Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinism, education, materialism's fatal flaw
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 278 (182824)
02-03-2005 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by dshortt
02-02-2005 3:08 PM


quote:
Did you not see that this quote comes from Muqtedar Khan in one of the articles PaulK suggested?
So what? It's not even as if Islam is as institutionally centralised as catholocism, so its hardly an endorsement from the pope. If some local bishop announced something does that mean its representative of every christian of every denomination? You arev applying collective responsibility, dshortt.
quote:
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?
My "bias" arises because you keep saying No in these cases merely because these people are opposing American plans. It seems to me that America is a far more fanatical doctrine than Islam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by dshortt, posted 02-02-2005 3:08 PM dshortt has not replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 278 (184119)
02-09-2005 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by PaulK
02-02-2005 7:01 PM


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 Afterlife
It 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,
Dennis
This message has been edited by dshortt, 02-09-2005 14:31 AM
This message has been edited by dshortt, 02-09-2005 14:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2005 7:01 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by PaulK, posted 02-09-2005 7:22 PM dshortt has replied
 Message 274 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2005 7:34 PM dshortt has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 273 of 278 (184208)
02-09-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by dshortt
02-09-2005 2:29 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by dshortt, posted 02-09-2005 2:29 PM dshortt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by dshortt, posted 02-11-2005 2:42 PM PaulK has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 274 of 278 (184216)
02-09-2005 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by dshortt
02-09-2005 2:29 PM


If judgment or reward are truly the end result of life, isnt this a better motivator to carefully make those second by second decisions, especially when no one is watching?
Apparently not, since we've been doing it that way for literally thousands of years, and it doesn't seem to work. And after all, why would it? Under this system its all too easy to "interpret" God's laws so that your plan to marry 7 chocolate-covered virgins (or whatever) gets the divine greenlight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by dshortt, posted 02-09-2005 2:29 PM dshortt has not replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 278 (184608)
02-11-2005 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by PaulK
02-09-2005 7:22 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by PaulK, posted 02-09-2005 7:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2005 4:23 PM dshortt has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 276 of 278 (184626)
02-11-2005 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by dshortt
02-11-2005 2:42 PM


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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by dshortt, posted 02-11-2005 2:42 PM dshortt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by dshortt, posted 02-18-2005 4:23 PM PaulK has replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 278 (186599)
02-18-2005 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by PaulK
02-11-2005 4:23 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2005 4:23 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2005 11:07 AM dshortt has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 278 of 278 (186748)
02-19-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by dshortt
02-18-2005 4:23 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by dshortt, posted 02-18-2005 4:23 PM dshortt has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024