quantum effects. That is why those who have backed the Copenhagen interpretation have been praised for "good science" and "bad philosophy". The Copenhagen interpretation is nothing more than philosophical speculation, not science.

Again I am not sure where you are getting this "divine observer" from. So far I have only talked about observers. I have not attributed divinity to them. The Copenhagen interpretation is simply saying things as you see them. We see in the double-slit experiment how the wave becomes an electron on observation, thus we say the observation is causing the collapse of the wave into the electron. This is an not an interpretation, but an observation. Now the burden of proof lies with the claimant that it is not the observer causing the collapse, but some hidden causes. There is no evidence that there are hidden causes. So far every experiment that has been done such as the one by Bell has shown there are no hidden causes.

Hidden variable theory is supremely lacking in proof. It has disproved several times in quantum experiments. The Copenhagen "interpretation" is so far the best explanation. All other explanations are theoretical(many wolds etc) I am simply saying things as they are.

Until you offer some kind of evidence to back up your claim that a mind can act independently of physical brain activity, it is pointless to make these bald assertions. I can offer plenty of evidence to prove that physical effects on brains control mental states, but you can offer none to show the reverse. I have repeatedly denied that the mind and the brain are the same thing, so I would ask you to not keep going on as if I had. I have not claimed that brains "act on" minds, as you have. I have claimed that they are a systemic effect of a functioning brain.

As already said this assertion is in need of proof. Until that is not forthcoming, to tell me the mind is the brain, or the mind is a function of the brain, is just your faith. I am not an atheist or materialist, so it is not going to convince me. I am not an adherent of your religion. Proof will convince me. Speculation will not.

You appear to hold the same naive view of perception that most people do--that it is a passive phenomenon. Under that view, the senses report raw data to the brain as objective reality, and you have somehow taken this to mean that your pseudoscientific quantum argument is supported by the fact that our perceptions are subjective and sometimes unreliable. Scientists have known for a long time that perception is "active"--that is the brain generates models of reality to match up against incoming sense data. All sorts of things can go wrong with that process, and that is what makes us so prone to hallucinations--false interpretations of sense data.

You are accusing me of saying things I have not said. I never said perception was passive. In fact on the contrary I agree that it is active. It is interaction between mind and reality. We we receive sense data, and we also impose on the sense data and the resultant is perception. So what is really out there is never seen by us. We only see things as apparent. So whatever our senses show us is not the things as they are. This is why I said that we cannot trust what the senses are showing us. It is not as things really are. To believe otherwise is naive realism.

First of all, the monkeys-produce-Shakespeare claim is simply false, because human language is recursive. That is, there is no finite set of English sentences, so it isn't within the realm of probability that random typing would produce Shakespeare's works.

Thank you, I completely agree. It is impossible that the monkeys would ever produce Shakespeare by typing in letter by letter until a string is produced where all the letters of Shakespeare are in sequence. This is because it is an intelligent design where letters are organized by an intelligent being into sentences using the rules of grammar and poetic devices. All intelligent designs involve arbitrary rules imposed by the creator, organization, planning and inspiration. These designs never ever arise by chance.

I am not arguing that such things could arise by random chance or natural selection, but that is a common straw man assertion that creationists such as yourself like to throw into these discussions. Evolution is about flawed self-replicating processes that interact with each other over time. Biological evolution has been going on for an inconceivable amount of time in terms of human lifespans, which is how humans tend to measure probable events.

You are still faced with the same difficulty with natural selection as the monkeys are. Here the building blocks are atoms and not letters. These atoms need to combine part by part to fom an entire system where every part is working in coordination with one another in order to develop an entire functioning and interconnected body. Now it was ruled impossible earlier that the monkeys could ever write out Shakespeare given any amount of time, because you said human language is recursive. It is a system of complex arbitrary rules organized to develop coherent sentences. Like natural systems are recursive, everything functions as per complex rules of nature, and these rules operate as to develop entire functioning and interconnected bodies. Infinitely more complex than Shakespeare.

Now my position is clear if shakespeare cannot arise by chance convergences, how on earth would an infinitely more complex structure like a body arise by chance convergences?

You have many things to explain sir. The initial aggregation of quarks to form subatomic particles. Then the aggregation to produce atoms. Then the aggregation to produce molecules. Then the aggregation of molecules to produce compounds. Then the aggregation of compounds to produce cells. Then the aggregation of cells. Then the aggreation to produce single-celled organisms. Then the aggegation of those single celled organisms to produce entire coordinated bodies, where every part is connected to the other and functions together and simutaneously is connected to the wider environment.

One thing materialists evolutionists conveniently miss out is how does an organism develop which then knows that it needs to go out there eat food to survive. How it is so conveniant that the organism develops eyes, when there is light. How the organism develops exactly that which it needs to survive in an environment.
How on earth can this be explained by chance? What you propose sounds like magic to me, not science. That just conventiantly nature would aggregate from quarks all the way to entire funtioning and interconnected bodies which are synchronized with nature and even know they must eat food in nature to survive. Along the way even a single error in the aggregation chain means the end of the system. If just a single ratio is off nothing ever would exist.

So it very much is like the monkeys typing out Shakespeare. A single error in the aggregation chain means Shakespeare would never arise. How do you explain all these natural conveniences, every step along the way? The Hindu answer to this is obvious to rationality - there is a supervising intelligence guiding nature. It works in tandem with nature, guiding it along the way to purpose-driven designs.

The theory you propose is naive interactionism. A Newtonian like view of the body where every part is isolated and separate and evolves separately part by part to build the system(as if by magic) In actuality, parts are not isolated or separate, but part of a complex system of relationships. For any part to arise, it must be in coordination with every other part in the system. This presupposes everything is arising with the system already presupposed(purpose driven evolution) Thus from the very moment of the conception of the universe everything that has been happening already had a purpose to get to an end-point.

Only intelligence can give purpose. Nature is purposeless.

Words usually have more than one meaning, so let's not fall into the trap of a terminological argument. It is very clear from the way Hindus use the word as a religious concept that they mean something more than simple cause and effect by it.

You are mistaking the colliqual meaning of "karma" for its denotative meaning. Its denotative meaning is simply cause and effect. It is a technical word in Hindu philosophy. Not every school of Hindu philosophy uses it it explain moral action or associates it with reincarnation. The doctrine of karma is central to Hinduism but it means simply that all effects have causes. There is not a single Hindu philosophical school that denies this - hence why it is a Hindu doctrine. As Hindu philosophy is all based on causal logic - without this doctrine - there would be no Hindu philosophy at all.

 

[Surya Deva]

I am really enjoying our discussion by the way. It is is intelligent, sophisticated discourse from both sides supporting our respective positions well. You may not be able to convince me of your materialist philosophy, and I may not be able to convince you of my Hindu philosophy, but we will definitely learn more about each others philosophies and why we believe what we believe. As long as we respect each other and listen to and engage each others point.

A lot of my arguments are very classic Hindu philosophy, so you will learn a lot about what classical Hindu philosophy says and how the Hindu mind thinks in this discussion with me and maybe gain a better appreciation for it and its version of creationism Hindu creationism is more sophisticated than other creatonisms, because it is purely philosophy and rational reasoning. We do not just say, "Scripture says its true, therefore it is true" We aim to demonstrate our conclusions with rigorous argument.

A summary of what Hindu creationism says so far

1. The observers and matter are completey distinct and irreducible(Samkhya dualism)
2. Matter is originally superpositioned, unmanifest and purely potential until the observer collapes the state,
causing the consistuent forces to break out of the supersymmetry and initating material activity.
3. Matter gradually evolves aggregation from potential, subtle to gross. First evolutes are mind, then the quantum
reality, then the microscopic reality of subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, and finally gross matter, guided by
the interaction between the observer and the environment.(all evolutes arise due to the needs of the observer) The
apparatus of the body evolves gradually over time from single celled organisms to finally human organisms.
4. Evolution is purpose driven in order to eventually develop human organisms to reach the end-point of evolution.

Strenghts of Hindu creationism in explaining many unanswered questions today in science.

1. It explains why the hard problem of consciousness is the cause, it is because the observers are not
reducible to matter, but distinct from it and outside of it.
2. It explains how matter first collapses out of its quantum state and how and why it interacts with the
mind
3. It explains the order of aggregation of reality logically from the subtle things in existence to the most
massive things: Mind, quantum, forces, energy, subatomic particles, atoms and molecules and so on.
4. It explains the natural conveniences in evolution. How organisms develop exactly those features they
need to survive in their environment through its complex interactionism.

The Hindus have anticipated every modern scientific discovery, so the chances are they are right about
everything else they posit as well. Obviously their philosophy gives valid scientific predictions.

 

[LuisDantas]

This capacity for metacongition that the human has is not just another feature amongst many, but it is an entire transformation of biological matter so that it becomes self-aware, and this is owing to the fact that we have more sophisticated biological apparatuses than animals. Otherwise, why does this ability not develop in animals?

What leads you to believe that it isn't developing already? It seems to me that it is only a matter of time.

What would that significant difference of human "biological matter" be anyway? Far as I can tell it simply does not exist. That humans developed metacognition before other species is essentially just luck of the draw.

 

[Surya Deva]

The metacognition that humans possess is owing to the pecularity of the human body, which is a more developed biological system than the systems of other animals. For example human brain has a neocortex which animals do not possess. The brain is not just a stand alone part, it is connected to the rest of the body through a sophisticated nervous system.

As far I can observe humans are at the top of the evolutionary chain. Nature really outdid herself when she made humans

I never said animals will never develop their own metacognition. They will as their biological systems evolve over time.

 

[Valjean]

But animals do have neocortexes (neocortices?). Ours are just bigger. Dogs have a bigger olfactory area. Wouldn't that be a "more developed biological system" as well?

"Evolutionary chain?" What's that?
We're good at thinking. Other animals are good at other things. What makes thinking the paragon of skills?

Our "biological systems" are identical to those of other animals. We just have thumbs and big neocortexes. Not a qualitative difference.

Nature outdid herself all right. Our minds have led us to the brink of nuclear and ecological holocaust. Our big brains may ultimately prove our undoing. In fact, all of Nature's undoing.

Perhaps animals have developed metacognition. Without thumbs to write about it, though, who'd know?
My cat sits motionless for long periods. Who's to say she's not meditating? Who's to say she's not in a state of samadhi?:sarcastic

 

[Surya Deva]

My cat sits motionless for long periods. Who's to say she's not meditating? Who's to say she's not in a state of samadhi?:sarcastic

Haha, I can just imagine it now an enlightened cat starting a cat religion to liberate all other cats It is only human fantasy that attributes human attributes to other animals. Animals do not have possess these faculities. They are largely instinct driven - and this is coming from a dog lover.

From a Hindu angle, humans are the only organism in the evolutionary chain that are capable of liberation and self-realization. They are the only organisms that are able to look inwards because of their self-awareness to return to original being. Animals are outward projected, driven by instincts, always looking for sensory gratification - this is why we don't get animal philosophers Humans are by their very nature introverted beings, capable of thinking about the world they are in and abstracting. This enables them to develop science, spirituality and technology.

The abilty to look inwards is a disinguishing and defining trait of human beings. Only humans can get liberation - not cats!

 

[Surya Deva]

Nature outdid herself all right. Our minds have led us to the brink of nuclear and ecological holocaust. Our big brains may ultimately prove our undoing. In fact, all of Nature's undoing.

This is a very lopsided way of looking at things. The same big brains that have lead to nuclear and ecological holocausts, are also the big brains that developed yoga and meditation, medicine, literature, art, music, dance, philosophy, ethics and law. The animal world is no better than the human world, in fact the animal world is brutal. It is all about survival, it is all about heirarchy, it all about sense gratification. There are humans who live closer to animals in nature and it is easy to see nobody wants to be like these humans.

Human nature is to transcend our base animal insticts. Some humans refuse to grow up