This is a thread to allow discussions about how those lucky enough to have free will make decisions.
As materialism doesn’t explain squat, this thread is a place for explanations from those that presumably have them.
And if they can’t provide them, well, this will be a short thread.
So do phoodoo, mung, WJM et al care to provide your explanations of how decisions are actually made?
That is exactly the sort of assuming the worst in people you disagree with that I am talking about.
Thanks for proving my point
no one would ever accuse you of not having a sense of humor
peace
One wonders why FMM sticks around then, if he has realized nothing he will say will get a fair hearing.
If, as appears to be the case from what fmm is saying, there can be no evidence of the immaterial by definition then one wonders how fmm knows about it in the first place. He is, after all, a material being.
Which is kind of the point of this thread. I wonder how many more excuses we’ll get as to why they can’t explain how decisions are actually made before we get to post 2000.
That’s not an assumption, its a logical inference based on your observed behavior. If you were willing to risk disconfirmation of your claim, you’d post an OP and keep your part of the discussion completely free of religious statements. Thus far I have seen no evidence that you are capable of doing so.
Before you continuing whining about how no one will treat you respectfully here, I suggest you look at comments like these and apply some introspection.
What is skepticism?
This is The Skeptical Zone. FMM is complaining that skepticism is to be found here, rather than “respect” for his unsupported presuppositions and flat denials lacking any credible evidence.
Understanding fail, yet again.
Glen Davidson
fmm,
Actually I believe that FMM is sincere, that if he wanted to he could make a bulletproof argument that IC systems cannot evolve. I’m sure that he has a full knowledge of everything that has been discussed about IC over the past couple of decades, including the claims regarding the flagellum and it’s un-evolvability. I’m sure he’s familiar with the extensive literature regarding the flagellum and how it evolved, and is ready to rebut all the technical points raised in that literature.
It’s just that you guys are so mean he’s going to keep it to himself. As that’s how science works, right? You only make your argument if the audience is sitting quietly, respectfully, prepared to accept everything you say at face value and challenge none of it.
Are you implying that you weren’t trying to be funny?
That can’t be, because it would mean that you haven’t been paying attention to anything I’ve said in this thread.
I would never accuse you of such negligence
peace
are you claiming that skepticism makes civility impossible?
peace
When did I ever claim that IC systems can’t evolve?
Thank you for demonstrating yet again the sort of interaction that can be expected here and what it means to be a skeptic
peace
Please give some empirical evidence for this.
First you need to demonstrate how this sort of evidence is even possible
peace
Are you claiming there can be no other reason for not posting an OP here than fear of dis-confirmation?
Please present evidence for this claim or retract it
peace
Must presuppositionalism prevent understanding and produce snark instead?
Glen Davidson
Patrick has already made his position quite clear that nothing a creationist says can be trusted. How he knows this is beyond my own mortal abilities. Surely he has empirical proof.
But I think I know how this works. If it is true, the person was not a creationist at that specific moment. If it is false, the person was a creationist at that specific moment.
It is attitudes like those of Patrick which need to change, but that’s not going to happen. Right Patrick?
Perhaps exposing the hypocrisy here is its own reward.
And I have seen you make countless claims that you don’t support with empirical evidence and don’t retract when you fail to do so. You may well disagree. 🙂
Hahah. LoL! Muwahahahah! OMG.
You crack me up, Patrick. Thanks!
Haha. Can a bad AI seek redemption?
Dark Intelligence
A beacon to guide us all.
That would explain so much.
I’m asking you to demonstrate the minimal intellectual honesty of either supporting your claim or retracting it.
Of course not. A possible other reason is that you lack the time. The fact that you comment here so prolifically suggests that is not the case.
Another possibility is that you are unable to make your case. You’ve said that you can, however, so that’s not it.
The excuses are starting to run thin.
With this:
fmm’s transformation into Mung is complete.
So now you can also start quoting him and making it look like you are responding to me. Me, fifth, phoodoo, we’re all the same to you now.
Why not lead by example, Patrick?
Revelation, obviously.
He knows that his mind is immaterial because an immaterial being has told him that his mind is immaterial. And he knows that he’s been told that by an immaterial being because the immaterial being has told him so. And the immaterial being has told him that circular logic is perfectly valid. Etc. Rinse and repeat.
I’m not going to take that bet. All their position comes down is:
1. Persons make decisions.
2. Nothing material can make a decision by definition.
3. Therefore there must be something immaterial that does the deciding.
They have no account of how the immaterial part does the deciding and no account of how the immaterial interacts with the material. Nothing. Zilch.
And they have nothing to offer in support of (2) except quoting from the dictionary. No experiments, no theories, no models — in fact, not even the slightest acquaintance with any empirical science or any careful conceptual analysis. The entire burden of the argument is being carried by an appeal to the dictionary. That would be a failing grade in any introduction to philosophy class.
Nah, they’re the ID proponents that make you look good in comparison.
Yeah, at least they’ve kind of got a point to make and occasionally even attempt to make it as best they can.
I admit my points are often subtle. 🙂
Obviously. 🙂
I don’t see the circularity.
close but I would rephrase it like this
1. Persons make decisions.
2. Nothing material can make a decision by definition.
3. Therefore a person is something more than matter.
1) again the immaterial does not do the deciding the person does.
2) IIT provides an initial but incomplete attempt to solve the hardest problem in Science, Philosophy and Theology. There is no reason to assume that because a complete account is not presently available that one is not possible
peace
I notice you did not even include my stated reason but instead substituted your own
Is that because you don’t even read what I post or simply because you assume that I am lying in everything I say?
peace
No, I know that my mind is not exclusively materiel because minds are not exclusively matter.
I know that minds are not exclusively matter because the law of non-contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time
I know that the law of non-contradiction holds because of revelation
peace
I read it and addressed it. It is my contention that, were you to post an OP and stick to rational arguments and objective, empirical evidence to support your claims, no non-theist here would bring religion into the discussion. You are extremely reluctant to test your claim to the contrary. You are effectively refusing to test your hypothesis.
A few paragraphs followed by a discussion where you don’t mention religion. Let’s see if you have it in you.
And yet you continue to fail to present any evidence to support that claim. Quite strange, given that you have previously stated there is “plenty”.
Let’s see it.
Please present evidence for your claim or retract it
quote:
I’m asking you to demonstrate the minimal intellectual honesty of either supporting your claim or retracting it.
end quote:
peace
geeze,
It’s like talking to a wall
It’s definitional. If you disagree please tell me what exactly is the materiel thing that separates a mind from a brain.
Maybe If I post it again this time you will finally check it out. I doubt it
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/
peace
I present as evidence every thread on this forum where neither you nor another theist bring religious claims in to the discussion. Those are existence proofs that reasonable, mutually respectful, productive discussions can take place here.
Simply defining yourself to be correct is unconvincing in the extreme.
You claim there is some immaterial component to consciousness. That’s a claim about reality, not a simple definition of terms. What evidence do you have that any such thing actually exists?
links please.
what exactly is a “religious claim”?
peace
I don’t expect you to be convinced. In fact I expect you to never be convinced regardless of how much evidence is brought to bear
It’s not about you
did you read the paper?
peace
Are you taking pedantry lessons from Mung?
From a quick perusal:
Polyworld
Cartesian Skepticism/Sentinel Islander
Genetic Load and Junk
Dynamics of Genome Evolution in E. coli
Phylogeny: The Bigger Picture
These threads can get contentious and egos can certainly get involved, but if you read carefully you’ll note that people like Kantian Naturalist, Alan Fox, Allen Miller, Neil Rickert, John Harshman, Dave Carlson, and Joe Felsenstein, among others who I hope will not be offended by my inadvertent omission, tend to raise the tone.
If you start a thread based on your claim that IC systems cannot evolve and if you limit your comments to logical arguments and objective, empirical evidence to support your claims, there is no reason to expect any of the non-theists to bring religion into the discussion.
I’m sure you still feel otherwise. Let’s experiment!
Well, any evidence would be a start.
I’ve read it before. Where do you see evidence for the existence anything immaterial provided in it?
Stop being so coy. Show us what you got.
That’s just a tautology. You’re only restating your assumption that the mental and the material are different ontological categories. You haven’t tried to justify that assumption.
What you haven’t done is actually engage with any cognitive science or any conceptual analysis to justify the claim that the material and the mental are different categories. Have you even engaged with the substance of why Kripke and Chalmers argue against physicalism? I have. If you want to talk about Kripke and Chalmers on the conceivability and possibility of zombies, I’m all for it.
Your insistence that consciousness and will must be immaterial because there’s obviously an ontological difference between the mental and the material is just like someone who says that there must be elan vital because obviously there’s an ontological difference between living and non-living things, or someone who says that Faraday must be wrong because obviously there’s an ontological difference between electricity and magnetism.
The idea that there’s an ontological difference between the mental and the material is neither obvious nor immune to revision. No one even thought of the idea until Descartes invented it, and he invented it in order to solve the problems posed by the sciences of his time. Here’s a partial list (off the top of my head) of Cartesian assumptions that we have good reasons to reject, either on the basis of philosophy of science or philosophy of mind:
1. All empirical inquiry is reducible to mathematical physics.
2. Mathematical physics is deterministic.
3. All physical phenomena are mechanistic.
4. The conscious mind is “diaphanous”: it is immediately aware of all its contents.
5. One can be immediately certain of all of one’s conscious mental contents while being in doubt as to the existence of all objects of consciousness external to the mind.
6. Sensations and thoughts differ only in terms of degrees of clarity and distinctiveness.
One needs all these to substantiate the idea that there is an appearance/reality distinction with regard to physical things but there is no appearance/reality distinction with regard to the mind.
It is trivially true that there is no appearance/reality distinction with regard to appearance, and much of Descartes’ superficial plausibility stems from this conceptual truth.
But what neither Descartes nor anyone else can establish is the assumption that the mind as it appears to itself is identical with what the mind is in itself. We know that this is false with regard to physical things — indeed, the falsity of that claim with regard to physical things is precisely the basis of Descartes’s rejection of the whole Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. But Descartes insists that this is true only of the physical, and not of the mental. He’s simply not entitled to that conviction.
Again, here you are relying on your assumption rather than defending it.
That’s just worthless nonsense that I won’t even bother responding to.
Nothing honors and glorifies God like being annoying to strangers on the Internet.
I can tell you didn’t. If you had you would know that none of the arguments about the logical or metaphysical possibility of zombies have any bearing on whether it is true in the actual world that minds are immaterial.
They’re free, and being taught by the best, so why not?
Again the point is if zombies are conceivable then phyisicalism is false.
It does not prove that minds are immaterial in this world (they are not AFAIK)
All zombies do is knock the materialist off his false perch and bring the question of what minds are made of back to neutrality.
The Materialist and those who reject materialism start on the same footing. Except that the materialist is now obligated explain why some matter is conscious while the vast majority is not.
peace
God is honored when it’s pointed out that God and not a stubborn rebel is the center of the universe.
quote:
“Dominion and fear are with God; he makes peace in his high heaven. Is there any number to his armies? Upon whom does his light not arise? How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure? Behold, even the moon is not bright, and the stars are not pure in his eyes; how much less man, who is a maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm!”
(Job 25:2-6)
end quote:
peace
fifth:
Logic fail.