Are you convinced?

Cris


I still don’t see how reducing all evidence to basic matter and energy leads to a conclusion that the mind does not exist. You will need to explain the reasoning before I can comment further.
Click to expand...

Such a definiton would not cater for the notion of self - by logic, if all the mind is,is an array of push/pull forces or electrons and neurons, on what basis would a person beheld responsible for their actions - what would be the basis for reward and punishment? If a man hijacks a plane and flies it into a building how could that be designated as "bad", or alternatively, if the gov't forms a new watchdog commitee to address legislative corruption and bribery in the court system, how could that be designated as "good", if in both instances the ultimate cause is push/pull forces of inert matter?
 
Ahh I see. Why didn't you say that earlier. Clearly you don't understand how complexity can form from simpler building blocks. These issues are fairly subtle but also straightforward but you will need to study many basics before you understand correctly.

I suggest you begin by reading "The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins" which will elliminate most if not all of your confusion.

Come back to me when you've read it and we can continue with your new more enlightend outlook.
 
Cris said:
Ahh I see. Why didn't you say that earlier. Clearly you don't understand how complexity can form from simpler building blocks. These issues are fairly subtle but also straightforward but you will need to study many basics before you understand correctly.

I suggest you begin by reading "The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins" which will elliminate most if not all of your confusion.

Come back to me when you've read it and we can continue with your new more enlightend outlook.
Click to expand...

If you can't or won't represent the ideas you advocate it tends to work against one's cause in discussion or debate.
 
The debate can't operate very well when you don't have sufficient understanding of the issue you are criticizing. Like I said there are a number of basics you are missing and I am not motivated to spend time teaching you something you can obtain more effeciently by reading a book.
 
Cris said:
The debate can't operate very well when you don't have sufficient understanding of the issue you are criticizing. Like I said there are a number of basics you are missing and I am not motivated to spend time teaching you something you can obtain more effeciently by reading a book.
Click to expand...

You act as if dawkins has dilineated a universal truth of objective reality - something like einstein's theory of relativity - obviously this is not the case - he has just presented an ideological premise for a body of evidence - if you cannot or will not present that ideology then you are at the end of your tether in a debate forum (after all I could just say "well why don't you read jiva gosvami's treatment of the 4 tattva's in his sandarbhas" in an equally prententious clamour for authority)
 
Cris said:
LG,

You are simply missing some key understandings you need to make this specific debate continue in a constructive manner. It is clearly an area you have not studied yet you are attempting to criticize it.

Are you are least familiar with all these discussions?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/complexity.html
Click to expand...

These are general ideologies that surface in the ebb a nd flow of numerous discussions on this site - I don't see any specific connection betweenthese sites and my original statement

Such a definiton would not cater for the notion of self - by logic, if all the mind is,is an array of push/pull forces or electrons and neurons, on what basis would a person beheld responsible for their actions - what would be the basis for reward and punishment? If a man hijacks a plane and flies it into a building how could that be designated as "bad", or alternatively, if the gov't forms a new watchdog commitee to address legislative corruption and bribery in the court system, how could that be designated as "good", if in both instances the ultimate cause is push/pull forces of inert matter?

This is a philosophical notion on the basis of mind (thinking, feeling, willing - ie free will) existing since to deny it would be to deny very rudimentary principles (like discrimination). If you assert that the push/pull forces of atoms dtermines everything, then there is no scope for the mind, which gives a very strange picture of reality.

"The issue of 'responsibility' raises deep philosophical questions concerning the ultimate causes of our behavior. … Is the matter of 'responsibility' merely one of the convenience of terminology, or is there actually something else - a 'self' lying beyond all such influences - which exerts a control over our actions? The legal issue of 'responsibility' seems to imply that there is, indeed, within each of us, some kind of an independent 'self' with its own responsibilities - and, by implications, rights - whose actions are not attributable to inheritance, environment, or chance. If it is other than a mere convenience of language that we speak as though there were such an independent 'self', then there must be an ingredient missing from our present-day physical understandings. The discovery of such an ingredient would surely profoundly alter our scientific outlook. … it will tell us to broaden our view as to the very nature of what a 'cause' might be. A 'cause' could be something that cannot be computed in practice or in principle. … when a 'cause' is the effect of our conscious actions, then it must be something very subtle, certainly beyond computation, beyond chaos, and also beyond any purely random influences. Whether such a concept of 'cause' could lead us any closer to an understanding of the profound issue of our free wills is a matter for the future."
Click to expand...
(roger penrose)
 
LG,

Such a definiton would not cater for the notion of self - by logic, if all the mind is,is an array of push/pull forces or electrons and neurons, on what basis would a person beheld responsible for their actions - what would be the basis for reward and punishment?
Click to expand...
Looks like you are grossly oversimplifying the issue. You want an explanation that goes from forces, atoms, molecules, organelles, cells, structures, neural networks, other issues of neurology, emergent properties that arise from complexity, to issues of morality.

I don’t see any problem. Just go through all the many layers of increasing complexity that arise in biology and neurology.

If a man hijacks a plane and flies it into a building how could that be designated as "bad", or alternatively, if the gov't forms a new watchdog commitee to address legislative corruption and bribery in the court system, how could that be designated as "good", if in both instances the ultimate cause is push/pull forces of inert matter?
Click to expand...
Like I have stated already you need to study how we can progress from simple building blocks to complex ones. Go read Dawkins.

This is a philosophical notion on the basis of mind (thinking, feeling, willing - ie free will) existing since to deny it would be to deny very rudimentary principles (like discrimination). If you assert that the push/pull forces of atoms dtermines everything, then there is no scope for the mind, which gives a very strange picture of reality.
Click to expand...
There is no problem once you understand how we progress from simple building blocks to the more complex. Go read Dawkins.
 
Cris said:
LG,

Looks like you are grossly oversimplifying the issue. You want an explanation that goes from forces, atoms, molecules, organelles, cells, structures, neural networks, other issues of neurology, emergent properties that arise from complexity, to issues of morality.

I don’t see any problem. Just go through all the many layers of increasing complexity that arise in biology and neurology.

Like I have stated already you need to study how we can progress from simple building blocks to complex ones. Go read Dawkins.

There is no problem once you understand how we progress from simple building blocks to the more complex. Go read Dawkins.
Click to expand...

You have the tact of a bible basher - either you understand the ideology of dawkins and can intellibly discuss it or you are just a flock in the crowd of enthusiasts bereft of philosophical know-how?

Actually I think it is more likely that you are tired and just can't be bothered.

maybe you should just go to bed or just reply to comments that you have the time, intelligence and energy to elaborate on
 
Lg,

In a nutshell then the complexity you seek arises from layers of simpler stages and simpler building blocks with each increasing in complexity.

Why do you have a problem with that?
 
Cris my hat goes of to you, I dont know why you bother with LG.
you made it so clear an ameoba can understand it.

and please dont reply to me, LG I have'nt got the time or the inclination, to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
 
lightgigantic said:
You act as if dawkins has dilineated a universal truth of objective reality - something like einstein's theory of relativity - obviously this is not the case - he has just presented an ideological premise for a body of evidence
Click to expand...

May I remind you that Einsteins theories of gravity and relativity, are theories... before you call natural selection 'just a theory'. As far as I can tell, natural selection is still a universally held theory on 'objective reality'. Maybe someone will refine the theory jsut as Einstein did to Newton's theory of gravity. But it is not dogma, it is a theory to describe the fact of evolution, and you have obviously not read up anything RE evolution, except pseudoscience by creationists.

If you had the same emotional reaction to gravity as you did biology, then perhaps you would be refuting Newton's and Einsteins theories.
Please at least show some signs that you have educated yourself on evolution. So far you have nothing to base your objections on because you don't actually know what it is you're objecting to. I don't think it is stupidity, more ignorance... a true theist stereotype.
 
lightgigantic said:
Such a definiton would not cater for the notion of self - by logic....
Click to expand...
Just because you don't understand it does NOT make it illogical.

If you think it is not logical - please go through your stages of thinking, one by one, and either we'll highlight where your current thinking is deficient - or the rest of us might learn our own errors.

Unless you can do that, merely stating that (you think that) it is not logical is pointless and irrelevant.
 
I wonder how Natural selection holds up to human interference, like does natural selection hold up when a human sticks his nose in things, say we were hunting for the best of a species would the underdog suddenly have the upperhand causing the opposite of natural selection?
 
Kendall said:
I wonder how Natural selection holds up to human interference, like does natural selection hold up when a human sticks his nose in things, say we were hunting for the best of a species would the underdog suddenly have the upperhand causing the opposite of natural selection?
Click to expand...


You mean like 'artificial selection', like farm animals or breeding pedigree dogs?
 
Sort of, but more like if humans were killing every strong, healthy creature of a certain species for food, then there would be only the less strong and healthy to breed the next generation. How natural are humans ?
 
kendall: when humans hunted it was usually the weakest that got caught, not the strongest, however there must have been a few strong ones that were caught, which would then make them the weakest, thus natural selection, continues.
 
If you're talking about the "Survival of the Fittest" method of natural selection then don't confuse "Strongest" etc with "Fittest".

Fit is with regard to survivability within ones environment.
If the environment changes (e.g. a new predator comes onto the scene) and you are unable to survive as you had once done, then you are no longer "fit" for the new environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top