Darwinism, education, materialism's fatal flaw

Hey CC,

quote:

---

that ones easy - many of the neural structures will still be there, even if damaged, and may fire or be fired by electrival impulses.

---

How would that account for the perspective of being outside of one’s body? How would you explain this vision happening when there is no brain activity?

quote:

---

The first is farily decent conspiraqcy theory type stuff. Note the classic point levelled aganist materialism early on in the article; what the author fails to do is demonstrate any basis in fact for their argument. The second link is very dubious

---

Dr. Grossman is drawing from several studies. Try this guy:http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts06.htmlhttp://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/vanLommel.htmAnd also from a previous post:
http://www.datadiwan.de/...ry/articlesN75+/N76Parnia_nde.htm

quote:

---

Life is like a flame that passes from fuel to fuel. It occurs to maximise and precipitate the heat-death of the universe. Thats my theory, and I find it perfectly adequate.

---

Adequate to produce a morality that holds for all people? Adequate to even produce a reasonable argument for a basis for epistemology? Adequate to pass on to the next generation as an answer to the big philosophical questions?

quote:

---

Information theory is elemental to biology, as I argued just the other day. Nothing surprising here. Semantic is still a bad term; you are referring to information and data.

---

So DNA would compare to a computer-like code? Why is semantic a bad term?If mankind has no ultimate value, what is the basis for morality?

quote:

---

Selfishness

---

Leaving room for some pretty nasty stuff; ie my scenarios from previous posts in this thread. And also not answering the problem of objective absolute morality.

quote:

---

So religious people keep telling me. I wish they would stop making excuses for their killings.

---

The practitioners of any worldview may or may not be good examples of the worldview at work, and certainly adds little to the discussion of whether the worldview is true. But let me resurrect a comment I made early in this thread. The Mother Teresa Ideal is the best example of theism at work, the Osama Bin Laden ideal is ultimate Muslimism, and Woody Allen or Madeline Murray O’Hare ideals are the ultimate atheism.

quote:

---

All other things being equal, choose the option that implies the most fruitfulness in finding answers to other questions. God is not this option.

---

When we are talking about empirical science, I agree. I have been contending in this thread, however, that morality is baseless and reason is pointless if life ends in the grave.Thanks for the reply,DennisThis message has been edited by dshortt, 01-24-2005 17:01 AM

Crash, have you read any of this thread? You are practically making my point for me.

Hey Paul,Sorry to hear you lost a reply, that is the most maddening thing. I have taken to using Word to write these replies to prevent that very thing from happening.

quote:

---

That some new brain cells are produced does not mean that they are replacing existing cells. But even if they are it simply goes back to the same question of identity I spoke of earlier. And although these addiitonal cells may partially explain the mental changes you have already acknowledged I see no reason to think that they are any more of a threat to my concept of identity.

---

From an earlier post I said:Now it would seem that only a mental entity can have the same opinions, memories (including memories of the True Self as the same True Self having the experience of the memory) and emotions through time and brain surgery. The brain is in constant flux, cells are being repaired and even replaced moment by moment. And yet through these changes, there is an enduring self, what I called a True Self, that unifies experiences, holds memories, and outlives the body. Implicit in you’re a priori denial of a True Self comes the notion that YOU, PaulK are not the same person you were last year, last month, or last week. In fact, in seven years, you will be an entirely new person since most if not all of your cells will have been replaced.And so we find that morality becomes a difficulty, in that, how can we hold anyone responsible for their actions since in the next moment after committing a crime, they became a different entity, a physically similar, but changed body.And why should we fear or look forward to future events since we will be entirely different persons in the future?

quote:

---

Blind people "see" during NDEs the same way as everyone else having an NDE "sees". What's the problem ? I certainly don't need a special explanation for blind people any more than you do. Of course since you apparently believe that they actually DO see you have a problem to explain how that is possible. Moroever the split-brain experiments and the effects on memory provide VERY strong evidence that these aspects of mental function is dependent on the physical brain. And since your view o NDEs denies that then you need equally strong evidence. Why should the experience not draw from what happened as she was going under and/or the time when she was being revived?

---

If the NDE is strictly a physical event inside of a brain, there is no explaining a blind person being able to actually see the doctors working on them, the room their body is in as well as other objects. You seem to be missing the verified parts in all of this; the medical instruments an procedures in process (eliminating the first second before succumbing or last second before reviving hypothesis) are sometimes described in great detail, objects from adjacent rooms or even further away are described (one guy saw a shoe on the hospital roof, which was later found). These verified events of an out-of-body entity actually seeing, hearing and experiencing during absolute flat-line are not explainable by physical means that I can see (drugs, hallucination, residual brain activity, etc).From Dr. Pin Van Lommel, the doctor who performed the Dutch study reported in the Lancet:From these studies we know that in our prospective study of patients that have been clinically dead (VF on the ECG) no electric activity of the cortex of the brain (flat EEG) must have been possible, but also the abolition of brain stem activity like the loss of the corneareflex, fixed dilated pupils and the loss of the gag reflex is a clinical finding in those patients. However, patients with an NDE can report a clear consciousness, in which cognitive functioning, emotion, sense of identity, and memory from early childhood was possible, as well as perception from a position out and above their dead body. Because of the sometimes reported and verifiable out-of -body experiences, like the case of the dentures reported in our study, we know that the NDE must happen during the period of unconsciousness, and not in the first or last second of this period.So we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness. And as soon as the function of brain has been lost, like in clinical death or in brain death, with iso-electricity on the EEG, memories and consciousness do still exist, but the reception ability is lost. People can experience their consciousness outside their body, with the possibility of perception out and above their body, with identity, and with heightened awareness, attention, well-structured thought processes, memories and emotions. And they also can experience their consciousness in a dimension where past, present and future exist at the same moment, without time and space, and can be experienced as soon as attention has been directed to it (life review and preview), and even sometimes they come in contact with the fields of consciousness of deceased relatives. And later they can experience their conscious return into their body.As to the Big Three, I am not in the least suggesting science has not made progress by studying these questions, but only from the purely physical side of things will these things ever be accessible. You are much like the reductionist who looks at a Shakespearean sonnet and deduces that a dye with drying agents was applied to a fibrous material which absorbed the dye in interesting shapes and patterns and claims to have explained the work.Take the Big Bang; particles flying apart, tremendous heat, gravitational intensity off the chart, all of these things may be true, but where is the explanation for why? A logical conclusion is that if time, energy, matter and space came into being at the moment of the Big Bang, wouldn’t something operating outside of these things be required as the cause? And a further complication for a naturalistic explanation is the large number of fortuitous circumstances which enable life to exist. To say that pure natural forces worked together so exquisitely stretches the limits of plausibility.Life is explained in purely physical terms as chemicals bonding to create motion, energy consumption, and replication, but again where is the why? That first little critter that took on the characteristics of life came from something that the moment before was not alive. How? Self assembly seems like a dead option; even the RNA hypothesis is full of problems. Wouldn’t it be logical to look for the infuser of life, something operating outside of that first little critter to bring it alive?
So certainly let’s continue explorations of all areas, but not miss what lies beyond the forest for studying the trees so intently.You say there is good evidence for the ape to man ascendancy; let’s give you that one for the sake of discussion. There still needs to be an explanation for the profound difference in reasoning powers and more specifically the consciousness of man, particularly if it can be shown that this consciousness exists outside of the physical body. Doesn’t it just make sense that consciousness is not an accident? I know you will say it has been selected for, but that first big brute to exhibit it had to have been, in your view, a profoundly unusual beast to say the least. How would the non-conscious beget the conscious?

quote:

---

On morality you again misunderstand my point. I am not interested in how we KNOW it - but how it could exist and I see no useful contribution a God could make which would not undermine the very claim to HAVE an Ultimate Morality. For instance how could you meaningfully call God "good" without a standard of "good" to judge God by ? And I have to add how can we judge commands to commit genocide as "good" ? Or do we put the assumption that God is good ahead of the Bible or ahead of morality itself ?

---

Perhaps I have, but you said several times in earlier posts that an Ultimate Morality could exist in principle outside of God, and I have just been asking you to clarify that point.If God is the Creator of the universe, and God is the Ultimate Morality, God would be the Ontological Good as well. Commands to commit genocide from the OT are hard to understand; perhaps those societies were so evil that destruction was the best option, how can we say?

quote:

---

So far as "Ultimate Value" goes - unless you wish to deny that huamns have a value to each other on the human scale of things - we simply come back to my question of why that is not enough. Do you really not care about other humans for what they are?

---

I just really suspect you have no answer for me philosophically, so you continue to try to make it personal. Let me try once more: worldviews dictate the way people live, even those who have not thought much about it (most nowadays it would seem) are driven in their daily decisions by a worldview. If the worldview is universe ends, we all die, end of story how can anyone claim an Ultimate Value for mankind? And then the question, since mankind has no Ultimate Value, what do we make of this life? A self-sacrificial life would certainly look stupid at this point. And how do we say to someone you should, or you shouldn’t? Yes, you can point to consequences in the here and now, but ultimately, none of it matters. If this were my worldview, I would either go for the gusto on my own terms, or end it all now, and how could you talk me out of it, ultimately?So my ultimate point is that mankind has no Ultimate Value, Meaning or Purpose sans an afterlife.

quote:

---

As to your final point, if our Ultimate Destiny relies on wisful thinking or making a lucky guess I have just to ask what sort of creator would set things up that way ?

---

To paraphrase Pascal badly, perhaps God set up the universe to contain enough evidence for the believer and kept that evidence vague enough to support the non-believer in his non-belief. I don’t find it to be wishful thinking at all to see the logical conclusions I have arrived at above, and bridge the remaining gap with faith.

quote:

---

I'd say that you were wrong on all three.

---

I would expect nothing less.

quote:

---

There are enough less-than-complimentary reports about Mother Theresa to doubt that the actual woman was an ideal role-model.

---

Notice I said the Mother Teresa ideal. Here is a good representation of what I mean;Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind.And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

quote:

---

Osama bin Laden's activities have a lot more to do with anti-Western sentiment than Islam (propping up the House of Saud is a good part of that - supporting Israel is another part).

---

From the Koran:And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.
Ask forgiveness for them or do not ask forgiveness for them; even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah will not forgive them; this is because they disbelieve in Allah and His Apostle, and Allah does not guide the transgressing people.And never offer prayer for any one of them who dies and do not stand by his grave; surely they disbelieve in Allah and His Apostle and they shall die in transgression.And let not their property and their children excite your admiration; Allah only wishes to chastise them with these in this world and (that) their souls may depart while they are unbelievers.Who do you think the unbelievers and idolaters are in the eyes of the fundamentalist Muslim? You and I are in this one together Paul, like it or not.

quote:

---

And I certainly don't regard Woody Allan or Madalyn Murray O'Hare as any sort of ideal nor see any reason why I should.

---

But I think their values are telling. O’Hare was a vigilante for getting any vestige of Christianity out of the public square. Then she gets killed by one of her close followers for, what else, money.Mr. Allen seems to just drift from event to event, (at least in his movies, and by his own words they are at least somewhat autobiographical), unfocused, never able to make sense of anything, not receiving or giving anything of value, and then (in real life now) gets caught having sex with his 13 year old stepdaughter.Don’t be offended here, please. I am sure you are a fine person. I just see these two people as having taken the atheistic worldview to it’s logical conclusion.Regards to allDennis

Hey CC,I think my general reply above answers your objections as well. Did you write "Slumber"?Dennis

Yes, I think you are seeing one of the difficulties here. See my post above for Dr. Pim Van Lommel's take.Dennis

Hey Crash,

quote:

---

The fact that morals are baseless means we need to act more moral, not less. We have an even greater responsibility to our fellow man because there's no deity ensuring universal justice. There's just us.

---

What would this acting "more moral" look like? Why should we feel any responsibilty for anyone? Everyone is doomed, the universe is doomed, what outcome are we striving for? To feel better about ourselves in the here and now?

Hey Paul,

quote:

---

I hope this illustrates that choosing "examples" solely to paint a bad picture of those who disagree with you is pointless. Bad examples exist on both sides

---

Thank you for providing the little spanking. I had really intended that part of my reply for Contracycle, since he insists that the behavior of certain Christians must surely reflect badly on the belief system as a whole. The only thing I would take issue with you on is:

quote:

---

Yet Osama Bin Laden is surely not regareded as a moral exemplare by the majority of Muslims - selective quotatiosn from the Quran aside

---

.Find me an example or two of a Muslim who condemns Osama Bin Laden, and I might believe you here. I think you will be hard pressed to back up this assertion that the majority of Muslims don’t regard him as a moral example. And my quotations may have been selective, (did you want me to quote the whole thing?), but they were extracted from the first page I came to. And I am shocked that you are not shocked. These quotes clearly are an instruction to all believers to kill and punish non-believers going forward to the end of times, so not comparable to your examples of a few instances 4000 years ago when God instructed the Israelites to conquer several regions. So even if they are the only examples I could come up with (I haven’t made any further attempts), since this is the Muslim Holy Book, I would question any Muslim who believes their faith to be the Truth, and is not following these commands to the letter.

quote:

---

There is a continuity of experience and to a lesser extent of personality. These would seem more important to me than the physical makeup of the brain - which I regard as being of very low importance. While we do sometimes grant that long term personality change may be enough to consider the person involved "different" I see no reason to adopt any more radical view as you suggest. And sicne we do not grant that small replacements are sufficient to change the idnetity of inanimate objects why should we adopt a radically different view for humans ?

---

But do you not see that the seeds of my radical thinking are already taking hold? The physical brain, more and more, is considered the one-stop place of behavior modification. Drugs are replacing therapy more and more. Personal responsibility is being de-emphasized. How far can we be from simply giving a brain altering drug or surgery to criminals in lieu of punishment? Unless medical science begins to acknowledge that there is more to a human than just the physical, what will turn back this tide?

quote:

---

Ansd what does your "True Self" add ? What makes it qualify as a "self" if it is not physical identity or memory or personality ? So far as I can tell it doesn't contribute to identity in any meaningful way.

---

I would say it is all of that and more. It is the mental, spiritual entity infused at conception that endures beyond the physical life, taking the experiences, knowledge and wisdom gained in this world to the next world. And as I have said, if humans are strictly physical entities, there is no basis for an Ultimate Morality or an Ultimate Reason.

quote:

---

On to NDE's. Since I do not grant that anyone undergoing an NDE does see a doctor working on them I can only repeat that blindness makes no difference to my view. I am not ignoring the anecdotal CLAIMS of verification - I simply do not consider them to be significant evidence. I knwo that attempts at controlled experiments ("planting" things to be "seen") but I have never heard of any of them succeeding.

​

The denture case is less significant than it appears - it only mentioned a week after the event and it was not produced by controlled questioning. Therefore we cannot conclude that the patient did not learn of it by normal means and work it into his memory of his NDE (or indeed that the doctor's memory has not elaborated the accuracy of hte patient's account)

---

But this is not the exception. Seeing the medical procedure being performed and being able to describe it in accurate detail, and seeing other objects and events are very common in NDEs. Let me also add that I have personally interviewed two gentlemen who both had near death experiences some years ago. Neither had much if any knowledge of NDEs prior to having one, and both NDEs have amazing similarity; tunnel of light, meeting dead relatives, a spirit leader, life review, and one of the most important elements of most of these NDE’s, the ensuing life change. If there is not an authentic spiritual experience going on here, how to explain the marvelous ways in which these folks are transformed by them? Are we to believe that hundreds of people are part of some vast deception?

quote:

---

On to your "big three" I do not beleive that I am taking a reductionistic approach. And I can only repeat that you need to show that supernaturalism has something worthwhile to offer in respect of any of the three. Nor do we know if there is anything truly fortuitius in the nature of our universe nor if it is simply one of many and the weak anthropic principle suffices to explain why the universe we see is one where our existence is possible.

---

What contributory requirement are you placing on the supernatural? It seems an undue burden to say that the supernatural should contribute to our investigation of the natural. If you mean other areas besides empirical science, I thought that was, at least indirectly, what much of this thread has been about. The supernatural is required as an explanation to the beginning of the universe. Even your multiple universe mechanism would be considered supernatural in most instances. But it is problematic in that if it is a finite mechanism, it would require an explanation for another more complex, ordered entity in addition to our universe. If the mechanism is infinite, why do we not see infinite universes co-melding with ours since an infinite membrane would have infinite chances to produce universes at any given point?The weak anthropic principle seems to me much like the man who stands before a firing squad, and a very large number of loaded rifles face him. He hears the rifles go off, but remains unscathed and says, Of well, since I am still alive, this incident does not require further explanation since I am here to witness it. How can we not wonder why the universe is set up so precisely to support life?

quote:

---

On the origin of lifeyou are on even weaker ground. Given that we do nt even have a clear definition of life nor a clear boundary between biology and chemistry talkign about an "infuser" of life - wiht its overtones of the discredited idea of Vitalism seems pointless. It is true that current research is looking for simpler predecessors to RNA - but is self-replicating RNA alive ? If not then where does your "infuser" fit in ?

---

The supernatural may be required to fully explain the beginning of life as well. It seems very unlikely to me that a mechanism will be found that orders self-replicators from non-replicators, complex molecules from simple ones, energy consumption where none existed before, and motion from stillness. And we are looking for yet again another mechanism that would require an explanation or cause. How is it illogical to say that life must originate from a powerful life causing force? Nothing in the natural universe we have discovered so far meets that requirement.

quote:

---

As to the differences between humans and modern apes I need only point out to the relative brain sizes - remind you of the range of intermediates. And point out that even chimpanzees are capable of making simple tools that they have some capacity for language and even behaviour that is more like ours than you might think - for instance this article

---

Yes, I found that very interesting, and it reminds me of the debate over whether or not lower animals have a soul or spirit; dogs exhibit love and affection, dolphins have a pretty advanced communication system, it is all very fascinating. But surely you agree no animal exhibits anything close to man’s reason, his self-reflection, and other cognitive abilities, his ability to do good (even though many times we don’t), and his creative abilities. And again I mention these things seem to travel with us beyond the death bed. But surely the burden of all of this falls on your side; how does the purely physical learn to communicate? How do purely physical forces grow a brain 3 fold in size in such a short time? And the momentum is in place for NDEs to be much better documented in the next 5 — 10 years (Dr. Sam Parnia is in the process of doing another study and there is a Russian study under way); how then to explain a supernatural element to the human race?

quote:

---

I note that you cannot answer the question of how we could judge God to be good without an independant moral standard. YOur answer amounts to simply assumign it or defining God as "good" - without regard to what GOd might actually be like. I don't see how you can suggest that either is a valid grounding for morality nor how speculating that a society might somehow be so "evil" that the only thing to do is kill everyone in it (which I find highly implausible - what could they be doing that is worse than genocide ? how could infants be guilty of anything worse than the killing of infants ?)

---

The question just seems silly to me. How do we judge the standard to be the standard? If there is an Ultimate Beginner to the universe, and there is Good contained therein, then that Ultimate Beginner must be the Beginner of Good, and therefore the contain or be the Ultimate Good. And trying to analyze something 4000 years ago to determine the good in it is speculating, but let me add that if humans live on past the physical, there might be worse things to befall a man than dying. And infants growing up in a society where evil is the norm are likely to do more of the same, wouldn’t you agree? To compare to today, would you agree there are individuals so intent upon doing evil that complete removal from society seems to be the best option?

quote:

---

As yo your other moral arguments I hardly see how it is "making it personal" to point out what you are saying. Let me make it simple - if human values - like love - are sufficent value for human-scale actions then there is no need to require an "Ultimate Value". Thus whenever you insist that an "Ultimate Value" IS needed you insist that human values are not enough. If you greatly care about another person there is nothing pointless in wanting to preserve their life even at the cost of your own.

---

I understand, and this might work fine for you and I. But what do you say to the person who doesn’t greatly care for anyone including themselves, because they cannot see the point in caring about anything which does not last? Who thinks that maybe pleasure is the best one can attain, and whatever means are necessary should not be condemned by you or I?I respect your position, and can even see how you have come to accept it. My hope is not that you would adopt mine, but at least come to respect it as well. It is not illogical or unreasonable, and even Hume and others have recognized the importance of keeping an active religiosity for the moral guidance it supplies to society if nothing else. And maybe one reason we don’t find a lot of Creationists on this sight is the lack of respect one can feel when a perfectly legitimate worldview is called an ad hoc assumption, or superstition. Superstitions are easily explained away, theism is not. And I hope I am at least demonstrating that there is nothing ad hoc about these conclusions I have come to. I am sure you disagree and can provide good arguments, but inflammatory language doesn’t become you and doesn’t serve your arguments well.ThanksDennis

Hey Paul and CC,Well my faith in man and Muslims is somewhat restored by reading your suggestions. I work with a couple of Muslims and they were very hesitant to say anything critical of Osama Bin Laden. At least there are some Muslims who will condemn Bin Laden. But did you not see this part of one of your articles:It baffles the mind to watch American Muslim leaders waffle over condemning Bin Laden as a terrorist who is misappropriating Islamic ideals and incriminating Islam in his campaign of terror. This man has undermined decades of hard work by these very same leaders to make Islam more acceptable in America. The shadow of Bin Laden now looms large on the decades of efforts by these same leaders at building bridges with other faith-based communities. The issue of condemnation stands clearly between American Muslims and the American government. Rather than perceiving American Muslims as a national asset and source for diplomatic expertise that can be deployed in defense of American interests, the establishment sees American Muslims as potential suspects, because they are not confident about where Muslim sympathies lie.The only reason why there is no explicit condemnation of Bin Laden by major Muslim organizations, who have recently condemned American bombing of Afghanistan, is perhaps their fear of losing support with the constituency that they seek to serve. They fear that if they condemn him, even as a matter of self/public interest (maslaha in Islamic law) they will be perceived as taking sides with America in this war between America and Islam.I think I was at least partially right. And CC, I don't hate anybody. I will do what is necessary to protect my family, however. More later.Dennis

Hey Paul,

quote:

---

As to your radical view that even small changes to the brain completely destroy identity I see no sign of it taking hold at all. None of the examples you offer rely on it. The use of drugs for instance is simply more evidence for the dependence of the mind on the physical brain - they are used BECAUSE they work. The use of drugs and surgery on convicts is still only likely in cases where there is a mental illness that contributed to the "criminal actions" - and that is a situation that has not significantly changed in the direction you suggest for a long time.

---

What if this small change was in a part of the brain heavily involved in cognitive processes? Couldn’t several small changes here theoretically involve at least an identity shift, if the brain is the producer of identity?Another example of this paradigm taking hold is the move away from personal responsibility evidenced in the tobacco lawsuits and the McDonald’s lawsuit. If indeed man is a victim of the chemical reactions in his brain, these lawsuits make perfect sense. If, however, my contention is true, and there is a True Self that makes up the free will of a man, among other things, then these lawsuits should be viewed in a different light.You say the mind is dependent upon the brain, and I agree. I think I have been saying that all along. So certainly drug therapy that works and is safe should continue. But the danger I see is the ever increasing move away from more traditional therapy. Drugs might help an individual to feel better short term; but what about the long term causes and effects? These are much harder to identify and treat, but shouldn’t be ignored unless we want to end up with a population of drugged out zombies.

quote:

---

I still don't have an idea what your "True Self" is supposed to do. If it is just the passive recording device you suggest then it can't be considered a "True Self" in any meaningful sense. No, there is no way in which you can offer somethign that might usefully be consiered a "True Self" that escapes the objections you have raised to supposedlt establish the need for one.

---

I have not suggested at any point that the True Self is passive in any way. It would be the initiator of thoughts and actions in a human, the free will, the conscience and consciousness, and the soul that passes to the next life. If it is not physical, in what way does it not escape every objection I have made to a purely physical self?A large amount of corroborating testimony is plenty of evidence to establish the fact that something is happening after flat-line. Then you have to look at the possibilities: any explanation of a purely physical nature seems to be less and less plausible as you examine more and more of these cases. Drug induced hallucinations tend to be random and non-specific, whereas NDE experiencers offer very clear, precise descriptions. Low oxygen levels, likewise don’t explain the clear, precise, and sometimes extended periods of consciousness. Check out: http://members.lycos.nl/Kritisch/SurvivalNDE.htmlOnce again, it becomes a package deal, and to brush off one case as anecdotal does not explain the volume of cases (hundreds daily, by some estimates) with similar testimonies and numerous veridical experiences.What exactly would you expect to see here? Since we have no understanding of anything before the beginning of the universe and is undetectable by physical means, what do you expect the supernatural to contribute? I think you mean to say that is what a good natural explanation would do.Ad hoc would imply I am explaining away a theory I don’t agree with. What theory exactly are you offering that I am supposedly explaining away? And how is it an assumption if I continually couch it in theoretical terms? Your inflammatory phrase may give you a kick, but is out of place, not applicable, and annoying.

quote:

---

What you fail to understand about the many-universes scenario is that it not only has some scientific support (in the sense that it is implied by some cosmological models) but also it simply proposes more of the "same". Assuming that our visible universe is all that is is as questionable an assumption as assumign that there is more. What I am NOT doing is assuming a redically different entity - and not one that is more complex or more ordered - or one that will have an unexplained origin (all universes would be generated much the same mechanisms). In all these ways it is clearly better than assuming a God.

---

So what cosmological model do you like? You have attempted to tap-dance around my statement which still holds: either there is a universe producing mechanism, or our universe appeared out of nothing. If there is a mechanism, it must be either finite (requiring a cause) or it is infinite (which leads to several theoretical problems). The only other model I am aware of is Hawking’s imaginary numbers theory? What am I failing to understand? And better than assuming a God in what way? For science? Again perhaps. For constructing a worldview? Even you have agreed that a worldview which includes God is more convenient, to use your word.

quote:

---

Moreover you fail to understand my use of the weak anthropic principle. Imagine if the firing squad is shooting at multiple prisoners - one gun to each priosner and that one gun is unloaded. Would it be an odd coincidence that the unloaded gun was the one use to shoot at the sole survivor ? Thats an analogy of my usage. It would be coincidence if we evolved in one of the small proportion of universes where we COULD evolve.

---

But then shouldn’t the prisoner who is left standing ask the question why was my gunman holding an unloaded gun? Was I meant to be left, or was it an accident? Will I face another gun shortly? Surely the unloaded gun screams for an explanation.

quote:

---

As to your arguments that the supernatural may be required in abiogenesis - well it really only indicates your opinion. THere's no solid ground for it or any suggestion that a genuine and useful supernatural explanation might be forthcoming. By any objective standard abiogensis research is more promising than anything you have to offer.

---

So what theory do you like here? This statement just seems to be throwing the supernatural out a priori. How do you anticipate the problem of simple molecules begetting complex molecules will ever be overcome by purely naturalistic means? Nothing I am aware of is promising here. When you say solid ground, or objective standard, you really mean to say naturalistic. So how is it useful to define the investigation of a worldview as containing only the natural and then claim there is no evidence for the supernatural. This is like going to a GM factory and looking for evidence that Ford exists and declaring there is no evidence that a company called Ford ever made a car.

quote:

---

As to humanity - why should there be problems with the physical communicating ? All communictation I know of is physical ! If you accept the possibility that mind could be derived from the physical brain I don't see that this raises any new issues at all.

---

All communication requires the mental as well. There is the forethought to set up the communication system, then the forethought of the message; where exactly in the physical is this happening? Brain cells are in the business of producing proteins. I don’t accept the possibility that mind can be derived from a physical brain, and I don’t see any evidence to convince me such is the case. No more than your radio is the announcer’s voice you hear or your TV is the baseball player you are watching is the physical brain your mind.

quote:

---

On morlaity you ask the question of how we judge the standard to be the standard. Good question. If there is an Ultimate Morality out there how can we KNOW it to be the Ultimate Morality ? And if we can't then how does the existence of an Ultimate Morality help us ? The rest of your stuff goes nowhere except towards the idea that the murder of innocents is a good thing.

---

It is simply what follows from an Intelligent Beginner of the universe. If God created the universe and there is Good contained therein, God is the initiator of that good and therefore the Ultimate Good or Ultimate Morality. It is the only possible grounding for morality other than what you have proposed, which is not ultimate. At the point morality becomes properly grounded, at the least, some absolutes could flow from the Ultimate Morality. And I see that you will not answer my question, do you believe there are some people so evil that total separation from society is the best option?

quote:

---

As to what I say to the person who will not accept that human values are adequate - well you've got a good idea already, have't you ? How would you deal with someone who acts as you suggest and also rejects your assumption of "Ultimate Value" ? Is your argument going to be that we should indoctrinate people to believe in this "Ultimate Value" for reasons of social control ?

---

Perhaps that would be better than indoctrinating people as to the truth of naturalism, but no, I don’t think an educational system should be in the business of indoctrination at all. But let’s educate people to the truth of what we know; and we don’t know that God does not exist, we do not know that life started by purely physical means, we do not know how the universe started, and I think a well rounded education would include the possibility that there is something beyond the universe that is intelligent and is the First Cause initiator of these things. Let’s teach what we know, but be honest about what we don’t.I agree some may reject any notion of morality Ultimate or otherwise, but it would seem to me that some would be more inclined to consider morality if humans have an Ultimate Value.ThanksDennis

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only reason why there is no explicit condemnation of Bin Laden by major Muslim organizations, who have recently condemned American bombing of Afghanistan, is perhaps their fear of losing support with the constituency that they seek to serve. They fear that if they condemn him, even as a matter of self/public interest (maslaha in Islamic law) they will be perceived as taking sides with America in this war between America and Islam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

But there ARE. Your premise is mistaken; certainly the Muslim Council of Britain has condemned him outright. Many many islamic leaders have claimed that he perverts Islam. Furthermore, your depiction of Bin Laden commanding a massive popularity is completely fictitious. He is an Islamic nobody; if the US had not made such a villain out of him, he would not be such a hero. And to be perfectly honest the more time passes the more doubt accumulates as to whether "al qaeda" even exists at all.

​

But as long as the USA supports Israeli terrorism, the USA is going to be seen largely as an enemy by the Arab world. The support that Bin Laden received in relation to 9/11 is becuase people were happy to finally see a blow struck on their behalf; to see someone giving America a taste of its own medicine. This is very very different from saying that Bin Laden has authority AS A RESULT of Islam.

​

And thus we find ourselves in the ironic position that you, specifically, agree with Bin Laden about what Islam means. You and he both read the Koran to say that a Muslim should be out killing unbelievers. The hugely, massively overwhelming majority of Muslims do not share this view at all.

​

You are making yourselves afraid the bogeyman.

---

Did you not see that this quote comes from Muqtedar Khan in one of the articles PaulK suggested?

quote:

---

Will you accept the same is true of the Mujahadeen? Will you accept the same is true of the Iraqi insurgency? Will you accept the same is true of Bin Laden?

---

Your anti-American bias is showing here. No, no and no, and since this is way off topic and I don't really think you don't see the difference, why don't we just agree to disagree?Dennis

Hey Paul,

quote:

---

The idea that some small physical changes could produce mental changes sufficient to be considered a change of identity is possible in principle - but it is hard to see how it is plausible and I still do not see how proposing a "True Self" would solve the problem if such a change did occur.

---

Where then would we draw the line, in a purely naturalistic world? How many brain cells worth of change would constitute a new identity? This does becomes a concern in a purely naturalistic scenario. The True Self alleviates the problem in that identity gets shifted to an entity that is transcendent to the physical, and, while dependent on the physical body to operate in the physical world, is not dependent upon it to will actions, initiate thought and secure memories. A good example would be:

quote:

---

Moreover I don't see how a hypothetical "True Self" can affect the cases you refer to. Especially since you give no details (tobacco for instance is known to be physically addictive).

---

Yes, tobacco is physically addictive, so how to explain cases like mine. I gave up smoking 20+ years ago cold turkey after smoking somewhat heavily for 15 years or so. And this becomes the point; in a purely naturalistic world, the tobacco companies would seem to be more liable for additives applied to the tobacco meant to increase the addictive properties, as opposed to my view which would shift focus to the free will aspect. A True Self has free will which is transcendent to the physical and, knowing the dangers of smoking, has the choice to smoke or not. This would shift the focus somewhat off of the liability of the tobacco companies, especially since tobacco is legal.

quote:

---

Your comment on drug therapy simply shows that your arguments on that from are beside the point. The interesting question is how the effects of drug therapy are explainable in the dualistic view you propose. If you consider that depression, for instance, can be caused or alleviated by drugs we really do have to ask what is left that would require a non-material component - and what sort of thing it needs to be to explain those.

---

Much like the reception on your TV would be affected by factors not having anything to do with the broadcast (lowering the volume, setting the contrast, repairing broken parts, etc), the physical brain affects the reception of the True Self into the physical world. But without a True Self, how to explain deeply depressed individuals overcoming their condition to do great things? If the Free Will of an individual is nothing more than physical, examples of heroic and courageous acts become difficult to explain and exalt. Would there at some point be a drug one could take to produce heroism or courage?

quote:

---

YOur latest version of your "True Self" makes it pretty much equivalent to the mind. But we come backk to the split-brain experiments - do we have two "True Selves" one in eah hemisphere ? If not, then how can we explain the effects of the operation ? And if memory is part of the "True Self" how can physical damage to the brain cause memories to be lost ? Or - worse - the capability to form long-term memories ? All these are better explained by accepting that the mind is to a very large degree the product of the brain and that it is the brain that is responsible for these functions.

---

I provided clarification early on in this discussion that my True Self is what dualists would call the soul. The split brain experiments are interesting, but I see them easily explained in the dualistic sense as another interference in the reception of the signals of the True Self into the physical brain. Not a good analogy, but if one side of your stereo signal were sent into someone else’s house, you would both be listening to the same song, but not able to discern certain parts that your neighbor would be hearing perfectly. The memory function may be complete at the level of the True Self and not be properly received into the physical brain. There seems to be some indication from NDE studies that this is the case.I notice you say the mind is to a very large degree the product of the brain To what degree are you willing to concede the mind is NOT the product of the brain?

quote:

---

As to NDEs at present I do not accept that patints do have experiences when their EEG is flat. The evidence I mention above is of higher quality than any I am aware of for the NDE claims. There is nothing irrational in choosing the side with stronger evidential support.

---

Higher quality? Code word for naturalistic in content and verifiable by naturalistic means? When flat line occurs within seconds, and the NDE includes veridical experiences that last considerably longer than 10 or 12 seconds (ie, detailed descriptions of conversations in progress, the medical procedure in progress), it becomes apparent that something is happening after flatline.

quote:

---

"Ad hoc" does not mean that you are invoking anything to REJECT a theory. It simply means that you are coming up with things on the spot. Rathewr than have a model which makes predictions or anything that could be considered evidence you are just saying "God did it" or the equivalent. But all you are doing is making an assumption - wioth no real evidence.

---

The universe itself is powerful evidence of something which comes before it. There is nothing ad hoc then about a God which has been postulated since the beginning of recorded history. Any theories which come after God would seem to be more ad hoc. And the evidence is what we have been discussing: the universe, which requires a beginner and man, which seems to be a spiritual entity requiring a spiritual explanation.

quote:

---

On cosmology I am not ties to a specific model - why should I be ? I'm not forced to take a stand. Last I heard Hawking's ideas are in eclipse. Eternal Inflation is interesting and the Ekpyrotic Universe is a fascinationg idea. But I wouldn't say that either of them are more than informed speculations. But they are better than "God did it" in that they assume less and have some theoretical support (and are therefore more likely to be true). They are also better in offering some hopes for testability.

---

Even according to Guth inflationary models of the universe require a beginning. And the brane that the multiple universes are sliding along must be finite as well, or why would we not experience an infinite number of universes colliding with our own? So, again, my statement stands: either there is a universe producing mechanism, or our universe appeared out of nothing. If there is a mechanism, it must be either finite (requiring a cause) or it is infinite (which leads to several theoretical problems). You say these theories are testable and have some theoretic support, but none lead us to a First Cause. So how can you say they assume less?

quote:

---

I must admit that it is hard to think of something that a nebulous idea like the supernatural could contribute. But if it contributes nothing then there is no reaon to assume it. If you can't think of anything it could offer then that simply underscoores that it is a useless assumption that adds nothing to our understanding.

---

A supernatural intelligence is the only theory I have seen that can be a First Cause of everything. The True Self is the only theory I have seen that explains mankind’s ability to reason (not so much the Cartesian doubt angle, but how do we find ourselves thinking in the first instance), to have an inborn sense of Ultimate Morality (no matter how often we find ourselves off-track), and to live on after death. A supernatural intelligence is the only theory I have seen that completely explains how we find a code inside of a living cell. And a supernatural existence past this life is the only solid basis for Ultimate Meaning, Purpose and Value to a human life. Beyond that, yea, I can’t think of much either.

quote:

---

YOur comments on my example for the Weak Anthropic Principle are simply extending the analogy to the point where there no longer is an analogy. Just accept that in the example it is entirely random which gun is unlaoded and which prisoner is lucky enough to be shot at by that gun. What happens afterwards is completely outside the scope of the example and should be ignored - it is irrelevant to the real point. The real point is that you have to recognise that our ecistence in this universe is NOT statistically independant of the fact that this universe can support our existence. Given the former the latter inevitably follows.

---

Not so! My analogy was meant to illustrate that very thing; that the surprise of the prisoner must be analyzed beyond just trying to cover it up with Oh well, you are here, aren’t you? The elephant in the room in your analogy is the unloaded gun that screams for an explanation. If many universes do exist, it would be perfectly appropriate to, at some point, statistically study the properties and constants to determine if life were possible in them as well. It is also mathematically possible to hypothesize many variants of our universe. Those statistics would be independent of our existence in this universe, and could, and have been, applied back to ours to show how surprised we should be that we are here.

quote:

---

As to abiogenesis rejecting the supernatural a priori would require that I refuse to listen to your case ort dismissed it without considering its merits. Since you do not HAVE a case that is impossible. And if you want to produce "non-natural" evidence it is up to you to do so and say why it should be considered evidence. If you can't do that then it isn't my fault. You can't complain that I am being unfair for not giving your position credit it does not deserve. I didn't rule out the NDE evidence because it assumes the supenratural - I reject it because there is stronger evidence pointing to a contradictory conclusion.

---

If we ditch the selfish-replicator illusion, and accept that the only known biological entity capable of autonomous replication is the cell (full of cooperating genes and proteins, etc.)... DNA replication is so error-prone that it needs the prior existence of protein enzymes to improve the copying fidelity of a gene-size piece of DNA. Catch-22, say Maynard Smith and Szathmary. So, wheel on RNA with its now recognized properties of carrying both informational and enzymatic activity, leading the authors to state: In essence, the first RNA molecules did not need a protein polymerase to replicate them; they replicated themselves. Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for ‘biologists in general’ that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences (Dover, 1999, p. 218).Abiogenesis illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Many origin-of-life researchers have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered life law are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.So it is completely legitimate, when looking for the explanation for an historical event (the origin of life in this case), to consider the alternatives, and as they fall by the wayside, to resort to the best explanation left standing. An intelligent infuser of the information required for a self-replicating cell remains the best explanation for the origin of life.

quote:

---

As to the question of whether the mind is the product of the physical brain we have strong evidence that so much of the mind is the product of the brain that it is highly implausible that any supposed non-=physical component could be a complete mind. So long as your worldview can't explain that evidence - not even as well as I can explain Van Lommel's "denture" case then I am afraid that your worldview has a serious problem.

---

I would rephrase that to so much of the mind is expressed in the physical by the brain. I think I have explained it above, at least as well as you have taken on the denture case. But what of the hundreds of other veridical experiences these NDE’ers report. Check out:Page not found - Near-Death Experiences and the AfterlifeIt is fairly long, but contains several descriptions of veridical experiences including a random number which was correctly brought back by one NDEer. Also some famous people tell their stories. Paul, please don’t reject this stuff out of hand. There is something remarkable going on here.

quote:

---

While you may not accept the idea that the mind is derived solely from the physial brain I won't claim that it is proven. But I will repeat out that what evidence we do have points that way.

---

Interesting that I now read a British scientist has been given license to clone human embryos. Shouldn’t we wait and see on this one; if I am right and humans are endowed with a soul, wouldn’t this cloning and subsequent destroying of embryos pose a problem? I am not trying to get into a discussion of viability, I just think that some further study of these NDE’s might be more conclusive, even for the more skeptical, and show that this destroying of human embryos is denying a soul a chance at life.

quote:

---

Finally your claims about Ultimate Morality. It does not follow from the assumption of an intelligent creator of theuniverse that there is any Ultimate Morality. There is just no logical connection between the two claims.

---

An intelligence creates the universe which contains at least some Good (capitalized to indicate an ontological entity). Now either this Good is an accidental property of the Creation, or it is intentional. Hard to make a case that something like Good could be accidental. So the intelligent Creator is responsible for infusing Good into the universe and therefore able to be considered the Ultimate Good or at least the Keeper of Ultimate Good.

quote:

---

And I can't think why a low-probability speculation should be considered an important part of a well-rounded education. Certainly it has no value in teaching cosmology form a scientific perspective. And I can think of a number of philosphical subjects I would consider more important in that field. So where does the idea of a creator usefully fit ?

---

You mean a low-probability speculation like the Grand Theory of Evolution? If we can’t propose a better theory for the beginning of the universe, if we don’t know how life got started, and if there is a soul, what would be wrong with some believe that an intelligent designer is responsible for the universe, life and humans being included in the educational process. Certainly one of the most important reasons for education is that youngsters construct a worldview of their own. And if one legitimate worldview is being intentionally excluded from the discussion, aren’t we doing a disservice to the next generation? Are you afraid some might actually chose a theistic worldview?

quote:

---

As to the idea that people would be more likely to consider morality if they beleived in an "Ultimate Value" I suggest that anyone who lacks the human-scale values I have referred to would be unlikely to consider a remote "Ultimate Value" of any greater importance. Something with even less impact on their immediate lives - none at all in fact - would be very easy to ignore.

---

Really? I think that Ultimate Value is the ONLY hope of convincing many that sacrifice, serving others, de-emphasizing the material (money, possessions) and living morally is a better life. If judgment or reward are truly the end result of life, isn’t this a better motivator to carefully make those second by second decisions, especially when no one is watching?Thanks,DennisThis message has been edited by dshortt, 02-09-2005 14:31 AMThis message has been edited by dshortt, 02-09-2005 14:36 AM

Hey Paul,

quote:

---

Why would we even want to place a restriction on identity based on replacement of physical brain cells ? I don't consider the physical infrastructure anything like as important as the actual mind (think of the difference between hardware and software - a program doesn't change if you replace a few components of your computer with near-identical ones)

---

So you are making a distinction between the physical and the actual mind? What is the mind in your view?

quote:

---

And we know that the physical brain IS involved in the processes of memory so your "True Self" can't be adequate to secure memories.

---

We know that the physical brain is involved in memory storage in the physical world. How can you know what memory function is adequate in the world beyond the physical?

quote:

---

Nor do I see what the "free will" issue and addiction has to do with your idea at all. There's no need to "transcend the physical" to know of the dangers of smoking. And I completely reject the idea that physicalism has any special problem with acts of courage.

---

No there is no need to trancend the physical to know of smokings dangers perhaps, but if there is not an element beyond the physical, easier to make the case that we are mere "slaves" to our physical bodies. And i think it is harder to make a case that one should be courageous if the physical life is all we have.

quote:

---

And the aspects you are willimg to attribute to "interference" - well it looks liek an as hoc excuse which has not been clearly thought out at all. Even if you attribute all emotional states to interference (which - with the memory issues above - makes your "True Self" something like an amnesic Mr Spock) and "interference" certainly fails to explain the "spit brain" esperiments because they affect the mind itself. The whole strenght ot them as evidnece is that they are NOT related solely to simple inputs and outputs from the body - they do show a clear break in communication within the mind.

---

I don't think you are seeing my argument clearly. Let's say that spiritual communication is nothing like the language we use in the physical. Let's say it is more of a telepathic type of communique. And the signals sent to the physical brain are much like radio waves, only again, not a physical entity. If the brain is not functioning properly, how could this supernatural communication process of the telepathic being converted to physical language be expected to happen normally? And the slit brain example you sent me to clearly said that other areas of the mind were not affected by this phenomena (identity, long term memory, etc).

quote:

---

And when I say "higher quality" I mean exactly what I say. It is not a code word. If you can demonstrate that your alleged "non-natural" evidence is reliable then I'll look at it. Is it really so hard for you to accept that anecdotal evidence IS of low quality that you have to start making insinuations of this sort ?

---

Anecdotal evidence is what we rely on, though for much of science. Would you contend that much of human history is unreliable? Would you contend that the anecdotal evidence of biology and evolution is low quality?

quote:

---

And no, just because an ad hoc excuse has been used for a very long time it does not cease to be ad hoc. In fact it demonstrates it's nature all the more so as the same basic concept is used to "explain" wildly differign views of the universe. If it were a genuine explanation it would have had to be rejected as soon as we realied that the universe was greatly different from the relatively tiny (I'd say microscopic but even that is a vast understatement) geocentric system found in Genesis.

---

What Bible are you reading? The heavens and the earth is a tiny geocentric system?

quote:

---

And no, the universe cannot be said to be poweful evidence of anything that came before it. In fact the Big Bang has obscured any possible direct evidence and we do not know for sure if it is even meaningful to talk of anything preceding our universe.

​

Of course your "supernatural creator" does NOT offer a worthwhile explanation of our universe, just as your True Self does not offer any worthwhile explanation of our ability to reason. I also reject the idea that we have an inherent knowledge of "Ultimate Morality". I've certainly seen no good arguments for it.

​

And I really don't know why you think it worthwhile to insist that inflationary models require a beginning (they are developed to explain the beginning of OUR universe - but some postulate an eternal universe within which ours is embedded).

---

It is interesting that "eternal" has some meaning to you in this context, but when I say God is eternal you sound the siren. My statement still stands: either the universe began from nothing or a mechanism of some sort gave it it's start. If there is a universe starting mechanism, it is either finite (requiring a cause) or it is infinite. If it is infinite, it entails some theoretical problems.

quote:

---

As for your comments about my example are you suggesting that it IS a coincidence that the unloaded gun was the one aimed at the prisoner that survived ? OR just that I did not understand the point I was trying ot make in MY example ? The first seems pretty silly and the second is just insulting. But I can't see any other way to interpet your statements. Let me repeat the point - given the assumption that there are sufficient universes that at least one is capable of supporting life there is NO surprise that we should find ourself in such a universe. Just as it is no surprise that the gun aimed at the sole survivor was the one that was not loaded.

---

I certainly meant no insult. Did you mean to say that the gun was intentionally aimed at your selected prisoner? How would that be analogous to a multi-universe explanation of life in this one? And how can we be assured that there are any universes beyond ours? Maybe I am just confused? Of course it is no surprise that an unloaded gun would produce the survivor. But again I have to ask, with no insult intended, how did the gun come to be the only one not loaded? Maybe you don't like this take on your analogy, but it is a legitmate question.

quote:

---

Abiogenesis is still plausible - more so than any alternative. And work continues and progress is made. It is not all negative either - the RNA World overcomes the chicken-and-egg problem of the origin of nucleic acids versus proteins. It's still a better explanation than yours.

---

The RNA option looks to be fading to me. And abiogenesis is plausible according to what theory? This seems to be saying desperatly, "there has to be a naturalistic explanation here somewhere; anything but God, anything but God."

quote:

---

As for your NDE claim - the random number was brought back in what is supposedly an OBE - but without the patient being dead or even unwell. And that took four attempts with the same subject - and apparently with the same number. And it is just one "success" in a field which has seen many experiments - and very, very few results even that good. Is it not a reaonable possiblity that the precautions against cheating slipped that one time ? Most of the actual NDE "experiences' are even weaker than Lommels dentures No, you've got a collection of anecdotes there.

---

Yes, and a very large collection. And there have only been 6 or 7 studies total on NDE's that I can find. Can you imagine the difficulties in getting funding for such a venture? Are we going to intentionally take people to the brink for scientific purposes? What of the liability? Do we set up tests at multiple hospitals? How do we get consent from someone who is traumitized to the point of being almost dead? And there is no way to predict which individuals will actually "come back" and which ones will have had an NDE or remember it.And according to your criteria we can't be sure John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln. We can't be sure of many things historical, because much of history is anecdotal.

quote:

---

Now on to your arguent. Is "Good" an ontological entity ? And why would it's presence have to be intentional in the fullest sense (rather than, for instance, being a side effect of some other desirable feature). And how doe sthis get to your conclusion ? Sorry, but your argument seems to have a lot of assumptions and is not even complete.

---

Let me pull in someone who can do it better justice than I can:Page not found - Center for the Study of the Great Ideas

quote:

---

The theory of evolution - indeed any well-supported scientific theory is neither low-probability nor pure speculation by any reasonable standard. Moroever we already have better ideas dealing with the origin of the universe and for the origin of life. If you want to show that your ideas have real merit then you are going to have to make a positive case not just try to do down the alternatives.

---

Any reasonable calculation of the odds of evolutionary changes causing the diversity of life on earth will show, however, this is a very low-probability event. And I would even contend that much of evolutionary thinking is speculation. How many quotes could I find from evolutionists saying things like "it might have been" or "imagine that..." or "it could have been" ?

quote:

---

And if you can show that legtimate views are REALLY being excluded fom their proper place then I suggest that you do so. Because I'm getting rather fed up with the continual implication that your personal preferences should be considered on a par with well-established science. Just as I am not impressed by your continual suggestions that I am ruling out "evidence" you refuse to even put forward for examination.

---

Are you now saying after all this that philosophical arguments are not evidence? Wow, I was completely misled then by one of your earlier statements to the contrary. We can quit anytime you like, I am looking at a very busy sqring.

quote:

---

Nor do I see any reason to see why "Ultimate Value" can do any better than ordinary human values. Certainly unprovable ideas of "Ultimate Value" mean little to me. Judgement and reward are seperate issues bu I reject those, too, as I have little respect for empty threats or empty promises.

---

Unprovable? You have even mentioned Cartesian doubt which would make anything unprovable. I am at this point just completely dismayed as to what you are saying except "I reject, I reject." That's fine, I don't expect that you will accept, but surely it is not hard to see that a life which lasts eternally provides more "incentive" (for lack of a better word).Thanks for the dialogue,Dennis

Hey Paul,

quote:

---

Firstly I see the mid as a process rather than an object - that is why I distinguish between the physical brain and the mind.

---

So changing the parts could easily change the process thereby changing the identity of the individual as I have been saying. As opposed to my constant True Self which enables identity to be shifted from the physical to a lasting entity which would assume the free will-decision-making of the individual and therefore the implied responsibility. I see this as a future legal problem.Don’t get me wrong here, Paul, I am not trying to imply that this is happening on any regular basis, but it does seem to be a possibility that some wise-guy may try to exploit, and I wouldn’t be surprised at some success.Low and behold in the paper this morning I read about a murderer trying to use the fact that he was taking Zolof as a defense.

quote:

---

As to your claim about smoking, the answer is no. There is no need to propose anything beyond the physical at all. Why should we not have conflicting impulses ? If we did not, then what use intelligence ?

---

It is not a claim about smoking, it is a claim about the tobacco lawsuit. And my point is, once again, that the physically addictive nature of whatever additives the tobacco companies were adding would take center stage in a purely physical worldview, as opposed to the True Self which would shift at least some of the focus onto the free will of the individual, making the tobacco companies somewhat less liable for selling a legal product.

quote:

---

As to your interference excuse I think I see it more cleraly than you. YOu have no clearly thought out position here - just an excuse which you are using to dismiss the evidence. The fact is that you are attributing emotional states to your "interference". Yet you offer no explanation of how that can be. You don't even try to explain what is being "sent" "telepathically". So I'm nost seeing your "argument" because you haven't really offered one.

---

There is a difference between an emotional state and a mental disorder, the later of which to me would imply a malfunctioning brain. Someone who is sad over the death of a loved one does not have a mental disorder. Someone who can’t get out of bed because of severe depression has a brain which is on the fritz. It is rather hard to envision exactly where the mind begins and the brain ends (perhaps future brain and NDE experiments will help clarify), but I am suggesting that the reasoning, decision-making, moral, creative input of a human being would seem to be much more than a physical brain could produce on it’s own. These things must originate elsewhere such as the True Self.

quote:

---

As to the "split brain" experiments as I am sure you are aware they are NOT the only cases where damage to the physical brain casues mental effect

---

Yes, I agree that the expression of the mental into the physical is dependent upon the brain.

quote:

---

As for the idea that we rely on anecdotal evidence for much of science I have to ask where you heard such a ridiculous idea. There's no truth in it at all. History isn't science - and yes, much of it is unreliable (althogh, fortunately we have a lot of evidence which is NOT anecdotal even there).

---

Not what I said at all. Reread my message. And how in the world can you claim much of history as unreliable.

quote:

---

As for the Bible I don't knpow what Bible you are reading but in the bok of Genesis in the Bible everyone else uses the universe appears as a geocentric system smaller than even our solar system.

---

Chapter and verse please. By the way, from the Easton Bible Dictionary:
Heaven - (1.) Definitions. The phrase "heaven and earth" is used to indicate the whole universe (Gen. 1:1; Jer. 23:24; Acts 17:24). According to the Jewish notion there were three heavens,
(a) The firmament, as "fowls of the heaven" (Gen. 2:19; 7:3, 23; Ps. 8:8, etc.), "the eagles of heaven" (Lam. 4:19), etc.
(b) The starry heavens (Deut. 17:3; Jer. 8:2; Matt. 24:29).
(c) "The heaven of heavens," or "the third heaven" (Deut. 10:14; 1 Kings 8:27; Ps. 115:16; 148:4; 2 Cor. 12:2).

quote:

---

And no, I did not "sound a siren" just because you said God was "eternal". I certainly wouldn't do that. I WOULD "sound a siren" (and rightly so) if you used the idea as an excuse to evade the need for an explanation of why God existed.

---

But then you invoke the word eternal to describe a universe producing mechanism in what I am sure was an attempt to avoid having to provide an explanation why IT exists. Look, Paul, the bottom line is whatever we propose as the First Cause must be eternal. If it is not, it requires a cause, so it consequently cannot be the First Cause. And to propose that a physical entity is eternal leads to some pretty serious (I would even say fatal) problems. This seems to inevitably lead to the First Cause must be eternal and transcend the physical.

quote:

---

On to my example illustrating my use of the Weak Anthropic Principle. As I stated the unloaded gun was selected randomly - there was no intentional selection of a particular prisoner to survive.

---

Understood. Then the question would still be valid and the survivor would be remiss not to ask, of a batch of loaded guns, why was one unloaded? If, say, a gun loading machine were loading the guns, what caused it to miss one? I can’t see how in any scenario you could exclude questions such as these.

quote:

---

And you say that you have found 6 or 7 studies on NDEs. Well there have been plenty more on OBEs - and they almost always come up with weak results or no results. Why should NDE studies be much more difficult ?

---

Perhaps because the patient has to DIE or something very close to it. And when people die, they are very often not revived. And even if they are revived, think of the recovery time in many of these cases, and the amount of time which might lapse before they could even be interviewed. Not exactly your run of the mill lab study.

quote:

---

And yes, even if the RNA world was fading (not somethign I've heard) it would still be more plausible than Gd. Because RNA is a lot simpler than anything that could be called a God and we know that RNA CAN be generated abiotically. And no, we would have to be truly desperate to resort to an "explanation" as implausible and worthless as "God did it". As I said earlier, that's no better than "it just happened".

---

Some of the problems as I understand it with RNA abiogenesis are 1) the solution to generate RNA in a lab has to be heated (200-250 C), pressurized, and then cooled to 0 C. This is not a realistic environmental requirement for RNA self-generation. 2) RNA is water soluble. This most likely would have quickly broken down any RNA remnant which was able to self-assemble. 3) It seems that RNA is just a messenger and requires some sort of machinery to recognize and act upon it’s message.And as I have said, God did it may not be better than it just happened for the scientist in the lab. Perhaps. But what of a kid contemplating suicide (you are a chemical accident vs.God made you and loves you and wants to know you) or teenagers wondering whether to engage in premarital sex (you are a physical entity with no purpose and 70 years to live vs.God has a plan for you which involves eternity)? These situational decisions take on new meaning if as you say God did it.

quote:

---

And no, I am certain that the evidence linking Wilkes Booth to the assassination of Lincoln is rather better than anecdotes. Even if - like most historical evidence - it is weak compared to the evidential requiements of science.

---

What other evidence? Certainly you and I weren’t shown any other evidence to come to believe that John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Lincoln. I think we place the human race on a precarious little plateau of knowledge if we eliminate anecdotal evidence. If one person tells a story of a car wreck at the end of the block, surely we could distrust it particularly if we knew this person to be unreliable. But if ten people speak of the same wreck, we better call 911. Many the murderer has been tried and convicted on largely anecdotal evidence and rightly so.quote:Any reasonable calculation of the odds of evolutionary changes causing the diversity of life on earth will show, however, this is a very low-probability event.

quote:

---

I invoke the rules that you are required to back up your assertions. Here's a piece of advice - don't try bluffing me in the area of probability.

---

I certainly have never had any intention of bluffing you. My assertion is simply that, standing on the early earth, would any reasonable person foresee the diversity of life we know today as a high probability event? Why would Dawkins call his book Climbing Mount Improbable?

quote:

---

No, I'm telling you not to accuse me of wrongly ruling out evidence a priori just because you don't HAVE evidence to produce. I don't appreciate it.

---

Paul, calm down. Take a deep breath. I may not have evidence you would consider good, but I have furnished some. What I am saying is it seems that the supernatural is ruled out a priori and then the evidence is examined. Evidence for the supernatural in the natural world would naturally be hard to come by. I am just asking for an open mind as I hope I will bring to the discussion as well.Dennis