Belief?

_{Barry Arrington

March 12, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Mark Frank: “Evolution does not select for specific beliefs.”

Of course not Mark, if by “evolution” you mean materialist Neo-Darwinian evolution. This is the case for the simple reason that if materialism is true, “beliefs” as they are commonly understood do not exist. They are an illusion, mere “folk psychology” according to Dennett.

Comments

Atheism is a disorder, the psychological, mental and spiritual equivalent to physically cutting yourself on purpose. This disorder is apparent the second an atheist attempts to discuss logic and reason. Their explanations are so full of self harm and purposeful inconsistencies. Their condition forces this behaviour and once their condition has been diagnosed/established, their insanity becomes more understandable.humbled_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

KeithS
Barry, I’ve shown that Pearcey’s argument – if it were correct – would undermine an ID-based epistemology just as surely as it would undermine an evolutionary epistemology. Under an ID-based epistemology, our cognitive capacities are given to us by the designer. Are they reliable? We simply don’t know. It depends on the designer.
You are confusing (and conflating) the effect (how we receive our capacity) with the cause (how we use that capacity. They are not the same thing. (The effect) How we receive our cognitive capacity If the designer creates the comprehending mind and the comprehensible universe to be in correspondence, then our knowledge is reliable. The subject, or the knower, is designed to be in correspondence with the object, or the thing known. If they are not designed to be in correspondence, then knowledge is not reliable. Thus, if the Creator designs an ordered universe, which is an ID friendly metaphysic, then knowledge is reliable (though not necessarily perfect or complete)
Can we verify that they are reliable? Not without relying on reason — and assuming that our reason is reliable would be begging the question.
(The cause) How we use our cognitive capacity We don't have to assume that reason is reliable. We know that reason is reliable because we can test our internal logic against the logical order of the external world. --Internal logic: If it rains, the streets will get wet. --Logical order of the real world: Every time it rains, the streets get wet. Our internal logic never violates the logical order of the real world, and vice versa. Notice also that the argument presented is both valid and sound. If knowledge wasn't reliable, we could not make the distinction between a valid argument and a sound argument.StephenB_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

Brains evolved for logic and reason Mark? Seriously do you honestly believe that? And for whatever reason can you trust your tendencies or beliefs as being true?Andre_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

WJM, given your background in the study of the primacy of 'mind', I think you will appreciate these quotes:
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." http://www.merkawah.nl/public_html/images/stories/ccvsgwrepr.pdf
bornagain77_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

#29 WJM
They “know”, indeed are absolutely certain, that there is no god; and so, regardless of how self-contradictory, hypocritical or empty their positions are shown to be, they still smirk and laugh at others because, in their mind, theists are beyond foolish and childish for believing in sky-daddies and magic fairies (what they see theism as). They cannot for a second put aside their own smug, condescending certainty and sense of superiority to honestly think through the arguments and the evidence.
As far as I can remember I have never written anything about the personalities and motivations of theists (with one exception – I have noted Barry’s lawyerly love of winning debates at all costs). This is because there are many I love and respect including close family. Mark Frank_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

#28 WJM
Darwinian evolution doesn’t select “for” anything, Mark. You should know that.
Fair enough – I will remove the word “for”. Evolution does not select beliefs.
If one is going to make a case that evolutionary processes favor brain-state, mindset outcomes which, on average, represent accurate correspondence to the world, then one must accept the evidence (as so wonderfully laid out by BA77 in post 22): humans have evolved to believe in god, design and purpose.
I rarely read BA77 – life is too short – but I did actually discuss this in my comment on other thread. Humans may well have evolved a tendency to believe in god, design and purpose which while a good survival strategy has often lead them to believe things that are false. However, there is also a massive survival advantage in mostly getting it right. So we have evolved reasoning and observation tools and tendencies (not beliefs) which work pretty well most of the time - albeit with certain biases and shortcuts which are advantageous but can lead us to believe false things.
Atheists/materialist can’t have it both ways. If evolution doesn’t favor world-correspondence accuracy of beliefs, then atheism, scientism, materialism are in the exact same lost boat as any religion. If evolution does favor true beliefs, then you must give what is due to even those beliefs you disagree with, and you must see your own beliefs in the proper light, when the evidence overwhelming indicates evolutionary winners and losers.
I can’t make head or tail of this paragraph.Mark Frank_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

JDH said:
I really have a hard time understanding how keith_s, Mark Frank, and other materialists actually participate in this thread. It seems to me that if they just took a moment of thought they would see that their position is logically incoherent. Why can they not see that? I can only conclude...
IMHO, they have chosen to believe what they believe, largely for emotional reasons, and it is so much "who they are" that they have a cognitive bias (what Mr. Arrington refers to as a Derangement Syndrome) that simply will not allow them to see what is so obvious to the rest of us. I believe we have real free will, and with it we can choose to believe even that which is patently absurd and self-negating. It's amazing to see that at work in these discussions. They "know", indeed are absolutely certain, that there is no god; and so, regardless of how self-contradictory, hypocritical or empty their positions are shown to be, they still smirk and laugh at others because, in their mind, theists are beyond foolish and childish for believing in sky-daddies and magic fairies (what they see theism as). They cannot for a second put aside their own smug, condescending certainty and sense of superiority to honestly think through the arguments and the evidence. I had to take on the task of seeing if I could honestly, deliberately undermine my own atheism to get beyond it, and it was only because I chose to pursue theism that I was able to see how empty and emotion-based my atheism was.William J Murray_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank said:
Evolution does not select for specific beliefs.
Darwinian evolution doesn't select "for" anything, Mark. You should know that. If one is going to make a case that evolutionary processes favor brain-state, mindset outcomes which, on average, represent accurate correspondence to the world, then one must accept the evidence (as so wonderfully laid out by BA77 in post 22): humans have evolved to believe in god, design and purpose. Atheists/materialist can't have it both ways. If evolution doesn't favor world-correspondence accuracy of beliefs, then atheism, scientism, materialism are in the exact same lost boat as any religion. If evolution does favor true beliefs, then you must give what is due to even those beliefs you disagree with, and you must see your own beliefs in the proper light, when the evidence overwhelming indicates evolutionary winners and losers.William J Murray_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

I really have a hard time understanding how keith_s, Mark Frank, and other materialists actually participate in this thread. It seems to me that if they just took a moment of thought they would see that their position is logically incoherent. Why can they not see that? I can only conclude that they have found a nugget of hope to believe in that allows them to power through the logical incoherence of their beliefs. Do they not understand the statement, "I have looked at the evidence and concluded that materialism is true," is an impossible statement. If materialism is true, there is first of all no I to do the concluding, and the material object identified as "I" can not possibly have the power to make an objective conclusion.JDH_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank: “Evolution does not select for specific beliefs.”
I not sure what you see as a problem with that. It is pretty much equivalent to "beliefs are not innate". And, in that formulation, there is no mention of "evolution." The evidence seems to support it.Neil Rickert_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

PS: I should add that if Dennett has posited "We're all zombies. Nobody is conscious . . . " then absent strongest possible public repudiation since [where, when, in what forum?], any theory of belief he holds is under the stricture that he implies general delusion and so self-referential incoherence. As a direct logical implication, BA would be dead right to sum up:
if materialism is true,[THEN] “beliefs” as they are commonly understood do not exist. They are an illusion, mere “folk psychology” according to Dennett.
Folk psychology, in this context, would be a general label for the delusion of consciousness that we hold about ourselves as a common sense view -- folk psychology being in material part a loaded rephrasing of what "common sense" denotes -- and project to others. And if projecting beliefs to others who appear to be of the same race is part of that general pattern of delusion of consciousness . . . belief is a manifestation of consciousness . . . then by reciprocity that extends to ourselves. In short, BA's summary is apt as a short and sharp outline of the matter.kairosfocus_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

F/N: Let us not forget that a major definition of knowledge is something like, warranted, credibly true (or at least reliable) belief. That bridge between knowledge and belief is I believe, highly relevant to the context of issues surfaced by this thread. Where, belief is often shown by attitude and behaviour rather than actual creedal declaration and confession. KFkairosfocus_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

MF:
Barry – Dennett doesn’t think belief in general is mere folk pyschology. He thinks it is folk psychology to ascribe beliefs to other things and animals – quite a different proposition.
Indeed, for Dennett, to take varying "stances" toward various objects (physical, design, intentional) is to have beliefs about them.Reciprocating Bill_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

of note:
Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True (Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism) – video Excerpt: “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs
as to this following claim by Mark:
“Evolution does not select for specific beliefs.”
as to that claim, the following exchange I had yesterday on another thread is interesting: ,,, when I presented Dr. Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism to an atheist, the atheist said the following in response to me:
‘Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind.’
In response to him, I pointed out the fact that atheists have a much lower reproduction rate than Theists,,,
‘Believers’ gene’ will spread religion , says academic – January 2011 Excerpt: The World Values Survey, which covered 82 nations from 1981 to 2004, found that adults who attended religious services more than once a week had 2.5 children on average; while those who went once a month had two; and those who never attended had 1.67. Prof Rowthorn wrote: “The more devout people are, the more children they are likely to have.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8252939/Believers-gene-will-spread-religion-says-academic.html
I also pointed out that atheists ‘have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind’
Atheism and health A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.[4][5] http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_health
Moreover, atheists have the lowest retention rate of any religion
Why do atheists have such a low retention rate? – July 2012 Excerpt: Only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults. This “retention rate” was the lowest among the 20 separate categories in the study. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-atheists-have-such-a-low-retention-rate/
After I cited those facts to him, I asked the atheist this:
Thus either the you are right and evolution is producing a true belief, and that true belief is Theism, since atheists have a ‘praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind’, or Dr. Plantinga is right and there is no guarantee that the results of Darwinian evolution will produce true beliefs about the nature of reality! Which is it? He refused to answer the question and left the thread. And no wonder, either answer is a self defeater for the position of evolutionary naturalism!
In response to that another atheist said:
… which doesn’t matter, because religion is transmitted culturally, not genetically.
To which I responded, "your belief that religion is merely a “cultural replicator”, i.e. a ‘meme’, is contradicted by empirical evidence":
Infants ‘have natural belief in God’ – July 26, 2008 Excerpt: INFANTS are hard-wired to believe in God, and atheism has to be learned, according to an Oxford University psychologist. Dr Olivera Petrovich told a University of Western Sydney conference on the psychology of religion that even preschool children constructed theological concepts as part of their understanding of the physical world. Pyschologists have debated whether belief in God or atheism was the natural human state. According to Dr Petrovich, an expert in psychology of religion, belief in God is not taught but develops naturally. She told The Age yesterday that belief in God emerged as a result of other psychological development connected with understanding causation. It was hard-wired into the human psyche, but it was important not to build too much into the concept of God. “It’s the concept of God as creator, primarily,” she said. Dr Petrovich said her findings were based on several studies, particularly one of Japanese children aged four to six, and another of 400 British children aged five to seven from seven different faiths. “Atheism is definitely an acquired position,” she said. per 'the age' Children are born believers in God, academic claims – Telegraph – November 2008 Excerpt: “The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children’s minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html More Studies Show Children Are Wired for Religious Belief: A Brief Literature Review – Casey Luskin August 7, 2014 Excerpt: We see, then, multiple studies converging on a single conclusion: the innate predisposition of the human mind to believe that there is some kind of an intelligent creator God. Perhaps as we get older we may override this programming, but our fundamental constitution appears oriented to religious belief. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/more_studies_sh088551.html
Thus, my original response to the original atheist holds:
Thus either the you are right and evolution is producing a true belief, and that true belief is Theism, since atheists have a ‘praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind’, or Dr. Plantinga is right and there is no guarantee that the results of Darwinian evolution will produce true beliefs about the nature of reality! Which is it? He refused to answer the question and left the thread. And no wonder, either answer is a self defeater for the position of evolutionary naturalism!
To which the second atheist responded:
Empirical evidence? Like the b.s. paraded as evidence by Justin L. Barrett? "In one study, six and seven-year-olds who were asked why the first bird existed replied “to make nice music” and “because it makes the world look nice”. The tendentious wording of “Why the fist bird existed” already suggests that there was a “first bird” and that there was a “reason why”. Objection — a leading question! "Another experiment on 12-month-old babies suggested that they were surprised by a film in which a rolling ball apparently created a neat stack of blocks from a disordered heap." Dr Barrett said there is evidence that even by the age of four, children understand that although some objects are made by humans, the natural world is different. "He added that this means children are more likely to believe in creationism rather than evolution, despite what they may be told by parents or teachers." Ah, yes. Evolution = a disorderly heap of blocks becomes a neat stack when hit by a rolling ball. Objection — a straw man! "Dr Barrett claimed anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them." ,,,
To which I responded: "the trouble with your criticism of Barrett is that even atheists cannot escape the deep seeded belief that things exist for a purpose and are not an accident":
Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012 Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html
Thus atheists are in actuality suffering from the mental illness of denialism: Although there are various methods for scientifically detecting design, basically, at its most foundational level, ‘design detection’ is an inbuilt, ‘natural’, ability that humans possess because of the ‘image of God’ that they have within themselves. In the following video Dr. Behe quotes Richard Dawkins himself from his book ‘The Blind Watchmaker’, in noting that ‘design detection’ is a ‘natural’ for humans:
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 1 “We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… Any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed… simply by looking at the structure of the object.” Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21 “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21 Michael Behe – Life Reeks Of Design – 2010 – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY
Moreover, Richards Dawkins is not the only atheist who seems to be afflicted with this mental illness of seeing the ‘illusion of design’ pervasively throughout life. And I note that they are seeing ‘the appearance of design’ even though they have never conducted any scientific experiments, or mathematical calculations, to scientifically ‘detect design’ in life, in anything man-made, or in anything otherwise:
living organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed” Lewontin “The appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature.” George Gaylord Simpson
Indeed, the atheist Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, seems to have been particularly haunted by this illusion of seeing design everywhere he looked in molecular biology:
“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit “Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 30
Thus, since these atheists are seeing the ‘illusion of design’, (seeing this illusion of design with what they claim to be to be the ‘illusion of mind’ I might add :) ), without ever conducting any scientific experiments to ever rigorously ‘detect design’, then of course the ID advocate would be well justified in saying that these atheists are not really suffering from a mental illness at all but they are in fact ‘naturally detecting design’ because of the inherent ‘image of God’ that they have within themselves. Verse and Music:
Romans 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. Russ Lee - I Smile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjUZoS-3Uk
bornagain77_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

#17 Andre
Each person has the capability to change his beliefs so even if you throw culture at it you’d still be wrong.
Wrong about what? I am confused.Mark Frank_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

I however prefer the longer form..... dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sumAndre_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT}

Keith S I am telling you that I don't know what its like to be a turnip so I can't believe I'm one..... No matter how much you tell me I should believe it I can't. I do however know what its like to be me. Cogito ergo sum...... Bless you Descartes!Andre_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

Andre,
I can’t believe I’m a turnip, because I don’t know what it feels like to be a turnip……
It's like being Andre, but with less talking. Now that that's out of the way, I want you to believe that you are a turnip for the next 24 hours. Ready...set...go.keith s_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank Each person has the capability to change his beliefs so even if you throw culture at it you'd still be wrong.Andre_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT}

Keith S
The brain — a physical object — has the capability of searching for truth (though it isn’t always successful), but that doesn’t require that it “override the laws of nature”
So Tell me Keith S, since you know that your search for truth may not be successful what gives that you are so sure about your intentional state that God does not exist? Perhaps follow your own advice and be more cautious about what you think is true? You can't rely on that brain of yours now can you?Andre_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

Barry - Dennett doesn't think belief in general is mere folk pyschology. He thinks it is folk psychology to ascribe beliefs to other things and animals - quite a different proposition. The reason evolution does not select for specific beliefs is that beliefs are not passed on genetically (or epigenetically). You acquire beliefs during the course of your life time and they may be passed on to your descendents culturally but not biologically.Mark Frank_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

No I don't because If the programming was setup that 1 + 2 = 7. It simply won't know that it is false, machines cannot search for truth.Andre_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

I can't believe I'm a turnip, because I don't know what it feels like to be a turnip......Andre_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

Andre,
I thought that comparing a human to a computer is a bad analogy to use?
That depends on the analogy being drawn.
You’re going to have to do better than that, because you know as well as I do computers do not search for truth humans do!
When a computer is searching for the solution to an equation, you don't think it's searching for a true solution?keith s_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

keiths:
I was trying to point out the obvious: It is not possible to change one’s beliefs on a whim, as Alice understood. Not even if you draw a long breath and shut your eyes.
Andre:
Ahh so Alice a fictional character has credibility but a living human being like me has none? I went from being an atheist to a theist in the space of an hour……. that is changing my belief on a whim or is my faculties too unreliable to count as any type of testimony versus fictional Alice?
Okay, for the next 24 hours I want you to believe, absolutely, that you are a turnip. Ready...set...go.keith s_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

Keith S I thought that comparing a human to a computer is a bad analogy to use? You're going to have to do better than that, because you know as well as I do computers do not search for truth humans do!Andre_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

Keith S Ahh so Alice a fictional character has credibility but a living human being like me has none? I went from being an atheist to a theist in the space of an hour....... that is changing my belief on a whim or is my faculties too unreliable to count as any type of testimony versus fictional Alice?Andre_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

Andre, I was trying to point out the obvious: It is not possible to change one's beliefs on a whim, as Alice understood. Not even if you draw a long breath and shut your eyes.
Do you want to tell me that chemical reactions have the capability to search for truth and override the laws of nature?
The brain -- a physical object -- has the capability of searching for truth (though it isn't always successful), but that doesn't require that it "override the laws of nature" -- just as a computer can search for a solution to a problem while nevertheless being bound by the laws of nature.keith s_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

Keith S What does your quote from a story book have to do with reality? Seriously have you never ever changed your mind? Do you want to tell me that chemical reactions have the capability to search for truth and override the laws of nature? You are even more delusional than I thought.Andre_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

Andre:
...we can freely choose to change our beliefs anytime we want...
"I'm just one hundred and one, five months and a day." "I can't believe that!" said Alice. "Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes." Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."keith s_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply