Darwinism, education, materialism's fatal flaw

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.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).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.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.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."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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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. As to your question - which I confess to missing - I do not see that it has any relevance. There may be people so dangerous that it is prudent to seperate them from society but what does that have to do with "Ultimate Morality" ? But if you mean anything else then you must explain rather more than you have said.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 ?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.

Well I'm afraid that several of your claims are looking very flimsy or even nonsensical.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)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.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.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.To clarify a point, when I say that there is strong evidence that the mind is largeley dependent on the physical brain it does not mean that I concede that the mind is in any way independent of the brain in any practical sense. What it means is that I do not claim that we have the evidence that would let us decide the issue with certainty.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 ?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.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).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.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.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.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.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.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.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.

Firstly I see the mid as a process rather than an object - that is why I distinguish between the physical brain and the mind.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 ?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.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 (and use of language IS affected).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).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.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.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.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 ?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".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.As to your Adler webpage I have to say that it has convinced me that your "ontological good" does not exist - "Living organisms have more intrinsic perfection, than inanimate and inert things" - do you even understand what it MEANS ? I can't think of it as being both meaningful and true.As for this cliam:

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

Are you now saying after all this that philosophical arguments are not evidence?

---

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.And I'm not simply saying "I reject, I reject". I'm saying - again an again - "I see no reason to accept your assumption, which I find to be implausible".

Well on the question of whether we should consider physical changes to the brain important in questions of identity my position is that they cannot be considered important in themselves. Your current point seems to concede this since itis clear that it is changes in the mind that are important. And your "True Self" does not address this issue in any useful way (it seems to be no more than an excuse to avoid the question). Certainly it cannot address the Zoloft defence at all - other than perhaps by assuming that it is wholly or partially false.Your claim about tobacco addiction is still clearly false. It relies on assuming that physicalism is forced to view the mind as entirely singular of purpose without any room for conflicting impulses or indecision. This is a clear strawman - but without it your argument cannot work.And please don't try denyign that you said what you said. I quote directly:

quote:

---

Anecdotal evidence is what we rely on, though for much of science.

---

Message 275
You DID say it, and your denial is a waste of time.And why do I say that history is unreliable ? Because it is. That's not to say that the outlines are wrong or that major historical events did not happen (although the dates can be wrong). Try looking into the details of when Jesus was born ! Matthew puts it during the reign of Herod the Great (probably died in 4BC although there are arguments over that!) Luke puts it during a Roman census which we can solidly date to 6 AD. History is often a matter of sifting and comparing inaccurate sources to find the best fit.As to your comments on the Bible I am using Genesis 1. You do understnad that if a phrase means "the whole universe" it does NOT necessarily mean that the "universe" the author has in mind is anything like the vast universe we now know of ? And that therefore your comment is irrelevant ? Come on you can read Genesis - you know that it starts with the sea - not empty space (a typical Middle Eastern view) and that it describes the sun, moon and stars as simply lights in the sky.On to the question of "eternal" your ccusation ios false. I am NOT using the word "eternal" to avoid the need for an explanation - because explanation was NOT the issue ! It may be hard to follow the thread of thee disccuion but if you are going to make attacks like that at least make sure that they are accurate ! In fact I was pointing out that your assertion that Inflation required a beginning to the universe was misleading, and no more. You are also making the error of conflating explanation (which is what I am asking for) with cause (which I am NOT).On my illustrative example of the WAP. On gun was left unloaded and it was pure chance that it was assigned to the shooter assigned to that particular prisoner. Please stop raising red herrings.As to the question of NDE's as opposed to OBEs it should be quite possible to hide targets that NDE patients could see if they left their bodies - that is no different from OBEs. And it would be easy to "blind" the collection of reports in the same way. Any seriosu study should be doing things like that rather than collecting anecdotes.Your claims about RNA mistake the nature of the RNA world scenario. It does not necessarily claim that RNAs were even the first replicator - just that RNA-based replicators preceded DNA. And your claims give no indication that THAT is fading. (Solubility in water, BTW is very likely a necessity - not a problem as you would have it !)BTW if your criteria for a "better" explanation is the potential emotional effects then you should have said that you were using criteria that are not related to the truth of the explanation. It would save a lot of argument if you explain idiosyncracies like that rather than assuming that I share them.On the issue of Wilkes Booth's assassination I would not be greatly concerned if the evidence turned out to be mere anecdote. If it matters to you I suggest that you look into it.On the question fo the diversity of life I am sorry for assuming that you actually has a pottentially relevant point. If you simply mean the exact details then it just comes down to the fact that improbably events happen all the time. Every hand dealt in Bridge is improbable. Every lottery number drawn is improbable. That's all it comes down to. Of course you'll probably insist that some special feature needs explaining - and then I'll come back right at you asking you to show that it really is.As for your claims about supernatural evidence being ruled out a priori I will simply point out that you have not even tried to produce any even when asked to. Your complaint could only be valid if you had tried to produce evidence and had it ruled out. And when there is no evidence so that the complaint is not only a fabrication but completely irrelevant how can it be seen as anything other than an attempt to dishonestly blacken the other side ?I note also that you have still made no explanation for the effects of the physical on the mind which count so strongly against your ideas. This is consistrent with my view that there is no reasonable explanation of this evidence consistent with your beliefs.