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
In post 20, rvb8 chimes in to try to help Pindi
"That our thoughts, memories, and emotions reside in these electrically accessible neurons is an idea (proven) which some how, strangely you don’t accept." - rvb8
Despite rvb8's claim that thoughts, memories, and emotions reside in 'electrically accessible neurons', and that this fact is somehow 'proven', the fact of the matter is that that claim that he made is a patently false claim. The truth is, no one has the first clue how matter can possibly become subjectively conscious. Massachusetts Institute of Technology neuroscientist Sebastian Seung makes this clear in his book “Connectome,” saying:
“Every day we recall the past, perceive the present and imagine the future. How do our brains accomplish these feats? It’s safe to say that nobody really knows.”
There is simply no direct evidence that anything material is capable of generating consciousness. As Rutgers University philosopher Jerry Fodor says,
"Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness. Regardless of our knowledge of the structure of the brain, no one has any idea how the brain could possibly generate conscious experience."
As Nobel neurophysiologist Roger Sperry wrote,
"Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature."
From modern physics, Nobel prize-winner Eugene Wigner agreed:
"We have at present not even the vaguest idea how to connect the physio-chemical processes with the state of mind."
Contemporary physicist Nick Herbert states,
"Science's biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot."
Physician and author Larry Dossey wrote:
"No experiment has ever demonstrated the genesis of consciousness from matter. One might as well believe that rabbits emerge from magicians' hats. Yet this vaporous possibility, this neuro-mythology, has enchanted generations of gullible scientists, in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it."
In fact, how consciousness can possibly 'emerge' from matter, far from being 'proven' as rvb8 falsely claimed, is infamously dubbed 'the hard problem of consciousness' for its resolute insolubility. David Chalmers is semi-famous for getting 'the hard problem’ of consciousness across to lay people in a very easy to understand manner:
David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
Moreover, irreducible subjective consciousness, besides being irreducible to brain states, even shows up in our best description of reality. Namely, subjective consciousness shows up in quantum mechanics:
On The Comparison Of Quantum and Relativity Theories - Sachs - 1986 Excerpt: quantum theory entails an irreducible subjective element in its conceptual basis. In contrast, the theory of relativity when fully exploited, is based on a totally objective view. http://books.google.com/books?id=8qaYGFuXvMkC&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q&f=false "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; "We wish to measure a temperature.,,, But in any case, no matter how far we calculate -- to the mercury vessel, to the scale of the thermometer, to the retina, or into the brain, at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer. That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.” John von Neumann - 1903-1957 - The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp.418-21 - 1955 Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? Stephen M. Barr - July 10, 2012 Excerpt: Couldn’t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a “measurement” (minus the 'observer' in quantum mechanics)? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump. That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind. https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god
In fact, it was, in large measure, because of "The Now" of the subjective mind, i.e. the persistence of self identity, that Einstein was denied the Nobel prize for time dilation in relativity:
Einstein vs. "The Now" of Philosophers and Quantum Mechanics – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwyHUxoKWNM&index=3&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5
As briefly highlighted in the preceding video, the philosophers who opposed Einstein and prevented him from getting a Nobel for relativity, because of "The Now" of the subjective mind, (i.e. persistence of self identity), have now been experimentally vindicated by advances in quantum mechanics:
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It - June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation - Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables
Moreover, instantaneous 'spooky action at a distance' quantum correlations, which cannot possibly be explained by any materialistic explanation, have now been found in the waking brain. At the 18:00 minute mark to about the 22:15 minute mark of the following video, an interesting experiment on the sleeping brain is highlighted in which it is demonstrated that there is a fairly profound difference in in the way the brain ‘shares information’ between different parts of the brain in its sleeping state compared to how the brain ‘shares information’ in its waking state. i.e. In the sleeping state, the brain shares much less information with different parts of the brain than the brain does during our waking state.
Through The Wormhole s02e01 Is There Life After Death – video (17:46 minute mark) https://youtu.be/vQW5eo_BME0?t=1069
Moreover, there is found to be ‘zero-time lag’ in the synchronization of widely separated parts of the waking brain
Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – Stuart Hameroff – video (1:55 minute mark) https://youtu.be/jjpEc98o_Oo?t=118 ,,, zero time lag neuronal synchrony despite long conduction delays – 2008 Excerpt: Multielectrode recordings have revealed zero time lag synchronization among remote cerebral cortical areas. However, the axonal conduction delays among such distant regions can amount to several tens of milliseconds. It is still unclear which mechanism is giving rise to isochronous discharge of widely distributed neurons, despite such latencies,,, Remarkably, synchrony of neuronal activity is not limited to short-range interactions within a cortical patch. Interareal synchronization across cortical regions including interhemispheric areas has been observed in several tasks (7, 9, 11–14).,,, Beyond its functional relevance, the zero time lag synchrony among such distant neuronal ensembles must be established by mechanisms that are able to compensate for the delays involved in the neuronal communication. Latencies in conducting nerve impulses down axonal processes can amount to delays of several tens of milliseconds between the generation of a spike in a presynaptic cell and the elicitation of a postsynaptic potential (16). The question is how, despite such temporal delays, the reciprocal interactions between two brain regions can lead to the associated neural populations to fire in unison (i.e. zero time lag).,,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2575223/ The Puzzling Role Of Biophotons In The Brain – Dec. 17, 2010 Excerpt: It’s certainly true that electrical activity in the brain is synchronised over distances that cannot be easily explained. Electrical signals travel too slowly to do this job, so something else must be at work.,,, (So) It’s a big jump to assume that photons do this job. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/422069/the-puzzling-role-of-biophotons-in-the-brain/
bornagain77
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
Pindi claims:
"me and my chemicals are the same thing."
That claim is logically, and scientifically, false. In science, people make models of reality, i.e. form hypothesis about how reality operates, and compare their models against reality to see how well their models reflect reality, i.e. empirical testing. If their models fail to properly reflect reality then, according to the extent that the models fail to match reality, they either modify their models or reject their models completely. Pindi's 'nothing but chemistry' model, IMHO, falls into the latter category. As pointed out in post 10, it is impossible for Pindi, or any other atheist, to consistently live their lives as if they were nothing but chemistry,,
Excerpt of post 10: "Brooks ends by saying, “I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs.” He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview." - Nancy Pearcey https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/miserable-creatures/#comment-617073
Thus, as also pointed out in 10, since the atheistic 'I am nothing but chemistry' model cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is, since no one can consistently live their lives as if atheistic materialism were actually true, then according to real world testing, the model must be false and as such the model is to either be modified or rejected entirely. Again, IMHO, it is the latter.
The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
In further critique of Pindi's claim,,,
“me and my chemicals are the same thing.” - Pindi
,,, In further critique of that claim from Pindi, the law of identity dictates that mind cannot possibly be the same thing as the material brain,,
How Consciousness Points to the Existence of God - J. Warner Wallace - video - Sept. 2015 (5 attributes of mind that are distinct from the material brain therefore, via the law of identity, the mind is not the same thing as the material brain) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ff1jiRpjko podcast - How Consciousness Points to the Existence of God - Sept. 2015 http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/how-consciousness-points-to-the-existence-of-god-cold-case-christianity-broadcast-42/ Six reasons why you should believe in non-physical minds - 01/30/2014 1) First-person access to mental properties 2) Our experience of consciousness implies that we are not our bodies 3) Persistent self-identity through time 4) Mental properties cannot be measured like physical objects 5) Intentionality or About-ness 6) Free will and personal responsibility http://winteryknight.com/2014/01/30/six-reasons-why-you-should-believe-in-non-physical-minds/
Michael Egnor, professor of neurosurgery at SUNY Stony Brook, states the irreconcilable properties of mind compared to brain, via the law of identity, as such:
The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor - 2008 Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: - Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super013961.html
Alvin Plantinga humorously uses a clever thought experiment, that imagines that we have a 'beetle body', to highlight the fact, via the 'law of identity', that the mind cannot possibly be the same thing as the brain.
Alvin Plantinga and the Modal Argument (for the existence of the mind/soul) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOTn_wRwDE0
bornagain77
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
bb said:
May I add that the existence of free will is also obvious to any honest person? It’s self-evident to the point that denying it can’t be cast as anything but absurd.
Agreed, and additionally, we all act as if we and everyone else has it and cannot act otherwise. Free will is a necessary assumption for any explanation or debate or act to have any value or meaning whatsoever; it is required (as an assumption) to prove anything at all. It is a self-evident, fundamentally necessary commodity. To deny it is to deny capacity to do or think anything other than what something else dictates. If one claims that physico-chemical forces dictates their will, choices and thoughts, then they have abandoned reason, responsibility, and self-determination.William J Murray
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
Let's look at the tragedy we see being played out by the puppets of chemistry on this thread. rvb8 writes:
I’m always suspicious of posts that are overly long, or overly complex.
Well, one cannot really help how one's chemistry reacts.
Ideally ideas should be transferrsble, and understandable to most people.This post is not.
But, chemistry produces ideas however they actually exist. That's the factual nature of ideas. rvb8 writes here as if there is something "wrong" with what chemistry actually produces, and as if material beings "should" do something other than what they actually do, and as if those material beings somehow have a top-down power to change how they think or what they do. rvb8's commentary here contradicts his materialist views by implying that something should exist or occur other than that which chemistry and physics dictates, and utilizing the implicit assumption that humans have some capacity to do other than what they actually do. rvb8 might as well be a fig leaf criticizing the shape of maple leaves.
The idea that the brain is a physical, biological organ, is one I hope we can all accept.
Why would an atheistic materialist have such a hope? We either accept that idea or not due to our particular chemistries. One might as well hope that all rocks will wind up in the same spot after they tumble down a mountainside.
That neurons fire according to chemical reactions, is also one we can all accept.
Or not, depending on the dictates of our particular chemistries. Unfortunately, rvb8 is apparently so ignorant of the logical consequences of his unexamined beliefs that he keeps writing phrases that contradict the ramifications of his worldview philosophy. This madness continues:
That the neurons use chemicals to keep elecrical charges from expiring, is also one I hope we can all accept.
Imagine a rock that has landed at a particular spot at the bottom of a mountain, hoping that other rocks will also land at the same spot .... for what reason? What difference does the first rock think it will make if the other rocks land on the same spot (reach the same conclusion)?
That our thoghts, memories, and emotions reside in these electrically accessadble neurons is an idea (proven) which some how, strangely you don’t accept.
The self-conflicting tragedy on stage continues; how can it possibly be "strange", when the same material forces that produce rvb8's thoughts also produce mine and everyone else's? The thought that such things work, and that they have been proven, can be nothing more than the effects of rvb8's idiosyncratic, happenstance organic chemistry producing that conviction the same way chemistries produce conflicting ideas of proof and fact in others. Under materialism, there's nothing strange about it; the only strange thing is that rvb8, a materialist, expects chemistry to produce something other than what it actually produces as thoughts and ideas in others. Why should it?
To paraprase Holmes; ‘when the impossible is removed, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.’
How miserable it must be to have to argue as if any idea of what is possible, improbable, or true is something more than whatever individual chemistries happen to produce in the brain of an individual, while at the same time denying that it is anything more than that. rvb8 seems blithely unaware that whatever seems proven, factual, true, impossible, or improbable to him, under his worldview, has no relation to anything other than that they happen to be the happenstance effects of blind, mindless chemical interactions. IOW, rvb8's happenstance chemical effects make him feel confident of the proven truth of X; my happenstance chemical effects make me feel confident X is false. That is the sum total of what rvb8 can claim about any idea under atheistic materialism, even though he produces word strings that imply his ideas and mine are somehow capable of being something more than that. The sad, miserable display of a puppet imagining it is a real boy continues:
This hatred, and contempt of people who simply say that God is an unecessary explanation for anything, is typical of the faithful;
No, it's apparently typical of chemistry and physics. One wonders, does rvb8 think chemistry and physics is capable of either hate or contempt? One might as well assign the terms "hate" and "contempt" to bad weather or natural disasters. Don't take it so personally, rvb8; remember, it's all just blind, emotionless chemistry and physics animating dirt.
although I do vaguely remeber WJM telling me he wasn’t Christian; whatever! Also, please have the decency to remember, that when religion did have the power many here wish to regain, it did a really bad job of using it.
Again, this sad and tragic habit of imagining that chemistry and physics could do something other than what it actually does, and this weird cognitive dissonance of saying chemistry and physics did a "bad job" of something. However, we can't really blame rvb8 for arguing as if his views are false while insisting they are true; that is the miserable condition biological automatons exist in: chemistry forcing them to say nonsensical things while concurrently forcing them to think they are wise. Fortunately for them, chemistry is also keeping them blind to fact that they cannot be anything other than exactly that which they condemn since we are all just doing what physics and chemistry dictates.
Being freed of my Catholic past was the most freeing moment I felt, no more fear that my thoughts were being monitored by what Hitchens described as a, ‘celestial dictator’, was incredibly uplifting. No more listening to halfwits like Ham, whom if they had to actually think of an original idea would stumble badly.
Oh, the irony here. How can any being be "free" of the accumulative physico-chemical effefs of their past? What can rvb8 possibly be talking about here? There is simply no physical means by which he can possibly be free of his past; is the factual, physico-chemical product of his past. His mind and thoughts are not "free" from anything in his past. The cognitive dissonance pathos is palpable; the puppet master moves the puppet a bit, changes the dialogue a bit, and then forces the puppet to say "I'm free!" The puppet master of chemistry and physics was behind it all when rvb8 was a catholic and after, forcing him every inch of the way without any internal or top down puppet power! to do anything about it at all, and rvb8 here bleats weakly, as commanded, "I am free!" It would be laughable if it wasn't so terribly tragic.
My ‘miserable creature’ self, is very pleased with the present. As you stumble on in your dark, miniscule, incurious world.
Under your worldview, both you and I and our emotional states and our conditions are simply whatever mindless, happenstance chemistry and physics has produced. So, we are all the same miserable creatures stumbling about in the solipsistic darkness of a material world, doomed to do so because we can be nothing but mental and physical puppets generated by mindless, happenstance physical forces. It's just so sadly amusing that you defend your particular physico-chemical effects as if they are somehow superior to my physico-chemical effects, as if I and others could and should somehow alter our chemistries at will.William J Murray
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
For one thing, passing the Turing test is in no way an indicator that a machine is non-different from a rational animal i.e., a human being. With a sufficient database of human-human conversations, any computer can mimick a person. That does not mean it's capable of abstract thought, no more than a stone thrown in parabolic motion knows vector algebra.Autodidaktos
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT
It's not a 'brain is an organ, yes or no?' question. Of COURSE the brain is an organ, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the brain creates thoughts/consciousness. I see it as the other way around. The brain is an expression of a consciousness not yet understood. You are imagining 'finally' inventing a sentient computer, based on the assumptions you make, and you are also thinking that the 'evolved neural pathways would be indescribably hard to map, and describe through mathematics'. In other words, you are talking about things that are improbable, and far beyond the grasp of current understanding. It's the standard, 'science is working on it' argument that Dawkins always makes. That's a kind of 'gobledygook' too; it's just that you can't see it.soundburger
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT
Well, yes, of course, what of it? If we finally invent a sentient computer, that is self aware, and can survive the, 'Turing Test', then yes, of course that computer has now reached the level of humanity, as it can reason as humans; some way off. Can we reduce our thought down to equations? I think the evolved neural pathways would be indescribably hard to map, and describe through mathematics. I don't really understand the 'formula' writing part of the question, as thought is a transitive process, and so the calculations would have to be going on as you think. Why are you being so obtuse, the brain is an organ, yes or no? (See how the materialist has much simpler and easily relatable questions, compared to the spiritualist.) If yes, then how does it perform its task? By chemically induced, electrical firing of neurons. Or have I missed some gobledygook about 'higher intrinsic, value, as seen from the symbiotic relationship of mind and matter, as expressed in the oneness and unity of God and Man'? No thanks! You stumble down that literary blind alley.rvb8
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT
rvb8, please answer a question I posed to you in another post: Do you think that thoughts can be entirely reduced to, as you say chemicals and electrical charges in such a way that they can eventually be written down, and understood, as formulas? Can a train of thought, such as I am employing to write this and you employ to read it from start to finish, be 'scored' in some way by adjusting the formula, as a string of melodies can be scored to create a musical piece? Perhaps by 'tuning' the formula in some way can a thought thereby be altered so that disagreement becomes agreement - if we have the proper technology? Is the 'formula' of a thought in English different than the thought in Russian or Japanese? Will an invention potentially enable us to manufacture thoughts, such as, "I want a puppy" or "She has very beautiful eyes" and then insert them into other peoples' brains? May I assume by what you have written so far, that your answer to all of these must necessarily be 'yes', and if not could you kindly explain why?soundburger
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT
Also, thank you for the, not very inventive, and absolutely clumsy contempt, exhibited in the title; 'miserable', indeed! This hatred, and contempt of people who simply say that God is an unecessary explanation for anything, is typical of the faithful; although I do vaguely remeber WJM telling me he wasn't Christian; whatever! Also, please have the decency to remember, that when religion did have the power many here wish to regain, it did a really bad job of using it. Being freed of my Catholic past was the most freeing moment I felt, no more fear that my thoughts were being monitored by what Hitchens described as a, 'celestial dictator', was incredibly uplifting. No more listening to halfwits like Ham, whom if they had to actually think of an original idea would stumble badly. My 'miserable creature' self, is very pleased with the present. As you stumble on in your dark, miniscule, incurious world.rvb8
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
I'm always suspicious of posts that are overly long, or overly complex. I remember reading assigned reading in a sociology class I stupidly enrolled for once, and reading indecipherable drivel. An idea, which cannot be explained economically (excluding Quantum ideas) is an idea bereft of value. Ideally ideas should be transferrsble, and understandable to most people.This post is not. The idea that the brain is a physical, biological organ, is one I hope we can all accept. That neurons fire according to chemical reactions, is also one we can all accept. That the neurons use chemicals to keep elecrical charges from expiring, is also one I hope we can all accept. That our thoghts, memories, and emotions reside in these electrically accessadble neurons is an idea (proven) which some how, strangely you don't accept. To paraprase Holmes; 'when the impossible is removed, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'rvb8
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
bb At the atheist rally you'll be looking for an honest person like Diogenes did but all you would find are "jugs of milk"Eugen
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
CY, me and my chemicals are the same thing.Pindi
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
bb, no it's not obvious to me. Intuitively yes, it feels obvious, but when I think more about it, it seems not so obvious.Pindi
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
Pindi, "I guess that’s the end of the line for me then, as far as searching for an explanation goes." So is that you deciding that searching for an explanation will be fruitless, or do your chemicals dictate that it is fruitless?CannuckianYankee
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
"Free will is not an explicable nor a provable commodity; it is a logically necessary, axiomatic assumption...." May I add that the existence of free will is also obvious to any honest person? It's self-evident to the point that denying it can't be cast as anything but absurd. Pindi, Are you familiar with the idea of this physiological feedback mechanism I have seen some atheists refer to? Maybe no one here answered my question because my interlocutors were talking out of their collective hat.bb
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
WJM, your post came through while I was writing mine. So you say (or many theists say) there is a third class of causation that is not an explicable or provable commodity. I guess that's the end of the line for me then, as far as searching for an explanation goes. Why is not explicable?Pindi
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
HeKS, yes, but then what is the actual process of making a decision? On materialism the decision is explained as the outcome of a process. On your view, X informs Y but doesn't determine it. So between the informing and the decision something else happens. What is that? What causes the decision to happen? If there is no cause then isn't it random? And if there is a cause, then its determined by whatever the cause is.Pindi
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Pindi asks:
So if there is nothing causing you to make a decision about something, is it then random?
No. Nothing causes you (which, under not-materialism, "you" are not solely a physical cause and effect entity) to make any particular decision, nor is it random. It is a deliberate, acausal, free will decision. Many theists consider this a third class of causation distinct from random or lawful causes and a necessary causal category to (1) provide an acausal first cause for our system of cause and effect, and (2) account for the logically necessary existence of free will for us to have top down,metaphysical oversight/power over our rational faculties which mere chemistry cannot provide. Please note that having a reason for making a decision is not the same thing as that reason materially causing the decision. Having good reasons to do X doesn't mean I will actually decide to do X. Free will is not an explicable nor a provable commodity; it is a logically necessary, axiomatic assumption unavailable under atheistic materialism that provides a basis for libertarian intention and a solution to infinite regress. Without it, you are debating dirt animated by chemistry and physics as if what you say matters, as if by saying things you can alter the patterns of the swirling dirt, as if your happenstance chemical effects can change my happenstance chemical processes into some other formation. Even if something like that appeared to happen, so what? It would just be a matter of chemistry, not a matter of logic, fact, truth, or evidence. You might as well attempt your task of changing patterns by barking or jabbering nonsensical words. Who knows? It might work via some chaotic cascade of cause and effect.William J Murray
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
HeKS @9
Surely you see that there’s a difference between X determining Y and X informing Y, correct?
An essential difference! I don't wish to derail this discussion, but I just can't resist pointing out how the exact same difference plays a role in the goings on in the cell, as pointed out by Talbott:
Controllers that don’t exist when regulators are in turn regulated, what do we mean by “regulate” — and where within the web of regulation can we single out a master controller capable of dictating cellular fates? And if we can’t, what are reputable scientists doing when they claim to have identified such a controller, or, rather, various such controllers? If they really mean something like “influencers,” then that’s fine. But influence is not about mechanism and control; the factors at issue just don’t have controlling powers. What we see, rather, is a continual mutual adaptation, interaction, and coordination that occurs from above. What we see, that is — once we start following out all the interactions at a molecular level — is not some mechanism dictating the fate or controlling an activity of the organism, but simply an organism-wide coherence — a living, metamorphosing form of activity — within which the more or less distinct partial activities find their proper place. The misrepresentation of this organic coherence in favor of supposed controlling mechanisms is not an innocent inattention to language; it’s a fundamental misrepresentation of reality at the central point where we are challenged to understand the character of living things. Talbott
Origenes
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
Pindi @ 7
"Its’ not about "me"."
Au Contraire! Just who is this fictitious "me" you are referring to in your sentence? "You" have no perspective outside the material order in which to ground the 'me' of your sentence!
"that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick - "The Astonishing Hypothesis" 1994 "What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne "The neural circuits in our brain manage the beautifully coordinated and smoothly appropriate behavior of our body. They also produce the entrancing introspective illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world. This powerful illusion has been with humanity since language kicked in, as we’ll see. It is the source of at least two other profound myths: that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning and that there is a person “in there” steering the body, so to speak." [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist's Guide To Reality, Ch.9]
Thus, it really is all about "you". Or more precisely it is all about the fact that personhood is an illusion under atheistic materialism and yet no one in their right minds can live their lives as if they did not actually exist as real persons.
The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: 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." One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for 'you' to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
Supplemental notes:
Molecular Biology - 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCs3WXHqOv8 Scientific evidence that we do indeed have an eternal soul (Elaboration on Talbott's question “What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”)– video 2016 https://youtu.be/h2P45Obl4lQ 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. ,,, - scientific american
Quote, Verse and Music:
“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” George MacDonald - Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood - 1892 John 8:58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” Crowder - I Am (Lyric Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH_LLGiE0f0
bornagain77
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Pindi, Surely you see that there's a difference between X determining Y and X informing Y, correct? On materialism, given enough data about a person's genetics and past stimuli you will have the full set of data that determines that person's action in a given case with no possibility that they will do anything else. They may give the appearance of rationally deliberating upon some set of factors in coming to a "decision" on how to act, but that's really just smoke and mirrors, an illusion of some sort. They do what they must do because physics and chemistry fully determines it. On a non-materialist view, a person's decisions and behaviors will typically be influenced by their past experiences, but they can actually deliberate on their course of action in a rational manner and make a decision that incorporates their past experience but is not wholly determined by past events, and even one that flies in the face of what past factors might suggest and that runs contrary to the direction in which their more base instincts might push them.HeKS
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
Pindi, I'm not sure I understand your question. It seems to imply a belief that there are actually people who think that past experiences, desires, etc. play no role in their decision making. If that's your notion of a 'non-materialist' you need to get out more.soundburger
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Its' not about me. I am just trying to understand how it works in a non-materialist framework. Aren't things either caused/determined by things, or random? So if there is nothing causing you to make a decision about something, is it then random? J-Mac and CY, can you answer this question rather than deflecting?Pindi
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Pindi, From a materialist point of view, what makes you certain you've actually had any past experiences, desires, etc?CannuckianYankee
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Pindi, Give me one real reason why someone, in the right frame of mind, would respond to your posts? I suspect you like the attention but that's not good enough...Not here...J-Mac
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
From a non-materialist point of view, if your decisions are not determined by your past experience, desires, etc, how do you categorise them? Something must cause you to come to a conclusion, otherwise isn't it just randomMPindi
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
"A miserable creature indeed." That is a life in denial of the immaterial soul, and of the logical conclusion of materialism. I say denial of the latter because even when one assents, like Coyne, he can't live as if it's true. His walk can't match his talk. A number of times now, when I presented Lewis' milk jug analogy, I've had materialists invoke a physiological feedback mechanism that can determine what is true. What do they mean? If they mean the five senses, then feedback to what? Please forgive a layman if the answer is obvious.
Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.
-CS Lewis, The Case For Christianity p.32bb
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
William J Murray: ... pitifully, they really can’t do anything else except foolishly act out this absurd facade because they, too, are just the puppets of chemistry.
It's not always the case that materialists are unaware of the issue, but one has to wonder if they fully grasp the consequences, as laid out by William J Murray. Only a few weeks ago Jerry Coyne wrote:
Hard determinists. (I am one of these.) Those are people who believe that our brains, being material objects operating under the laws of physics, can give only a single output from the inputs they receive (barring any quantum indeterminacy operating in our neurons).... Our behaviors are solely and uniquely decided by our genes and our environments, and nothing else.
If Coyne is right and genes (deoxyribonucleic acid, sugar and phosphate molecules) and the environment "solely and uniquely decides" one's behavior, then one is not in control — not a person — but instead a "biological automaton". A miserable creature indeed.Origenes
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
Powerful stuff, sir. Thank you.OldArmy94
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
1 4 5 6

Leave a Reply