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
rvb8 said:
I would take your taunting more seriously WJM ...
I cannot help what particular emotions your bag-o-chems cause its illusory self-image to "experience". However one bag-o-chems experiences and interprets sensory data into a generated, illusory sense of self and experience is entirely that bag-o-chems solipsistic internal world, rvb8. If you were capable of any critical self-examination into your world-view, you'd understand this and you'd understand how utterly ridiculous the things you say here are.William J Murray
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
rvb8 @111: I don't claim to be a scientist, nor am I making any scientific claims. Why should I speak like a scientist or use scientific terminology? You've said you're not a scientist; why would my using scientific-sounding terminology make you take me more seriously? Are you that idiotically pavlovian that you take an argument more seriously just because it sounds like the person is using scientific language? 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. For instance, you say things like: "I would take your taunting more seriously WJM, if you used the scientific measuring system...." when, by your own philosophy, that claim about what you would do and why is logically unsupportable. You will take what I say as seriously as your particular chemistry dictates; no more, no less. Chemistry is not ruled by logic, or argument, nor is it necessarily altered in any particular way by the issuance of particular words. For all you know, I might start using pig-latin and thus cause your chemistry to "take me more seriously." Now, if you said that you would take me more seriously if your brain chemistry changed in a particular, scientifically-predictable manner in a particular region which studies have shown elevate the sense of "seriousness" by which a person takes a conversation, then you'd have something other than this nonsense to say here because that would at least demonstrate that you've got some kind of sceintific, cause-and-effect research to back up your claim about what would cause your chemistry to act a certain way when certain strings of words are used. Or, perhaps you are indeed telling me that, for whatever pavlovian reason (whereas you don't understand the underlying chemistry for), you've just happened to notice that your chemistry apparently just happens to "take people more seriously" if they use scientific-sounding terms (even though you yourself are not a scientist). My response is: when you can start talking as if atheistic materialism is true, I'll start taking you more seriously. Until then, you are really nothing more than an example for more rigorous, less pavlovian onlookers to observe while you repeated demonstrate the pathetic nature of those who still assert belief in the Victorian-age myth of atheistic materialism as a means of supporting their irrational anti-theistic narrative.William J Murray
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Pindi: I believe that my sense of consciousness... [is] produced by my brain. You may believe that, but you have no grounds to believe it.mike1962
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
The discussion at the link below makes for confusing reading. Bags of chemicals directed entirely by physical law and chance discuss how other bags of chemicals directed entirely by physical law and chance *ought to* behave! https://skepchick.org/2011/04/lawrence-krauss-defends-a-sex-offender-embarrasses-scientists-everywhere/steveO
September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
Cannuckian Yankee, yes. I think that within such a worldview, the reason anything exists, including thoughts, is that they 'convey fitness'. So 'rationalists' can sort of have their cake and eat it too, by arguing, yes, I am sure that my sense of self is an illusion, my thoughts are just chemical reactions that my brain has construed to feel like ideas because that conveyed fitness on my ancestors. The ones who were able to avoid being eaten because their brains directed them to a place of safety were able to reproduce, and gradually these brain-directives became more and more like the thoughts we have today. They can also argue that the reason they enjoy 'winning' these arguments by posing 'reason' up against superstition is that, you guessed it, the brain needed to reward the people who evaded the lions with some good ol' dopamine to reinforce the behavior of using the ol' noggin. 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. It is, of course, utter bullshit :)soundburger
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT
soundburger Yes, but admitting the self is to admit to free will. They can't escape that predicament. So they choose to remain incoherent in their worldview; which isn't actually a worldview at all. It's a denial of reality. A worldview requires an interpretation of what one senses and experiences apart from mere chemistry. It requires introspection and outward analysis at the same time. I think that's apparent. Once they say things like "I believe this," or "my opinion is that," while denying that they choose their own beliefs and opinions, they delude themselves.CannuckianYankee
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
Canuckian Yankee, they actually DO believe in a self; everybody does. Anyone who does not have a sense of self is in some way deranged, as our society defines it. And no one is able to make that sense of self disappear by trying to use 'reason' to outthink the notion of a self. It's ironic, because it is just a game the self plays, trying to convince itself that it doesn't exist. That, in a nutshell is what they are doing.soundburger
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
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. See here: http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/Personal/worldview.htmlCannuckianYankee
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
I would take your taunting more seriously WJM, if you used the scientific measuring system rather than, "a 3' length of board". Forgive me, I have to go way back to childhood here; does that mean thirty six inches? And if so how do you measure a syringe full of innoculation? 1/3000th of a gallon? It is hard to take a science site seriously when I constantly have to convert numbers into scientifically acceptable measurements. Water melts at 0 degrees celcius. (Many people mistakingly believe it freezes at this temperature; No! At this temperature it starts to melt.) And poetically, and beautifully, it boils at 100 degrees centigrade. As humans, doctors worldwide (except US medical dramas), measure a healthy temperature as between 36.5 and 37.5 degrees centigrade. When I hear someone saying on a 'cutting-edge' medical drama that someone's temp, is a healthy 96, I uncontrollably giggle. Could you please start using science as your language of communication? You know; one hundred micro-litres, or a nano-metre. Or, 'neurons are on average at 100 nano-metres in width'. (I don't know if they are, but it's much better than, 'neurons are on average 1/267,000th of an inch in width.' Please don't use feet and inches, or the execrable PSI, when you mean, metres, centremetres, and kilo-pascals, respectively. If you do this, your 'science' site might be taken more seriously. I believe NASA went metric when one of their foot/yard space craft, crashed into a centremetre/metre planet; give it whirl, it makes a hard to measure planet, unbelieveably easier to understand. Also, I don't believe the devil had any hand in developing this system; it was just the French.rvb8
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
Pindi 91@
I believe that my sense of consciousness and thoughts are produced by my brain. I believe my physical self is all there is.
So, biological automaton ‘Pindi’ and his thoughts are fully produced by chemistry. Blind stuff that doesn’t think about anything, has zero oversight and has zero understanding of anything. It follows that there is zero reason to take anything Pindi says serious. Pindi might as well have said: I believe that me and my thoughts are utter bunkum.Origenes
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
Pindi @91
I believe that my sense of consciousness and thoughts are produced by my brain.
Is it equally possible that you don't actually have consciousness, or thoughts, or a belief about these issues, or a brain, or that there isn't even a you to have any of these things?
I believe my physical self is all there is.
Is it equally possible that your physical self is nothing at all like what it appears to you? Is is equally possible that you are a slug on a leaf while a series of chemical reactions make it appear that you think you're a human at a keyboard?
I am probably a compatabilist regarding free will but I am still researching.
According to Compatibilism (with respect to free will and determinism), free will is merely the ability to act in accord with one's own motives and/or nature, but they themselves are fully determined. It is essentially an equivocation on what it means to speak about free will. But even getting to the issue of free will is getting WAY ahead of ourselves. Instead we should ask if it's equally possible that instead of you thinking you're a compatibilist, "Compatibilism" and "free will" are terms that nobody has ever heard of before and, indeed, that none of the words in this comment have any definition and are only seeming to appear in front of you right now because a series of chemical reactions have made it seem that you are seeing them and know of meanings that are assigned to them?
I think there is no purpose to the universe and no objective purpose to me or anyone else.
Is it equally possible that the universe is a fish bowl that exists for the objective purpose of housing and displaying fish and that you and everyone else are little fishies swimming around with delusions of humanity?
It is what I make of it.
Don't you mean you are what it makes of you?
I think the brain is an incredibly complex structure and we have barely touched the surface in our understanding of it.
Is it equally possible that the brain is incredibly simple and we understand everything about it and always have?
I don’t think morality is objective. I don’t see any need to posit an immaterial something that exists in addition to my physical self.
Is it equally possible that chemicals in your brain have seemed to cause you to think that morality is objective and that an immaterial something does exist in addition to your physical self, but that other chemicals have caused you to say and write that you don't? Ok this is getting boring, but I wonder if I've made my point. I'm sure many here get it, but I suspect you and rvb8 do not. Both of you keep making these statements about what you think and why you think it, but you've universally failed to address the very foundational issue that your stated worldview provides zero justification for the notion that you have thoughts or beliefs that are even about anything, much less that they can and have at any point come into contact with a reality external to your own chemical reactions. Free will is so far down the line from where your problems start that there hardly even seems to be a point in talking about it.
These are all deep and complex matters that I enjoy contemplating and discussing when I get the chance. I see a lot of things that people here are very certain about as open questions. However the overwhelming tone of this thread (with a couple of exceptions) is one of childish taunting.
I don't know if you're including me in the category of those who you think are offering childish taunting, but that's not my intention, and I think you are taking it too personally. Likewise for rvb8, when he claims people here are being hateful of anyone who disagrees with them. That's simply not the case. If we hated you, why would we bother to take so much time to engage with you and try to explain the points we are making in every way we can think of? Certainly frustration sometimes gets the better of everyone when they feel the other side simply isn't paying attention or engaging seriously, and I repeatedly find myself getting somewhat frustrated in conversations like this, because on the theist side of this discussion, we are trying our best to get people like you and rvb8 to actually really see the problems we are discussing and their implications, and even though you guys keep writing comments back, at no point are you giving evidence of seriously thinking about or engaging with the very foundational issues we are raising. For example, you keep characterizing the implications of atheism and meterialism as being simple matters of subjective opinion when in fact they are the logically necessary implications. For some reason you will not engage this, and I've repeatedly used the Socrates syllogism to draw out the problem. And just in this comment I'm responding to, you say this: "I see a lot of things that people here are very certain about as open questions." Well, not to beat a dead horse or anything, but if we accept that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man, is the matter of Socrates mortality simply an open question? You see, the discussion we're having right now is, as I've mentioned a few times now, foundational. It cuts to the very root of worldview plausibility and coherence. Even if we were to say for the sake of argument that the matter of which worldview is actually correct is an open question, that does not mean that the logically necessary (and rather obvious) implications of the worldviews themselves are equally open to question. This fact is being studiously avoided by the materialists here, and so at some point it becomes difficult not to sarcastically point out when you are making statements that are utterly incoherent if your worldview is true. Speaking for myself (and I think for most), that is not the preferred first course of action, but verging on a last resort (even WJM's OP is the product of many extended prior discussions). It's kind of like trying to explain simple math to a child and, failing to do so after hours of trying, saying, "Look, you see how I have one popsicle and you have one popsicle? Together that makes two popsicles. Now, if I take and eat up your popsicle ... num, num, num, gulp ... that only leaves one popsicle. Get it?" (Child begins crying). Sometimes people resort to less than ideal methods of trying to get points across. It's not because they're trying to be hateful or mean. It's because the point is important and nothing else is working. Take care, HeKSHeKS
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
Biological automaton ecv7: "Hey you there! What are you doing?" Biological automaton tbn9: "Nothing really. I am my chemistry, you know. Biological automaton ecv7: "Sure, but are you saying that chemistry is doing nothing?” Biological automaton tbn9: “Well, not much at the moment. I’m frozen.”Origenes
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
I believe that my sense of consciousness and thoughts are produced by my brain. I believe my physical self is all there is.
And the puddle of water outside my house "believes" it's not going to evaporate in a few hours. What's new?
I am probably a compatabilist regarding free will but I am still researching. I think there is no purpose to the universe and no objective purpose to me or anyone else.
Then why bother researching anything? Why bother with this site? Don't you see how your statements make you sound immensely delusional?
It is what I make of it.
Delusion.
I think the brain is an incredibly complex structure and we have barely touched the surface in our understanding of it.
Don't bother thinking, it is.
I don’t think morality is objective.
SHOCKA!!! Whuda thunk it?
I don’t see any need to posit an immaterial something that exists in addition to my physical self.
Well, that's nice. The Taj Mahal disagrees though, it told a friend of mine it hates when people step on it. :)
I don’t feel fearful or miserable about any of these things. I don’t see any logical paradox between my worldview and how I live my life.
Delusion. Are you sure you even know your worldview and its logical implications? Many evodelusionists do:
Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, "Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get." An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, "The impossibility of free will ... can be proved with complete certainty." Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. "To be honest, I can't really accept it myself" he says. "I can't really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?" In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots -- that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one "can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free." We are "constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots." Marvin Minsky of MIT is best known for his pithy phrase that the human brain is nothing but "a three-pound computer made of meat." Obviously, computers do not have the power of choice; the implication is that neither do humans. Surprisingly, however, Minsky then asks, "Does that mean we must embrace the modern scientific view and put aside the ancient myth of voluntary choice? No. We can't do that." Why not? Minsky goes on: "No matter that the physical world provides no room for freedom of will; that concept is essential to our models of the mental realm." We cannot "ever give it up. We're virtually forced to maintain that belief, even though we know it's false." False, that is, according to Minsky's materialist worldview.
:D
These are all deep and complex matters that I enjoy contemplating and discussing when I get the chance. I see a lot of things that people here are very certain about as open questions.
Why? After all "there is no purpose to the universe and no objective purpose to me or anyone else." Then again the delusion is "It is what I make of it".
However the overwhelming tone of this thread (with a couple of exceptions) is one of childish taunting. I feel like I am in the schoolyard. Lots of jeering and making of demands.
What WJM said. You might wanna book an appointment with your evodoc, you need a bag-o-chems checkup.Vy
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
Now I understand why Zachriel spoke in "we" terms. He was referring to all its chemicals responsible for each post/thought/feeling.Vy
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
Pindi said:
However the overwhelming tone of this thread (with a couple of exceptions) is one of childish taunting. I feel like I am in the schoolyard. Lots of jeering and making of demands. So I’m going to take a break and leave you to it.
This is so funny and ironic, coming from a materialist, on so many levels. First, Pindi implies that we - bags of chemicals directed entirely by physical law and chance - are doing something we shouldn't be doing; under materialism, that's just not possible. We can't do anything other than what we actually do. Second, Pindi takes it personally, as if matter interacting in the manner it happens to interact under physical laws is directed at, or is about some other particular amalgamation of matter. Third, just the optics of someone first claiming we're all just doing what physics and chemistry demands, then complaining because "Chemistry is being mean to me! I'm taking my ball and going home!" For Pete's sake, at least act like you actually believe materialism is true, Pindi.William J Murray
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
rvb8 said:
I visit this site, WJM, because I am certain you would not like it to turn into an echo-chamber of back slapping pals.
No, rvb8. You visit this site because your particular organic chemistry compels you to. Nothing more, nothing less. I mean, if what you believe to be true about the nature of your existence is actually true. You write whatever you write here not because it has anything to do with facts or truth or evidence or logic, but rather for the simple reason that your particular chemistry dictates it. No more, no less.William J Murray
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
Materialist Joe: "Hey, Materialist Jack, I just used this ruler to measure a 3' length of board for the bookcase, but I think the ruler might be wrong and it's the only one I got. What should I do?" Materialist Jack: "The answer is obvious. Measure it twice."William J Murray
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
In fact, the Christian Theist also has far more scientific evidence for heaven and hell being real than the atheist has for the multiverse, which was postulated to 'explain away' the fine-tuning of the universe, being real:
Special and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbKELVHcvSI&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5
Supplemental evidence from quantum mechanics on the physical reality of mind and soul can be picked up starting at post 28:
Pindi claims: “me and my chemicals are the same thing.” That claim is logically, and scientifically, false. (Sept. 2016) https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/miserable-creatures/#comment-617116
Verses and Music:
John 1:1-4 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Evanescence – Bring Me To Life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YxaaGgTQYM Lyric Excerpt: Only you are the life among the dead All this time I can’t believe I couldn’t see Kept in the dark but you were there in front of me I’ve been sleeping a thousand years it seems Got to open my eyes to everything Without a thought, without a voice, without a soul Don’t let me die here There must be something more Bring me to life (Wake me up) Wake me up inside,,,
bornagain77
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
rvb8 states,
More permanent memories such as, ‘this is my mother’, are so constantly reinforced by constant chemically induced firings,
although information/memories can be represented by a material substrate, (the brain in this instance), 'permanent' information/memories are not reducible to a material substrate. For instance, you write the number 7 on a chalkboard, do you destroy the number 7 if you erase it from the chalkboard? No, of course not, you have merely destroyed your present access to the number 7 through the chalkboard. The number 7 belongs to a immaterial realm that is transcendent of this material realm. David Berlinski eloquently puts it like this:
An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html
Michael Egnor, a brain surgeon, puts it like this:
The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals - Michael Egnor - November 5, 2015 Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different -- ontologically different -- from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,, It is a radical difference -- an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2100661.html
George Ellis, puts it like this:
Recognising Top-Down Causation - George Ellis Excerpt: page 5: A: Causal Efficacy of Non Physical entities: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts. Excerpt page 7: ,,, Top-down causation is prevalent at all levels in the brain: for example it is crucial to vision [24,25] as well as the relation of the individual brain to society [2]. The hardware (the brain) can do nothing without the excitations that animate it: indeed this is the difference between life and death. The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Ellis_FQXI_Essay_Ellis_2012.pdf
Michael Egnor again:
Do Computers Store Memories? - December 10, 2014 Excerpt: "A singular consequence of the materialist-mechanical metaphysics that permeates our culture and our sciences is that we commonly hold basic beliefs that are abject nonsense. One such belief is the almost ubiquitous one -- among ordinary folks as well as neuroscientists and surprisingly many philosophers -- that the brain "stores" memories. The fact is that the brain doesn't store memories, and can't store memories. The reality is that computers store electrons, not memories. Memories are psychological things that pertain only to man (and animals), not to machines. We use computers -- and books and file cabinets and rolodexes, etc. -- as tools to cue our own memories. There are no memories in a computer, except in a metaphorical sense. Computers are devices made of metal and electrons that we configure to aid our own memories. Computers no more have memories than chessboards play chess or televisions watch sitcoms or cameras look at pictures or CD players listen to music." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/do_computers_st091891.html
That memories are only represented in the brain and are not permanently stored in the brain is made evident by Near Death Experiences. Pim von Lommel puts it like this:
A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs (Near Death Experiences) – Pim van Lommel Excerpt: For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories (information) inside the brain, so far without success.,,,,So we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness. And as soon as the function of brain has been lost, like in clinical death or in brain death, with iso-electricity on the EEG, memories and consciousness do still exist, but the reception ability is lost. People can experience their consciousness outside their body, with the possibility of perception out and above their body, with identity, and with heightened awareness, attention, well-structured thought processes, memories and emotions. And they also can experience their consciousness in a dimension where past, present and future exist at the same moment, without time and space, and can be experienced as soon as attention has been directed to it (life review and preview), and even sometimes they come in contact with the “fields of consciousness” of deceased relatives. And later they can experience their conscious return into their body. http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm
At the 17:45 minute mark of the following Near Death Experience documentary, the Life Review portion of the Near Death Experience is highlighted, with several testimonies relating how every word, deed, and action, of a person's life (all the 'information' of a person's life) is gone over in the presence of God:
Near Death Experience (NDE) Documentary – commonalities of the experience – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2958DDp4WM
In fact, memories in NDEs are 'even more real than real':
'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real,' researcher says - Wed April 10, 2013 Excerpt: "If you use this questionnaire ... if the memory is real, it's richer, and if the memory is recent, it's richer," he said. The coma scientists weren't expecting what the tests revealed. "To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors," Laureys reported. The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. "The difference was so vast," he said with a sense of astonishment. Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich "as though it was yesterday," Laureys said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/
Exactly how does something possibly become 'even more real than real' unless this temporal material realm really is merely a shadow of the eternal life that awaits us after death as is held in Christian Theism?
Matthew 6: 19-21 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also
rvb8, moreover, we have far more evidence that Near Death Experiences are real than we have evidence for Darwinian evolution being real:
Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html
bornagain77
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
"I believe that my sense of consciousness and thoughts are produced by my brain. I believe my physical self is all there is. I am probably a compatabilist regarding free will but I am still researching. I think there is no purpose to the universe and no objective purpose to me or anyone else. It is what I make of it. I think the brain is an incredibly complex structure and we have barely touched the surface in our understanding of it. I don’t think morality is objective. I don’t see any need to posit an immaterial something that exists in addition to my physical self." Pindi: Are these beliefs of yours supported (or even supportable) by any sort of logical of empirical evidence? Or is this like a statement of faith?Autodidaktos
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT
It’s noteworthy that, in this thread, no materialist has attempted to offer an evolutionary context for beliefs. Probably for good reason, since Murray’s argument wrt beliefs, as presented in the OP, cuts off this possibility. If it were the case that there is one core belief, accompanied by some related variations, with a traceable evolutionary history spanning millions of years, an evolutionary context for beliefs would be available for the materialist. He could then claim that this core belief, although fully produced by blind chemicals, has been tested, scrutinized and selected for by natural selection — natural selection as the ‘blind thinker’. In short, he may be able to argue that this one core belief is more likely to be true than false and by doing so offer some grounding for rationality. Unfortunately for the materialist, Murray points to a world inhibited by a multitude of contradictory beliefs unmanageable by any evolutionary narrative. For instance, it is not helpful to the materialist cause, to argue that there is an evolutionary narrative for the ability to produce true beliefs. If our ability to produce beliefs came into existence by natural selection, it can only be argued that beliefs in general are more likely to be true than not — although Plantinga would most certainly disagree. However, confronted with the existence of a multitude of contradictory beliefs, the claim “beliefs in general are likely to be true” doesn’t tell us which one is true and which one is not. This is especially clear when one considers metaphysical beliefs like e.g. “ultimately everything is physical” and “ultimately everything is mental”. Assuming that one of them is true and the other is not, a swift ponder will tell us that evolution does not select one or the other. Without the guiding force of natural selection, without an evolutionary narrative for beliefs, all that the materialist is left with is unrestrained chemistry. All the materialist can say is: “blind particles in motion are in full control of my beliefs” … A miserable state of affairs indeed.Origenes
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT
RVB8 1.) Seriously you conceding that you are as "matter" of fact wrong? 2.) Says who? 3.) Then you are as "matter" of fact wrong....Andre
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT
It's one thing to say that the brain receives and processes sensory data and stores them as memory, and another to say that all of abstract thought is done by the brain alone. Sensation (which includes memory) and intellection are two very different kinds of mental activity.Autodidaktos
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT
You are not a lumpkin rvb. You are a bag of minestrone soup that talks, checks internet pages, thinks etc... I always thought minestrone soup is good but this is really, really good :-DEugen
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT
the idea of 'following' your brain is silly. Your 'brain' doesn't decide it wants to get a certain job, decide what courses to study to get that job, decides what to do with the money it makes from said job, such as how to dress itself. If the brain was in control, and not the self - which uses the brain to make its own decisions - there would probably be a whole line of fashion promoted exclusively to decorating it, and not the trillion dollar industry devoted to decorating nearly every part of the body but. :) You are not a slave to your brain, rvb8, but its pilot. The physiology of your brain DOES impose certain constraints on how you decide, and what course your life takes, etc., just as the physiology of your arms prevents you from winning arm wrestling contests with gorillas.But that fact doesn't demonstrate that you are a mere, following, 'lumpkin' as you would have it, or that you have no 'free will' as others claim.soundburger
September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT
Andre: 1) By using your brain. But even then you/I may be incorrect. 2) It is humanity that evolved from more primitive primates. 3) Yes! My brain decides, and me, like the lumpkin I am, just have to follow.rvb8
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT
RVB8 So how do we determine that your chemical reactions and created connections are correct? What exactly is evolved humanity? Also do you visit these websites by your own choice?Andre
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
WJM; the chemical reactions in my brain between my neurons causes repetative firings, it is believed (not proven) that the repetative firings of these neurons cause permanent connections between neurons. This repatition is then 'believed' to lead to 'memories'. More permanent memories such as, 'this is my mother', are so constantly reinforced by constant chemically induced firings, that they cause other neural connections, and then thought; 'I would like this girl to be the mother of my children'; for example. The idea that food (which my body naturally turns into the basic building blocks for my cells), or a 'pizza', would cause me to alter my behaviour is absurd and childish. My brain uses food to sustain neural connections, which are 'probably' what makes me, me! What's your fantastical point of view, one more time? I visit this site, WJM, because I am certain you would not like it to turn into an echo-chamber of back slapping pals. That is why I also visit many conservative, and Christian sites; the incoherrance of Libertarianism (animalism) repels me, I prefer evolved humanity.rvb8
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
I believe that my sense of consciousness and thoughts are produced by my brain. I believe my physical self is all there is. I am probably a compatabilist regarding free will but I am still researching. I think there is no purpose to the universe and no objective purpose to me or anyone else. It is what I make of it. I think the brain is an incredibly complex structure and we have barely touched the surface in our understanding of it. I don't think morality is objective. I don't see any need to posit an immaterial something that exists in addition to my physical self. I don't feel fearful or miserable about any of these things. I don't see any logical paradox between my worldview and how I live my life. These are all deep and complex matters that I enjoy contemplating and discussing when I get the chance. I see a lot of things that people here are very certain about as open questions. However the overwhelming tone of this thread (with a couple of exceptions) is one of childish taunting. I feel like I am in the schoolyard. Lots of jeering and making of demands. So I'm going to take a break and leave you to it. cheersPindi
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
WJM, I think they think they are safe as long as they are not mainlining anchovies. KFkairosfocus
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply