Purpose

[essentialsaltes]

OK. I've got no reason to object to that ... with one caveat ... wouldn't it be better to say you're not seeking to assign a purpose to evolution rather than saying you know it has no purpose?

Well, the earlier distinction I drew was that only minds have purposes. Gravity does not have a mind, so I am not just refraining from assigning a purpose to gravity (in making the waters seek the sea), but asserting that it has no purpose.
Likewise, the mechanisms of evolution -- mutations and genetics and offspring -- has no mind, so it has no purpose.

(I suppose I would agree that if some Being (with a mind) created these things, It may have had a purpose in doing so. But the things themselves do not have any intentions of their own.)

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, the earlier distinction I drew was that only minds have purposes. Gravity does not have a mind, so I am not just refraining from assigning a purpose to gravity (in making the waters seek the sea), but asserting that it has no purpose.
Likewise, the mechanisms of evolution -- mutations and genetics and offspring -- has no mind, so it has no purpose.

(I suppose I would agree that if some Being (with a mind) created these things, It may have had a purpose in doing so. But the things themselves do not have any intentions of their own.)

Hopefully you realize that leaves your position a bit vague - given I'm still viewing your position as a materialist one. To ascribe purpose to "mind" just kicks the can down the road. Why is gravity not a "mind"?

With that said, I'm OK with leaving it there. You've basically answered my question.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Hopefully you realize that leaves your position a bit vague - given I'm still viewing your position as a materialist one. To ascribe purpose to "mind" just kicks the can down the road. Why is gravity not a "mind"?

If gravity is material, and books are material, why is gravity not a book?

That makes about as much sense to me as your question about why gravity is not a mind. But I'm glad your satisfied with my answers to your original questions.

 

[Resha Caner]

If gravity is material, and books are material, why is gravity not a book?

That makes about as much sense to me as your question about why gravity is not a mind. But I'm glad your satisfied with my answers to your original questions.

Your example is a little facetious but I get your point. The difference is that the definition of a book is not in question, so I'm not disputing that a book is not gravity.

However, when asked to explain what a mind is, most start to mumble and look for the exit.

 

[Linuxgal]

Hopefully you realize that leaves your position a bit vague - given I'm still viewing your position as a materialist one. To ascribe purpose to "mind" just kicks the can down the road. Why is gravity not a "mind"?

Because gravity is a likeness of a force that arises as objects attempt to travel on geodesics in curved space-time. For an analogy, think of two ships travelling on course 000 for the north pole. Because the earth is curved. they are also moving closer and closer together laterally. But there's no real "thing" like a cable or a tractor beam that's pulling them together. Do you see?

 

[Resha Caner]

Because gravity is a likeness of a force that arises as objects attempt to travel on geodesics in curved space-time. For an analogy, think of two ships travelling on course 000 for the north pole. Because the earth is curved. they are also moving closer and closer together laterally. But there's no real "thing" like a cable or a tractor beam that's pulling them together. Do you see?

Well, there might be gravitons doing the work, but I understand what gravity is. That wasn't the point. It was that "mind" is a vague term. How can I know if gravity is a "mind" if the word hasn't been defined?

I think essentialsaltes acknowledged that he considers "mind" a material process of some kind. OK. If those processes are defined differently that gravitational processes, then gravity is not a mind. But I'm still waiting for what those processes are.

However, I'll emphasize again that I think he adequately answered my OP.

 

[Linuxgal]

I think essentialsaltes acknowledged that he considers "mind" a material process of some kind.

A material computer can follow a material process (stored on a disk) to fill an enclosed area with pixels of a certain color, but the computer remains a noun, and so does the process when it is dormant. The executing process, like a human mind, is a verb.

 

[JacksBratt]

Please explain to us what "spiritual" is and why we should allow for it or how we could allow for it?

Spirituality huh? How to prove it exists. You Cannot. Well how can you prove that the material world exists. You cannot.

How do you know for sure that anything else besides your own consciousness exists?
The fact is, you really don’t know for sure. It could be that everything you experience every day, including your own body and brain, is being manufactured by your consciousness so that it seems to you exactly as if you are living and moving in an external, material world full of people, buildings, animals, and trees, when in fact none of those things actually exist out there.
Your conscious awareness may be the only thing that exists!

 

[Resha Caner]

A material computer can follow a material process (stored on a disk) to fill an enclosed area with pixels of a certain color, but the computer remains a noun, and so does the process when it is dormant. The executing process, like a human mind, is a verb.

OK. That still doesn't get me there.

 

[Linuxgal]

Spirituality huh? How to prove it exists. You Cannot. Well how can you prove that the material world exists. You cannot

You're kind of late to the show, there's been a thing called the Popper Revolution. Science no longer confirms or proves anything, they build houses of falsifiable cards, and as long as they stand, the explanation is good. In other words, we have a theory that the material world exists, and it hasn't been shown to be false yet. However, a theory that the spiritual world exists is completely unfalsifiable. A failed supernatural healing, for example, would be explained as due only to a lack of faith.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Resha, the idea of gravity not having a mind is mostly one of observation.

Gravity does not make 'choices'; that is, gravity does not attract one item and not attract another like item. Gravity does not attract most of the time and then repel without warning.

Gravity is a force or function, depending on the view of the observer. However, gravity does not seem to have any choice or will in how it operates. No one questions want gravity wants.

However, gravity does have a 'function' in that it makes (for lack of a better word) water flow downhill. But gravity has no desire or purpose to 'fill the sea'.

You and I agree (I'm pretty sure) the Creator instituted gravity for function in a certain way so the Universe as a whole functions as He intended. The same for physical laws regarding light, radiation in other forms and quantum mechanics. In our understanding, the Creator infused 'purpose' on a back stage level into 'function' on a visible level. But that doesn't appear germane to our atheist correspondents. (At least, I wouldn't expect such.)

By belaboring the question, you're getting perilously close to the obtuse nature of the person demanding a full definition - that he likes - for 'spiritual'.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

... there's been a thing called the Popper Revolution. Science no longer confirms or proves anything...

It follows then, science cannot deny or negate anything either, without demonstrating the nonexistence of such things.

Therefore, 'science' cannot prove the nonexistence of God or spiritual phenomenon. All it can say is, "Not observed". Which I grant without question, by the way.

...they build houses of falsifiable cards, and as long as they stand, the explanation is good.

Yes, I understand the concept of the 'scientific method' - use it all the time in fact - and I understand the two key points of 'a theory'.

With that in mind, is the 'scientific method' a 'theory'? If so, what do we have to do to 'falsify' it? If not, it is an assumption. (A reasonable assumption for sure. But still an assumption.)

 

[Resha Caner]

By belaboring the question, you're getting perilously close to the obtuse nature of the person demanding a full definition - that he likes - for 'spiritual'.

Yes, hence the reason I offered to let it go.

With that in mind, is the 'scientific method' a 'theory'? If so, what do we have to do to 'falsify' it? If not, it is an assumption. (A reasonable assumption for sure. But still an assumption.)

This is always a fun question.

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks. So, I'm curious then, why you think people assign purpose.

I'm assuming you subscribe to materialist explanations, not spiritual ones. So, what do you think is the cause that drives people to assign purpose if it is not necessarily an evolutionary cause?

There exist psychological benefits for a person to identify a purpose, when it comes to many parts of their life and this has evolved in humans over time.

If I choose to run a marathon, for me to be successful, I will need to assign some purpose for me to do so, that fuels my motivation to do the extensive physical and mental work necessary to train.

To be motivated to do anything, we inherently need a purpose, whether it is cleaning the house, going to the store and trying to make a major change in our lives.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

This is always a fun question.

I was discussing with myself whether to begin a new thread or not. I'm hoping Linuxgal actually wants to discuss this seriously.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

With that in mind, is the 'scientific method' a 'theory'? If so, what do we have to do to 'falsify' it?

The answer is in the name. The "scientific method" is a method. You may want to explore if it's supported by a theory, but it is not a theory in and of itself.

How do you falsify it? Find an example where the scientific method is wrong.

If not, it is an assumption. (A reasonable assumption for sure. But still an assumption.)

That's an assertion. Why is the method just an assumption? You're saying that anything that is not a theory is an assumption.

 

[AV1611VET]

The answer is in the name. The "scientific method" is a method. You may want to explore if it's supported by a theory, but it is not a theory in and of itself.

The scientific method is a joke: 74

 

[bhsmte]

The scientific method is a joke: 74

And AV likes to tell jokes.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The scientific method is a joke: 74

It's very easy to disprove your own faulty definition of something. That makes a joke of your joke.

 

[Linuxgal]

With that in mind, is the 'scientific method' a 'theory'? If so, what do we have to do to 'falsify' it? If not, it is an assumption. (A reasonable assumption for sure. But still an assumption.)

The father of the scientific method was Galileo, of course, but there were deficiencies which Karl Popper addressed. Perhaps in the next century there will be an improvement to the method. Personally, I'd like to get away from the idea of "peer review" which stands as an obstacle to new ideas, such as the completely unorthodox idea that the solar cycle has more to do with the temperature of the Earth than putting groceries in plastic bags.