Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Not Merely False

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

“We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men” (George Orwell).

The following statements are so obvious as to be considered truisms.

1. The primordial datum: I am subjectively self-aware.

2. It is not possible even in principle to account for mental facts, such as the primordial datum, on the basis of physical facts. They are different sorts of things; therefore one cannot account for the other. Trying to account for subjective self-awareness by suggesting it is an epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical process of the brain is like saying the color blue can be reduced to its constituent banana peels.

3. It follows that a reductionist materialism is not merely false but obviously false.

4. Just as obviously, it does not follow that committed materialists will admit that reductionist materialism is false, for they have reasons to put their faith in their metaphysical commitments that have nothing to do with the evidence and logic of the matter.

Comments
In the beginning was Nothing and Nothing created Everything. When Nothing decided to create Everything, she filled a tiny dot with Time, Chance, and Everything and had it explode. The explosion spread Everything into Everywhere carrying Time and Chance with it to keep it company. The three stretched out together leaving bits of themselves wherever they went. One of those places was the planet Earth. For no particular Reason—for Reason is rarely particular—Time and Chance took a liking to this wet little blue rock and so decided to stick around and see what adventures they might have. The pair thought the Earth was intriguing and pretty, but also rather dull and static. They fixed upon an idea to change Everything (just a little) by creating a special Something. Time and Chance roamed the planet, splashing through the oceans and scampering through the mud, in search of materials. But though they looked Everywhere there was a Missing Ingredient that they needed in order to make a Something that could create more of the same Somethings. They called to their friend Everything to help. Since Everything had been Everywhere she would no doubt be able to find the Missing Ingredient. And indeed she did, hidden away in a small alcove called Somewhere, Everything found what Time and Chance had needed all along: Information. Everything put the Information on a piece of ice and rock that happened to be passing by the former planet Pluto and sent it back to her friends on Earth. Now that they had Information, Time and Chance were finally able to create a self-replicating Something which they called Life. Once they created the Life they found that it not only became more Somethings it began to become Otherthings too! The Somethings and the Otherthings began to fill all the Earth— from the bottom of the oceans to the top of the sky. Their creation, which began as a single Something eventually became millions of Otherthings. Time and Chance, though, where the bickering sort and were constantly feuding over which of them was the most powerful. One day they began to argue over who had been most responsible for creating Life. Everything (who was constantly eavesdropping) overheard the spat and suggested that they settle the debate by putting their creative skills to work on a new creature called Man. They all thought is was a splendid plan—for Man was a dull, hairy beast who would indeed provide a suitable challenge—and began to boast about who could create an ability, which they called Consciousness, that would allow Man to be aware of Chance, Time, Everything, and Nothing. Chance, who had always been a bit of a dawdler, got off to a slow start so it was Time, who never rested, that was able to complete the task first. Time rushed around, filling the gooey matter inside each Man’s head with Consciousness. But as he was gloating over his victory he noticed a strange reaction. When Man could see that Everything had been created by Time, Chance, and Nothing, his Consciousness would fill with Despair. Chance immediately saw a solution to the problem and used the remaining materials she was using to make Consciousness to create Beliefs. When Chance mixed Beliefs into the gray goo, Man stopped filling with Despair and started creating Illusions. These Illusions took various forms—God, Purpose, Meaning—but they were almost always effective in preventing Man from filling up with Despair. Nothing, who tended to be rather forgetful, remembered her creation and decided to take a look around Everything. When she saw what Time and Chance had done on planet Earth she was mildly amused but forbid them to fill any more creatures with Consciousness or Beliefs (which is why Man is the only Something that has both). But Nothing took a fancy to Man and told Time and Chance that when each one’s Life ran out that she would take him or her and make them into Nothing too. And that is why, my young friends, when Man loses his Life he goes from being a Something created by Time and Chance into becoming like his creator—Nothing. The End http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/03/in-the-beginning-was-nothing-a-creation-story-for-young-materialists/Andre
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PST
"Imagine" (a song of a materialist - to the tune of "Imagine" by J.Lennon) Imagine evolution* Is a reality Survival of the fittest - That's all morality Imagine all the people Are simply mere apes You You may say I'm a dreamer, That STE's a bunch of fakes But I am still a fierce believer No matter what blind faith it takes Imagine all your software Creates itself by chance - At last no need for money To activate license Imagine super-programs Need no intelligence. You You may say I'm a dreamer, That STE's a bunch of fakes But I am still a fierce believer No matter what blind faith it takes Imagine mind and logic And creativity Produced by side reactions Of brain activity Imagine that your consciousness Can be reduced to chemistry You You may say I'm a dreamer That atheism's a bunch of fakes But I am still a fierce believer No matter what blind faith it takes _______________________________________ * - under "evolution" here we mean Darwinian evolution, not simply change in timeLesia
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PST
Heks #34
Plenty of atheist materialists have recognized that materialism cannot account for the conscious lives we experience. The way they address that problem is by claiming that the conscious lives we experience are, therefore, illusory. That is the standard view of materialism.
You are talking about eliminative materialism. There are many other materialist philosophies of mind in the sense that they believe that body and mind are the same thing (although they might not be called materialist).  In Wikipedia they are conveniently listed under the label physical monism. Mark Frank
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PST
I have seen it many times, but I am nevertheless amazed afresh each time I see it -- someone stamping their feet and getting red in the face as the absolutely insist they do not exist and neither does the person they are addressing.Barry Arrington
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PST
Acartia_bogart, I continue to find your arguments incredibly bizarre. You say that the non-materialist's claim that the physical brain is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the existence of the human mind is one that is unsupported by the evidence. I disagree. I think we both agree the brain is a necessary condition. There seems to be a number of reasons to believe that, not the least of which is the difficulty humans have thinking once their brain has been removed. But we also seem to have several reasons to think that the physical brain is not a sufficient condition for the existence of the human mind as we typically understand it, because the human mind has many characteristics that do not seem attributable to pieces of matter. Barry mentioned one example, being subjective self-awareness. Another is the characteristic of "intentionality", in that the mind has thoughts that are about things, and there is no basis for saying that globs of matter, in any particular configuration, can themselves be about anything. These are fairly obvious conclusions that one can draw from the data, and we have no physical explanation at all for how consciousness and intentionality can exist and no evidence, apart from the disputed example of the mind, that matter can display these qualities. Now, for some reason you seem to be acting as though you think theists are the only ones who have recognized this problem and the necessity of these conclusions. That simply isn't the case. Plenty of atheist materialists have recognized that materialism cannot account for the conscious lives we experience. The way they address that problem is by claiming that the conscious lives we experience are, therefore, illusory. That is the standard view of materialism. There is no self, there is no mind, there is no intentionality, there is no free will. This is unsurprising. It is, after all, the standard materialist response to disconfirming evidence: if materialism can't explain it, it doesn't really exist in the first place. You, on the other hand, seem like you want to have your cake and eat it too.
If the activities you mention had no effect on a person, we would have to conclude that humans are able to function perfectly well without a brain!
Nice attempt at extrapolating to the extreme. By your logic, because a person can function quite well if we remove a kidney, we must conclude that they will function just as well if we removed the other kidney.
Huh? You think that what I said compares to your example? Do you think that removing a kidney literally has zero effect on a person just because they can survive with their other one, which serves the same purpose? Let's try and use that silly example with brains. Suppose a person had two identical brains that both fulfilled the same purpose. And suppose you injected one of their brains with chemicals or delivered to it some kind of other stimulus but the person's mind continued to operate normally, with very little or no effect from the stimulus. Would you then be warranted in concluding that the person's two physical brains had nothing to do with their mind? Nope. It could simply be the case that the other brain was taking over the workload, right? Well, I'm not really sure where else to go with that, because your kidney argument really has no relation to the point I was making; especially since we're not arguing that kidneys have some function or characteristic that cannot be explained by their physical makeup. Let's return to the real world, where we have just one brain. If we could do anything we wanted to that brain, like drug it, hit it with an electric current, stab it, shoot it, remove large sections of it, and those actions literally had no effect whatsoever on a person's mind, including their ability to willfully initiate motor functions, that would suggest that the brain has little or even nothing to do with the mind. In other words, it would strongly indicate that the brain is not even a necessary condition for the existence of the mind, much less a sufficient one. It would be at least a reasonable hypothesis that we might be able to go right on thinking without any brain at all. What your argument about the effects of drugs on the mind proves is what the non-materialist already readily admits, which is that the brain is a necessary condition for the mind. Your argument does not prove that the brain is a sufficient condition for the mind. The ability to impair or affect the mind through such methods does not explain how the mind could originate in the first place and have the characteristics it does.HeKS
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PST
Tim: If you people insist on such vague, slippery terms such as a 'mental fact' then these discussions are pretty pointless. What on earth is a 'mental fact' ? How do we account for such a thing 'on the basis of' something else ?Graham2
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PST
AB
A claim that is unsupported by evidence.
Evidence has absolutely nothing to say about it. The point is that a cause cannot give what it does not have to give. Accordingly, some things simply cannot happen. A glass of water cannot play chess. A refrigerator cannot make love to a stove. A hydrogen atom cannot produce an inferiority complex. The fact that you would ask for evidence shows that you don't understand the point that is being made.StephenB
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PST
Don't pretend to lecture on premises. Statements are premises. The entire point of syllogisms is the power of the truth of the statements combined with the flow of the logic. That Barry left the grounds unstated is your opportunity to dispute the truth of the statement. Blithely commenting that Barry has not mentioned supporting grounds is just lame.
Organon: All men are mortal. A_B:(This) premise . . . is a statement that (Organon) claims is fact, without any grounds to support it. (Sure, most men are mortal, but all men? come on . . .) Everything that follows, therefore, is pure speculation.
How about this: give just one counter-example of premise #2. Then, for Barry, game over; without it, though, game ON!Tim
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PST
Tim, not even close. Barry did not provide a list of premises. His second premise, as you define it, is a statement that Barry claims is fact, without any grounds to support it. Everything that follows, therefore, is pure speculation. HeKs: ". Rather, the claim is that the physical brain is not a sufficient condition for the existence of the human mind" A claim that is unsupported by evidence. " If the activities you mention had no effect on a person, we would have to conclude that humans are able to function perfectly well without a brain! Is that really what you think the non-materialist is claiming?" Nice attempt at extrapolating to the extreme. By your logic, because a person can function quite well if we remove a kidney, we must conclude that they will function just as well if we removed the other kidney.Acartia_bogart
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PST
Thanks, HeKS, for the quick dismantling of A_B and in the brief tutorial on necessary and sufficient cause. A_B, the ball isn't quite in Barry's court yet. What's with this (A_B@13)
(Barry has) not provided any arguments of (his) own to disagree with
When I see a list of premises (numbered even!) connected logically, you know, it just seems like an . . . argument. And now if the choir may both criticize and compliment in the same comment. Barry, while missing the premise that ties statement number 4 into the argument, you have managed to encourage Mr. Bogart to provide it for you. As Mickey said to Rocky, "SHHHRREWWWDDD"Tim
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PST
SB:
Evidence does [not] evaluate reason’s rules; reason’s rules evaluate evidence.
Unless you're an atheist. In which case either/or/nought is just fine and there is no reason to be consistent (or not). But then we all know full well that atheism is not about reason and evidence. It's about belief. Not disbelief, not lack of belief, but belief. A rational person offers reason for belief. Atheism is the absurd claim that no reason is required for disbelief, because disbelief is merely the absence of belief. Therefore no reason is required. Makes it easy to be an atheist, as long as one is willing to suspend rational thought. But if one is willing to suspend rational thought, why be an atheist?Mung
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PST
Graham2:
BA: Now its your turn.
lol. it's like stacking firewood. WHY? It's Barry's turn to do what? And why OUGHT Barry do whatever you think it's Barry's turn to do? Whine less. Argue more. But why?Mung
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PST
Correlation does not imply causation.Box
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PST
Barry: "20 comments in and A-B finally stops whining and makes an argument. Atta boy A-B; atta boy." Graham2: "BA: Now its your turn." To quote Sheldon, Bazinga. Thank you Graham2, I was afraid that I might be accused of whining if I pointed out the blatantly obvious. And you gave me a good chuckle.Acartia_bogart
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PST
AB
You may be right. But what evidence do you have for this?
It is one of reason's rules that every effect must have a proportionate cause. Evidence does not evaluate reason's rules; reason's rules evaluate evidence. That is what it means to interpret evidence in a rational way.
If we can chemically or physically disrupt these, why is it not reasonable to infer that they are not chemically and physically caused?
A disrupted air passage can cause death. That doesn't mean that air can cause life.StephenB
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PST
Acartia_bogart, You seem to be arguing as though the non-materialist claim is that the physical brain is not a necessary condition for the existence of the human mind (or at the very least for its interaction with the material world, depending on the individual's personal view of mind). Rather, the claim is that the physical brain is not a sufficient condition for the existence of the human mind. If the activities you mention had no effect on a person, we would have to conclude that humans are able to function perfectly well without a brain! Is that really what you think the non-materialist is claiming?HeKS
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PST
BA: Now its your turn.Graham2
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PST
20 comments in and A-B finally stops whining and makes an argument. Atta boy A-B; atta boy.Barry Arrington
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PST
StephenB: "Accordingly, there is nothing in the cause (physical facts, electro-chemical processes) than could possibly produce the effect (mental facts, subjective self awareness). There is no way to get from the former to the latter." You may be right. But what evidence do you have for this? We have very strong evidence that by disrupting the chemistry or the structure of the brain, we can affect the memory and self awareness. Much of scientific knowledge has progressed through the selective removal or altering something to see what the result is. If we remove the eyes, we are blind. That is pretty conclusive evidence that the eyes are critical for sight. If we damage the visual centre of the brain, we are also blind.again, demonstrating that sight is probably due to chemical and physical properties. . So, why does the same concept not apply to what we consider special about us (I.e., consciousness, self awareness etc.)? If we can chemically or physically disrupt these, why is it not reasonable to infer that they are not chemically and physically caused? Keep in mind that I am not saying that this is an obvious truism, simply that there is enough evidence to strongly suggest that resorting to supernatural causes is not warranted at this time.Acartia_bogart
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PST
A-B @ 13, Explain why anyone should be held responsible for a crime if materialism is true - how can 'chemicals in the brain' be put on trial for things other animals do without consequence?Heartlander
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PST
Arcatia_bogart:
My argument is not whether or not this is true. That is not Barry’s claim. His claim is that it is an obvious truism. It is this claim that I have a problem with. By making this claim he is essentially stating that he will not accept any dissenting views. Then it seems to me that there is no point in him writing this OP.
It appears that this is an obvious truth (truism) to you. In fact, you also say:
It is a truism that, by the way Barry words this OP, and others, he is not welcoming honest discussion.
Is that an obvious truism? Just wondering if you affirm or deny that some things are obviously true (or obviously false). Are you one of those who say that it is an obvious truism that there are no obvious truisms? If you agree that some things are obviously true (or obviously false), is it that you disagree with Barry about what those things are? Why not try to find areas of agreement? For example, you could say, "Barry, I would agree that it is obviously true that atheism entails nihilism except for the fact that atheism also entails that there are no obvious truths." From there it is such a small step to the recognition that it is an obvious truth that atheism entails nothing, and is therefore inherently irrational, but given that atheism also entails that there there is no truth ... Ah heck, there i go again. Since atheism entails nothing, it cannot entail that there are no truths, so so either atheism is false or it is irrational. Of course, as an atheist, you should not be bothered that atheism is false nor that it is irrational, since both of those are entailed by atheism, which entails nothing. No wonder the "true atheist" embraces nihilism. hah, true atheism. I like that. I wonder if the domain name is taken.Mung
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PST
AB:
It seems quite obvious to me what he is saying. Let me paraphrase. If you disagree with any of these you are wrong because Barry says that you are wrong.
No. He is saying that if you disagree you are wrong because it isn't possible that you could be right. Or, to put it yet another way, a cause cannot give what it does not have to give. Accordingly, there is nothing in the cause (physical facts, electro-chemical processes) than could possibly produce the effect (mental facts, subjective self awareness). There is no way to get from the former to the latter.StephenB
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PST
Arcatia_bogart:
He is only welcoming cheerleaders for his opinion.
You're missing the point unless you're claiming that Barry's opinion is an obvious truth. Arcatia_bogart:
It is a truism that, by the way Barry words this OP, and others, he is not welcoming honest discussion.
You're wrong. SURPRISE! But given that you have no positive case for your position, you have to go motive mongering. By the way, why OUGHT Barry word his OP in such a way as to encourage "honest" discussion?Mung
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PST
Barry, did you ban someone for calling someone else a liar? My memory is that RDFish was placed in moderation, not banned. Was there a banning? I just wanted to check my facts before asserting that Arcatia_bogart was lying about you banning someone for calling someone else a liar. I wouldn't wanted to get banned ;)Mung
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PST
Please pardon the italics issue in that comment.HeKS
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PST
Barry, I was not trying to argue against your views, just the way that you are presenting them. This is not whining, it is just constructive criticism. But even if I take your advice: "A-B, you are free to disagree with me. All I ask is that if you do disagree with me that you present arguments" you have not provided any arguments of your own to disagree with. You have simply stated what you consider to be absolutes. And when someone cannot be convinced that you are correct, you simply say that they are too stupid or stubborn to understand. That is not exactly a compelling argument. But i will stick to your rules. Yes, we are self aware. And I may even concede that we have free will, although I don't think that there is any way to unambiguously test this. But acknowledging that these occur is not proof that these are not the ultimate result of chemical reactions on the physical brain. The fact that we can interfere with these through the use of chemicals is a strong suggestion for the opposite. And what about direct stimulation of the brain? Through this technique, a purely physical one that does nothing more than stimulate physical parts of the brain, we can make the person sense things indistinguishable from what they sense through there normal senses. Or make them happy, sad, etc. all of this the result of physical interference with the brain.Acartia_bogart
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PST
Acartia_bogart, I'm having a heck of a time trying to wrap my head around your method of argumentation ... or lack thereof. If someone asserts that something is a truism and I think their claim is baseless, I simply explain why I think it's baseless. I don't just complain that in saying something is a truism the person is somehow telling me they are unwilling to accept dissenting views. Comments are turned on. If you have a dissenting view, bring it forth and show why Barry's point are, in fact, not truisms.HeKS
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PST
A-B, you are free to disagree with me. All I ask is that if you do disagree with me that you present arguments – logic and evidence -- to support your position. So far, all you’ve done is whine.Barry Arrington
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PST
AB: If you disagree with any of these you are wrong because Barry says that you are wrong.
I would put it differently. If you disagree with what Barry is saying then you are blind in some fundamental way that puts you out of the game, so to speak. If you can't "see" after a bit of introspection that consciousness is fundamental and transcends materialistic explanation, then you are either a zombie or have a brain defect. There's nothing left to discuss. So, in a sense, Barry is preaching to the choir. But that's OK. Sometimes us choir folk like to hear the preaching.Vishnu
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PST
A-B @ 8 If you have an argument, make it. You are complaining about an imaginary situation where you can't express your view.Heartlander
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PST
1 2 3

Leave a Reply