I haven't read every post. Has anyone mentioned quantum mechanics? Science has conclusively proven that there aren't really atoms here; more like "nobody-here-but-our-minds".
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I haven't read every post. Has anyone mentioned quantum mechanics? Science has conclusively proven that there aren't really atoms here; more like "nobody-here-but-our-minds".The focus of this thread seems to be on how we can give an account for "rational thought" in the absence of some supernatural force; for some posters, strict "nobody-here-but-us-atoms" physicalism/naturalism does not seem up to the task.
I am aware of quantum mechanics. I don't agree, though, with your "nobody-here-but-our-minds" characterization. But we can discuss this - perhaps I don't really know what you are saying.I haven't read every post. Has anyone mentioned quantum mechanics? Science has conclusively proven that there aren't really atoms here; more like "nobody-here-but-our-minds".
At this point in history it's more of a scientific fact than a characterization. Fundamental matter is not real. Our consciousness causes it to emerge from mere potentiality. Soul is preeminent.I am aware of quantum mechanics. I don't agree, though, with your "nobody-here-but-our-minds" characterization. But we can discuss this - perhaps I don't really know what you are saying.
Skepticism is only a virtue when you guys do it?
This is a very good point.At this point in history it's more of a scientific fact than a characterization. Fundamental matter is not real. Our consciousness causes it to emerge from mere potentiality. Soul is preeminent.
Perhaps I was not clear: my point was that, in a purely naturalistic framework, it seems (repeat seems) miraculous that we can get from the jumble of particles that sprang into existence as a result of the big bang to structures (brains) that can accurately model the external world.
Because you are the arbitrar of when it is wisely applied? That we can use it as much as required when we dismiss what we do not prefer, but when we approach a proposition we do prefer then suddenly it is excessive?Skepticism is good in many ways, but it can be misapplied. Every virtue requires wise moderation, and the point is that he wasn't doing that.
eudaimonia,
Mark
I am very skeptical about this claim. I believe the mainstream view is that measurement of any kind - including by an 'unconscious' instrument - causes the famous "waveform collapse". I will look into this more.At this point in history it's more of a scientific fact than a characterization. Fundamental matter is not real. Our consciousness causes it to emerge from mere potentiality. Soul is preeminent.
Semantics - we really mean the same thing.It doesn't seem that way to me. Sure, it comes across as amazing, but not as miraculous, unless miraculous simply means "amazing".
eudaimonia,
Mark
Please explain to me how you came to your conclusions from what I said and then we can discuss it.
Really? Ok. If a train always runs on tracks, does that mean the tracks are responsible for its locomotion?
Besides, there are many studies showing thought with less associated brain activity than expected, mostly done under meditation. The fMRIs are often much less active while the subjective activity state of the practitioner is reported as being increased.
There are also dodgier things like astral projection etc. that I am not even going to talk about.
This is classical begging the question, but that is what happens when Naturalistic Materialism is employed.
Citation needed.I haven't read every post. Has anyone mentioned quantum mechanics? Science has conclusively proven that there aren't really atoms here; more like "nobody-here-but-our-minds".
As to Evolution giving rise to Rationality:
1: Irrational causes cannot result in Rational arguments.
If the axioms cannot be shown to be trustworthy
If I hold X to be true on account of evolutionary processes that moulded my thoughts in that manner, than X need not necessarily be true, but Y could have been.
Evolution is not a rational process, but irrational selection for fitness based on reproductive success
Why would Reason correspond to reality?
Even here though, to assume a 'perfect' correspondance to reality is itself unlikely as Evolution would not favour perfection per se, but only 'good enough', as it invariably does in all other facets. We don't see a perfect respiratory system for instance, but one with innate errors and redundancies.
I came to my conclusion that your claims and objections were fuzzy and imprecise when you couldn't provide a way to see if they actually applied to reality.
But in this case you cut the tracks and the train disappears. Yours might not be the best analogy.
Could be evidence of magical forces at work, could be evidence that subjective reports of brain activity aren't representative of what it actually going on.
Neither will I, then.
Tell me more about how bad the basis of modern technology - using the internet as your medium. If it is so unreliable why are you even bothering? Seems like even you know deep down that objecting to naturalism is irrational.
That is the whole point. We cannot actually see if anything applies to reality if we accept Naturalistic Materialism.I came to my conclusion that your claims and objections were fuzzy and imprecise when you couldn't provide a way to see if they actually applied to reality.
You are assuming that thought disappears on death, but the whole point here is whether this occurs or not. Begging the question.But in this case you cut the tracks and the train disappears. Yours might not be the best analogy.
Begging the question again.Could be evidence of magical forces at work, could be evidence that subjective reports of brain activity aren't representative of what it actually going on. Given we know the latter is a fact seems like the answer is pretty obvious.
The basis of modern technology is Scientific Method and not Naturalism. They aren't the same.Tell me more about how bad the basis of modern technology - using the internet as your medium. If it is so unreliable why are you even bothering? Seems like even you know deep down that objecting to naturalism is irrational.
Read my earlier posts. Explained ad nauseam.Citation needed.
Not what I said. I was speaking of Axioms in general, not calling Evolution one.How is evolution an axiom? Seems like a giant category error to me. As I mentioned before, you're confusing the method used to construct a machine and the things generated when that machine runs.
Not what I said. I said a specific thought was a necessary outcome of physiology which would in this construct be evolutionarily derived.Who is claiming that human brains are a necessary outcome of 4 billion years of evolution?
None are rational. Rationality implies logical deduction. The descriptions of these phenomena may be rational, but they themselves are irrational events of matter.How do you determine if an unintelligent process is rational or not. Please apply it to show how rational each of these processes are :
- nuclear fusion
- evaporating water
- photosynthesis
Begging the question.Because falling off cliffs hurts.
That is the whole point. We cannot actually see if anything applies to reality if we accept Naturalistic Materialism.
You are assuming that thought disappears on death
Begging the question again.
The basis of modern technology is Scientific Method and not Naturalism. They aren't the same.
Read my earlier posts. Explained ad nauseam.
Not what I said. I was speaking of Axioms in general, not calling Evolution one.
Not what I said. I said a specific thought was a necessary outcome of physiology which would in this construct be evolutionarily derived.
None are rational. Rationality implies logical deduction. The descriptions of these phenomena may be rational, but they themselves are irrational events of matter.
Begging the question.
If you are going to introduce this concept of rationality, and define it as you appear to define it, then, yes, evolution cannot produce "rational" thought in humans. But so what? From my perspective you appear to arguing a different point than the one that others are arguing:As to Evolution giving rise to Rationality:
1: Irrational causes cannot result in Rational arguments. If the axioms cannot be shown to be trustworthy, then no matter how reasonable the steps followed, the resulting structure is not trustworthy in entirety. If I hold X to be true on account of evolutionary processes that moulded my thoughts in that manner, than X need not necessarily be true, but Y could have been. Evolution is not a rational process, but irrational selection for fitness based on reproductive success - an organism holding X might have a survival advantage, but that doesn't mean X is true nor was X 'Reasoned' but essentialy inherited. A system predetermined to hold a certain view, cannot but hold it and therefore no logical verification or argument could have taken place.
That's not the case.Has anyone mentioned quantum mechanics? Science has conclusively proven that there aren't really atoms here; more like "nobody-here-but-our-minds".
That's not what the science tells us.At this point in history it's more of a scientific fact than a characterization. Fundamental matter is not real. Our consciousness causes it to emerge from mere potentiality. Soul is preeminent.
No, it isn't.This is a very good point.
This applies whatever interpretation you choose, but is not necessarily a rejection of causality. That the arrangement of the experiment affects the results obtained is an explicit example of causality.If we accept the Copenhagen interpretation, as inevitably seems to be the case, then the probalistic nature of quantum mechanics is not temporary but final. It is therefore a rejection of causality as it is usually understood as the arrangement of the experiment and experimentor will directly impact the results obtained. Only under observation does the electron appear from a field of potentiality for instance. In essence their is a conjugate nature between experiment and evidence obtained.
A couple of points - an observation in QM is any interaction with the system (e.g. a particle interacting). That a conscious observer enters a superposition with the quantum system they interact with has no more effect on reason than on any other aspect of their being.Unless we adopt multiverses and such frankly unprovable suppositions, the observation of matter directly influences its state. If we therefore ascribe our ability to observe, our consciousness and reason, to a soul, then that is paramount. If we do not ascribe it to a soul, then the act of observation would impact the matter expressed as well as the matter of the observer as consciousness would merely be an expression of the underlying matter and therefore Reason cannot exist as such. For to Reason based on available information, one's reason cannot alter the information itself and in return be altered by it as this merely creates a self-replicating chimaera that is not based on logical deduction but temporary states. This is essentially quantum entanglement writ large for observer and observed, a quantum superposition. Thus again, either Reason does not exist but only a complex of interconnected probability states masquerading as such, or we are forced to posit an additional component to maintain it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?