|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
 Posted - 10/20/2005 : 20:57:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse Evolution does not have a goal, however, it will tend to adjust toward survival traits in a species.
Evolution having a goal is your religion talking. Evolution is mindless, following the path of necessity.
OK, evolution having a goal is my religion talking, but evolution being mindless is your materialism talking. You don't *know* it is mindless. Necessity and mindedness are not mutually exclusive. Even the survival urge of attaining that which is necessary for life can be considered a mindedness.
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2005 : 21:53:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Well given that you don't perceive Deity now, chances are you won't in the future. (Assuming you're over 40 or so.) Even if a physical 'miracle' occured you would still not believe because afterall its non repeatability renders it as inadmissable evidence to a materialist. Besides, 'miraculous' happenings are *always* open to some other interpretation and I'm sure you would find one.
Just calling furshur "unreasonably prejudiced" would have taken much less time, no? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2005 : 22:00:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
If by 'naturalistic' you mean strictly material mechanism then consciousness refutes such a view because consciousness cannot be 'explained' or 'deduced' by mechanistic processes alone.
Ah, the old "what we can't explain now will never be explained" argument. History, obviously, says otherwise. So do all the other examples of emergent properties in complex systems that we already know.quote:
The 'feeling' "I am aware", although dependent on material mechanism, transcends it. For instance, no one has derived the feeling "I am aware" from mechanistic first principles.
Again, the fact that no one has accomplished a certain feat doesn't mean that such a feat is fundamentally impossible. Nobody has derived "the feeling 'I am aware' is necessarily non-material" from any first principles, mechanistic or otherwise. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2005 : 05:18:49 [Permalink]
|
| So, the soul, if there is such a pet, is a parasite in our brain? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2005 : 07:07:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Well given that you don't perceive Deity now, chances are you won't in the future. (Assuming you're over 40 or so.) Even if a physical 'miracle' occured you would still not believe because afterall its non repeatability renders it as inadmissable evidence to a materialist. Besides, 'miraculous' happenings are *always* open to some other interpretation and I'm sure you would find one.
Just calling furshur "unreasonably prejudiced" would have taken much less time, no?
Well if you want to put it in those terms, pleco or any other unbeliever is prejudiced against God's existence for certain 'reasons'. I'm sure that unbelievers think of themselves as reasonable. Just as I think I am reasonable believing in God. I'm prejudiced towards God's existence, for sure. So I think it is fair to say in matters such as this that one's reasons follow one's desires. So no, I personally woudn't call him "unreasonably" prejudiced. Just prejudiced, like myself.
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2005 : 07:22:16 [Permalink]
|
My reasons for not believing in the existence of god (at this point in time) stem soley from a lack of evidence. And, yes, that seems entirely reasonable to me. You show me undeniable evidence, and watch me change my mind.
You start from the position that there is a god and it has to be proved NOT to exist, and we all know what proving a negative is like. I pesonally find that to be an "unreasonable" position to start with.
And I started out as a believer the first 17 years of my life. I know what it is like.
BTW, if you check my profile, I'm not over 40, but getting close.
Part of the definition of a miracle, in my book, would be something that absolutely cannot be explained away.
I find it interesting that apparently you didn't need faith in god up until about 2000 years ago. God manifest itself routinely to the people in the Middle East. Then about 2000 years ago God vanished. Now you have to have faith only. Hmmm..... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2005 : 07:23:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by markie
If by 'naturalistic' you mean strictly material mechanism then consciousness refutes such a view because consciousness cannot be 'explained' or 'deduced' by mechanistic processes alone.
Ah, the old "what we can't explain now will never be explained" argument. History, obviously, says otherwise. So do all the other examples of emergent properties in complex systems that we already know.
Yes but calling things 'emergent' doesn't necessarily explain it, as you already know. It can be merely a label for the unknown.
quote:
The 'feeling' "I am aware", although dependent on material mechanism, transcends it. For instance, no one has derived the feeling "I am aware" from mechanistic first principles.quote:
Again, the fact that no one has accomplished a certain feat doesn't mean that such a feat is fundamentally impossible. Nobody has derived "the feeling 'I am aware' is necessarily non-material" from any first principles, mechanistic or otherwise.
Nor will they, I predict. In fact I think that consciousness will be more and more understood as a 'given', an axiomatic aspect of the universe which somehow manifests upon critical biological complexity. Time will tell.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2005 : 07:33:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
So, the soul, if there is such a pet, is a parasite in our brain?
Think of it as an evolving supermaterial correlate to certain aspects of mind, and which survives as a preservable entity after the dissolution of the material brain and ceasation of mind functioning.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2005 : 07:36:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
...So no, I personally woudn't call him "unreasonably" prejudiced. Just prejudiced, like myself.
No, you said he would find a different interpretation of (any) miracle. Would there be any reasonable interpretation which excludes God if, for example, the stars were to be re-arranged tomorrow to read "I, God, exist and all you humans better believe it" in all the written languages of the world? I don't think so. That'd be rather conclusive. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2005 : 07:41:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
So, the soul, if there is such a pet, is a parasite in our brain?
Think of it as an evolving supermaterial correlate to certain aspects of mind, and which survives as a preservable entity after the dissolution of the material brain and ceasation of mind functioning.
Moving past the supermaterial part (since we don't know if such brand of material exists), the soul:
Evolves, as all ordinary material lifeforms;
Breeds, using its brain substrate as its vector;
Somehow survives after the dissolution of said substrate.
So, the soul, if such creature exists, is a 'supermaterial' (whatever that means) virus?
fixed caffeinated parsing. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 10/21/2005 07:43:38 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2005 : 07:51:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Yes but calling things 'emergent' doesn't necessarily explain it, as you already know. It can be merely a label for the unknown.
So far as I know, the only thing which appears to be an emergent property of a complex system which has yet to be explained is consciousness. Much simpler systems with emergent properties (the Game of Life and other cellular automata, for really simple examples) have been thoroughly explained. Labeling something as probably being an emergent property doesn't end research, markie, it just gives us a different perspective on the subject. How the property emerges is obviously an important question.quote:
quote:
Nobody has derived "the feeling 'I am aware' is necessarily non-material" from any first principles, mechanistic or otherwise.
Nor will they, I predict.
Apparently, you miss my point. You claim that consciousness will not be explained in a solely materialistic manner because nobody has derived it from first principles. Using that same "logic," I showed that all other claims about consciousness meet the same fate (they aren't true), including the idea that consciousness is somehow axiomatic. In other words, your logic fails. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2005 : 07:53:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
My reasons for not believing in the existence of god (at this point in time) stem soley from a lack of evidence. And, yes, that seems entirely reasonable to me. You show me undeniable evidence, and watch me change my mind.
And that's the catch, *any* evidence can be denied. The very evidence that Jesus existed can be 'explained' away. A spontaneous healing I experienced could be 'explained' away. Consciousness and the God seeking urge can be 'explained' away.
quote:
You start from the position that there is a god and it has to be proved NOT to exist, and we all know what proving a negative is like. I pesonally find that to be an "unreasonable" position to start with.
Similarly of course starting from the position that there is no god, and obtaining material 'proof' of an immaterial God, is impossible. Any 'material phenomenon' is only proof of, well, the existence of that material phenomenon.
quote:
And I started out as a believer the first 17 years of my life. I know what it is like.
Then after 17 or so you developed your own opinion. Well, that's the way it was meant, that we are to decide for ourselves.
quote:
I find it interesting that apparently you didn't need faith in god up until about 2000 years ago. God manifest itself routinely to the people in the Middle East. Then about 2000 years ago God vanished. Now you have to have faith only. Hmmm.....
Hey, God could come in the flesh and people still wouldn't believe. Someone could appear after his death to his friends, and it can still be dismissed as a make believe story or a shared hallucination.
Faith has always been required as the writer of Hebrews has attested.
(Although of course I don't buy everything that writer says, heh!)
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2005 : 08:01:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The very evidence that Jesus existed can be 'explained' away.
He did?
quote:
Then after 17 or so you developed your own opinion. Well, that's the way it was meant, that we are to decide for ourselves.
You are assuming I didn't form my own opinion before then?
quote:
God could come in the flesh and people still wouldn't believe
No, they would beleive it is god, they just may not accept it. There is a difference.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2005 : 08:04:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia Moving past the supermaterial part (since we don't know if such brand of material exists), the soul:
Evolves, as all ordinary material lifeforms;
Breeds, using its brain substrate as its vector;
Somehow survives after the dissolution of said substrate.
So, the soul, if such creature exists, is a 'supermaterial' (whatever that means) virus?
A virus often does harm to it's host, whereas the soul does not. The soul is the preserver of values of eternal import which have registered in the mind during biological life. Much unlike a virus.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2005 : 08:28:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by markie
...So no, I personally woudn't call him "unreasonably" prejudiced. Just prejudiced, like myself.
No, you said he would find a different interpretation of (any) miracle. Would there be any reasonable interpretation which excludes God if, for example, the stars were to be re-arranged tomorrow to read "I, God, exist and all you humans better believe it" in all the written languages of the world? I don't think so. That'd be rather conclusive.
It would be conclusive that some "God" is desperate to be recognized. The real God, he ain't desperate.
Or maybe aliens were projecting a visual holographic field around the planet....
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
