As we cannot even Imagine a means of Creating a Consciousness other than by Evolution in a Material Reality — Michael Sol
simply a silly recourse to Magic. — Michael Sol
Created Consciousnesses do not count for the purposes of this Inquiry, because of the infinite regression of Creators' Creators Absurdity... — Michael Sol
As we cannot even Imagine a means of Creating a Consciousness other than by Evolution in a Material Reality, — Michael Sol
Also, to suggest an all-powerful being created us by some mysterious process that does not involve causality is simply a silly recourse to Magic — Michael Sol
As we cannot even Imagine a means of Creating a Consciousness other than by Evolution in a Material Reality, then isn't the Consciousness itself Proof of the Objective Material Universe? — Michael Sol
Created Consciousnesses do not count for the purposes of this Inquiry, because of the infinite regression of Creators' Creators Absurdity.... Also, to suggest an all-powerful being created us by some mysterious process that does not involve causality is simply a silly recourse to Magic. — Michael Sol
You replied that you can imagine the creating of a consciousness by some natural process other than evolution? Could you share us the description of that process? — Michael Sol
Many philosophers reject the need for causation. See B Russell, 1912.
Yeah, Hume, Russell and all of those others are wrong, and none of them ever gave us any other mechanism whereby material reality might operate. I would really like to see a conceptual model that accounts for Object change without causation.... Causation is, as Kant pointed out, an indispensable basis of all existence. — Michael Sol
As we cannot even Imagine a means of Creating a Consciousness other than by Evolution in a Material Reality, then isn't the Consciousness itself Proof of the Objective Material Universe? — Michael Sol
Infinite Regression is Absurd, because there is no such thing in our conception or experience that is an infinitude. — Michael Sol
Created Consciousnesses do not count for the purposes of this Inquiry, because of the infinite regression of Creators' Creators Absurdity.... — Michael Sol
I appreciate the axiomatic nature of matter, — Michael Sol
explain what it is that changes without cause? — Michael Sol
Evolutionary biology is not itself a philosophy or a metaphysics. It’s a theory of the evolution of species....It’s also not a philosophy of mind. As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, the only factors it takes into account are those which can be understood in terms of what leads to successful reproduction and continued existence. — Wayfarer
It is generally based on an intuition of the relationship or even continuity between mind and world - that both the mind and the world embody an order which is in some sense complementary and suffuses both, in the mind as reason and in the world as causation. — Wayfarer
As we cannot even Imagine a means of Creating a Consciousness other than by Evolution in a Material Reality, then isn't the Consciousness itself Proof of the Objective Material Universe? — Michael Sol
And, uh, I have a completed, a priori theory that shows how consciousness was produced through evolution, a successful Thought Experiment, and the Fossil Record — Michael Sol
And General Relativity is just another a priori imagining of the Universe - got an alternative for that one, too? — Michael Sol
For those of us who think that physical and biological mechanisms of mind are all there is, that's enough. — T Clark
REBEKAH RAY: Okay, my question for you today is: without religion, where is the basis of our values and in time, will we perhaps revert back to Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest?
TONY JONES (compere): Richard Dawkins, you can answer that and I'll bring in Cardinal Pell.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It's undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. It would be a sort of Thatcherite society and we want to - I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Why we exist, you're playing with the word "why" there. Science is working on the problem of the antecedent factors that lead to our existence. Now, "why" in any further sense than that, why in the sense of purpose is, in my opinion, not a meaningful question.
You know what reductionism means? Do you see why this might be described as reductionist? — Wayfarer
RICHARD DAWKINS: Why we exist, you're playing with the word "why" there. Science is working on the problem of the antecedent factors that lead to our existence. Now, "why" in any further sense than that, why in the sense of purpose is, in my opinion, not a meaningful question.
To me, that is something the Bishop ought to have pounced on, but he was not philosophically astute enough to sieze the moment. The question as to whether there is a reason for existence is obviously a central question for philosophy - not just biblical creationists, but even atheist existentialists. Because without there being some reason, in the larger sense, then it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that life is a kind of biochemical fluke. — Wayfarer
There are, however, all kinds of 'evolutionary' answers to that conundrum - like, for instance, Tielhard du Chardin, and Henri Bergson, from several generations back, and nowadays the 'Big History' school which sees the evolution of consciousness as intrinsic to the Cosmos. — Wayfarer
But it should be stressed that none of those ideas are really relevant to mainstream evolutionary biology as such, which I maintain has a much more limited scope that it is usually given credit for. — Wayfarer
Is my statement reductionist?.... I'm not sure. If it is, does that mean it's wrong, misleading, or incomplete?... I'm not sure, but I don't think so. — T Clark
Evolutionary biology is not a philosophy of any sort. — T Clark
For those of us who think that physical and biological mechanisms of mind are all there is, that's enough. — T Clark
Reductionists are those who take one theory or phenomenon to be reducible to some other theory or phenomenon. For example, a reductionist regarding mathematics might take any given mathematical theory to be reducible to logic or set theory. Or, a reductionist about biological entities like cells might take such entities to be reducible to collections of physico-chemical entities like atoms and molecules. The type of reductionism that is currently of most interest in metaphysics and philosophy of mind involves the claim that all sciences are reducible to physics. This is usually taken to entail that all phenomena (including mental phenomena like consciousness) are identical to physical phenomena.
(The traditional understanding) is generally based on an intuition of the relationship or even continuity between mind and world - that both the mind and the world embody an order which is in some sense complementary and suffuses both, in the mind as reason and in the world as causation.
— Wayfarer
Although I probably don't have the same understanding of how it might work, I don't think what you've written is necessarily at odds with what I've written above. — T Clark
Er, if the consciousness was never created, how is it logical it should exist? — Michael Sol
I'm sorry, this just seems like carping. I've yet to receive any substantive answers suggesting alternatives to the causal dynamics of matter as an even possible basis for any kind of reality... — Michael Sol
We have a Theory and empirical evidence, to which you oppose, there are alternative theories, even if I don't know them? — Michael Sol
philosophy is unnecessary — Wayfarer
...the mind can be understood solely through 'physical and biological mechanisms'.
So how is that not reductionist? — Wayfarer
In the traditional understanding - and I'm not referring to any kind of creationism - the intellect - nous - has a kind of familial bond with the cosmic intellect - whether the One of Plotinus or what later became identified as God. — Wayfarer
Although I probably don't have the same understanding of how it might work, I don't think what you've written is necessarily at odds with what I've written above. — T Clark
In the Darwinian view, there is no foresight in nature, no aim to be achieved, no grand plan or design. — Wayfarer
Everything that occurs in nature, occurs as the consequence of molecular activities — Wayfarer
Whereas the traditional understanding - I would include Taoism in this - is top-down, not bottom-up. The patterns or orders of nature are perceived to embody a kind of intelligence, whether that is the 'grand architect' of Western tradition, or the subtle naturalism of the Tao (which is 'the way of nature'.) — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.