Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A non-materialistic view of the Mind

Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 12:37:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The question in this debate is whether a being like us who are sentient, self-aware, can think, feel, and are animate rather than inanimate, can really just be matter and energy.

Atoms and energy cannot think or feel, they are objects, and are not alive. How is it possible to somehow put dead things together to somehow become sentient? How is it possible for mere matter to become sentient, logical, and emotional?

I would argue that it is more likely that it is more likely that whatever is fundamentally behind our minds is immaterial and non-naturalistic.

We have also heard many reports by people who have claimed to have gone to the after-life when they temporarily died and even floated around the rooms they died in.

Surely this is evidence for an immaterial mind.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 1:21:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 12:37:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
The question in this debate is whether a being like us who are sentient, self-aware, can think, feel, and are animate rather than inanimate, can really just be matter and energy.

Atoms and energy cannot think or feel, they are objects, and are not alive. How is it possible to somehow put dead things together to somehow become sentient? How is it possible for mere matter to become sentient, logical, and emotional?

I would argue that it is more likely that it is more likely that whatever is fundamentally behind our minds is immaterial and non-naturalistic.

We have also heard many reports by people who have claimed to have gone to the after-life when they temporarily died and even floated around the rooms they died in.

Surely this is evidence for an immaterial mind.

Why is it more likely that the components of consciousness are made up of immaterial elements. By definition, no one has ever seen an immaterial element. So you would have to make the unnecessary assumption that immaterial elements exists. Occam's razor says unnecessary assumptions diminish an explanation's likelihood of being correct. Therefore, it is more likely consciousness is composed of matter.

It's not clear how matter gives rise to consciousness. However, that is what our sense tell us happens. Therefore it is the only justifiable belief.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 1:38:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 1:21:32 AM, vbaculum wrote:

Why is it more likely that the components of consciousness are made up of immaterial elements. By definition, no one has ever seen an immaterial element.

Right, but we still can have evidence for things we don't see and I have presented that evidence.

It's not clear how matter gives rise to consciousness. However, that is what our sense tell us happens. Therefore it is the only justifiable belief.

Keep in mind that you are arguing that matter can become conscious. Since nothing we know about the properties of matter and energy will take it near consciousness it is more likely that something else is responsible for consciousness.

How can a collection of mere atoms think, experience and gain a "self?"
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:05:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 1:21:32 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/7/2012 12:37:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
The question in this debate is whether a being like us who are sentient, self-aware, can think, feel, and are animate rather than inanimate, can really just be matter and energy.

Atoms and energy cannot think or feel, they are objects, and are not alive. How is it possible to somehow put dead things together to somehow become sentient? How is it possible for mere matter to become sentient, logical, and emotional?

I would argue that it is more likely that it is more likely that whatever is fundamentally behind our minds is immaterial and non-naturalistic.

We have also heard many reports by people who have claimed to have gone to the after-life when they temporarily died and even floated around the rooms they died in.

Surely this is evidence for an immaterial mind.

Why is it more likely that the components of consciousness are made up of immaterial elements.

Because consciousness, by its very nature, is immaterial, it represents a fundamental difference in kind, rather than a difference in degree, from physical objects and physical processes. The hard problem of consciousness, the fact that we are sentient, aware beings that have an experience of the qualities of nature, is fundamentally distinct from your naive materialistic conception of natural phenomena. Conscious thought is fundamentally teleological by it's very nature, which is to say, it is purposeful, which scientifically speaking, is not considered a characteristic of matter. Conscious experience simply cannot be reduced to material processes.

By definition, no one has ever seen an immaterial element.

That is irrelevant, most of what science has dealt with for the last hundred years is immaterial, time, space, energy, fields, mass, velocity, and even the fundamental components of matter, quantum particles, to name only a few, none have ever been seen and all have immaterial aspects. When science looked hard and deep, they found that even material wasn't all that material in nature, turns out the basic stuff of the universe wasn't stuff, and it had fundamental aspects that are completely immaterial. Matter is made up of particles that move from place to place without traveling the distance in between, it behaves and can be described by a wholly immaterial wave function, and not a material wave, but waves of probability. In the end, matter wasn't even material in nature.

Hey, it's OK to hold to your point of view, faith is a matter of freedom and choice, but you need to recognize that your POV is completely faith based and flatly unscientific, it's more of a dogmatic religious assertion than anything resembling science or logic.

So you would have to make the unnecessary assumption that immaterial elements exists.

Well yeah, and that would necessarily be the most scientific and logical assumption to make.

Occam's razor says unnecessary assumptions diminish an explanation's likelihood of being correct.

Not exactly, Occam's razor is a principle of succinctness, it only says the theory with the fewest assumptions is the one to select, and it is considered a truism of science that applies to scientific theories. While a religiously held philosophical view such as yours may be presumptively simplistic, it is dependent on an astounding number of flatly unscientific assumptions and certainly doesn't meet the requirements of Occam's razor regarding a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination.

Therefore, it is more likely consciousness is composed of matter.

No it isn't, consciousness is not a material object and consequently, it is not, and cannot, be "composed of matter".

It's not clear how matter gives rise to consciousness.

No it isn't, and it is clear that consciousness has fundamentally immaterial characteristics that are not "composed of matter", and cannot be directly reduced to physical processes

However, that is what our sense tell us happens.

I'm not sure who you are referring to with the collective pronoun "our", perhaps you are a member of some strange religion that completely rejects science in favor of the dogmatic assertions you have made here and you are referring to that group, but it certainly isn't representative of the general population and what "our" senses tell us.

Therefore it is the only justifiable belief.

The "only justifiable belief", so this religion of yours is dogmatic AND fundamentalist? That's interesting, what is it called?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 9:08:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 12:37:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
The question in this debate is whether a being like us who are sentient, self-aware, can think, feel, and are animate rather than inanimate, can really just be matter and energy.

Atoms and energy cannot think or feel, they are objects, and are not alive. How is it possible to somehow put dead things together to somehow become sentient? How is it possible for mere matter to become sentient, logical, and emotional?

I would argue that it is more likely that it is more likely that whatever is fundamentally behind our minds is immaterial and non-naturalistic.

We have also heard many reports by people who have claimed to have gone to the after-life when they temporarily died and even floated around the rooms they died in.

Surely this is evidence for an immaterial mind.

You are committing the fallacy of composition. Atoms and energy by itself maybe cannot think, but when configured in the right way to produce some kind of a whole (human beings for example), then consciousness can definitely arise. Your argument is like saying the wires in my DVD player cannot project images on to anything, therefore, the DVD player cannot project images.

I see no problem with consciousness arising strictly from physical interactions.

This is simply a false problem being presented. One that is especially not hard for tha naturlalist to respond to.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 9:13:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 12:37:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
The question in this debate is whether a being like us who are sentient, self-aware, can think, feel, and are animate rather than inanimate, can really just be matter and energy.

Atoms and energy cannot think or feel, they are objects, and are not alive. How is it possible to somehow put dead things together to somehow become sentient? How is it possible for mere matter to become sentient, logical, and emotional?

I would argue that it is more likely that it is more likely that whatever is fundamentally behind our minds is immaterial and non-naturalistic.

We have also heard many reports by people who have claimed to have gone to the after-life when they temporarily died and even floated around the rooms they died in.

Surely this is evidence for an immaterial mind.

Also, something could be immaterial and still be physical. Look at gravity for example, you cannot weigh gravity and it has no mass, it is not any type of material yet it is physical.

Even if consciousness wasn't material, that still wouldn't get you non-physicalism or supernaturalism. Thus, anyway you look at the argument in the OP, it falls flat on its face.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 10:06:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 9:08:31 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 12:37:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
The question in this debate is whether a being like us who are sentient, self-aware, can think, feel, and are animate rather than inanimate, can really just be matter and energy.

Atoms and energy cannot think or feel, they are objects, and are not alive. How is it possible to somehow put dead things together to somehow become sentient? How is it possible for mere matter to become sentient, logical, and emotional?

I would argue that it is more likely that it is more likely that whatever is fundamentally behind our minds is immaterial and non-naturalistic.

We have also heard many reports by people who have claimed to have gone to the after-life when they temporarily died and even floated around the rooms they died in.

Surely this is evidence for an immaterial mind.

You are committing the fallacy of composition. Atoms and energy by itself maybe cannot think, but when configured in the right way to produce some kind of a whole (human beings for example), then consciousness can definitely arise. Your argument is like saying the wires in my DVD player cannot project images on to anything, therefore, the DVD player cannot project images.

I see no problem with consciousness arising strictly from physical interactions.

This is simply a false problem being presented. One that is especially not hard for tha naturlalist to respond to.

That would only be a fallacy if I said that since individual atoms are dead and are non-conscious, therefore all configurations of them are also dead and non-conscous.

First, I am only making a probability argument, not a disproof. What I really mean is that matter by its very nature is non-conscious, configure it any way you want into chemicals, computers, rocks, sand. Most likely you cannot configure something non-conscious into something conscious.

For example, order a set of rocks any way you please, they will remain unconscious. This is because consciousness is a property wholly different than anything matter has just like consciousness is a property wholly different than rocks have. We have even configured matter to store memories, and even "think", and we call them computers, however they are not any closer to consciousness than a rock.

When the whole is different than the sum of its part, that is because the parts have properties that add up to the whole. Matter has nothing that even helps approach consciousness in the same way that rocks have nothing that will even help approach consciousness.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 10:14:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 9:13:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 12:37:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
The question in this debate is whether a being like us who are sentient, self-aware, can think, feel, and are animate rather than inanimate, can really just be matter and energy.

Atoms and energy cannot think or feel, they are objects, and are not alive. How is it possible to somehow put dead things together to somehow become sentient? How is it possible for mere matter to become sentient, logical, and emotional?

I would argue that it is more likely that it is more likely that whatever is fundamentally behind our minds is immaterial and non-naturalistic.

We have also heard many reports by people who have claimed to have gone to the after-life when they temporarily died and even floated around the rooms they died in.

Surely this is evidence for an immaterial mind.

Also, something could be immaterial and still be physical. Look at gravity for example, you cannot weigh gravity and it has no mass, it is not any type of material yet it is physical.

Even if consciousness wasn't material, that still wouldn't get you non-physicalism or supernaturalism. Thus, anyway you look at the argument in the OP, it falls flat on its face.

First we don't know how gravity works, so the explanation could be some kind of particle.

Second, we know that matter is probably not a component but the same goes for other things in our universe because they are by their very nature dead.

So consciousness is likely something immaterial that is completely unknown to modern science. We also know that our consciousness, or are awareness of things outside us is not a thing, it is non-physical. The same goes for our awareness of our thoughts, emotions, etc.

Also near death experience shows life after physical death in a spiritual realm.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 10:18:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Consciousness is something naturalism has never been able to explain. I think just the mere fact that we are conscious point to dualism. Given naturalism, and assuming life did begin to exist, we would be like robots, unaware and unconscious.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 11:05:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 10:06:30 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 7/7/2012 9:08:31 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 12:37:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
The question in this debate is whether a being like us who are sentient, self-aware, can think, feel, and are animate rather than inanimate, can really just be matter and energy.

Atoms and energy cannot think or feel, they are objects, and are not alive. How is it possible to somehow put dead things together to somehow become sentient? How is it possible for mere matter to become sentient, logical, and emotional?

I would argue that it is more likely that it is more likely that whatever is fundamentally behind our minds is immaterial and non-naturalistic.

We have also heard many reports by people who have claimed to have gone to the after-life when they temporarily died and even floated around the rooms they died in.

Surely this is evidence for an immaterial mind.

You are committing the fallacy of composition. Atoms and energy by itself maybe cannot think, but when configured in the right way to produce some kind of a whole (human beings for example), then consciousness can definitely arise. Your argument is like saying the wires in my DVD player cannot project images on to anything, therefore, the DVD player cannot project images.

I see no problem with consciousness arising strictly from physical interactions.

This is simply a false problem being presented. One that is especially not hard for the naturalist to respond to.

That would only be a fallacy if I said that since individual atoms are dead and are non-conscious, therefore all configurations of them are also dead and non-conscious.

Well, that's pretty much what you were eluding to.


First, I am only making a probability argument, not a disproof. What I really mean is that matter by its very nature is non-conscious, configure it any way you want into chemicals, computers, rocks, sand. Most likely you cannot configure something non-conscious into something conscious.


Why not? This is a bare assertion argument. I see absolutely no reason why consciousness could not arise from physical processes alone. You certainly have not provided any so far.


For example, order a set of rocks any way you please, they will remain unconscious. This is because consciousness is a property wholly different than anything matter has just like consciousness is a property wholly different than rocks have. We have even configured matter to store memories, and even "think", and we call them computers, however they are not any closer to consciousness than a rock.

This is a bad apples and oranges argument, what does rearranging rocks have to do with the beginning of life, and the evolution of consciousness scientifically?


When the whole is different than the sum of its part, that is because the parts have properties that add up to the whole. Matter has nothing that even helps approach consciousness in the same way that rocks have nothing that will even help approach consciousness.

Why can't certain types of matter rearranged in a certain type of way naturally for long periods of time, cause an experience known as consciousness? Once again, your whole "rocks" explanation is extremely flawed, and you just keep bare asserting and improbability without any proper justification.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 11:14:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 10:14:47 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 7/7/2012 9:13:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 12:37:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
The question in this debate is whether a being like us who are sentient, self-aware, can think, feel, and are animate rather than inanimate, can really just be matter and energy.

Atoms and energy cannot think or feel, they are objects, and are not alive. How is it possible to somehow put dead things together to somehow become sentient? How is it possible for mere matter to become sentient, logical, and emotional?

I would argue that it is more likely that it is more likely that whatever is fundamentally behind our minds is immaterial and non-naturalistic.

We have also heard many reports by people who have claimed to have gone to the after-life when they temporarily died and even floated around the rooms they died in.

Surely this is evidence for an immaterial mind.

Also, something could be immaterial and still be physical. Look at gravity for example, you cannot weigh gravity and it has no mass, it is not any type of material yet it is physical.

Even if consciousness wasn't material, that still wouldn't get you non-physicalism or supernaturalism. Thus, anyway you look at the argument in the OP, it falls flat on its face.

First we don't know how gravity works, so the explanation could be some kind of particle.

Actually we know how gravity works pretty well, also it is pretty much understood that gravity is an immaterial force. We also have knowledge of wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles as well.


Second, we know that matter is probably not a component but the same goes for other things in our universe because they are by their very nature dead.

Once more, this is a fallacy composition. Just because matter is dead when it's not configured into a whole (a human being for example), doesn't mean that the whole cannot be alive, when the matter is configured in this way. Your argument is outrageously fallacious.


So consciousness is likely something immaterial that is completely unknown to modern science. We also know that our consciousness, or are awareness of things outside us is not a thing, it is non-physical. The same goes for our awareness of our thoughts, emotions, etc.

Also near death experience shows life after physical death in a spiritual realm.

Your immaterial argument already failed from the start. Just because something is immaterial does not make it supernatural. Space-Time is not a material, space-time doesn't weigh anything, it's "immaterial". Does this make it supernatural? Of course not. Consciousness is an experience anyway, it's not a "thing" so obviously it's not material.

NDE's can be explained by DMT release in the brain once it reaches a certain state. Also, a research team from the University of Kentucky concluded that these experiences could be explained by activity in the brain stem while the higher brain is dead as well. NDE's are not evidence of anything supernatural.

I simply do not see you can believe your arguments hold up in all honesty.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:03:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 9:08:31 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 12:37:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
The question in this debate is whether a being like us who are sentient, self-aware, can think, feel, and are animate rather than inanimate, can really just be matter and energy.

Atoms and energy cannot think or feel, they are objects, and are not alive. How is it possible to somehow put dead things together to somehow become sentient? How is it possible for mere matter to become sentient, logical, and emotional?

I would argue that it is more likely that it is more likely that whatever is fundamentally behind our minds is immaterial and non-naturalistic.

We have also heard many reports by people who have claimed to have gone to the after-life when they temporarily died and even floated around the rooms they died in.

Surely this is evidence for an immaterial mind.

You are committing the fallacy of composition. Atoms and energy by itself maybe cannot think, but when configured in the right way to produce some kind of a whole (human beings for example), then consciousness can definitely arise. Your argument is like saying the wires in my DVD player cannot project images on to anything, therefore, the DVD player cannot project images.

I see no problem with consciousness arising strictly from physical interactions.

This is simply a false problem being presented. One that is especially not hard for tha naturlalist to respond to.

So far, all you've done is make your own bare assertions, if the hard problem of consciousness is "especially not hard for the naturalist", then let's hear it.

Keep in mind that "emergent" is a descriptive term, it is not an explanatory term, and the word "complexity" isn't some kind of fairy dust that magically conjures new things into existence.

Without using the words emergent and complexity as if they were magical incantations, can you provide a brief outline of a causal sequence that in some way explains how a strictly material process could result in conscious experience?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:07:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:03:22 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/7/2012 9:08:31 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 12:37:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
The question in this debate is whether a being like us who are sentient, self-aware, can think, feel, and are animate rather than inanimate, can really just be matter and energy.

Atoms and energy cannot think or feel, they are objects, and are not alive. How is it possible to somehow put dead things together to somehow become sentient? How is it possible for mere matter to become sentient, logical, and emotional?

I would argue that it is more likely that it is more likely that whatever is fundamentally behind our minds is immaterial and non-naturalistic.

We have also heard many reports by people who have claimed to have gone to the after-life when they temporarily died and even floated around the rooms they died in.

Surely this is evidence for an immaterial mind.

You are committing the fallacy of composition. Atoms and energy by itself maybe cannot think, but when configured in the right way to produce some kind of a whole (human beings for example), then consciousness can definitely arise. Your argument is like saying the wires in my DVD player cannot project images on to anything, therefore, the DVD player cannot project images.

I see no problem with consciousness arising strictly from physical interactions.

This is simply a false problem being presented. One that is especially not hard for tha naturlalist to respond to.

So far, all you've done is make your own bare assertions, if the hard problem of consciousness is "especially not hard for the naturalist", then let's hear it.

Keep in mind that "emergent" is a descriptive term, it is not an explanatory term, and the word "complexity" isn't some kind of fairy dust that magically conjures new things into existence.

Without using the words emergent and complexity as if they were magical incantations, can you provide a brief outline of a causal sequence that in some way explains how a strictly material process could result in conscious experience?

Why couldn't materials arranged in a certain way result in conciousness? You are acting like there is a problem, when there isn't....I see no problems with consciousness coming from purely physical processes, absolutely none. It seems this is a problem that you haven't even come close to defending, why couldn't this happen? Why is it unlikely?

There is no reason why it couldn't happen or why it is unlikely...Thus, it's not a problem.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:46:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 10:18:10 AM, phantom wrote:
Consciousness is something naturalism has never been able to explain. I think just the mere fact that we are conscious point to dualism. Given naturalism, and assuming life did begin to exist, we would be like robots, unaware and unconscious.

Yup, I think the Problem of Consciousness for (certain versions of) naturalism is akin to the Problem of Evil for (certain versions of) theism. If I had a choose a problem I'd go with evil.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:51:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:46:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/7/2012 10:18:10 AM, phantom wrote:
Consciousness is something naturalism has never been able to explain. I think just the mere fact that we are conscious point to dualism. Given naturalism, and assuming life did begin to exist, we would be like robots, unaware and unconscious.

Yup, I think the Problem of Consciousness for (certain versions of) naturalism is akin to the Problem of Evil for (certain versions of) theism. If I had a choose a problem I'd go with evil.

There is no real problem of consciousness though, it is a false problem. There is no reason why consciousness being purely physical couldn't be the case, or is extremely unlikely based on what we know so far about biology, neuroscience, and in other fields.

However, there are good reasons to claim that the permission of gratuitous evils would be extremely unlikely given the attributes of the Christian God.

Thus, you are trying to put to "problems" on the same playing field without proper justification. Cute, but utterly futile in this case.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:53:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:51:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:46:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/7/2012 10:18:10 AM, phantom wrote:
Consciousness is something naturalism has never been able to explain. I think just the mere fact that we are conscious point to dualism. Given naturalism, and assuming life did begin to exist, we would be like robots, unaware and unconscious.

Yup, I think the Problem of Consciousness for (certain versions of) naturalism is akin to the Problem of Evil for (certain versions of) theism. If I had a choose a problem I'd go with evil.

There is no real problem of consciousness though, it is a false problem. There is no reason why consciousness being purely physical couldn't be the case, or is extremely unlikely based on what we know so far about biology, neuroscience, and in other fields.

However, there are good reasons to claim that the permission of gratuitous evils would be extremely unlikely given the attributes of the Christian God.

Thus, you are trying to put to "problems" on the same playing field without proper justification. Cute, but utterly futile in this case.

It's kind of cute that you think I don't have proper justification without actually knowing my reasons. Debate me please. I promise you if you bring these weak arguments you have here it won't go well for you.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:59:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:53:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:51:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:46:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/7/2012 10:18:10 AM, phantom wrote:
Consciousness is something naturalism has never been able to explain. I think just the mere fact that we are conscious point to dualism. Given naturalism, and assuming life did begin to exist, we would be like robots, unaware and unconscious.

Yup, I think the Problem of Consciousness for (certain versions of) naturalism is akin to the Problem of Evil for (certain versions of) theism. If I had a choose a problem I'd go with evil.

There is no real problem of consciousness though, it is a false problem. There is no reason why consciousness being purely physical couldn't be the case, or is extremely unlikely based on what we know so far about biology, neuroscience, and in other fields.

However, there are good reasons to claim that the permission of gratuitous evils would be extremely unlikely given the attributes of the Christian God.

Thus, you are trying to put to "problems" on the same playing field without proper justification. Cute, but utterly futile in this case.

It's kind of cute that you think I don't have proper justification without actually knowing my reasons. Debate me please. I promise you if you bring these weak arguments you have here it won't go well for you.

Well you haven't presented any justification so far, yet you were expecting justification from me for why it isn't a problem. The whole reason I do not believe it is a problem in the context of our exchange, is because you have not presented for reasons for why it's a problem.

If someone is presenting a problem, the burden is on them to show why it's a problem. Also, I'm not educated enough on this "problem" to have a proper debate on it.

However, I was in my right to dismiss your problem because you failed to show why it was a problem. That which is asserted without reasoning, can be dismissed without reasoning.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 6:18:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:59:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:53:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:51:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:46:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/7/2012 10:18:10 AM, phantom wrote:
Consciousness is something naturalism has never been able to explain. I think just the mere fact that we are conscious point to dualism. Given naturalism, and assuming life did begin to exist, we would be like robots, unaware and unconscious.

Yup, I think the Problem of Consciousness for (certain versions of) naturalism is akin to the Problem of Evil for (certain versions of) theism. If I had a choose a problem I'd go with evil.

There is no real problem of consciousness though, it is a false problem. There is no reason why consciousness being purely physical couldn't be the case, or is extremely unlikely based on what we know so far about biology, neuroscience, and in other fields.

However, there are good reasons to claim that the permission of gratuitous evils would be extremely unlikely given the attributes of the Christian God.

Thus, you are trying to put to "problems" on the same playing field without proper justification. Cute, but utterly futile in this case.

It's kind of cute that you think I don't have proper justification without actually knowing my reasons. Debate me please. I promise you if you bring these weak arguments you have here it won't go well for you.

Well you haven't presented any justification so far, yet you were expecting justification from me for why it isn't a problem. The whole reason I do not believe it is a problem in the context of our exchange, is because you have not presented for reasons for why it's a problem.

If someone is presenting a problem, the burden is on them to show why it's a problem. Also, I'm not educated enough on this "problem" to have a proper debate on it.

However, I was in my right to dismiss your problem because you failed to show why it was a problem. That which is asserted without reasoning, can be dismissed without reasoning.

Uh, no I wasn't. I was just piggybacking off of panthom's post about the problem of consciousness and naturalism.

Again, debate?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 6:26:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 6:18:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:59:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:53:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:51:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:46:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/7/2012 10:18:10 AM, phantom wrote:
Consciousness is something naturalism has never been able to explain. I think just the mere fact that we are conscious point to dualism. Given naturalism, and assuming life did begin to exist, we would be like robots, unaware and unconscious.

Yup, I think the Problem of Consciousness for (certain versions of) naturalism is akin to the Problem of Evil for (certain versions of) theism. If I had a choose a problem I'd go with evil.

There is no real problem of consciousness though, it is a false problem. There is no reason why consciousness being purely physical couldn't be the case, or is extremely unlikely based on what we know so far about biology, neuroscience, and in other fields.

However, there are good reasons to claim that the permission of gratuitous evils would be extremely unlikely given the attributes of the Christian God.

Thus, you are trying to put to "problems" on the same playing field without proper justification. Cute, but utterly futile in this case.

It's kind of cute that you think I don't have proper justification without actually knowing my reasons. Debate me please. I promise you if you bring these weak arguments you have here it won't go well for you.

Well you haven't presented any justification so far, yet you were expecting justification from me for why it isn't a problem. The whole reason I do not believe it is a problem in the context of our exchange, is because you have not presented for reasons for why it's a problem.

If someone is presenting a problem, the burden is on them to show why it's a problem. Also, I'm not educated enough on this "problem" to have a proper debate on it.

However, I was in my right to dismiss your problem because you failed to show why it was a problem. That which is asserted without reasoning, can be dismissed without reasoning.

Uh, no I wasn't. I was just piggybacking off of panthom's post about the problem of consciousness and naturalism.

Again, debate?


Read the 6th line of my last post.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 6:34:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 6:26:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 6:18:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:59:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:53:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:51:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:46:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/7/2012 10:18:10 AM, phantom wrote:
Consciousness is something naturalism has never been able to explain. I think just the mere fact that we are conscious point to dualism. Given naturalism, and assuming life did begin to exist, we would be like robots, unaware and unconscious.

Yup, I think the Problem of Consciousness for (certain versions of) naturalism is akin to the Problem of Evil for (certain versions of) theism. If I had a choose a problem I'd go with evil.

There is no real problem of consciousness though, it is a false problem. There is no reason why consciousness being purely physical couldn't be the case, or is extremely unlikely based on what we know so far about biology, neuroscience, and in other fields.

However, there are good reasons to claim that the permission of gratuitous evils would be extremely unlikely given the attributes of the Christian God.

Thus, you are trying to put to "problems" on the same playing field without proper justification. Cute, but utterly futile in this case.

It's kind of cute that you think I don't have proper justification without actually knowing my reasons. Debate me please. I promise you if you bring these weak arguments you have here it won't go well for you.

Well you haven't presented any justification so far, yet you were expecting justification from me for why it isn't a problem. The whole reason I do not believe it is a problem in the context of our exchange, is because you have not presented for reasons for why it's a problem.

If someone is presenting a problem, the burden is on them to show why it's a problem. Also, I'm not educated enough on this "problem" to have a proper debate on it.

However, I was in my right to dismiss your problem because you failed to show why it was a problem. That which is asserted without reasoning, can be dismissed without reasoning.

Uh, no I wasn't. I was just piggybacking off of panthom's post about the problem of consciousness and naturalism.

Again, debate?


Read the 6th line of my last post.

Lol, ok, whatever, man. It amazes me how much apparent certitude you have in positions you won't even debate because you don't know enough about them.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 6:38:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 6:34:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/7/2012 6:26:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 6:18:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:59:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:53:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:51:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:46:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/7/2012 10:18:10 AM, phantom wrote:
Consciousness is something naturalism has never been able to explain. I think just the mere fact that we are conscious point to dualism. Given naturalism, and assuming life did begin to exist, we would be like robots, unaware and unconscious.

Yup, I think the Problem of Consciousness for (certain versions of) naturalism is akin to the Problem of Evil for (certain versions of) theism. If I had a choose a problem I'd go with evil.

There is no real problem of consciousness though, it is a false problem. There is no reason why consciousness being purely physical couldn't be the case, or is extremely unlikely based on what we know so far about biology, neuroscience, and in other fields.

However, there are good reasons to claim that the permission of gratuitous evils would be extremely unlikely given the attributes of the Christian God.

Thus, you are trying to put to "problems" on the same playing field without proper justification. Cute, but utterly futile in this case.

It's kind of cute that you think I don't have proper justification without actually knowing my reasons. Debate me please. I promise you if you bring these weak arguments you have here it won't go well for you.

Well you haven't presented any justification so far, yet you were expecting justification from me for why it isn't a problem. The whole reason I do not believe it is a problem in the context of our exchange, is because you have not presented for reasons for why it's a problem.

If someone is presenting a problem, the burden is on them to show why it's a problem. Also, I'm not educated enough on this "problem" to have a proper debate on it.

However, I was in my right to dismiss your problem because you failed to show why it was a problem. That which is asserted without reasoning, can be dismissed without reasoning.

Uh, no I wasn't. I was just piggybacking off of panthom's post about the problem of consciousness and naturalism.

Again, debate?


Read the 6th line of my last post.

Lol, ok, whatever, man. It amazes me how much apparent certitude you have in positions you won't even debate because you don't know enough about them.

I'm in the middle of a pretty big debate right now, and I do not feel like engaging in another one. I always debate positions I am confident in debating, however, my only position here is I don't see how this problem of consciousness is a real problem. Since you have given me no other reason to think otherwise, in the context of our exchange, I am dismissing it until that changes. The OP tried to make a case, but still failed in showing how it's a real problem. We don't need to do a real debate to establish this, all one has to do is show why it's a problem.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 6:56:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 12:37:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
The question in this debate is whether a being like us who are sentient, self-aware, can think, feel, and are animate rather than inanimate, can really just be matter and energy.

Atoms and energy cannot think or feel, they are objects, and are not alive. How is it possible to somehow put dead things together to somehow become sentient? How is it possible for mere matter to become sentient, logical, and emotional?

I would argue that it is more likely that it is more likely that whatever is fundamentally behind our minds is immaterial and non-naturalistic.

We have also heard many reports by people who have claimed to have gone to the after-life when they temporarily died and even floated around the rooms they died in.

Surely this is evidence for an immaterial mind.

Well... it's not.

However, I will say that I believe in an immaterial mind.

Here's why.

Biologically speaking, although there is a certain mechanism to it, things are not mechanical. This is to say, everything that manifests biologically does so uniquely. It's as though, every manifestation of life is the reemergence of life that's every bit as much a miracle as the initial inception of life. It happens all over again every time it happens. Using base elements, the body constructs single cells that interact, merge, then divide, and become new life. From nothing, there is something sentient, interactive, and intelligent.

That is a capacity, and therefore a proclivity, of the proportion of elements on this planet.

However!

There is something interesting about this arrangement. There is some transitional factor between basic matter and living matter, where after the threshold, matter becomes extremely chaotic, unique, and unpredictable. No longer abiding by any classical interpretation of computation (particularly mathematics), it develops a consciousness, where it acts autonomously in a single direction -- either the proliferation or the increasing complexity of itself. Moreover, it actively maintains and engages the retention of its form. This is in direct contradiction of all other matter that abides by what we know as classical physics, which states that matter is in a constant state of decay, reducing all degrees of order into chaos so that it can intermingle and become complex again, sometimes in the same way, often in different ways.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 7:10:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:07:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:03:22 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

So far, all you've done is make your own bare assertions, if the hard problem of consciousness is "especially not hard for the naturalist", then let's hear it.

Keep in mind that "emergent" is a descriptive term, it is not an explanatory term, and the word "complexity" isn't some kind of fairy dust that magically conjures new things into existence.

Without using the words emergent and complexity as if they were magical incantations, can you provide a brief outline of a causal sequence that in some way explains how a strictly material process could result in conscious experience?

Why couldn't materials arranged in a certain way result in consciousness? You are acting like there is a problem, when there isn't....I see no problems with consciousness coming from purely physical processes, absolutely none. It seems this is a problem that you haven't even come close to defending, why couldn't this happen? Why is it unlikely?

"Why not" isn't much of an explanation, this unfounded belief of yours is starting to sound more like a superstition than a reasoned thought process.

You guys like to do that "burden of proof is on you thing" don't you, well, you are the one making a positive assertion about the existence of a material process by which matter becomes sentient here. Can't you at least describe this process?

There is no reason why it couldn't happen or why it is unlikely...Thus, it's not a problem.

Perhaps in your world, but here in the real world it's generally been considered a problem for quite some time, Plato wrote about it in the Phaedo around 2,400 years ago. It doesn't strike me as very rational to believe a problem is solved by simply dismissing it.

I'm relatively new here and perhaps I'm wrong to presume, but I was thinking we could expect some rational thinking from somebody with the screen name "Rational Thinker".

Was I wrong?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 7:38:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 7:10:09 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:07:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:03:22 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

So far, all you've done is make your own bare assertions, if the hard problem of consciousness is "especially not hard for the naturalist", then let's hear it.

Keep in mind that "emergent" is a descriptive term, it is not an explanatory term, and the word "complexity" isn't some kind of fairy dust that magically conjures new things into existence.

Without using the words emergent and complexity as if they were magical incantations, can you provide a brief outline of a causal sequence that in some way explains how a strictly material process could result in conscious experience?

Why couldn't materials arranged in a certain way result in consciousness? You are acting like there is a problem, when there isn't....I see no problems with consciousness coming from purely physical processes, absolutely none. It seems this is a problem that you haven't even come close to defending, why couldn't this happen? Why is it unlikely?

"Why not" isn't much of an explanation, this unfounded belief of yours is starting to sound more like a superstition than a reasoned thought process.

You guys like to do that "burden of proof is on you thing" don't you, well, you are the one making a positive assertion about the existence of a material process by which matter becomes sentient here. Can't you at least describe this process?

There is no reason why it couldn't happen or why it is unlikely...Thus, it's not a problem.

Perhaps in your world, but here in the real world it's generally been considered a problem for quite some time, Plato wrote about it in the Phaedo around 2,400 years ago. It doesn't strike me as very rational to believe a problem is solved by simply dismissing it.

I'm relatively new here and perhaps I'm wrong to presume, but I was thinking we could expect some rational thinking from somebody with the screen name "Rational Thinker".

Was I wrong?

You did get rational thinking. You have given no reason why it's a real problem, thus there is no reason on my behalf required to dismiss it. Simple.

Can you explain why it's a problem for conscious to arise from a certain rearrangement of matter? If you can't even give one reason why it's a problem, why should anyone take it seriously?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 7:39:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 7:10:09 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:07:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:03:22 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

So far, all you've done is make your own bare assertions, if the hard problem of consciousness is "especially not hard for the naturalist", then let's hear it.

Keep in mind that "emergent" is a descriptive term, it is not an explanatory term, and the word "complexity" isn't some kind of fairy dust that magically conjures new things into existence.

Without using the words emergent and complexity as if they were magical incantations, can you provide a brief outline of a causal sequence that in some way explains how a strictly material process could result in conscious experience?

Why couldn't materials arranged in a certain way result in consciousness? You are acting like there is a problem, when there isn't....I see no problems with consciousness coming from purely physical processes, absolutely none. It seems this is a problem that you haven't even come close to defending, why couldn't this happen? Why is it unlikely?

"Why not" isn't much of an explanation, this unfounded belief of yours is starting to sound more like a superstition than a reasoned thought process.

You guys like to do that "burden of proof is on you thing" don't you, well, you are the one making a positive assertion about the existence of a material process by which matter becomes sentient here. Can't you at least describe this process?

There is no reason why it couldn't happen or why it is unlikely...Thus, it's not a problem.

Perhaps in your world, but here in the real world it's generally been considered a problem for quite some time, Plato wrote about it in the Phaedo around 2,400 years ago. It doesn't strike me as very rational to believe a problem is solved by simply dismissing it.

I'm relatively new here and perhaps I'm wrong to presume, but I was thinking we could expect some rational thinking from somebody with the screen name "Rational Thinker".

Was I wrong?

Also I never said that the problem was solved by dismissing it, I said nobody in this thread has explained why it's even a problem in the first place...Try harder.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 8:14:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 7:39:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 7:10:09 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:07:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:03:22 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

So far, all you've done is make your own bare assertions, if the hard problem of consciousness is "especially not hard for the naturalist", then let's hear it.

Keep in mind that "emergent" is a descriptive term, it is not an explanatory term, and the word "complexity" isn't some kind of fairy dust that magically conjures new things into existence.

Without using the words emergent and complexity as if they were magical incantations, can you provide a brief outline of a causal sequence that in some way explains how a strictly material process could result in conscious experience?

Why couldn't materials arranged in a certain way result in consciousness? You are acting like there is a problem, when there isn't....I see no problems with consciousness coming from purely physical processes, absolutely none. It seems this is a problem that you haven't even come close to defending, why couldn't this happen? Why is it unlikely?

"Why not" isn't much of an explanation, this unfounded belief of yours is starting to sound more like a superstition than a reasoned thought process.

You guys like to do that "burden of proof is on you thing" don't you, well, you are the one making a positive assertion about the existence of a material process by which matter becomes sentient here. Can't you at least describe this process?

There is no reason why it couldn't happen or why it is unlikely...Thus, it's not a problem.

Perhaps in your world, but here in the real world it's generally been considered a problem for quite some time, Plato wrote about it in the Phaedo around 2,400 years ago. It doesn't strike me as very rational to believe a problem is solved by simply dismissing it.

I'm relatively new here and perhaps I'm wrong to presume, but I was thinking we could expect some rational thinking from somebody with the screen name "Rational Thinker".

Was I wrong?

Also I never said that the problem was solved by dismissing it, I said nobody in this thread has explained why it's even a problem in the first place...Try harder.

Well, I presented a little something.

Don't pretend like it isn't there.

What's your refutation?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 8:25:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 7:39:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I said nobody in this thread has explained why it's even a problem in the first place...Try harder.

No thanks, I've tried hard enough to get something of substance out of you and you've convinced me that there's nothing there to get.

`
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 8:28:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 8:14:12 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/7/2012 7:39:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 7:10:09 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:07:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:03:22 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

So far, all you've done is make your own bare assertions, if the hard problem of consciousness is "especially not hard for the naturalist", then let's hear it.

Keep in mind that "emergent" is a descriptive term, it is not an explanatory term, and the word "complexity" isn't some kind of fairy dust that magically conjures new things into existence.

Without using the words emergent and complexity as if they were magical incantations, can you provide a brief outline of a causal sequence that in some way explains how a strictly material process could result in conscious experience?

Why couldn't materials arranged in a certain way result in consciousness? You are acting like there is a problem, when there isn't....I see no problems with consciousness coming from purely physical processes, absolutely none. It seems this is a problem that you haven't even come close to defending, why couldn't this happen? Why is it unlikely?

"Why not" isn't much of an explanation, this unfounded belief of yours is starting to sound more like a superstition than a reasoned thought process.

You guys like to do that "burden of proof is on you thing" don't you, well, you are the one making a positive assertion about the existence of a material process by which matter becomes sentient here. Can't you at least describe this process?

There is no reason why it couldn't happen or why it is unlikely...Thus, it's not a problem.

Perhaps in your world, but here in the real world it's generally been considered a problem for quite some time, Plato wrote about it in the Phaedo around 2,400 years ago. It doesn't strike me as very rational to believe a problem is solved by simply dismissing it.

I'm relatively new here and perhaps I'm wrong to presume, but I was thinking we could expect some rational thinking from somebody with the screen name "Rational Thinker".

Was I wrong?

Also I never said that the problem was solved by dismissing it, I said nobody in this thread has explained why it's even a problem in the first place...Try harder.

Well, I presented a little something.

Don't pretend like it isn't there.

What's your refutation?

Your argument pre-supposes that human being's actions aren't governed by the same laws of physics as matter rearrangements which aren't responsible for consciousness. Just because we are more complex, doesn't mean that we don't follow the same laws. We all need energy to continue our existence, just like stars, we all react to external stimulus ect. Thus, it's not really a good argument.