Total posts: 948
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Because chemical reactions are deterministic.
The fact that we appear to rationally accept beliefs is enough evidence to justify the belief that we rationally accept beliefs. The problem is not our seeming ability to rationally accept beliefs though. The problem for determinists is the incompatibility between determinism and rationally accepting beliefs. Under determinism, all beliefs that people accept would be the result of mindless forces and since mindless forces cannot rationally accept beliefs, our beliefs could not be rationally accepted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
By independent agency I mean a faculty of consciousness that has room to rationally accept beliefs.
When I claimed that determinism could not be rationally accepted if it was indeed true, you said you disagreed with that claim. Please explain how determinstic chemical reactions are a force that can rationally accept beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Conclusions occur in the mind. We both agree on that.
Are beliefs (which occur in the mind) accepted as a result of mindless chemical reactions or are beliefs accepted as a result of some independent agency?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I think you are getting confused between feeling compelled to accept the position that's most rational and the force that controls which beliefs you accept. If the force that controls which beliefs you accept is not rational then your beliefs cannot be rationally accepted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your objection to the argument is not clear to me. Beliefs, like determinism, could not be rationally accepted because the forces that would determine which beliefs are accepted are not rational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The conclusion follows from (1) and (2). Do you accept (1) and (2)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
(1) If determinism is true, mindless processes beyond our control determine which beliefs we accept.
(2) These mindless processes are not rational.
(C) Determinism cannot be rationally accepted if the position is indeed true.
Please me whether you disagree with (1) and/or (2).
Created:
Posted in:
Determinism cannot be rationally accepted if the position is indeed true. Agree or disagree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Under determinism, all of our beliefs would be predetermined by chemical reactions and we would have zero control or influence over anything we think or do.
I'll stop there. Agree or disagree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
In order for knowledge to be possible an axiom must be knowably certain. Is the statement "observed reality probaly reflects actual reality" knowably certain?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Aside from a blanket assertion that I've equivocated on the word "rational' I have not seen a refutation of my argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If we know nothing with certainty then your statement that "we know nothing with certainty" isn't a statement of knowledge.
An abstract epistemological framework must first exist before the scientific method has any use. Philosophy underpins the scientific method in its entirety.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It refers to the rules and boundaries that allow knowledge to be obtained.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Let me know how much we can know about anything assuming we have no epistemological framework.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I would not need to demonstrate that a reasoning agency uncontrolled by physics and chemistry exists because your request would not be rational. You've agreed that neither chemistry nor physics is rational and you're presuming that these forces are fully responsible for formulating your thoughts and responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What evidences your claim that we cannot choose to place more importance on particular aspects of the underlying evidence in support of belief or disbelief?
I wouldn't need to change my beliefs on God, I'd need to change my belief on one thing. After reconsidering the same evidence for and against aliens, I now believe aliens exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Reason does not appear to be an emergent quality of physics and chemistry at all. The opposite is true. You are not seeing that if what you're saying is true, your statements are not rationally generated and therefore can never be based on good reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Placing greater value on the evidence that supports the claim and less value on the evidence against the claim. Everyone is biased to some extent because none of us are robots. Since our beliefs are determined by the underlying evidence, and since we have control over how much value the underlying evidence has, we can change our beliefs. It's a very unconventional view to believe that we cannot change our beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Yes, accurately predicting the Higgs-Boson using pure mathematics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Science operates entirely within a philosophical framework.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What evidences your assertion that beliefs cannot be chosen and couldn't be chosen even if free will existed?
It makes no difference if you want to describe beliefs as "developed" rather than "installed" when you concede that beliefs are the sole product of mindless processes like physics and chemistry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
The problem remains if our beliefs cannot be rationally chosen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
By "rational" I mean basing your beliefs off of logical reasoning. Not having your beliefs installed by mindless forces beyond your control. You've agreed that mindless forces are not rational. If you posit that deterministic, mindless forces control all actions, then our beliefs cannot be rationally chosen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
All knowledge is contained within our epistemological limits. "Rational" meaning "what is understood to be consistent with logic and reason" is the standard we apply to beliefs to determine whether they should be accepted or not. As I've said many times, mindless forces cannot be rational so if our beliefs are the selection of mindless forces, our beliefs would not be rationally selected.
Created:
Posted in:
Determinism can never be rationally accepted if it is true. One would be compelled to accept or not accept determinism in the same sense that a boulder is compelled to roll down a hill upon the force of gravity.
Everything we think and do would be installed by mindless forces. Since mindless forces cannot make rational choices, and since our choices would be the sole product of mindless forces, a choice to accept determinism would not and could not be rational.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Here is the larger context:
"Animals (and humans alike) have a mental map of the surrounding environment, consisting of place cells. These cells correspond with places in the physical space and fire when the animal reaches the place or remembers it. The mental map is fed by two sorts of information: with memories from earlier experiences, and with sensory information. But how does the mental map upload this information?
Direct measurements in the brain of mice, looking for their way in a maze, show that memory information is sent with another frequency to the mental map than sensory information is. The brain area representing the mental map synchronizes with these frequencies like a radio receiver: it is only tuning into the information that is important at a given time, an international team of researchers led by Francesco Battaglia from the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour at Radboud University Nijmegen show. This research sheds light on the intriguing question how brain parts choose relevant information from the constant scattering of neurons going on in the brain."
The "radio signal" so to speak, is retrieved from the environment. The brain takes these signals and creates a mental map which it then selectively tunes to.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm sorry but your posts seem to be full of meaningless and made up gibberish.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Because there shouldn't be a correlation between two things if those two things are the same.
"Brain works like a radio receiver"
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Changes in the physical brain has effects on consciousness. That's all we know. This does not mean that the physical brain generates consciousness. I will again point out the example of how making changes to your TV has effects on how the signal displays. The TV is not generating the signal.
And we actually have no observable evidence of consciousness. What you're really using is your intuition.
Created:
Again, I don't feel the need to justify the premise that consciousness is plausibly non-physical. It's prima facie true. The burden of proof should be on the person claiming that consciousness is not plausibly non-physical.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
If abstract concepts are just brainstates then why is there a difference between brainstates and an abstract concept? You are making abstract concepts = to brainstates when abstract concepts =/= brainstates. Brainstates are just brainstates.
There's a conceptual difference between electrical energy and chemical reactions versus abstract concepts. If abstract concepts were just electrical energy and chemical reactions then when we refer to an abstract concept all we'd be able to refer to is electrical energy and chemical reactions. Clearly we don't.
I'm saying that an abstract concepts is NOT a good candidate for whatever brought the singularity into being because abstract concepts are causally inert. I'm saying consciousness is the best candidate.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Here is the reasoning.
The singularity was a point of infinite density. Anything that has 0 volume, like a point of infinite density, wouldn't have been comprised of anything physical at that point. That's a mathematical object. Accordingly, it makes no sense to posit something physical as the cause of the singularity.
So which things are plausibly non-physical? Abstract concepts and consciousness. Since abstract concepts are causally inert, consciousness is the best explanation.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no observable physical evidence that we are more than our brains nor is there observable physical evidence that we are only our brains. The only thing we have observable physical evidence of is our brain and the effects that changes in the brain have on consciousness. If you start tinkering with the wires in your TV you might start messing up the transmission of the signal but the TV isn't generating the signal.
There's not a dichotomy between "observable physical evidence" and speculation. There's a broad continuum of evidence. Inference to the best explanation is left out, for instance. I covered reasons indicating our consciousness isn't generated by the brain in 57.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Things "as they seem" should be accepted at face value until shown otherwise. It seems like we are not just our brains, like we have an immaterial aspect to ourselves. A general audience would agree with these premises because it's intuitive. So it's less obvious to argue from the standpoint that we are just our brains than to argue that we are more than just our brains. You may disagree, but as I mentioned earlier, it's a basic intuition that people share.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you dispute that consciousness is plausibly non-physical or do you dispute that consciousness is plausibly efficacious? This objection seems trivial since an audience at large would accept these premises prima facie.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well consciousness being the only plausible candidate for something causally efficacious and non-physical to have caused the singularity is evidence that consciousness can exist without a physical brain.
Prima facie, people perceive themselves to have souls that are independent from their brain.
Out of body experiences and near death experiences where the person leaves their body and has "realer than real" experiences.
Qualia.
The irreducibility of consciousness to physical components.
The fundamentality of consciousness is indicated through recent breakthroughs in quantum mechanics.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Evidence indicates the physical universe expanded from a point of infinite density. This suggests a non-physical cause. The only plausible candidate for something causally efficacious and non-physical is consciousness.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
By "required" I don't mean logically necessary, I mean the best explanation to sufficiently explain the data in question.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
It depends on what data you're seeking to explain.
You are drawing comparisons between apples and oranges. Observing the laws of physics does not provide credence to the view that "nature is all there is." Nor is there equivalence between physics and the origins of the universe, where the laws of physics were broken down.
It's all about the explanatory power of competing explanations. The laws of physics apply throughout the universe and various aspects of the garage build, like how much weight it can hold, and if it will stand, is predicted by its component parts. This indicates there is nothing special about garages where a being would be required to hold them together.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
It is not a matter of whether an alternative explanation exists, it's a matter of which is the best explanation. My main objection to your claim of a garage spirit is that you haven't explained how a standing garage is indicative of a being who is holding it together.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not seeing the comparison. Nobody uses a standing universe as evidence for God. Some examples of real arguments include first cause, Kalam, argument from fine-tuning, etc.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well how does a standing garage indicate the existence of a being who is holding it together? You haven't established that part.
Created:
Explain how it is evidence.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Even Matt Dillahunty from the atheist experience TV show agrees that the "fine-tuned universe" is evidence for God. His only caveat is that it is not "sufficient" evidence for God.
Speculation, yes.
The standing garage is explained by physics.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Because (1) existing and (2) existing in a specific geolocation, such as a garage, is more prone to error than just (1) by itself.
Yes, I am speculating that if there's a spirit realm on Earth that the spirits would be someplace more interesting than being in your garage.
God's existence has evidence unlike the claimed spirit in your garage.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I've always described God as a consciousness.
As for whether there is a being or spirits in your garage or anywhere else we have no evidence of that. I think that if some entities walked the earth they'd be somewhere more interesting than your garage. So I'm gonna go with disbelief on this one too.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
What do you mean by "spirit"? Like just an observing consciousness?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Sagan's dragon is also a violation of the law of identity and therefore doesn't exist.
"Dragon": "a mythical animal usually represented as a monstrous winged and scaly serpent or saurian with a crested head and enormous claws."
When you refer to the concept of a dragon and then say that it does NOT have the characteristics that make it a dragon in the first place, it's a violation of the law of identity.
So not only do I not believe that an invisible dragon lives in my garage, I strongly disbelieve it.
Created: