(1) Human beings and other animals are conscious and self-aware.
(2) Human beings and other conscious animals are made of matter.
(3) Matter collected and organized itself somehow in order to become conscious.
(4) Either matter collected and organized itself into conscious beings purely by accident or by design.
(5) It seems highly unlikely to me that inanimate matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on its own without some kind of guidance.
(6) Thus, it is highly likely that matter was guided by some conscious being to form into conscious animals.
(7) I call this guiding consciousness "God". — Noah Te Stroete

Isn't this the standard argument for Intelligent Design? :chin:

French Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that evidence for God is clear to the people who are willing to believe, not because it is mutually exclusive, but because your perspective is changed when you are absorbed into tradition and belief. Whereas the evidence is also vague enough for the people who do not believe, will not understand. — SethRy

Interesting. Considered and thoughtful. :up: :smile:

Because theists ask for evidence against gods, when clearly there is none. And on and on it goes, because it's impossible to prove or disprove that something that doesn't exist either exists or doesn't. — whollyrolling

:up:

Therefore, that it doesn't exist seems the obvious conclusion, or does it? — whollyrolling

No, it doesn't. Not if the "obvious" conclusion is intended to be the "logical" conclusion. For logic mandates that our conclusions should be justified, and justification requires evidence. There is no evidence - none at all - and therefore logic dictates that we must stop short of a conclusion. So, not only is there no "obvious" conclusion, but there can be no (logically-justified) conclusion at all.

Assuming that perception is relative to the individual, to effectively engage in conversation we would need common sense. Common sense can be characterised as the ability to mentally unite the information conveyed by the five physical senses. Then, to be able to talk about the information gathered, we labelled and named the things (common language) that are associated with it. — akourios

I'm not arguing with what you say here. But I observe that your view is somewhat, er, utilitarian? You seem to be offering a view of humans as something close to machines, who operate using logic and rationality exclusively. If I have misunderstood: fair enough. I got it wrong.

The way humans communicate is very complicated, and (IMO) has to include our non-rational behaviour(s) if we are to reach any meaningful understanding. To effectively engage in conversation we need common sense, as you say. We also need to understand the context within which the conversation is taking place, and probably a hundred other things. Complicated though this is, we learnt as children to do this, and we do it unconsciously, like walking. If we want to gain a conscious understanding of our communications, we have a lot of work to do. And I think the first step is to look at human beings as part-rational, part-logical, part-emotional and maybe part-spiritual too. Because that's what we are, although not all of these things at the same time.

I mean, who would say something like that? — Terrapin Station

Someone who thinks division is an intrinsic part of reductionism?

It is my understanding that the transcendent bit emerges only to those who failed to notice the interconnections in the first place, so they had no idea that such connections existed. So they're surprised when the effects of these relationships are observed when they have no knowledge of them. In other words, it only looks like emergence to reductionists?

Just a thought...?

I just told you that "real intellect" is an exercise in unbiased thought, and you retort that I'm biased — whollyrolling

If you're human, you're biased. Your only sources of information are non-objective. So you put beliefs where you have no certainty. As we all do. So you're biased, as we all are.

Yet that desire to be critical about the present shouldn't make us blind to the improvements that have happened. — ssu

...and the observation that the USA seems to have fallen behind the other countries in recent times, and the UK may be showing the same trait.

does your taking illegal drugs do your community any harm? Answer: of course it does. — tim wood

You say this as an assertion, without any form of justification. Is there any justification, evidence, or anything like that?

I've found it useful to enhance creativity, to help it along. I think it enhances (only) instinctive or intuitive thought, so could be unhelpful when revising facts.

So in this case the mind would be connected to the motions of electrons and molecules, which leads to panpsychism. — leo

How do you come to that conclusion? Of all the things that could have been related to the mind, you have identified one, and jumped straight to a conclusion. Admirable brevity, for sure, but I can't see the reasoning?

It doesn't exclude the interconnections between the parts if it includes relations and processes. — Terrapin Station

But if it includes relations and processes, it can't be reductionism. :chin: Dividing the Big Thing into many Little Things - necessarily destroying and losing all of the interconnections between those Little Things - is central to the technique of reductionism.

Nevertheless, immediate existence is naturally appropriated into understanding through creative reasoning, and it is only by superimposing rational concepts upon existence that it takes on a logical aspect. But that logical aspect is confined to the realm of the ideal, it has no concrete reality — Merkwurdichliebe

We overlay all of our mapping-ideas onto reality. The ones that fit, we use. But, as you say, they are our overlays, and not part of the real world. When we look for rationality in the world, and in humans, we sometimes find it; more often we don't. Logic and rationality are just human ideas, ambitions and aspirations: wishful thinking. "Ought" not "is".

Why did evolution select for it if it offers zero survival advantage? — leo

Just one of many possibilities: evolution selected for something else, and your "it" just happened to be connected to the thing that's being selected-for by evolution. This is very common. Ask an applied evolutionist.

Reductionists can say that relations and processes are parts that have to be accounted for. — Terrapin Station

I suppose reductionists can say what they like. But their chosen method is a divide-and-conquer approach. We can't understand a whole human in one bite, so we divide it into smaller and smaller pieces, in the hope that we can understand them individually, and somehow assemble all the little understandings until we can understand the big thing we started with. This works where the functionality that concerns us is intrinsic to the parts, but not where the functionality depends on the interconnections between the parts, that we break without thinking as we divide the big thing up. Reductionists don't even notice this interconnection functionality, because their method cannot examine or even expose it. It's as if it doesn't exist.

If relations and processes are something that has to be accounted for, we'll need a different investigative technique. One to which the interconnection-functionality is actually detectable!

You are right in saying, that if the brain dies, it is the the communication between the cells that has ended,the cells are still alive by themselves.Which implies that maybe your consciousness is merely an illusion created by a mass of cells,and nothing significant. — Anirudh Sharma

"Illusion"? "Nothing significant"? Maybe your consciousness is not a feature of your cells, but of their interconnections? It's the network that does what we're considering here. A reductionist view - that the brain is merely a collection of individual cells - fails to even see the real actor here, the nexus.

I sometimes meditate on the similarities between 'gist' and 'geist'. — Wayfarer

Yes, there's often much to be gained simply by contrasting two words. :up: "Geist" is also "ghost", real or imagined for the theatre. E.g. "Geisterkabinett".

I've been mulling this topic over, even though it's quietened down. I think I use "spirit" and "mind" as sort-of synonyms, but for different purposes. They're both perspectives on the same thing, even though they're quite different.

When I'm thinking about intellectual, fact-based stuff, I think of "mind". When I think along the lines of wisdom, understanding and feeling - including religion - I think of "spirit".

Two different words to refer to the same thing, but in very different contexts. Does this resonate with anyone else, I wonder? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

hi PC,

Please pardon the cut & paste, Dr. Dennis says it better, and I'm open for discussion. — Daniel Cox

OK. I can see that you replied to my post rather than to the thread in general. But I'm not quite grokking how what I said lead to what you cut-and-pasted. Can you enlighten me?

I've been mulling this topic over, even though it's quietened down. I think I use "spirit" and "mind" as sort-of synonyms, but for different purposes. They're both perspectives on the same thing, even though they're quite different.

When I'm thinking about intellectual, fact-based stuff, I think of "mind". When I think along the lines of wisdom, understanding and feeling - including religion - I think of "spirit".

Two different words to refer to the same thing, but in very different contexts. Does this resonate with anyone else, I wonder? :chin:

What are you? — Anirudh Sharma

I am an embodied mind, with autism and some OCD-like behaviour.

This is why no one actually tries to change capitalism. It becomes a binary choice of socialism or capitalism... — Christoffer

I think the choice of political systems is a little more than just two! :smile: A critical part of this choice is the balance between society/community and the individual. I.e. how a political ideology treats the community vs. the individual. There are other points than this one, we know, but this is the one that clearly distinguishes American Capitalism (I.e. the currently-pervasive flavour of capitalism) from socialism.

if you are sincere and honest with yourself (can I get a show of hands on who are actually like that?) then what are you trying to accomplish here? — Wallows

Sincere and honest with ourselves? Such people are as rare as rocking-horse sh*t! :wink: My own best attempt at honesty says I'm here to enjoy myself, and maybe to learn something. It's even possible someone might learn something from me too, although it might only be tolerance. :wink:

Why? Because they are comfortable in their life and they expect the rich and powerful to fix whatever problems we have. The same rich and powerful that people want and ask to fix things are the same they despise as being the 1%. — Christoffer

The 1% work only for themselves, and maybe a little for those like them. They fix nothing. It's us that fix things, on their instructions. They have the power, and yet it's us who really have the power, as you describe. I agree: it's difficult to understand. :up:

The control to which the 99% are subjected is far, far more pervasive than daytime TV. — Bitter Crank

:up:

Can you guarantee to control your drug use and it's effects on you and others? — tim wood

Fair question. And the topic specifically addresses illegal drugs, but are you accounting for legal drugs? Alcohol is the obvious example. If your question also applies to substances whose effects are similar (or worse, in the case of alcohol), then fair enough. :up:

wouldn’t a better healthcare system and legalizing drugs help assuage these issues? — Noah Te Stroete

You're offering logic and common sense? What are you thinking? :wink:

I'm on a mission, I help people with knowledge and science. — Daniel Cox

Off-topic, I admit, but: not many people here need help with knowledge and science. :chin:

I believe that the Big Bang is empirical evidence... — Devans99

? You were there, to record and measure it? That's what empirical evidence is, yes?

I'm only saying that I use the term "verify" consistent with its common scientific usage. — Bryon Ehlmann

You're using it consistently with common everyday usage. In a discussion of scientific method, "verify" is the complement of "falsify". [The latter as in Popper.]

To verify something, we confirm it is true, literally. We don't increase our faith in its correctness, we confirm its correctness. Which, in scientific terms, in the real world, is impossible. This is not new to any scientist, nor is it a surprise. There seems little point in continuing this discussion.

Bye! :smile:

I think we are in agreement on the substance — Bryon Ehlmann

No, I don't think we are. What you describe as verification is actually failure-to-falsify. Verification is an infinite act, as I described. You need to verify your theory in every possible circumstance. All ∞ of them. Which is why no sane scientist tries.

"there are no black swans" can be legitimately called a scientific theory — Bryon Ehlmann

It can indeed, but we're talking about how that theory (or any other theory) is tested. According to the scientific method, it is tested by attempting to catch it out: to falsify it. We do this many times, of course, in many different ways. Just one 'successful' falsification falsifies the theory.

Maybe it is classed as philosophically rigorous when the certainty level reaches a certain threshold? — Devans99

There is only one threshold value for certainty: 100% or probability 1. Not 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% and not probability 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. That's what distinguishes certainty from being (say) 'fairly sure'.

It's not possible to know everything deductively. — Devans99

:up:

Even with deduction, we rely on axioms that are themselves inductive. Science often uses the five-nines (99.999% certainty of a finding) as a standard for judging inductive knowledge for example. — Devans99

My conclusion from what you have said here is that there is no certainty, in practice, in real life. Yours seems to be that we must assume that some arbitrarily-close approach to truth is actually true. Is that correct?

Inductively, everyday experience says cause and effect hold. — Devans99

And from this, you are happy to assume that every effect has a cause? Reasonable, for sure, but not philosophically rigorous.

I cannot see any other way for the universe to get started apart from a timeless first cause? — Devans99

You can't see another way, so you leap to the conclusion that you're correct? Again: reasonable, for sure, but not philosophically rigorous.

The term "verified" is widely used in connection with scientific theories. To illustrate its wide usage, the first sentence given for the definition of "scientific theory" in Wikipedia reads:

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified [my emphasis] in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."

"Verified" does not mean "proven once and for all." Rather, it means, as given in dictionary.com: "confirmed as to accuracy or truth by acceptable evidence, action, etc." The action here being testing. An acceptable test is performed and the theory is either verified or falsified by the test. — Bryon Ehlmann

Think about it for a moment. To falsify a theory, you only have to show it doesn't work in one set of experimental circumstances. Easy. But to verify it, you have to test it under every possible combination of context/circumstances, and show that it works for all of them. Not just the ones you thought of, or the ones you had time to test, but all of them.

To falsify the claim "there are no black swans", you only have to find one black swan. To verify it, you have to examine every swan that has ever lived - anywhere, anytime - and confirm that every one of them is non-black. You see? This is why science and the scientific method focus on falsification.

things in time all need a cause — Devans99

What is your justification for this?

it contrasts Aristotelian intentional logic with modern analytic philosophy — Daniel Cox

And that's how we should 'do' philosophy? With logic, and nothing else?

Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please — Devans99

Demonstrate how anything can exist with a (first) cause!

The thing is we don't understand this stuff. We're trading theories, none of which can be substantiated. There is no evidence. No proof; no disproof. Just guesswork and wishful thinking. That's life! :smile:

I'm not sure an idea has independent existence as in Plato's theory of forms — Devans99

:up: An idea is dependent for its existence on the minds which contain it.

I went from moderate religious...to zealous religious...to agnostic. Moderate up to age 17 - 18...zealous while in military service (peacetime)...and became agnostic about at age 21 - 25. Been that way ever since. — Frank Apisa

And I went from forcibly religious - I was raised Roman Catholic - until I was able to choose for myself. Thereafter I was (unthinkingly) atheist, then, gradually, agnostic. And now I am a Gaian Daoist. Gaia, the Nature aspect of God, and Taoism for the spiritual/philosophical side.

It takes all sorts! :wink:

The theory itself must be able to be empirically verified or falsified. — Bryon Ehlmann

There, I fixed it for you. Science and the scientific method do not deal with verification, only falsification. Some people see that as one of its drawbacks. :chin:

What does your response mean, PC?

Are you saying you "believe" in the "supernatural?"

If so...are you saying that you are inferring knowledge...or is it just a general feeling or guess...that something other than what is a part of nature...exists? — Frank Apisa

I'm saying that I'm a believer (but not a Christian ;)). And before that, I was claiming not to deny or believe-against the evidence. OK? :smile: A guess? In formal terms, yes, that's exactly what it is. :wink: