unlike molecular reductionists, I don't advocate that direct empirical evidence is the means for evidencing eveything - for instance there is no direct empiricial evidence for our minds, but I think we would be hard pressed to determine that our minds don't exist
One more step for evolution...
- Thread starter SnakeLord
- Start date
unlike molecular reductionists, I don't advocate that direct empirical evidence is the means for evidencing eveything - for instance there is no direct empiricial evidence for our minds, but I think we would be hard pressed to determine that our minds don't exist
They don't. Our brains exist, and the mind is an illusion created by it.
sounds like something your mind made up - at the very least there is an absence of direct empirical knowlewdge for your claims
We do indeed have empirical observation of evolution, this is where the fossil record comes in as well as observation of the 'Tree of Life'. But of course, we don't base all our knowledge of evolution on the fossil record alone, which is where things get technical and you'll have to read books (but you won't) on the details of evolutionary science.
I think you said something in your last post about anomalies in the fossil record, which I look forward to hearing about. I hope you don't mean the pseudoscience you spouted before... or are you simply referring to the gaps?
I think you said something in your last post about anomalies in the fossil record, which I look forward to hearing about. I hope you don't mean the pseudoscience you spouted before... or are you simply referring to the gaps?
For Pete's sake, LG - your thinking is utterly garbled.
By not having direct empirical evidence you are merely stating a hypothesis - that the mind "exists" (presumably to you as a separate entity).
The more valid theory is that "mind" is an emergent property of the brain - the vast array of interconnectedness and feedback etc within the lump of grey matter inside our heads. As such it does not "exist" in its own right. I.e. no brain - no mind.
This hypothesis / theory is more valid as it requires no unknown entities to exist and is merely extrapolation of known things.
So - are you really putting forward a mere hypothesis as proof of existence of things?
for the average theist perception of god happens on the same platform of evidence you advocate - but the standard response to this is "you have no evidence" - raising the issue about the mind is establishing how the same general principles of extrapolation are applied
I have alot of stuff (anamolies in the fossil record) on this but it is not on the net so I can't link it - if things slow down in the next week I may be able to post a selection of it
No it doesn't. Where is the equivalent starting evidence for God? Provide this platform of evidence, please!
Perhaps because there isn't any as yet discovered that can not be explained by a more rational explanation. Any supposed "evidence" of God fails Occam's Razor in preference to a scientific hypothesis, and is thus rejected.lightgigantic said:
You can not extrapolate from a base of nothing.lightgigantic said:
Please rethink and start again.
Sarkus
where is the evidence of your mind?
where is the evidence of your mind?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
This would be welcome. May I suggest, if the material is substantial and significant, that you open a new thread to allow focused discussion of it.
Eh?lightgigantic said:
We have a brain - yes?
We have a mind - yes?
Remove brain - remove mind.
Damage certain parts of brain - damage mind.
We can even identify which parts of our brain and which chemicals drive certain elements of our mind (e.g. hunger, thirst, smell, emotions etc).
Quite easy to extrapolate from that and theorise that mind = sum of certain parts of the interconnectivity within the brain.
Now - where's your evidence that the mind is a separate "thing"?
And don't merely use analogies as evidence - as they aren't.
Lightee:
1. The mind is self evident. Each individual has a perception of his own mind. It is therefore reasonable to assume that other individuals displaying external signs of sentience also possess a mind.
Sarkus and Lightee:
2. What does the lack of proof of the mind have to do with anything of the lack of proof of theist claims inclusive of the existence of god. The intangibility of the mind has NOTHING to do with Lightee proving that god exists. Lightee challenging Sarkus with "prove the mind" is a useless red herring.
Indeed, it is absense of evidence that makes me think the separate existence of mind is unlikely. I could be persuaded otherwise by evidence.
It may be easy to extrapolilate the mind from the brain, but such extrapolilation does not rely on direct empirical evidence, hence you have no evidence
Enterprise d
Its establishing the first premise of the general principles required to understand god - it is dealing with the issue of direct empirical evidence, and how it is not even properly equipped to determine the nature of our own mind so and hence also inappropriate to rely on for determining the nature of god
this is not direct empirical evidence, hence you have no evidence
Its establishing the first premise of the general principles required to understand god - it is dealing with the issue of direct empirical evidence, and how it is not even properly equipped to determine the nature of our own mind so and hence also inappropriate to rely on for determining the nature of god
the minds contingency is a seperate issue - for the moment we are just looking for direct empirical evidence, which you cannot provide, of theminds existence outside of arguments of its contingency - first establish that the mind exists before offering theories of its contingency
Cogito ergo sum
unfortunately the logic of this statement does not qualify for reductionist models of determining evidence - remember I am not trying to establish that themind does not exist - I am trying to establish how th e reductionist model of evidence is not sufficient to determine the nature of many things inthis world - the mind is one ...... and god is another
lightgigantic's statement here is correct.
Take note however, that the reductionist does not seek to determine the nature of concepts like 'mind', or 'god'.
The problem is that the common response to the notion of discussing god is that it is frequently brought up that there is no evidence of god (by the reductionist model of course).