Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Miserable Creatures

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Imagine if atheistic materialism was actually true and humans are nothing more than biological automatons – complexly programmed and reactive robots that behave and think in whatever manner happenstance chemical interactions dictates at any given time.  Let’s think about what would actually mean.

There would be no way for a biological automaton to determine whether or not any statement was in fact true or not since all conclusions are driven by chemistry and not metaphysical “truth” values; indeed, a biological automaton reaches conclusion X for exactly the same reason any other reaches conclusion Y; chemistry.  If chemistry dictates that 1+1=banana, that is what a “person” will conclude. If chemistry dictates they defend that view to the death and see themselves as a martyr for the computational banana cause, that is exactly what they will do.

All such a biological automaton has is whatever chemistry generates as what they see, hear, taste, smell, touch, feel, think, and do. If they eat some stale pizza and, through a chaotic cascade of happenstance physical cause and effect, accept Mohammed with great faith and zeal, then no determined atheist can resist – that is what will occur.  And they will think it was a logical conclusion, if chemistry says so.  They can only be whatever chemistry dictates.

Imagine the frustration of the atheist having to admit that they came to their views exactly the same way any religious fanatic came to theirs. Imagine the bleak realization that there is no way to prove it, or even provide any evidence, because such feats would require that one’s thoughtful capacity to consider such things be removed from, and in control of, the same chemical processes that generate all positions that disagree with theirs.

Imagine the misery of attempting to argue that some things are right, and others are wrong, when the same relentless, impersonal, uncaring chemistry produces both. One might as well call the shape of a fig leaf right and true, and call the shape of a maple leaf wrong and false.  How pitiful it is when atheists act as if their condition is somehow superior to some non-atheist condition, when all conditions are simply a products of happenstance chemistry and physics. It’s not like “they” had a hand in their own thoughts or ideas or conclusions; they have whatever thoughts blind mechanistic forces shoved in their brain.  “They” are nothing but a pitiful puppet doomed to think and act and feel whatever chemistry dictates while stupidly acting and arguing as if something else was the case.

Atheists insist that they live a life as capable of being good as any theist.  They are often proud of how “good” they are in comparison to theists they mock and ridicule. What are they proud of?  What are the mocking and ridiculing?  The inevitable effects of chemical interactions?  Any idea or thought or act that anyone has or does is nothing more than just another effect ultimately generated by mindless chemical interactions and effects.  You might as well be proud that grass is green or ridicule the color of the sky; the same mindless forces generated those things as your own thoughts, beliefs and actions.

How pitiful is it to rant and rave and argue against physics and chemistry?  If atheistic materialism is true, then atheists here are like Don Quixote, acting like windmills are great beasts, or like biological automatons are sentient creatures capable of doing something other than whatever chemistry dictates.  They might as well argue with a tree to get it to change the shape and color of its leaves, or with a stream to get it to change direction. They are tilting at windmills trying to convince the windmill to do something other than what windmills do.  They are madmen arguing with swirling dirt, animated by natural law and chance.

What a ruinous, ludicrous, miserable position to insist for yourself – arguing and debating against the onward, relentless march of happenstance interactions of matter ruled by chemistry and physics as if such arguments mattered, as if you and everyone else is something other than programmed biological automatons doing whatever chemistry dictates.  But then, pitifully, they really can’t do anything else except foolishly act out this absurd facade because they, too, are just the puppets of chemistry.

Comments
#131 rv wrote "We have science on our side, you have wishful thinking and childish dreams." No, you do not have 'science' on your side. The best that could be possibly argued is that you have a misuse of Occam's Razor on your side. But, prove me wrong. Please provide the consensus materialist, well evidenced position on a.) what existed before the Big Bang b.) abiogenesis c.) consciousness (specifically, human consciousness, but consciousness in general will suffice) Thanks!soundburger
September 17, 2016
September
09
Sep
17
17
2016
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
Ironically, Seversky said,
And what does it mean to say that a mind/soul/spirit with zero physical properties exist? Why should we believe in such a thing? Because it makes us happy?
Seversky asks why particular states of organic chemistry "should" cause a particular belief-effect, as if such physical effects are generated from reason and not whatever the prior physical state happens to be. This is part and parcel of any debate with atheistic materialists; in their ignorant bliss, they argue as if reason and logic can be objectively understood and utilized by some supernatural agency in the other person that has power over the brute organic chemistry of their brains and bodies and which resides outside of the physical cause-and-effect chain. Yet, they deny such an agency exists. However, ignoring this internal self-contradiction: Seversky, asking from an assumed reality of atheistic materialism, asks if we should believe something "because it makes us happy". My question is, if atheistic materialism is true, what other meaningful reason is there for choosing a belief?William J Murray
September 17, 2016
September
09
Sep
17
17
2016
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
Allen Shepherd @140:
Thus I believe as you do [...]
In the above quoted partial sentence, whom is the word "you" referring to? Which post #? Sometimes it may help to indicate explicitly to whom your comment is addressed and the post # of the comment you're replying to. Also, some of your scriptural references seem vague, imprecise. The term "soul" seems to appear many times in both the OT and NT. The first Bible reference you provided does not seem to support your idea, but maybe I didn't look correctly or misunderstood it? Can you help?Dionisio
September 17, 2016
September
09
Sep
17
17
2016
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
A particular good example of showing that mind must be primary, is the current argument by some leading scientists arguing that the universe is a 'simulation':
Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas Digital Physics Argument Premise 1: Simulations can only exist is a computer or a mind. Premise 2: The universe is a simulation. Premise 3: A simulation on a computer still must be simulated in a mind. Premise 4: Therefore, the universe is a simulation in a mind (2,3). Premise 5: This mind is what we call God. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
As Decartes (and WJM) would rightly point out, to even be able to contemplate the fact that the universe might be a simulation requires a perspective that is outside the material order, i.e. A 'mind' that is able to stand apart from the material order and offer a rational assessment of the evidence and argue for the possibility that the universe may very well be merely a simulation. In fact, the most concrete thing that a person can know about reality is the fact that they are indeed conscious and they really exist as real persons:
"Descartes remarks that he can continue to doubt whether he has a body; after all, he only believes he has a body as a result of his perceptual experiences, and so the demon could be deceiving him about this. But he cannot doubt that he has a mind, i.e. that he thinks. So he knows he exists even though he doesn’t know whether or not he has a body." http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/philosophy/downloads/a2/unit4/descartes/DescartesDualism.pdf "Descartes said 'I think, therefore I am.' My bet is that God replied, 'I am, therefore think.'" Art Battson - Access Research Group "In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place." - William J. Murray David Chalmers on (the hard problem of) Consciousness - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
bornagain77
September 17, 2016
September
09
Sep
17
17
2016
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT
As far as which side science is on, and as far as whether or not we experience the supernatural (free will), I refer readers to my prior post: Experience, Rational Debate & Science Depend On The SupernaturalWilliam J Murray
September 17, 2016
September
09
Sep
17
17
2016
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
Seversky said:
And what’s the alternative – an immaterial mind/soul/spirit? Something you can’t see, hear, touch, taste or smell. How the hell something that’s not any form of matter or energy that we can detect is supposed to interact with the material world in any way is as big a mystery as Carl Sagan’s parable of a dragon in his garage.
A dragon in Sagan's garage is not a logically necessary postulate required to explain what is evident during conscious existence; a loci of uncaused intention (free will, soul) is. It is how we all behave every day of our lives, as if we all have an uncaused, invisible, immaterial ghost in the machine from which we can override happenstance chemical causes and states. It is what the whole concept of personal responsibility and meaningful argument logically requires. Sagan would have an argument if he could point out where a theoretical dragon in his garage was a logically necessary entity, or point out where in our behavior we all acted as if there was a dragon in his garage; or if he could argue that if there was no dragon, the logical ramification of its absence would result in material solipsism and we couldn't be sure if anything we said made any sense whatsoever.
Do the chemical properties alone of the materials from which a computer is built strictly determine its outputs? No. Again, they place constraints on the machines performance but there is no way you could infer from those chemical properties alone all the things of which a computer is capable.
Is a computer capable of making a free will choice? No, it is only capable of doing what it is programmed to do. Period. Regardless of how complex it is, regardless even if its programming includes random outputs and evolutionary algorithms that can write new code; the only thing a computer can do is whatever it is programmed to do at any particular moment, and it cannot do anything else. In order for an entity to be able to do something other than that which it's physical makeup dictates, it would have to have a non-physical commodity that is outside of the physical system of cause-and-effect. You complain that the bag-of-chems description is too simple; the term represents the point that if atheistic materialism is true, then all any of can do is whatever our particular physical state at the time causes, even if the output is random or unpredictable, whether or not that output happens to have truthful correspondence to facts or logic or not. Waving your hands and chanting "but it's more complex than that" doesn't change that essential point one iota.William J Murray
September 17, 2016
September
09
Sep
17
17
2016
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
rvb8 said @131 that he chooses science and science is "on his side", whereas, one would presume, theists don't choose science (or cannot), and that science is not "on their side." rvb8 has also admitted, however, that he is not a scientist. So I wonder if rvb8 could explain what science has to do with the debate here, and what he means, by answering a few questions. 1. How is science useful in the debate about the logical ramifications of atheistic materialism and theism? 2. Can theists not also "choose science"? If not , why not? 3. Can theists not also claim that science is "on their side"? If not, why not?William J Murray
September 17, 2016
September
09
Sep
17
17
2016
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT
Allen Shepherd: "I am an Adventist Christian, and as such do not believe in an immortal soul God only has immortality I Tim 6:17). " If that is true, then not even angels are immortal, and if so, then no one would have eternal life. Only God is immortal in the sense that only God necessarily exists. Everything else could cease to exist if God does not uphold them in existence. "Thus I believe as you do that there is a dissolution of the self at death, and do not see death as “a mere change of the physical existence”. While there are passages in the Bible which do seem to speak of total annihilation at death, neither the OT nor the NT have such a worldview (the concept of Sheol or Hades, where the spirits of the dead abide, is something the Israelites shared with the entire ancient near east). "Despite this agreement, We are clearly, in my mind, more than a bag of chemicals. We have physical bodies, that are affected by the things around us (spikes and all), but are more than that, even to one who does not believe in a soul." If so, then our minds have causal powers which matter does not, in which case, some form of hylemorphism is true. But the reason I believe that the intellect is immaterial or that God exists is not because the Bible tells me so.Autodidaktos
September 17, 2016
September
09
Sep
17
17
2016
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT
William J Murray @33
WJM: They don’t realize it. IMO, their thought process goes something like this: 1. Idea of god and supernatural is patently ridiculous, so … 2. Atheism/materialism must be true, and … 3. I think and act the way I do, so …. 4. Atheism/materialism must be able to account for my thoughts and behavior. You can’t convince them otherwise because they are so absolutely certain #1 is true, which is why they always go back, one way or another, to belittling and ridiculing those concepts regardless of how carefully or seriously they are presented.
At first, the idea of god may very well be hard to accept. However, what I don’t understand is that their initial rejection remains steadfast after considering the tremendous problems connected to atheism. Assuming that atheistic beliefs, such as “a universe from nothing”, “the spontaneous self-organization of fermions and bosons into human beings”, “no personhood”, “no free will” and “rationality produced by blind irrational forces”, come across as — at the very least — equally ‘patently ridiculous’, one must conclude that there is something else involved wrt their rejection of god.
WJM: Many times they have a deep, emotional commitment against theism (note rbv8’s sense of elated freedom after leaving Catholicism) that serves as an identity anchor which disallows any critical examination. There are core drivers of our sense of self that are often simply too deeply rooted and important to give up unless one reaches a very critical point. Debating on the internet, no matter how logically compelling the point, isn’t nearly enough to dislodge such tightly held issues.
I guess you are right. One thing is for sure: the issue is not a shortage of compelling arguments against atheism/materialism.Origenes
September 17, 2016
September
09
Sep
17
17
2016
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
I am an Adventist Christian, and as such do not believe in an immortal soul (God only has immortality I Tim 6:17). Thus I believe as you do that there is a dissolution of the self at death, and do not see death as "a mere change of the physical existence". (The resurrection would bring us back as is described in I Thessalonians 4.) So, I agree that there is something about us that is mere dust. We are completely contingent beings, but possess, in our contingent flesh the breath of God (see Gen 2:7) which returns to him at death but is an unconscious entity. Despite this agreement, We are clearly, in my mind, more than a bag of chemicals. We have physical bodies, that are affected by the things around us (spikes and all), but are more than that, even to one who does not believe in a soul. In other words, the logic against A/M hold even for one who agrees with you on the physical aspects of humanity.Allen Shepherd
September 17, 2016
September
09
Sep
17
17
2016
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT
as to: "Ever been drunk and you wake with a whole part of the previous evening lost? (Student days, not so much now.) Ever seen an alzheimers patient? Ever heard of the man with a spike in his brain, who had an altered personality after the accident?" Railroad spike incident, and other brain impairment incidents, are gone over in this following video:
The Case for the Soul - InspiringPhilosophy - (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Schwartz's work) - Oct. 2014 - video The Mind is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity). Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism cannot explain mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
Of related note to Alzheimer's
"Even more interesting than these physical revivals, however, are revivals in mental functioning. Myers (1892b) had referred to the “sudden revivals of memory or faculty in dying persons” (p. 316), and there are scattered reports of people apparently recovering from dementia shortly before death. The eminent physician Benjamin Rush, author of the first American treatise on mental illness (1812), observed that “most of mad people discover a greater or less degree of reason in the last days or hours of their lives” (p. 257). Similarly, in his classic study of hallucinations, Brierre de Boismont (1859) noted that “at the approach of death we observe that… the intellect, which may have been obscured or extinguished during many years, is again restored in all its integrity” (p. 236). Flournoy (1903, p. 48) mentioned that French psychiatrists had recently published cases of mentally ill persons who showed sudden improvement in their condition shortly before death. In more recent years, Osis (1961) reported two cases, “one of severe schizophrenia and one of senility, [in which] the patients regained normal mentality shortly before death” (p. 24). Osis and Haraldsson (1977/1997) reported a case of a meningitis patient who had been “severely disoriented almost to the end,” but who “cleared up, answered questions, smiled, was slightly elated and just a few minutes before death, came to herself” (p. 133). Turetskaia and Romanenko (1975) reported three cases involving remission of symptoms in dying schizophrenic patients. Grosso (2004, pp. 42–43) described three dementia cases that had been reported to him, one by a colleague and two by a nurse. In all three cases, the patient had not recognized family members for several years, but shortly before death they all were said to have become more coherent or alert and to have recognized family members. Such cases,, seriously undermine the assumption that, in such diseases as Alzheimer’s, the mind itself is destroyed in lockstep with the brain (e.g., Edwards, 1997, pp. 295–296). Like many of the experiences discussed in this chapter, such cases would suggest that in some conditions, consciousness may be enhanced, not destroyed, when constraints normally supplied by the brain are sufficiently loosened." - Irreducible Mind, Edward F. Kelly
Here are a few more brain impairment examples that throw the whole materialistic 'you are your brain' hypothesis into complete disarray: If the mind of a person were merely the brain, as materialists hold, then if half of a brain were removed then a 'person' should only be ‘half the person’, or at least somewhat less of a 'person', as they were before. But that is not the case, the ‘whole person’ stays intact even though the brain suffers severe impairment:
Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics' Lives: - 1997 Excerpt: "We are awed by the apparent retention of memory and by the retention of the child's personality and sense of humor,'' Dr. Eileen P. G. Vining,, Dr. John Freeman, the director of the Johns Hopkins Pediatric Epilepsy Center, said he was dumbfounded at the ability of children to regain speech after losing the half of the brain that is supposedly central to language processing. ''It's fascinating,'' Dr. Freeman said. ''The classic lore is that you can't change language after the age of 2 or 3.'' But Dr. Freeman's group has now removed diseased left hemispheres in more than 20 patients, including three 13-year-olds whose ability to speak transferred to the right side of the brain in much the way that Alex's did.,,, http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/19/science/removing-half-of-brain-improves-young-epileptics-lives.html
In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study:
"Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications." Strange but True: When Half a Brain Is Better than a Whole One - May 2007 Excerpt: Most Hopkins hemispherectomy patients are five to 10 years old. Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. ,,, Another study found that children that underwent hemispherectomies often improved academically once their seizures stopped. "One was champion bowler of her class, one was chess champion of his state, and others are in college doing very nicely," Freeman says. Of course, the operation has its downside: "You can walk, run—some dance or skip—but you lose use of the hand opposite of the hemisphere that was removed. You have little function in that arm and vision on that side is lost," Freeman says. Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. ,,, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-when-half-brain-better-than-whole How Removing Half of Someone's Brain Can Improve Their Life – Oct. 2015 Excerpt: Next spring, del Peral (who has only half a brain) will graduate from Curry College, where she has made the dean’s list every semester since freshman year. http://www.mentalfloss.com/article/70120/how-removing-half-someones-brain-can-improve-their-life
Although the girl in the following videos was written off as hopelessly retarded by everyone who saw her, eventually a breakthrough was made that gave her the ability to communicate with the outside world. A breakthough that revealed there was/is indeed a gentle intelligence, a “me”, a “soul”, a “person”, within the girl that was and still is trapped within her body. And that that “me” was not able to express herself properly to others simply because of her neurological disorder not because she did not have a ‘mind’ that was not fully functioning.
Severely Handicapped Girl Suddenly Expresses Intelligence At Age 11 – very moving video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNZVV4Ciccg Carly’s Café – Experience Autism Through Carly’s Eyes – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDGvquzn2k
The preceding examples are simply impossible on materialistic premises.bornagain77
September 17, 2016
September
09
Sep
17
17
2016
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT
CYankee, quoting HeKS; "do you cease to be when one or more of those components are changed or lost?" Well, yes! Ever been drunk and you wake with a whole part of the previous evening lost? (Student days, not so much now.) Ever seen an alzheimers patient? Ever heard of the man with a spike in his brain, who had an altered personality after the accident? All cases where brain chemistry, or function is impaired, and the self identity, the self awareness are lost or damaged. So yes! You do indeed cease to be the individual you were when these personal tragedies occur; also death is a bit of a show stopper, I know that for you this is the mere change of the physical existance into the 'not anywhere, at any time, in any place, soul'rvb8
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT
Seversky @134:
And what does it mean to say that a mind/soul/spirit with zero physical properties exist?
It means just that. :)
Why should we believe in such a thing?
Who said you should? :)
Because it makes us happy?
No, because it's true! :) It's written:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made. [John 1:1-3 (ESV)]
Dionisio
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT
HeKS "On atheistic materialism there is no continuous locus of identity. Where is your identity situated and continuously preserved? If you are simply your physical constituents, do you cease to be you when one or more of those components are changed or lost? Where is the limit of the necessary definition of you? The sine qua non of you? Do you stop being you if you lose a hand or a leg or when a brain cell dies or when many do?" Thanks for the reply. Very clear explanation. I was thinking about the whole chemical aspect of the materialist assumption. What gives them any certainty that these chemical reactions in the brain are always consistent; such that memories are always reflections of past events, for example. What if it's not always consistent? As such, how could they do the "science" that Rvb8 claims is on his side, and not ours? How would he even know that the science is on his side if he can't even be certain there's a he or a side?CannuckianYankee
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
Seversky,
So, yes, you can describe a human being as a “bag of chemicals” and, yet again, at a childishly simple level of description that’s what it is. But is that all that it is? Do atheist/materialists (A/M)believe that’s all it is? Of course they don’t. Not that you’d know that from the sophomoric strawman caricature of what A/Ms believe being peddled here.
You have utterly missed the point of what is being discussed here. What we have been presenting here in relation to atheistic materialism is not about what A/M's personally believe, but about the logical entailments of A/M. One of the primary points that we've been making is that, at least at the popular level, A/Ms are generally oblivious to the logical entailments of their worldview and often seem completely incapable of even grasping them once they've been laid out. Academic A/Ms, on the other hand, are far more aware of these entailments and agree that they are what we have been presenting. You, like your other A/M comrades here, continue to speak about the world around you as though it is essentially what it seems to be even though your worldview provides absolutely zero justification for assuming that is the case, and you continue to talk about concepts, like thinking and believing and choosing, when your worldview leaves no room for the existence of such things. The statements made here by you, Pindi and rvb8 are simply incoherent on your worldview, but you all persist in this error endlessly without any of you actually addressing the problem of the logical entailments of your worldview. Instead you just assert what you personally believe, as though it is perfectly rational and honest to claim to hold a particular worldview while actually viewing the world in a way that it cannot ever hope to justify and while denying its various entailments.
For a start, consider that we could describe the painting called the Mona Lisa as some paint smeared on a bit of canvas and at one level of description that’s what it is. But is that all that it is? Is that an adequate account of da Vinci’s work and what we experience when we see it? Of course not. Not even close.
You have made the error of failing to properly distinguish between the object of the experience and the experience itself. In and of itself, the Mona Lisa is only paint smeared on a bit of canvas, and that's all that it is. Any meaning or value that it has beyond that exists entirely in the minds of subjective personal observers. The Mona Lisa is not, of itself, about some woman with a queer smile. It is only the unique character of our minds that give it that aboutness. That is because one clump of matter cannot be about another clump of matter. But if our minds and our thoughts are exhausted by the matter of our brains then our thoughts cannot actually be about things either. Does your own experience tell you that's absurd and that our thoughts clearly are about things? If so, great. You would be correct. But in concluding this you would also be concluding that a logical entailment of A/M that is recognized in academic A/M circles (as opposed to your own personal beliefs that you've crammed under the A/M umbrella) is absurd, which means that A/M itself is absurd. But you fail to deal with this or any of the other problems that have been raised with the logical entailments of A/M. Instead, you all keep retreating into the shelter of your personal opinions, which are unsupportable on atheistic materialism.
And what’s the alternative – an immaterial mind/soul/spirit? Something you can’t see, hear, touch, taste or smell. How the hell something that’s not any form of matter or energy that we can detect is supposed to interact with the material world in any way is as big a mystery as Carl Sagan’s parable of a dragon in his garage
Do you seriously believe that's an apt analogy? You honestly don't see the problem with making this comparison?HeKS
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT
Imagine if atheistic materialism was actually true and humans are nothing more than biological automatons – complexly programmed and reactive robots that behave and think in whatever manner happenstance chemical interactions dictates at any given time. Let’s think about what would actually mean.
Okay, let's try that. For a start, consider that we could describe the painting called the Mona Lisa as some paint smeared on a bit of canvas and at one level of description that's what it is. But is that all that it is? Is that an adequate account of da Vinci's work and what we experience when we see it? Of course not. Not even close. You could describe a computer as a box of bits of silicon, plastic and metals and, again, at a childishly simple level of description that's what it is. But is that all that it is? Does that description do justice to what a computer is and what it can do? Does it even give you the slightest inkling of what it can do? Nowhere near. So, yes, you can describe a human being as a "bag of chemicals" and, yet again, at a childishly simple level of description that's what it is. But is that all that it is? Do atheist/materialists (A/M)believe that's all it is? Of course they don't. Not that you'd know that from the sophomoric strawman caricature of what A/Ms believe being peddled here. Going back to the Mona Lisa for a moment, was that painting strictly determined by the chemical composition of the canvas and paints such that da Vinci had no choice but to paint it? No, that's nonsense. You could say that he was constrained in what he could create by the limitations of the materials available to him but that's far from strict determinism. Do the chemical properties alone of the materials from which a computer is built strictly determine its outputs? No. Again, they place constraints on the machines performance but there is no way you could infer from those chemical properties alone all the things of which a computer is capable. So, again, a human being is a bag of chemicals but there is no way to infer from a knowledge of the chemical properties of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon to a hugely complex organism like a human being. Yes, we are constrained in what we can do by our biochemistry but that is not the same as the "biological automata" that people are having such fun with here. The reality is that all this comes back to the hard problem of consciousness and believers trying to squeeze their version of God into the gap between our experience of consciousness and our very far from complete knowledge of how the brain works. But "far from complete" is not the same as no knowledge at all and the knowledge that we do have indicates at the very least a strong correlation between neurological activity in the brain and our conscious experiences. And what's the alternative - an immaterial mind/soul/spirit? Something you can't see, hear, touch, taste or smell. How the hell something that's not any form of matter or energy that we can detect is supposed to interact with the material world in any way is as big a mystery as Carl Sagan's parable of a dragon in his garage
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity! "Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon. "Where's the dragon?" you ask. "Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon." You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. "Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air." Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless." You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. "Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?
And what does it mean to say that a mind/soul/spirit with zero physical properties exist? Why should we believe in such a thing? Because it makes us happy?Seversky
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
rvb8 @131
rvb8:
William J Murray: “I don’t write what I write for their benefit. I just use them and their comments to examine ideas.”
No you don’t! You use our comments to expose the bancruptcy of materialism, and to support the view that beyond nature is something else, which is ‘supernatural’.
Nope. Your position denies the existence of intentionality; we write what chemistry dictates us to write.
rvb8: Please be honest if you are going to post at all.
Again, according to your position, it’s all chemistry and chemistry is notoriously not about honesty.
rvb8: I, and my co-conspirators (oh for heaven’s sake, don’t read too much into the phraseology), choose science.
No, according to your position, personhood and free will does not exist. Stop acting as if they do. Read again:
William J Murray: You, on the other hand, claim to be an atheist and a materialist, yet you refuse to use terminology and sentence structures that reflect your supposed views.
rvb8: Am I mocking you and your utterly unprovable position? Certainly!
There you go again … Next time, rvb8, try to remember that, according to your position, there is nothing over and beyond chemistry — there is no person who mocks or does anything.Origenes
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
"You use our comments to expose the bancruptcy of materialism..." That's because it is bankrupt and your inability to logically support your worldview helps to make the point. "I, and my co-conspirators [...], choose science." What "science"? You and your "co-conspirators" are an embarrassment, and there is nothing scientific to support your materialistic assertions about life and mind.bb
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
"I don't write what I write for their benefit. I just use them and their comments to examine ideas." Heh!:) No you don't! You use our comments to expose the bancruptcy of materialism, and to support the view that beyond nature is something else, which is 'supernatural'. Please be honest if you are going to post at all. I, and my co-conspirators (oh for heaven's sake, don't read too much into the phraseology), choose science. Your position is clear; 'there is something amazing, beyond our ken, floating in the mysty outerverse of the known universe.' So is our position; 'no there isn't, prove it!' We have science on our side, you have wishful thinking and childish dreams. Enough said. Your turn, but please, this time, something measurable. Oh, and use a decent and less blunt tool than, 'feet'. Am I mocking you and your utterly unprovable position? Certainly! And I don't do this to be nasty, I do it to see how long it will be before you cease to tolerate this opposition. You see in most totalitarian states it's not long. 'Miserable Creatures', was the poorly chosen title for this execrable twaddle, and poorly written too. I do hope this 'Wedge' thinking can improve.rvb8
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
WJM: Pindi and rvb8 are good examples of why I believe that many people in the world are actually biological automatons. I have the same impression continually. Whatever their problem is, it is at least akin to color blindness contra color sightedness. They appear to be blind to certain ideas. And, on a related note, when I read "experts" such as Dennet, I think, "whatever this guy is talking about when he talks about consciousness, he's not talking about what I'm talking about." Reminds me of a color blind person claiming that color vision is "an illusion" or something less than it obviously is to me. I've learned not to waste time trying to convert such (essentially) self-identified "bags of chemicals."mike1962
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
WJM, Yes, I know that those interlocutors motivate some nice folks here to write more. And probably many anonymous visitors, onlookers, lurkers, enjoy reading the interesting OPs and comments here. One wonders if rvb8 and Pindi realize how beneficial they are to the hidden readers in this blog. :) But it should be clear that the dissenting interlocutors stubbornly stick to their positions because that's what they want to do. They're not interested in having productive discussions that benefit all parties. They have said that explicitly. They don't care about what others here might explain. It's pathetic, but that's the reality.Dionisio
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Dionosio, I don't write what I write for their benefit. I just use them and their comments to examine ideas.William J Murray
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
WJM @125: Note what rvb8 recently wrote in another thread:
I, and many others are trying to level the playing field, as it were. But, to be fair we (the atheists) have a hell (Heh!) of along way to go before we can say, ‘all’s even now’. Post @34 here: https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/science-worldview-issues-and-society/where-do-you-get-the-notion-there-likely-have-been-800-million-abortions-in-40-years-from/#comment-616454
As you can see, it seems like rvb8 and his party comrades have a well defined agenda, which they try very hard to fulfill, the best they can. They're not going to change their minds regardless of your well written OPs and follow up comments.Dionisio
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
CannuckianYankee,
HeKs @ 109 Seems what is lacking with Rvb8 and Pindi is a belief in the self, which would seem to be a basic element of a worldview. Pindi, for example, believes that “I and my chemicals are the same.” Is this not a denial of the self in the metaphysical sense? Would it then be pretty much impossible in that respect to actually hold a coherent worldview? I think that’s essentially what you’re hitting on.
That is certainly a significant part of it. On atheistic materialism there is no continuous locus of identity. Where is your identity situated and continuously preserved? If you are simply your physical constituents, do you cease to be you when one or more of those components are changed or lost? Where is the limit of the necessary definition of you? The sine qua non of you? Do you stop being you if you lose a hand or a leg or when a brain cell dies or when many do? It seems the only sound basis for a continuous identity is some immaterial locus of identity that cannot be reduced or destroyed by merely physical changes, even if physical changes can drastically impede its causal efficacy with respect to the physical parts of you. I hasten to add, however, that I don't believe in an immortal soul that consciously survives the death of the body, nor do I think this line of reasoning requires one. Rather, what it requires is some immaterial aspect of the mind that serves as the necessary condition for you, even if not a sufficient condition for you. (In terms of any afterlife, whether physical or spiritual, this immaterial aspect would be the primary object of a resurrection) As you've noted, this atheist/materialist worldview also eliminates the possibility of a 'self' in the sense of a subjective, self-aware observer. There is nothing about a bunch of chemicals that can make those chemicals self-consciously aware of their unified existence, or make them consciously and subjectively experience anything external to themselves, or make them be about something else. This same problem makes it impossible to have beliefs or thoughts about anything. In the words of Alex Rosenberg:
It is of course obvious that introspection strongly suggests that the brain does store information propositionally, and that therefore it has beliefs and desire with “aboutness” or intentionality. A thoroughgoing naturalism must deny this, I allege. If beliefs are anything they are brain states—physical configurations of matter. But one configuration of matter cannot, in virtue just of its structure, composition, location, or causal relation, be “about” another configuration of matter in the way original intentionality requires .... So, there are no beliefs. - Alex Rosenberg, in a comment on his article The Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality
This problem of "intentionality", or "aboutness", is a major problem for atheistic materialists. It can be illustrated by considering a picture of something, say, a tree. Now, is that picture of a tree about a tree in a field? No, it's not. It's simply a series of individual pixels on a screen that are utterly unaware that they are organized in any specific pattern. Even taken as a whole, the picture in and of itself is not about anything at all. The picture is only about a tree in a field inside the minds of persons who observe it and recognize its correspondence to something external to itself. Aboutness only exists in minds. If the mind is only the physical matter of the brain and its thoughts are only the physicochemical reaction in the matter of the brain, then thoughts cannot truly be about things (like a tree in a field) any more than a photo can be about something. Hence, Alex Rosenberg again:
Thinking about things can’t happen at all. The brain can’t have thoughts about Paris, or about France, or about capitals, or about anything else for that matter. When consciousness convinces you that you, or your mind, or your brain has thoughts about things, it is wrong. - Alex Rosenberg, The Atheist's Guide to Reality
Furthermore, if you don't actually have thoughts that are about anything and they are merely physicochemical reactions in the matter of your brain, what possible reason could exist for "believing" (it's hard to even write sentences that respect the implications of this worldview) that the illusory "thoughts" generated by the chemicals in "your" brain matter reflect any kind reality external to those chemicals? Chemicals in the brain may seem to give the impression there's an I that has hands and is sitting in front of a keyboard, but why on earth should I have any confidence in that impression (other than because my chemicals give me no other choice). As a worldview, it undermines any confidence whatsoever that we might be accurately perceiving anything about an external world, because it necessarily denies that there is a we, or that we're truly perceiving anything at all. These conclusions all follow quite obviously from atheistic materialism. If the materialists here don't want to engage with these problems then they are simply acknowledging that, on their own worldview, we have no reason or basis for taking seriously anything they say.HeKS
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Dionisio said:
You and I have fundamental differences in our beliefs. Does that make one of us a biological automaton?
I'm quite certain we have some pretty big differences in what we believe. We probably even differ greatly in how we hold our beliefs. It's not that their beliefs are different that puts them in my "biological automaton" category, but rather the kinds of things they say and how they say them, starting with their own assertion that they are, in fact, biological automatons and their repeated insistence that they do not have free will. I do not invest in my beliefs a commitment that they represent factually true things. Rather, I hold beliefs for their practical value in helping me live what I refer to as "an enjoyable life as a good person". Mentally, I consider many people "biological automatons" wrt to how I internally react to them, which serves a behavioral purpose. My reaction is one of "they can't help themselves, they're just programmed this way." This view alleviates the frustration I used to experience and changes how I interact with such creatures. I look at them the same I look at NPCs (non-player characters) in games; they are "bots", so to speak, biological automatons generated by the system in order to facilitate the purpose of our experience here.William J Murray
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
soundburger "There is a perfectly good reason why we seem to have a self, but don’t, and seem to have free will, but don’t. It’s all in how fitness was conveyed." Yes, and as all materialists are fond of saying: "I don't know precisely how this sense of self actually evolved, but lo and behold, here I am."CannuckianYankee
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
WJM @120:
Pindi and rvb8 are good examples of why I believe that many people in the world are actually biological automatons. They appear to be have no free-will capacity to recognize the nonsense they spout, regardless of how obvious it is, and they keep on regurgitating the exact same pre-programmed responses whether or not they are even relevant to the concepts in the debate. They also appear to lack the higher-order capacity to internally, critically examine their own position wrt other views through comparative hypotheticals that reveal logical consequences. Nor do they seem capable of tracing beliefs back to foundation assumptions to see if their beliefs are actually extractable from those base assumptions.
I don't agree. Maybe they are --at least by worldly standards-- better humans than I am. Most probably they have --by worldly standards-- higher intellectual capacity than mine. I believe that both Pindi and rvb8 are human beings like the rest of us, created in IMAGO DEI, hence deserving our respect and consideration. The same applies to all the anonymous visitors, onlookers, lurkers, and the active commenters in this blog and in other blogs. The subject of 'free will' is quite mysterious. I would refrain from using that highly controversial term so lightly. You and I have fundamental differences in our beliefs. Does that make one of us a biological automaton? Definitely not. Until not so long ago I was spiritually dead, hence obliviously unaware of my own condition or the surrounding reality. Completely lost and blind. Then something inexplicable happened. A radical change from inside out. I believe my Maker touched me, opened my eyes, rescued me, gave me new life. Biologically I'm about the same I was before (but a little older). Pindi and rvb8, like the rest of us, are free to choose what they want to believe in, without changing their human condition. Perhaps that freedom is affected by external to them forces too. You also chose to believe something very different than I did. However, neither one of us can claim the other is a biological automaton. My faith has a mysterious supernatural factor, mentioned in the Christian Bible, but above my full understanding. My free will is dependent on the purpose of God's sovereign will. Without His initiative I couldn't have changed my belief. I can't explain it, but it's written for all to read it. All Christians can say the same. [Emphasis mine]Dionisio
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
Unfortunately, I cannot be sure which are actual biological automatons, and which are ensouled bodies that have used their free will to exist in denial. After all, I used to say pretty much some of the same things, so no, no organ harvesting.William J Murray
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
WJM "Pindi and rvb8 are good examples of why I believe that many people in the world are actually biological automatons." WJM, but is it morally right to harvest the organs of a biological automaton for use in a conscious person who can truly appreciate and use the organs?
Philosophical Zombies - cartoon http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11
:) And since they are not really feeling anything, you don't even have to waste money on anaesthesia. ,,, Perhaps just earplugs to drown out the purely reflexive screams of the automatons whilst you harvest their organs. :)bornagain77
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
mike @1962 said:
You may believe that, but you have no grounds to believe it.
Unfortunately, Pindi doesn't understand the concept of having grounds for beliefs, nor does Pindi understand the concept of having a logically coherent belief system. Pindi and rvb8 are good examples of why I believe that many people in the world are actually biological automatons. They appear to be have no free-will capacity to recognize the nonsense they spout, regardless of how obvious it is, and they keep on regurgitating the exact same pre-programmed responses whether or not they are even relevant to the concepts in the debate. They also appear to lack the higher-order capacity to internally, critically examine their own position wrt other views through comparative hypotheticals that reveal logical consequences. Nor do they seem capable of tracing beliefs back to foundation assumptions to see if their beliefs are actually extractable from those base assumptions. While it is obvious to us that without free will all is lost and no argument means anything of any substance, these biological automatons are apparently blind to that, which is what you'd expect from such a creature - to mouth off strings of words that are semantically and grammatically correct regarding the term "free will", but which completely miss the mark in terms of the concept and what it means and logically requires/indicates. Which is how you get absurd notions like "compatibalist free will", which might as well be "not-free will" or "biologically programmed choices", which is exactly what free will is not, and how you get bags-o-chems arguing that free will and consciousness doesn't really exist, as if such an argument could possibly be coherent or meaningful without free will and consciousness.William J Murray
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 6

Leave a Reply