If Darwinism fails then supernatural causes are back on the table and should be included in science.
I do not think there can be a science of the supernatural.
I do not think that if Darwinism fails that supernatural causes will become acceptable.
If the hope of ID is that supernatural causes will be allowed back into science if they can only just get rid of Darwinism, ID is doomed.
The tools and methods of ID cannot differentiate a supernatural cause from a natural cause anyways.
Thoughts?
Well, I bet the number of brain cells I’m missing exceeds the number of approaches Psillos’s book is missing.
I guess cuz his ears are so big an he can do the mind-meld thingy.
…and a spirit animal!
I.e., equally entitled to none of them if neither of them is Kirk0.
No, but Spock can with his ears.
What sort of explanation would you accept with the axe example? I’m not sure any explanation is available except simply that I choose to consider it the same axe.
That seems to be sufficient.
No I’m saying that we just don’t know how it works.
We don’t have to know how something works to know it works.
peace
Na I just think that there is no reason to assume that the supernatural is necessarily undetectable
peace
Could God resurrect a human being as an elephant?
What do you think would make Spock good at it? And why do you think you are good at it?
I think he knows Kirk not Kirk’s physical body but Kirk himself.
I can get to know people too.
peace
No an elephant is an elephant and a man is a man.
The obvious follow up question is “what exactly makes a man a man rather than elephant?”.
peace
You don’t think Spock’s determination would be based on some (publicly observable) behavior? You think he can “see into Kirk’s soul”?
Hmmm. I’d think a discontinuity of, say, 100 years ought to be considered at least as big a deal as going from human to elephant. All the body parts are completely disintegrated and VOOP! back into action–and not just as some living person but as the same one! That’s quite a trick. If you can do that I’d think you could pull off the elephant thing.
Another way of looking at this is that getting somebody back alive after they’ve been dead seems to suggest the involvment of a soul (your protestations notwithstanding). And once you’ve got souls kicking around, elephants are in play to house them.
I think it would be based on publicly observable behavior. But not necessarily something that could be quantified scientifically. I expect it’s not something empirical you could put your finger on and say “this is it”.
A phrase I like is “Personal behavior is predictable but not algorithmic”
peace
Aha! Interesting!
Not at all, we can easily recreate objects that were destroyed a 100 years ago if we have a proper blueprint.
Have you seen the movie The Book of Eli? It is a good example of what I’m talking about. In it the last known Bible is destroyed and Denzel Washington resurrects it entirely from memory.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
So the idea is, each atom is put back just the way it was prior to the person’s death a century ago, and so the guy is alive again–except this time not in danger of dying. Is that it?
I haven’t, but yesterday I watched Disney’s “Coco” which is a nice meditation on life after death.
I know folks get tired of my bringing the Bible into everything but that is how I roll so here goes. 😉
In the gospel of Luke we have a story of Jesus visiting with a couple of his disciples incognito after the Crucifixion. (Luke 4:13-33) They don’t recognize him but he joins them anyway as they all talk about everything that has just happened.
At some point the stranger miraculously reveals himself to them but they then realize they somehow knew it was him all the time
quote:
And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”
(Luk 24:31-32)
end quote:
It’s that sort of intuition that I think Spock would have when it came to the real Kirk.
peace
No. The idea is that a person is resurrected. Individual atoms are not that important we change those all the time.
The reason that there is no danger of dying is not really about the quality of the physical body but about the fact that Christ has defeated death. It’s probably symbolic but there is a supposed to be a tree of life in the new Jerusalem. Think of it as preventive medicine if you will. you eat it and it keeps you from dying.
peace
You have got to watch that film. It’s a thinkers Mad Max, where the fight is over knowledge instead of petrol.
peace
What makes it the same person if there’s neither a soul nor any physical continuity on your view?
Perhaps you are taking that to be a synonym for illogic.
There is a soul his name is Kirk. I think what makes it the same person is God knows it’s the same person. How that works itself out is another question and I don’t know.
Like I said to Bruce. I can have an Axe and change the handle when it breaks and many years later change the axe-head when it wears out.
It’s still the same axe if I consider it to be the same axe. It seems to me that my mind provides the continuity when it comes to the axe. There is certainly nothing physical or some ethereal ectoplasm that insures continuity.
Peace
Nope it’s pretty simple and pretty elementary.
One can not be two at the same time and in the same respect……..ever. Even if your name is KN.
peace
One can be three though, right? all it takes is a bit of theoloshit
The square root of four is either +2 or -2. So, one thing (sqrt4) can be two things in the same respect (both being members of the category “integer”).
Spock was logical, he would have rejected intuition.
No offense but that sounds a little fishy.
Not exactly, the last known Bible is captured by the villian after leaving Eli for dead.
More than publicly observed behavior, he is able to mind meld with Kirk. He is in a unique position to determine whether the two versions’ minds are the same and whether one or both lacks some Kirkness.
Baby steps.
Maybe but a version of it happens everytime Kirk0 beams down, Kirk1 is created, Kirk1 doesn’t mention any abnormal effects of the transport or mention any discontinuity with his pre-transported self.
In the story his son tells he is.
My non-serious opinion is K1 and K2 are both entitled to all K0’s assets.
Say God is reading this thread and decides to play a trick on walto. He creates a perfectly (to the last atom and particle and wave) identical copy of walto one metre to his left. How does the real walto show who is the real walto?
Suppose you replaced the axehead with a flower, but still insisted it was the same axe. Are you right? Or are you delusional?
That’s meant to suggest both a type of continuity (in designed purpose) and the reason why your opinion alone should not matter to other people, who should be asking for a reasoned explanation to supplement it.
I think you could use “designed purpose” by God to define personal identity. Assume a conception of God so that God has a unique purpose for each person. Then that is why God’s view determines personal identity. Presumably God would prevent transporter duplication accidents to prevent reality contradicting God’s purposes.
I consider that a valid answer conditional on a certain concept of God existing.
It’s loosely related to Parfit’s idea that persons have life projects that are part of the psychological continuity in each fissioned copy. However, Parfit thinks fissioning means there is nothing that continues that is strong enough to be considered a personal identity and that, in general, personal identity does not exist, at least as the term is defined by most philosophers.
That works for inheritance law as a legal viewpoint. Not as a philosophical viewpoint.
At least, not in philosophy of personal identity. Walto might want to comment on the human rights of each copy and whether they include inheritance rights.
I’d say is that the transporter provides the needed causal continuity based on its mechanisms of operation. Kirk’s opinion, like FMM’s, is not relevant for explanations.
I see that as an appeal to psychological continuity. For fissioning, at least at the time soon after the accident, he might answer: they both have equal amounts. That is the issue.
Suppose we have the two Rykers case where each lives separate lives for a time. Now Spock mild mends with each one. I think the best Spock could so is predict how Kirk would have changed in a psychologically continuous way in the environment each Kirk lived in. Under psychological continuity view of personal id, he would again say each is Kirk.
So Walto, how do you contend with the problem that there are no atoms which constitute you? YOU are just constantly changing waves of energy. How do you square that with a materialist view that matter is what things are?
BruceS,
Well, no, it doesn’t. They should both have what they had, not just half. Unresolvable unless we crowd-fund. 😉
Not at the same time and in the same respect.
peace
Logic and intuition are not antonyms.
peace
I should have said that Spock’s opinion is relevant even though Kx’s are not, because I am assuming it is the scientific consensus that
1. Vulcan mind melding exists and has been shown to work reliably.
2. Vulcan personality assessments have been shown to be reliable.
3. Vulcans would not lie about their conclusions after a mind meld.
BTW, that implies that scope of acceptable MN explanations has changed to allows Psi of a sort!
I make no claims about Vulcans and collapse of the wave function.
I would say you would be delusional but I’m not the objective authority on axes
It’s my axe so my opinion matters to me.
On the other hand what God believes about something is the truth by definition
peace
Either is not remotely the same thing as both.
peace
All valid answers on any subject whatsoever are conditional on the Christian God of Scripture existing.
Take him out of the equation and you are left with absurdity.
😉
peace
I’d say he probably can’t. I mean, if he can show he’s the one who hasn’t mysteriously jumped a meter, maybe that would do it. But he’d need something better than an NFL ref to decide.
Haha, good one. There are things and…..things, though.