How do we see ? Is it God's gift ?
Offline How do we see or observe other things really ? Is it god's gift in some manner ? Lets see if this discussion helps to start this off.
Q1 - How do you see things ?
A1 - I use the eye.
Q2 - Is the eye matter ?
A2 - Yes it is
Q3 - Does only your eye help you see ?
A3 - No , not on its own?
Q4 - Then how do you see things ?
A4 - My eye receives light rays which is reflected by a thing, it gets converted into impulses and travels to my brain to primary and secondary visual cortex. This gets processed by the brain thus.
Q5 - Does your brain see then ?
A5 - Yes sort of , the images are formed in the brain
Q6 - When you say , "I see", who sees ?
A6 - It is me.
Q7 - By "me" what do you mean , who or what sees ? Is it your hand ? Is it your leg ? Is it your brain , is it your eye or what ?
A7 - I know for sure my hand and leg doesnt see , However my eye sees, but seems to play an intermediate role. The eye helps along with the brain and we see things. So we can say both together see.
Q8 - Is brain matter ?
A8 - Yes it is.
Q9 - Are you saying a combination of matter sees other matter ? It seems incredible. How can matter see other matter ?
A9 - What are you trying to say ?
Q10 - I say it seems like god's gift, unless you have good explanation.
I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God
- Login to post comments
See -
verb (used with object)
–verb (used without object)
Please pick your definition of "See", so people can properly point out where and why you are a complete and total idiot.
Consciousness -
–noun
Explain how you save the lack of belief in something that can not be proven? I am intrigued.
Your writing is a great argument by example for the immaterial.
No, I read your original post, and tried to piece together your developmentally disabled premise.
I'll repeat it one more time and that's it. I referred to a simple machine that could parse visual data within certain parameters. There are most sophisticated robots, and animal sight and processing is still more sophisticated. If you want to say it's more than sophistication you have to prove it rather than offering the fallacies you put forward before. (Begging the question, argument from personal incredulity, and argument from ignorance.)
'the peoples cannot make robots , for stir up and way material that ,, seeing must be that the god did the !!'
Psychologists call that a 'breakthrough.' Oh, wait, you meant the machines, not yourself. Never mind.
Your argument is that until we build Data from Star Trek god must exist. Argument from ignorance.
I never said I am the only "privileged" on to have intellect. There are a few other people out there with intellect and maybe even one or two with more.
My main point was that our ability to create things does not logically lead to the conclusion that we were ourselves created by an intelligent being such as God. In fact, it isn't even convincing evidence.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I don't offer this as an entire argument, but I'll just throw in what I know about eyes for the sake of their being understood as natural occurences.
Many microscopic organisms don't have eyes the way that we do, but they have what are simply called "eye spots". These spots don't actually "see" in the way that you and I do as much as they help the creature find light. "Am I in the light, or am I not?" the creature asks. These spots answer that question. They are, pure and simply, light detectors.
In other specimens (slightly more evolutionarily advanced ones) the eye spots become slightly concave, creating two bowl-like indentations on the creature's "face". This is a significant advancement since light cast on the bowls at certain angles will create shadows inside (for example, light shining at a low angle to the left would shine on the right side of the bowl but create a shadow on the inner left side), which of course allow the creature to orient itself toward light much more efficiently (I wonder if this also explains why modern eyes send images that are upside down that then have to be flipped, just as the creature above orients itself toward the shadow-side of its eye to move toward the light. I honestly don't know if this is related, but it's a thought). Creatures with this adaptation also have another advantage: tracking. Moving things create moving shadows!
From this point, the deeper and more concave the "bowl eye", the better the creature tends to be at orientation.
And if we look at the human eye (or any other eye, for that matter) we see that it uses light to see and that it, too, displays this bowl-like feature, only it is so bowl-ish that it actually closes on itself again in a shape that is more pouch-like. You don't see the bowl because the lens/cornea rest over it like a sort of cap.
Certain creatures that live in darkness use other methods to "see" other than light. Cave fish, for example, don't have eyes. Moles, while they do have eyes, have very poor ones.
We don't see exactly like every other animal sees, some animals see better than we do, and different animals see different colors, but the eye sees in a very natural way.
You see color because different spectrums of light have different wavelengths and your eye just color codes them. You brain shows you "colors" but what you are actually seeing is just stronger or weaker intensities in light wavelengths. Very weak intensities are red, for example, while strong intensities are blue. (Did you know that your body emits both heat AND light? You don't see it with your eyes because the wavelength is so weak that your eyes don't detect it [i.e. not within the range of "visible light"] but you can see it using a special invention: infra-red goggles!)
You see things because light reflects off of them. You can perceive shape and range due to a combination of factors such as the fuzziness of the shape (or sharpness if it's closer), the size of the shape, the appearance of shadows, etc.
Babies have a harder time with this than adults, since they are very new to "seeing". For instance, it's common for babies to reach for the moon.
Also, when science first advanced to the point where surgeons could remove cataracts from the eyese of patients, it allowed a large number of people who had been blind their entire lives due to cataracts to have an operation that would allow them to see.
Long story short, some of them loved their new sight while some of them hated it and insisted on keeping their eyes always closed thereafter.
However, one thing was common to all of them: They had no idea how to see!
Sure, they could see "color blobs moving with some dark spots here and there" but they had no idea how to interpret them! It was like staring into a vat of mixed paint!
So the interpretation of these inputs is something you've learned out of necessity and experience. You were born with the capacity to receive the inputs, but you came to make sense of them because you tried and found that you could. Now you can't force yourself to not understand it, just like you can't force yourself to not understand what someone is saying to you in English. You can ignore them (or, in the case of vision, you can shut your eyes), but if you're honestly listening (honestly looking) you can't help but know what you are hearing (seeing).
But I am no doctor, so I encourage corrections of anything I may have said that was incorrect, only half correct, etc.
The OP is an argument from ignorance, but a little eye trivia seemed fun at any rate.
Peace!
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Just so you guys know, the OP is a troll.
P.S. Large font proves my point.
Edit: The watchmaker argument is terrible. What created God?
What's sad is our culture has such a short memory that crap like this doesn't get to seem as shambling and inept as it actually is. Think back through the ages.
'Science can't explain the stuff in the sky, so that's where the gods are!'
Astronomy advances, powerful telescopes are invented, we send things into space.
'FALL BACK! Science can't explain love and stuff, so god is in our hearts!'
Biological research advances, brain scans developed, emotions linked to electrochemical processes.
'FALL BACK! Science can't make bees and acorns and stuff! So what good is it?!'
Wherever knowledge ends, religion is there in a plaid suit and spinning bow tie, elbowing us in the side, 'Eh? Eh? See? That thing that hasn't been explained quite yet? God did it!'
I am not using desperate attempts, you said, AGAIN, matter see matter (not intelligence, not by consicouness) but justs sees it. Now TECHNOLOGY wise we have and can do it, however biologically wise? no, however what you have yet to properly define for your entire arguement is what the HELL you mean by SEE. You basically evade the entire question.
SDR-4X can see and is programmed and actually does LEARN (per se) from it's surroundings what to avoid. However again, this is technology which is far different that biological sense, but we as humans do learn to use our sight (give a blind man sight after many years and see how hard it is for them to navigate the world, and this has occurred before). We learn but we are not programmed per se with how to use our sight, we learn it as babies and children. It's not a programmed thing (as you make the assumption for your imaginary god requirement) We can only replicate the function of sight, but consciousness, well that's something again, nether theists, philosophers or scientists have been able to figure out what it is yet. Intelligences or learning abilities, again something we as humans are working with techology with robots to replicate, but this is not biological, it's replication using what we know of biological functions to a degree and much more of computers and techology, which is not how our biological brains exactly work.
So, 2 questions, CAN YOU DEFINE what the fuck you mean by SEE first and foremost, and what the hell you mean by matter sees matter (Because we have givin you tons of techology that does that exactly, yes they all require power but then again we haven't even designed a self automated system that automatically turns on and off so your analogy is so fucking off it's unreal) Hell we can even say security cameras to a Digital video recorder with software to regonize human faces that saves all the data does exactly that matter that sees matter, which is basically just mimicing something that humans do naturally (no need of a god) yet you some how will say we have fallen your trap (what trap? and are you changing the definition of see again?)
Jeremiah Smith - I am able to understand you know.
There was a murder. The police were questioning lots of people. The police were having a lot of debate amongst themselves and 2-3 main suspects had quickly emerged. A new recruit named JeremiahSmith says "Stop" , "Stop" , he disrupts the flow
He then asks some 20 questions , half to the people and half to his fellow colleagues. They all are trying to follow him where he is leading.
In the end he says , Hey guys , I dont know a shit about anything here and I dont know what is going on. You guys can continue.
Maybe you neednt use any of the grey matter and type out a standard post.
It can probably say " Duh - I am Jeremiah Smith, I am an atheist. I just am introducing myself, but I dont follow any of what you say , Shit I need to get back to another new post and introduce myself there".
Watcher - Save atheism? I've seen your arguments defeated repeatedly by a lot of people in this thread. You either A) ignore when they defeat your pitiful logic, B) you are just arguing ridiculous statements to irritate people (ie troll), C) You have very low intelligence.
Crap, I'm talking to it again
Who is defeated my dear ? If you have won , why are we seeing you look for shoulders to lean upon in FTA. You should be carrying a flag of victory.
You talk of ridiculous statements. Bah. You guys have been fairly exposed on seemingly very basic stuff here. Some of you guys equate seeing to formation of visual images. I guess then all the CDs and photographic films see. You guys must be daft.
Anyway my last post clarified to you my dear bright children that seeing is being aware of certain images, recognition and interpretation. Seeing is not formation of an image on a piece of film, Please do write that 10 times in a homework notebook, there shall be a test tomorrow.
Steven - Thanks for the hard work. You are really a bright child. You may write the definition above 10 times also.
Steven - Explain how you save the lack of belief in something that can not be proven? I am intrigued.
and forever the child shall be intrigued, till it one day discovers that Science was built on pillars of human powers of observation, which itself is a god's gift, and atheists have yet to demonstrate one single example outside of the human being which can really see. (for definition of see , plz see above) .
No prizes for guessing that when you all are cornered , some of you usually indulge in following :-
1. Accuse the opponent of trolling. (It tickles me when Watcher first resorted to this oldest trick when completely cornered. )
2. Try to poke holes in the first post saying the postor was unclear.
3. Indulge in ridicule. (JeremiahSmith looks to be a self appointed Duh in the group)
Basically mob behaviour in an intellectual discussion, and you feel that this theist this side of the computer is an easy prey. Tsk Tsk . I am appalled at the lumpen tactics which some of you indulge in.
Magilum - I'll repeat it one more time and that's it. I referred to a simple machine that could parse visual data within certain parameters. There are most sophisticated robots
So Magilum , stop beating around the bush and admit you misunderstood. Sophisticated robots dont know that they are seeing, they cant figure out more than what is fed into them beforehand. The more sophistication you bring in a robot and even allowing that one day your robot will know it is seeing, that day will be my happiest day , since it shall prove that we ourselves are very high quailty design.
So if you go backwards on technology - I shall accuse you that you are unable to prove that Matter sees matter. If you go forwards on the Tech sophistication , it leads to us humans being designed by ID.
Magilum - 'the peoples cannot make robots , for stir up and way material that ,, seeing must be that the god did the
And what explanation do you have for us seeing. Maybe Einstein's great great great grand father discovered an incredible matter which he input into all humans , so that we can all see.
Does Richard Dawkins have an explanation ? Oh I forget the atheist Dennet who is into Cognitive Science. Hope you guys remember that Dennet was countered by Bennet on human consciousness .
Beyond Saving - My main point was that our ability to create things does not logically lead to the conclusion that we were ourselves created by an intelligent being such as God. In fact, it isn't even convincing evidence.
There is some logic in what you say. Yes it doesnt prove , does it, since we havent seen the creator or designer. But I for one believe that the creator/God/Supernatural/Higher level of intelligence whatever it is , we cant see it the way we 'see' things. We use human senses only , which has limitations .
The sheer complexity of the human body which you attribute to evolution totally , seems to me a belief in some respects only. A lot of evolution theory fits and a lot of it doesnt , Scientists want to believe subconsciously that the latter part which doesnt fit , actually fits.
Archie - Many microscopic organisms don't have eyes the way that we do, but they have what are simply called "eye spots". These spots don't actually "see" in the way that you and I do as much as they help the creature find light. "Am I in the light, or am I not?" the creature asks. These spots answer that question. They are, pure and simply, light detectors.
Can we stick to humans ? I am trying to find out how we see the way we see quite clearly , with awareness of seeing etc.
Archie - In other specimens (slightly more evolutionarily advanced ones) the eye spots become slightly concave, creating two bowl-like indentations on the creature's "face". This is a significant advancement since light cast on the bowls at certain angles will create shadows inside (for example, light shining at a low angle to the left would shine on the right side of the bowl but create a shadow on the inner left side), which of course allow the creature to orient itself toward light much more efficiently (I wonder if this also explains why modern eyes send images that are upside down that then have to be flipped, just as the creature above orients itself toward the shadow-side of its eye to move toward the light. I honestly don't know if this is related, but it's a thought). Creatures with this adaptation also have another advantage: tracking. Moving things create moving shadows!
From this point, the deeper and more concave the "bowl eye", the better the creature tends to be at orientation.
And if we look at the human eye (or any other eye, for that matter) we see that it uses light to see and that it, too, displays this bowl-like feature, only it is so bowl-ish that it actually closes on itself again in a shape that is more pouch-like. You don't see the bowl because the lens/cornea rest over it like a sort of cap.
Good stuff all this Archie. But evolution seems the assumption here. Could be very good improving design also .
Archie - You see color because different spectrums of light have different wavelengths and your eye just color codes them. You brain shows you "colors" but what you are actually seeing is just stronger or weaker intensities in light wavelengths. Very weak intensities are red, for example, while strong intensities are blue. (Did you know that your body emits both heat AND light? You don't see it with your eyes because the wavelength is so weak that your eyes don't detect it [i.e. not within the range of "visible light"] but you can see it using a special invention: infra-red goggles!)
Again good stuff. The colour part is well known.But when you wear the goggles, again you are using yourself ie a human to see it.
Thus I find that all roads lead to us humans only.
Sure, they could see "color blobs moving with some dark spots here and there" but they had no idea how to interpret them! It was like staring into a vat of mixed paint!
Possibly if you smear the camera lens with mud , you may get the same result. Let me clear it again here. Please dont quote advancement in eyes related tech etc, the eye is the lens period. The firings in the brain represent the image which bring coherence . But further onwards, what happens.
Lets take a situation. You are sleeping with eyes open, lots of people do it. You cant see anything. You may lie unconscious with eyes open say after an accident , you cant see.
Thus seeing is a conscious act.
Latincanuck - You may read this post several times and then please revert to me for a discourse, I can try to clarify.
Latincanuck - (Because we have givin you tons of techology that does that exactly, yes they all require power but then again we haven't even designed a self automated system that automatically turns on and off so your analogy is so fucking off it's unreal
Not unreal dear. You are real. You can turn yourself off and on , no one needs to tell you type, be angry at theists , use four letter words. All of it you do by yourself. You read my posts , make sense in some manner and then just hit the keys. You are an extremely intelligent design. I am trying to find out the details of our own design, you guys are avoiding it , implying we are an extremely intelligent design , but we shall not go deep into why we are an intelligent design . That is not rational at all by any standards.
First lets solve all the mysteries about ourselves , then we can be at peace.
I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God
heh. Did I really just read that?
(scratches temple)
OMG. I really need to get back to something constructive. Lots of work here on my desk.
(bails out of thread)
Venkatrajan:
Please consider this to be your first official warning. You have violated the following rule:
"2.1. Antagonism.
Antagonism is giving one or more members a hard time. Cases typically comprise a series of provocations, each not necessarily sanctionable in its own right."
You have violated this rule by attempting to insult others by using inappropriate nomenclatures and language generally intended as catalysts for flame wars.
Please cease this immediately, or you will be removed from the forum. Thank you.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
---Venk
It doesn't matter if we talk about human eyes or any other eyes because all eyes use light to see. The only reason you would have for discussing human eyes only is that human eyes are more advanced than some lesser eyes (such as the "eye spots" I mentioned), but that wouldn't be a good reason for discussing human eyes only since, as has already been said, there are other eyes that are better than human eyes.
So can we stick to human eyes? No. Not unless you give me a good reason.
Can we assume evolution is true? Yes, because it is, and has been sufficiently proven.
If your eyes are open while you're asleep, they are still working. Light is still falling into them. You're just not "seeing" (making sense of) the signals because YOU'RE UNCONSCIOUS.
This whole topic is an argument from ignorance and a non-sequitur.
"I don't know how eyes work and you probably don't either, so therefore: God."
This doesn't prove that God exists. It only proves that you don't know how eyes work.
This thread is looking to be a waste of time.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
I feel that I should confess to my antagonism in the spirit of fairness. I would like to apologize for referring to Venkatrajan with words that imply a lack of intelligence, such as "dualist".
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
LOL! No input.... just... great. Excellent delivery.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Ok i know what this idiot is doing, it's an arguement in which no matter what you do, no matter how much evidence you prove to him that eyes require no designer and how they evolved without one, for him god did it, if you can show that we can create the samething, then god did it, if we cannot do it, god did it, he changes the topic and defnition at every step, his trap is his complete ignorance of the entire topic and changing it's definition at every step to fit his ignorance of the eye and how we see and how it occurred naturally.
What he wants is not matter that can see matter, what he wants is matter that can recognize matter and interpret matter with out outside influence which is impossible to do in a lab as we are actively attempting to do that in a limited fashion (technology wise is the only way we can) an as such his request is an impossible premise because in his view no matter what you say, god did it. That is it, he is a troll, nothing more, we can bring up the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC understanding of how the eye evolved, but for him, god did it no matter what. This is a useless subject to discuss with him and as such this is my last post to him. Show us that god did it, if we show that the eye evolved naturally (which we can) god did not do it and your entire OP is flawed, but i know it will not accept this because it does not match his idea of god did it.
Refer back to ineptly described premise of your original post for the answer to that.
We could make a self-replicating machine with full self-awareness, and it would still prove no such thing. We would have started out with the anthropocentric goal of replicating our perception and interaction of the world, but in our own case we have no basis to assume such a goal. The theory of evolution contradicts there being a goal at all. In fact, you're living proof of that.
Oh noes !! Teh Dennet betaed teh Dennet .. ?!!
Recalling his earlier posts, it's always been like that. He has never contributed a single idea or argument of any interest.
I started to read the thread and as soon as I saw the argument about eyes I remembered a programme that had been shown recently on British TV called Visons of the future with the futurist Dr Michio Kaku. He had some amazing info about artificial intelligence and how computers are now very reliable at recognising not only human faces but also objects that the computer had learnt. It was even better at some tasks than humans such as recognising if an animal was in a photograph that flashed up on a screen for 1/50th of a second. The human got 60% correct and the computer 85%.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/visions-future.shtmlIf "eyes" are an invention of God, then fecal matter is as well. You cant pick and chose what "god" invents. That is cherry picking.
"eyes" are a product of millions of years of genetic changes and not one bit of fictional hocus pocus by Allah/Yahwey/Vishnu or Jesus has been any part of that reality.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Venk, please look up the following:
Fallacy of composition, which you have thus made 16 times at last count
Fallacy of equivocation (property dualism versus substance dualism), made 12 times in a row
Fallacy of argument from incredulity
Fallacy of division
Homunculus Fallacy and the Problem associated (made four times)
Qualia and the Rheification fallacy (made in every post)
Fallacy of bifurcation and the associated ad ignorantium
Ad hoc, which, since you do not know what that is, I shall tell you:
-The “Explanation” does not “explain” anything. It is a vague assertion from which no information can be derived.
-Hence, no mechanism or detail by which we would supplement an ad hoc explanation may ever arise. It is just vaguely asserted without providing details. For example, in the ongoing fight between evolution and Intelligent Design, in evolutionary biology, we can explain the heart in terms of the evolution of precise molecular mechanisms, we can explain in utero changes and observe mutations and their effect on Gene-regulatory node pathways and Homeobox sets. We can explain the heart in terms of such and the precise time at which such mutations occurred, and in which organisms, and the time progression of the evolution of the biological structure of the heart. All this and more. In intelligent design, we cannot, nor can we ever have something of this like. “God” is just vaguely asserted and left at that. No mechanisms, no coherency, just a deus ex machina.
-Ad hoc explanations are usually conjured ex nihilo in order to solve a problem without actually doing the work of solving it. Instead of the solution being based on empirical evidence, the solution is inserted by hand to solve a problem. For example, Einstein’s “cosmological constant” was not derived from his experiments or equations. Instead, it was just inserted by hand to solve a problem which later turned out to be an imaginary problem. It is for this reason that ad hoc solutions are always regarded as incredibly ugly. Yet theists slobber over a posteriori arguments for God.
-Problems with the actual solution are nearly always swept under the rug because the solution is so ugly. This is why a posteriori arguments always focus on attempting (and failing) to refute naturalistic explanations, because they cannot actually offer explanations themselves. Their solution is merely a de facto assertion Hence, blindly repeating the phrase “Goddidit” is considered an acceptable a posteriori argument despite that this can provide us with no substance as an argument. Problems with the solution (such as it begging the question) are fixed with incoherent assertions
Now, there do exist good models on how the material world gives rise to the subjective mental world. I imagine you are not versed in them. I prefer my own, obviously. It requires some nueroscience understanding. It has to do primarily with the rate of synaptogenesis formation in nueronal networks in conjunction with the transmitter "fountains" underneath the pons medullas, and in the amydagla, and how neurotransmitter concentrations affect the effeciency of action potentials and vice-versa to determine the overturn rate of synapse formation, which makes it very similar to Dr. Greenfield's model, where consciousness exists on the emotion-reason continuum where the scale slides in one direction (drugs, schizophrenia, associated transmitter impairment causes rapid neural overturning hence no abstractions) versus large neural constellations associated with overeffecient low overturn rates (depression etc, which of course is why lithium works on bipolar patients, since it can turn off both effects by substituting sodium in VGIC except that it cannot be pumped out by neurons becuase it is too light, hence shutting down the action potential, stopping rapid overturn associated with mania, and overlarge synapse formation associated with depression). Except that since I am not writing a pop science book, I went into much more detail than she did.
With one crucial difference, that it reignites (albeit not with the unpopular Tripartate version propogated by the psychologist McLean) the idea that the mind has, at least to some blurred degree, tiering,but not in the traditional sense of the Id being restrained by the Ego being restrained by the Superego, but rather more emergentist, that the division associated (the brain stem with the amygdala and pons, and then with the cerebral cortex being indicated by pateints with vertically divided minds, such as Lesch-Nyhans patients)
And, I rejected the LeDoux Model (Oscillating circutous reference between sensation and memory circuits), and Pinkers model (interagency modularity), in favour of a much more overall, emergentist idea in which consciousness developed ontogenically, which is why Dr. Greenfield's model appealled the most to me.
The Word count: Fallacy ratio in your original post was approximately 5:1, which means that for every five words, one fallacy was committed. Much to high to be taken into proper consideration, but...
Oh, and btw, your OP description sucked.
. Fallacious arguments against physicalism have a leg-up when it comes to our intuition, however naïve it may be. Consider this. When we interact with the external material world, it appears to be subservient, utterly inanimate and bending to our will. So, to many people, the idea that the mind could be generated by a material thing like the brain seems absurd, impossible. The result of this is that they insert into the equation a “solution” which does nothing for the problem at hand. Invariably, and I do not exclude myself from this charge, when I speak of the mind being material, we imagine little balls zooming through neurons, and it is so utterly counterintuitive that we could be the product of the brain that we have a tendency to dismiss it intuitively and instead replace it with a solution which not only does not solve anything, it does not mean anything. Since we, for some hitherto unexplained reason, tend to associate “materialism” with “atoms” and “molecules”, it is these that first come to mind when we think about the possibility that our mind could be generated by the material brain. There is a huge amount of intuitive, childlike understanding associated with dualism. We like the idea that “we” are essences perched behind the eyes of our body. We speak of “I” and “my body” dichotomously, as if “I” could be separated from my body (a whole body amputation?) This is why children have no trouble grasping the idea that people could “swap personalities” or that one could wake up to find himself in another body. However, when critically considering the issue, it becomes necessary to break off from the intuitive understanding of reality, of this dualistic dichotomy of “me” and “the material world”, because in reality, you are no more separate from the material world than your heart is “separate” from the rest of your body. We often make intuitive fallacies of composition associated with materialism. The idea that atoms and molecules could think is absurd and impossible, so, by extension, people conclude that the idea that we could be composed (in eventuality) of atoms and molecules is absurd and impossible. It does not take a mental leap of great proportion to realize that this is a highly fallacious argument. We need to stop associating “materialism” with a highly naïve conception of “atoms” (little balls made of more little balls), and start examining materialism in terms of systems, components, emergent properties and abstractions arising from systems which are generated by the material. Only then can we break our intuitive, but naïve, dualistic understanding.
We must critically distinguish between the notions of substance dualism and property dualism. Substance dualism is a Cartesian idea, associated with the idea that the mind is an “immaterial” substance of a different ontological category from the brain, hence, in the Cartesian view the mind is actually a “substance”, just not a material substance. Dualists often transpose this naivety onto materialists, and ask the materialist that if the consciousness is generated by the brain, where is its location? (The same could be asked about substance dualism!). However, this is empty, vacuous idiocy. The mind does not have a “location” in the brain, rather, we must understand the idea of property dualism which IS a materialist understanding, that being that the “mind” is a socio-empirical word to describe an experience. Property dualism states that the mind is generated by the material brain, but the mind is not a “thing” (this is a substance dualist idea, and is hopelessly naïve). So property dualism is a form of emergentist materialism, and is heavily corroborated by modern neuroscience. Whilst humans seem to be in love with this idea that there is an intangible “thing” perched behind the eyes that does the seeing (the homunculus), an immaterial essence of “me”, this is folly. The mind does not work like that, it is not an “essence”, rather it is a set of properties describing an experience that arises from the material brain, an abstract concept of self, without the very precise array of lobes and neurons and synapses, it does not exist. The mind, then is a lower ontological category than the physical brain which generates it, and is not separate from the brain anymore than the liver is “separate” from the rest of the body. It is impossible to reduce the mind or the conscious experience to a single, mysterious essence, an immaterial soul which floats away post-mortem. Rather, we must cast off this intuitive understanding and look at the mind in a new light, an abstraction, an idea where the associated processes are generated by the brain, and so, that it is generated by the material, and a property dualism (do not shirk at the word “dualism”, property dualism is very much a materialist school of thought, when I shoot insults at “dualism” hereafter, I refer to substance dualism, which is vacuous idiocy)
The vast majority if not all functions which the supernaturalists claim materialism cannot account for can be broken down into three categories:
1) Arguments from ignorance
2) Falsehoods: Such as "materialism cannot account for "abstractions" which is a word tossed around with such implications by the supernaturalists who employ it to indicate they do not know what it means. The notion is easily dealt with by understanding a cogent materialist position, and pointing out that
a) This abstraction is usually a process or emergent property encompassed under materialism
b) Their proposition begs the question since they give no argument as to how the supernatural may account for such a thing, hence rendering their argument, as per (1), an argument from ignorance. No argument is put forth in support of the attempted propositions, rather, only an attempt (which fails) to refute an opposing proposition is employed, usually just as a naked assertion. Hence, whenever the argument "naturalism cannot account for X' is put forth, it begs the question of whether supernaturalism accounts for "X", or rather, what coherency can be gleaned from placing X in the domain of things which are not naturalisic (which makes no sense per se).
3) Emotionalist Falsehoods (Subset of (2)) by which the supernaturalists claim that materialism does not satisfy some necessary emotion need, which can be solved by injecting the supernatural. This often contians incoherent metaphysical references. Again, no argument is put forth to justify the notion of the supernatural being able to account for such concepts, hence until a justification is made, the bulk of these statements may be regarded as category errors. For example the statement "under naturalism, everything is just a bag of atoms" is a statement which attempts to incite disdain towards materialism by attempting to convince people that it is emotionally dissatisfying. Although it is worded in such a way to antagonize, it does not require close inspection to see that such statements have no actual meaning or content. On the one hand, there is a detectable (though abominable) attempt to attack materialism on grounds of reductio ad absurdum, since it would seem absurd that "everything is just a bag of molecules", again, however, these emotionalist statements, of which there are many variants on the same theme, actually don't mean anything. In addition, such wording could be viewed as a rather childish attempt at reductio ad absurdum, since I could substitute the same form of language and argumentative technique for anything. For example, the sentence "Oh, come now! Are you saying that a car is nothing more than a bunch of metal? That's ridiculous". This is exactly analogous, and equally lacking in actual content. More emotionalist objections assert that materialism eliminates such things as "beauty, value, love from the world" etc. because they are "reducible to molecules". Yet nowhere is it established how the injection of supernaturalism may by extension give rise to such concepts. Indeed, the application of the naturalist/supernaturalist dichotomy to such notions may be regarded as a category error. The phrase "reducible to molecules" indicates a mode of thinking by which people are fallacious conflation explaining with "explaining away" and shall be discussed later. My point is, by using such linguistic constructions which sound quite pining and have no meaning or content unto themselves is the modus operandi of the bulk of "arguments" against materialism.
Now, go the hell away.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Hi Guys
Nero - Thanks. I guess it was overboard for Jeremiah. Jeremiah - Sorry. Guess there are varying grades of antagonism.
There are n number of 'evidences' , but it only points in the direction of a very complex design. So there has to be an intelligence behind this.
Whatever you say, until you can actually prove matter can see matter the way we see it, it should be assigned the category of belief only.
The only proof of matter can see matter seems to be humans , and that too on an assumption that humans are fully matter. So similarly we can also say that , God also exists , because humans experience gods, they have experienced it for a long time, yet you continue to ignore it.
Latincanuck and others - You may want to delude yourself and your group, by calling it a troll or unscientific, but you look foolish, since Science rests on human observation (that is why this post was raised) and , this human observation rests on consciousness which you yourself admitted defies scientific explanation (Eastern traditions deem the consciousness as the sole entity and also supernatural divinity , this has been experienced by many many people, that also you ignore ). For consciousnesss, DG has another belief called emergent property of mind. So now we have two beliefs.
We say we see an object , so actually we are conscious of the obejct, that is all. The rest are all physical previous stages ie the lens and image formation. The real act of seeing has to have a consciousness in background.
You may choose to delude and ignore and still call yourself ratonal.
Cheers
I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God
What experiments do you propose to test your hypothesis? I see nothing from you but an argument from ignorance. The faulty reasoning that your position is supported by a lack of evidence either way (which isn't even the case for evolutionary theory, robotics and neuroscience). If creationism wants to be a science, it can put forward predictions that will validate it as a framework for biology, and find applications that will supplant evolutionary theory. So what is it? What do we use it for?
You keep returning to this premise without justifying it. Nothing you've mentioned is aided by any dualistic view.
Special pleading. Here are some things that also must exist if your only standard for logic is collective subjective experiences: alien abduction, ghosts, chupacabra, bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, leprechauns, fairies, kobold, gremlins, animist spirits, every single god ever conceived.
Nope.
Gibberish.
Such bollocks.
Thank you, come again.
Something for Venkatrajan to consider
I don’t know why this thread is still active. It should have been refuted by the first person to respond. The refutation is very simple. Venk has made the Homunculus fallacy. In Philosophy of Mind, by definition, Homunculus arguments are always invalid. No Exceptions.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
The same reason 'what faith you' lingered on as long as it did. We've got an OP too stupid for conversation.