BA77: >>I like the nuance that Dr. Pearcey draws out. It is not only that, under materialistic premises, our perceptions may be false, it is also that, under materialistic premises, free will, consciouness and even our sense of self, are illusions!
Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself – Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015
Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false.
To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion – and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.
So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,,
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2…..94171.html
Thus, the problem is much worse than the problem that we might believe false things about a sabre tooth tiger and choose to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. The problem is that our material brains falsely believe that they exist as real persons in the first place, and that our brains, as illusory persons, also falsely believe that they somehow have a free choice whether to tell the material body to run away from the tiger or not!
Moreover, as if all of the preceding was not already the very definition of absurdity, under materialistic premises the tiger’s brain is also having an illusion that it really exists as a tiger, and its brain is also under the illusion that it has a choice as whether it wants to eat us or whether it wants to take a nap.
Moreover, while all this is a very compelling philosophical proof that the naturalistic/materialistic position is patently absurd, due to advances in science we don’t have to rely solely on this compelling philosophical proof. In other words, we can underscore our compelling philosophical argument with rigid empirical evidence.
For instance, to underscore the fact that we have free will, we can refer to the quantum experiment of ‘Delayed choice for entanglement swapping’:
“If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.”
Asher Peres, Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 139-143 (2000).
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012
Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a “Gedankenexperiment” called “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”, formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000.,,,
According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger.
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-q…..ction.html
You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video:
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained – 2014 video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4
In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past? This experiment is simply impossible for any coherent materialistic presupposition!
And to underscore the fact that consciousness is not emergent from a material basis, we can reference this recent experiment from quantum mechanics (among many experiments).,,
Dean Radin, who spent years at Princeton testing different aspects of consciousness, recently performed experiments testing the possible role of consciousness in the double slit. His results were, not so surprisingly, very supportive of consciousness’s central role in the experiment:
Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: six experiments – Radin – 2012
Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s(seconds). Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4:36, p = 6·10^-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0:43, p = 0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem.
http://www.deanradin.com/paper…..0final.pdf
And to experimentally support the Theistic contention that really do exist as real persons, we can reference this:
Dr. Gary Mathern – What Can You Do With Half A Brain? – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrKijBx_hAw
Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics’ Lives: – 1997
Excerpt: “We are awed by the apparent retention of memory and by the retention of the child’s personality and sense of humor,” Dr. Eileen P. G. Vining,,
Dr. John Freeman, the director of the Johns Hopkins Pediatric Epilepsy Center, said he was dumbfounded at the ability of children to regain speech after losing the half of the brain that is supposedly central to language processing.
”It’s fascinating,” Dr. Freeman said. ”The classic lore is that you can’t change language after the age of 2 or 3.”
But Dr. Freeman’s group has now removed diseased left hemispheres in more than 20 patients, including three 13-year-olds whose ability to speak transferred to the right side of the brain in much the way that Alex’s did.,,,
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08…..lives.html
In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study:
“Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications.”
Strange but True: When Half a Brain Is Better than a Whole One – May 2007
Excerpt: Most Hopkins hemispherectomy patients are five to 10 years old. Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. ,,,
Another study found that children that underwent hemispherectomies often improved academically once their seizures stopped. “One was champion bowler of her class, one was chess champion of his state, and others are in college doing very nicely,” Freeman says.
Of course, the operation has its downside: “You can walk, run—some dance or skip—but you lose use of the hand opposite of the hemisphere that was removed. You have little function in that arm and vision on that side is lost,” Freeman says. Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. ,,,
http://www.scientificamerican……than-whole
More evidence of brain plasticity is here
The Case for the Soul – InspiringPhilosophy – (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Schwartz’s work) – Oct. 2014 – video
The Mind is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity). Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism cannot explain mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
In fact not only is the mind able to modify the structure of the brain, but not the mind has been shown to have the ability to reach all the way down and effect the genetic expression of our bodies:
Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, – December 10, 2013
Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
“Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.,,,
the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways.
http://www.tunedbody.com/scien…..ges-genes/
Thus, not only is atheistic materialism phiosophically absurd in the extreme, but atheistic materialism is also directly undercut by empirical evidence.
If we were dealing with a science instead of a religion, this would be devastating for the hypothesis of materialism!>>
We may want to debate the Quantum views BA77 brings to the table, etc, but the key point drawn out from Pearcey is still there on the middle of the table:
Moreover, as if all of the preceding was not already the very definition of absurdity, under materialistic premises the tiger’s brain is also having an illusion that it really exists as a tiger, and its brain is also under the illusion that it has a choice as whether it wants to eat us or whether it wants to take a nap.
And in reply, what do our Evolutionary Materialism advocates have to say? . . . END
Thus, the problem is much worse than the problem that we might believe false things about a sabre tooth tiger and choose to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. The problem is that our material brains falsely believe that they exist as real persons in the first place, and that our brains, as illusory persons, also falsely believe that they somehow have a free choice whether to tell the material body to run away from the tiger or not!
Moreover, as if all of the preceding was not already the very definition of absurdity, under materialistic premises the tiger’s brain is also having an illusion that it really exists as a tiger, and its brain is also under the illusion that it has a choice as whether it wants to eat us or whether it wants to take a nap.
Moreover, while all this is a very compelling philosophical proof that the naturalistic/materialistic position is patently absurd, due to advances in science we don’t have to rely solely on this compelling philosophical proof. In other words, we can underscore our compelling philosophical argument with rigid empirical evidence.
For instance, to underscore the fact that we have free will, we can refer to the quantum experiment of ‘Delayed choice for entanglement swapping’:
You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video:
In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past? This experiment is simply impossible for any coherent materialistic presupposition!
And to underscore the fact that consciousness is not emergent from a material basis, we can reference this recent experiment from quantum mechanics (among many experiments).,,
Dean Radin, who spent years at Princeton testing different aspects of consciousness, recently performed experiments testing the possible role of consciousness in the double slit. His results were, not so surprisingly, very supportive of consciousness’s central role in the experiment:
And to experimentally support the Theistic contention that really do exist as real persons, we can reference this:
In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study:
More evidence of brain plasticity is here
In fact not only is the mind able to modify the structure of the brain, but not the mind has been shown to have the ability to reach all the way down and effect the genetic expression of our bodies:
Thus, not only is atheistic materialism phiosophically absurd in the extreme, but atheistic materialism is also directly undercut by empirical evidence.
If we were dealing with a science instead of a religion, this would be devastating for the hypothesis of materialism!>>