Consciousness

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, if LNC is asserting that reductionism cannot explain the mind then I tend to agree. But this does not imply that I adhere to vitalism. We always seem to run into this and I think that the mechanism/vitalism dicotomy is a false one.

I agree, and this is where as those articles pointed out that emergentism is a 'refined' vitalism, not vitalism itself. I'm pretty sure most of what I've been looking at fits in with what you see in Rosen.

 

I'm glad LNC began this thread. I know some must grow weary of a subject that never seems to go anywhere, but I think trying to understand the mind is a noble endeavor.

I'm glad he did too. It gives an opportunity to point out that none of these things have such a clear direction to Truth as can come across sometimes in saying 'this and not that'. If for no other reason, it's good to get the various points of view on the table. Again, though, is that LNC's point in this?

[Legion]

Well Antlerman, I think sitting in our armchairs and pointing out all the things science does not yet understand is an easy thing to do. But in the grand scale of things, human science is a very young thing, a new shoot, a budding flower. There are still vast swaths of the natural world that we do not yet explicitly understand.

 

I hope LNC has point other than that.

[Antlerman]

Well Antlerman, I think sitting in our armchairs and pointing out all the things science does not yet understand is an easy thing to do. But in the grand scale of things, human science is a very young thing, a new shoot, a budding flower. There are still vast swaths of the natural world that we do not yet explicitly understand.

 

I hope LNC has point other than that.

I suspect it may be to show that we shouldn't be overly-confident in our ideas about something, so that it opens the door for the religious to say, "We however do have the answer!," utilizing an entirely different set of assumptions of their own. And that ties back to my equal criticism of them as being reductionist themselves - everything reduces down to the theological answer.

 

I'm not sure why we can't look at the natural world as it is, full of processes and systems, cause and effect, influences, emergent properties, mind and thought, culture, etc in relation with each other, and also embrace that 'ineffable' quality of it without having to turn back our understanding to the theological framework of mythology - a god with a plan like that of the Greek Fates? Is it not enough that we embrace that quality, let it inspire and influence, create and spread itself through our consciousness, without it having to look like the primitive stories of our past used to express that? Must we believe in Santa, to believe in Hope?

 

This is where I say the religious have something to offer - that in the humanities, which is very much a part of shaping and creating and influencing reality as is our chemistry. Unfortunately, it becomes an all or none proposition - both for the religious, and the reductionist alike. It is either all physical, or it is all spiritual. I say it is both, and it our understanding of that, our way of looking at it that allows for us to rationally look at the world and our humanity without contradiction that will allow us to emerge, as it were, to that next higher level of unfolding in Nature.

[LNC]

There you go being duplicitous, You did not say mind, you said "immaterial mind" If you said which being had a mind I would say the live one obviously because the dead one clearly has no mind.

 

It is the word Immaterial that makes your claim circular, and oddly enough that word is suspiciously missing from your last post. Why oh why would you leave that word out I wonder?

 

Now ask me why I think you are being dishonest?

Though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps you just forgot what you said.

 

However, both bodies have a brain and yet you say that one doesn't have a mind. Both bodies have the same parts, so shouldn't you simply say that one body has a working mind and the other a non-working mind? If not, please define why one has a mind and the other doesn't by your definition. Let me whether you ascribe to reductionism, and if not, how you overcome that issue.

 

I don't believe that my position is circular as I have many reasons to believe that mind is not reducible to material independent of this argument, therefore, my reason is not assumed within the argument and that avoids the problem of circularity.

 

Now, can you go back to the initial questions and address them and tell me how you can account for them via physicalism?

 

Apparently the emoticon did not make my attempt at being sarcastic and snarky clear enough......

 

I got your sarcasm, just not your answer to the questions. That is why I keep reminding many of you that the original questions remain unanswered.

 

I thought I already explained this, lets try again from the top.

 

The reasons I find this exact question useless and silly is precisely because I do not think it is POSSIBLE to achieve a good answer by your or Chalmers standard.

 

You seem to want a valid deductive syllogism to prove this, and I do not have one, indeed I would argue that one does not exist, not because we have not found one but because it is logically impossible

 

whether theist or atheist, naturalist or dualist, it seems to me that ANY attempt to explain consciousness is necessarily circular, since it must assume that consciousness is something real.

 

Some theists try to escape this conundrum by claiming they are justified in believing in a mind because god created the mind, but this is still circular, because one must trust their senses to believe they have knowledge from god.

 

This is why I find the argument silly and useless. People have been debating the nature of the mind since Socrates (that we know of). With all of our advancements in knowledge we are no closer to firm answer because a firm answer is logically impossible.

 

Instead people rehash the same arguments and ideas we have been throwing around for 3000 years.

In the end we must all assume, without being able to deductively demonstrate, things like consciousness or the reliability of the senses. If we did not we could not function reasonably.

 

However, I have never met an argument on this issue that was not circular at some level, and I see no reason to think it is even possible to make one.

 

Sorry, it is not just theists who argue for the existence of consciousness. Are you telling me that you don't believe that consciousness is real? If not, then please tell me how you account for the phenomenon that we experience and know as consciousness. I am not looking for a logical argument, just an explanation that accounts for our experience of consciousness.

 

I think that we can get to an understanding of consciousness without using circular arguments. Sure we assume that it exists and we use our intuition to arrive at that understanding - but that is what is done in philosophy and in science.

 

Maybe the reason that you don't think that we are any closer to an answer for consciousness is because you have set up an arbitrary limitation on the potential answers such that if the answer falls outside of your limitations it is not valid. Since most of the best arguments for consciousness fall outside of your parameters, you find the whole discussion silly and pointless. Maybe you simply need to consider expanding your parameters or consider whether your parameters themselves can be adequately justified.

 

LNC

[Kuroikaze]

 

This is where I say the religious have something to offer - that in the humanities, which is very much a part of shaping and creating and influencing reality as is our chemistry. Unfortunately, it becomes an all or none proposition - both for the religious, and the reductionist alike. It is either all physical, or it is all spiritual. I say it is both, and it our understanding of that, our way of looking at it that allows for us to rationally look at the world and our humanity without contradiction that will allow us to emerge, as it were, to that next higher level of unfolding in Nature.

 

This is where I find the topic becomes rather difficult to follow.

 

I must confess that I really dislike the word spiritual, but when I hear that word it brings to my mind images of the supernatural, of intelligent non-corporeal beings running the universe. Or people who believe in ghosts and the healing power of crystals.

 

I strongly suspect this is not what you mean by spiritual, so perhaps this is not quite what you mean.

 

There is also the problem of defining reductionism. I do believe our mind is a product of entirely physical processes. does this make me a reductionist?

Perhaps to some people, but the definition of reductionist is "philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts" for which I am not sure I can agree, since emergent systems can only be reduced to the sum of their parts when taken in the most simplistic of ways, which generally does not give us a better understanding of the system as a whole.

 

In much the same way as studding the individual parts of a car will only let you understand it so far, because the purpose of many of the parts will be totally elusive until one sees it working within the whole.

 

 

Am I a reductionist? I do not know or care, because labels like that are just something someone else assigns to people they disagree with in order to dismiss them, without really understanding them.

 

 

I point out a quote from your earlier post from the book you referenced.

 

[There is] widespread discontent with the neo-Darwinist — or Dawkinsist — orthodoxy that claims something which Darwin himself denied, namely that natural selection is the sole and exclusive cause of evolution, making the world therefore, in some important sense, entirely random. This is itself a strange faith which ought not to be taken for granted as part of science.

 

Firstly, I doubt that Dawkins would claim that natural selection is the sole cause of evolution. Secondly, since when is natural selection random? The answer is that it is most emphatically not random at all.

 

I have to conclude, at least based on this quote that this philosopher understands the theory of biological evolution just as little as ray comfort does. perhaps that is an unfair assessment, but I am merely basing it upon their own words. It seems that the people who criticize a materialistic outlook on reality often seem to not really understand what materialists are saying about reality most of the time.

[Shyone]

The debate of reductionism is one of philosophical approach to science.

 

<snip>

 

Does this tie into the OP about consciousness. Yes. I see it as not simply a product of our biology, but as part of the unfolding of nature herself, present at all levels in one form or another, from simple 'sense' of surrounding environments in interaction, to the 'sense of self' in reflective self-awareness, to beyond. It is that trend of Nature to unfold itself in higher and higher forms, of greater and greater depth - not in a straight linear line of course. It is part of the interior world that exterior world interacts with, and it with it. Our 'understanding' of the world in our complex systems of signs and symbols shapes and influences that experience of reality, which in fact affects the exterior reality of our biology, and our physical environments. Biocultural feedback loops are just one example of this.

 

Supposing that the reductionist point of view is insufficient to explain consciousness? Then what does this say for LNC's position? Clearly there are many non-religious who likewise don't agree. And this all makes for interesting discussion among us. Let's for argument say LNC is correct, that reductionism is insufficient to explain it. Now what? What is the point of raising this for him? I think that is a fair question to ask.

What I'm about to write is really a nonsequitur, but it just occurs to me that my whole medical education was based on reductionism.

 

I won't regurgitate every thing I learned, or even every discipline I studied, but ultimately - finally - when all was said and done, I understood a great deal.

 

I can't even express what I mean. I'm trying to say that I understand people as wholes, and systems, and integration of systems, etc. But there is nothing wrong with understanding smaller stuff too. I know protons have three quarks. I know the compositon of atoms, mollecules, organelles, cells, organs, systems, etc. Bottom to top.

 

And, you know, sometimes that information comes in handy. Even the little stuff that sounds like reductionist trivia.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't even understand what the controversy is. Study the big, study the medium, study the small, and try to put them all together.

 

What's so difficult about that? It's nothing more than a restatement of scale that we have appreciated for the past century: Newton = Medium, Einstein = Large, Quantum = Small. The whole point of a "Theory of everything" is to put the pieces together. Something even more than the Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) that literally include everything.

 

I could probably do a better job of showing how salts are regulated by proton pumps and semipermeable membranes and how that relates to kidney function, and how that relates to how kidneys don't function and what to do about that. Kevin can fill you in on the holistic aspects of electrolytes.

 

As for "The Selfish Gene" if it's a theory, and it works like a theory, then we should consider it - even if it's right for the wrong reasons. Life may be "complex" but there is something to be said about reproduction (passage of genes) in the role of perpetuating the species. I suppose it's like The Selfish Operating System that makes programmers work their butts off, causes executives to be hired and fired, makes millions of dollars for the company that protects and promotes the OS, and changes the world.

 

Is it Microsoft? Is it Dell/Compaq/HP etc? Or is it Windows?

 

Windows perpetuates itself by using Microsoft, computers and us. We reproduce so Windows can make more copies of itself - selfishly protected by patent and copyright to keep the power all to itself.

 

It's a matter of perspective I suppose. Do we exist so that E. Coli can have a place to reproduce?

 

We know the boring story of evolution. I like the Selfish Gene twist. It doesn't invalidate anything else, but it offers another way of thinking about things - that probably meet somewhere in the middle - or they may all be "True."

[Legion]

What I'm about to write is really a nonsequitur, but it just occurs to me that my whole medical education was based on reductionism.

I find that surprising Shyone. It seems to me that if you ever examined the functions of the various components of human physiology then you were at least touching upon the outskirts of a relational (non-reductionistic) approach.

 

I have another non-sequitur for you my man, seeing as you're a doctor and all. Can you define "health"? What is health? Or, why is an organism "healthy"?

[Kuroikaze]

However, both bodies have a brain and yet you say that one doesn't have a mind. Both bodies have the same parts, so shouldn't you simply say that one body has a working mind and the other a non-working mind? If not, please define why one has a mind and the other doesn't by your definition. Let me whether you ascribe to reductionism, and if not, how you overcome that issue.

 

I don't believe that my position is circular as I have many reasons to believe that mind is not reducible to material independent of this argument, therefore, my reason is not assumed within the argument and that avoids the problem of circularity.

 

Now, can you go back to the initial questions and address them and tell me how you can account for them via physicalism?

 

The mind is an emergent property of a FUNCTIONING brain. We believe the mind is gone because there is no activity in the brain to indicate thought is going on, are you being dense on purpose?

 

I have to cross every T and dot every I for you but you can make a clearly circular argument by misstating your premise and do not have the honesty to own up to it?

 

Reductionism is YOUR word not mine. I subscribe to the view I offer, if you consider my view a reductionist one so be it, I am not going to be pigeonholed in to some definitional category like "reductionist" so you can then ignore everything I say in favor of refuting some straw-man position you have concocted called "reductionist"

 

Part of the problem here is I have no idea what you mean when you ask me to "account for them via physicalism" How do we account for something that is not even completely understood? Does my lack of full understanding on this topic lead you too conclude that this justifies a metaphysical explanation?

 

 

Sorry, it is not just theists who argue for the existence of consciousness. Are you telling me that you don't believe that consciousness is real? If not, then please tell me how you account for the phenomenon that we experience and know as consciousness. I am not looking for a logical argument, just an explanation that accounts for our experience of consciousness.

 

I think that we can get to an understanding of consciousness without using circular arguments. Sure we assume that it exists and we use our intuition to arrive at that understanding - but that is what is done in philosophy and in science.

 

Maybe the reason that you don't think that we are any closer to an answer for consciousness is because you have set up an arbitrary limitation on the potential answers such that if the answer falls outside of your limitations it is not valid. Since most of the best arguments for consciousness fall outside of your parameters, you find the whole discussion silly and pointless. Maybe you simply need to consider expanding your parameters or consider whether your parameters themselves can be adequately justified.

 

And....you complexly miss the point.

 

I never said consciousness is not real. I said it is impossible to determine if it is real, because any attempt to understand it must start by assuming we have it.

 

Read the part of your quote I boldfaced, if you cannot see that the process you are suggesting is basically circular then I am done speaking with you, assuming that it exists is a necessary step in step in understanding it, thus it is circular. If you do not see that you lack even the most basic understanding of the logical process. Intuition is NOT the same as logic.

 

You keep asking US to answer YOUR question, well now YOU have made a claim

I think that we can get to an understanding of consciousness without using circular arguments.

 

So get to it, if you think this can be done then by all means do it. I will not hold my breath though I will give you points for being full of yourself for claiming you can do what no philosopher or scientist has be able to pull off for 4000 years.

 

Please enlighten us as to how you propose to reason out the existence of the mind without first assuming that reason is a valid tool for understanding the world.

 

 

Maybe the reason that you don't think that we are any closer to an answer for consciousness is because you have set up an arbitrary limitation on the potential answers such that if the answer falls outside of your limitations it is not valid.

 

And maybe the reason you think we have answer to unanswerable questions is because you are willing to accept stupid answers. If you want to hurl nothing but insults back and for we can do that but if you want to have a reasonable conversation then you might want to consider NOT using ad hom attacks.

 

Demonstrate facts, "maybe" is a silly word to use in a debate, I can stick anything after it and the statement is true, but ultimately useless.

[agnosticator]

<SNIP>

...our chemistry is not caused by our thoughts, any more than our thoughts are caused by the chemicals. There are however, interactions, between mind with body, body with mind, environment with body, body with environment, mind with mind, body with body, and so on and so forth. These are interactions that occur, a multidimensional pathway of causes and effects. What I see as part of an holistic system.

 

<SNIP>

It is that trend of Nature to unfold itself in higher and higher forms, of greater and greater depth - not in a straight linear line of course. It is part of the interior world that exterior world interacts with, and it with it. Our 'understanding' of the world in our complex systems of signs and symbols shapes and influences that experience of reality, which in fact affects the exterior reality of our biology, and our physical environments. Biocultural feedback loops are just one example of this.

 

 

Yes, I agree with what you have said, especially the above.

 

Supposing that the reductionist point of view is insufficient to explain consciousness? Then what does this say for LNC's position? Clearly there are many non-religious who likewise don't agree. And this all makes for interesting discussion among us. Let's for argument say LNC is correct, that reductionism is insufficient to explain it. Now what? What is the point of raising this for him? I think that is a fair question to ask.

 

I'm not arguing for reductionism. I understand there is a "back and forth" relation of the mind with the rest of the body. I'm trying to point out that mental functions are related to physical neural correlates in the brain, as opposed to the dualism LNC seems to be implying. I don't see how an individual's consciousness could be a separate "thing" "ghost", or "soul". To me, this is equivalent to nonexistence.

 

The individual's consciousness and mind are inseparable from the being itself. Yet, everything in the universe is interconnected in some way. I am, in my unenlightened way, arguing for naturalism. I am reading about physicalistic monism right now.

[Kuroikaze]

 

I don't believe that my position is circular as I have many reasons to believe that mind is not reducible to material independent of this argument, therefore, my reason is not assumed within the argument and that avoids the problem of circularity.

 

 

You clearly do not understand how logic works, it does not matter that you may have "other" reasons to believe something. Those reasons are NOT in any of the premise.

 

You must assume your reader knows nothing except what you put in the argument.

In a deductive syllogism the only thing considered is what is presented. If you have other evidence that makes the argument not circular it should be stated in your syllogism, otherwise your argument IS circular.

 

You require all of my arguments to paramounts of perfect logic. I find it reasonable to ask the same of you.

 

Backpedaling by saying you have reasons means dick to me, if you have the reasons then present them.

[LNC]

From dictionary.com

 

Faith:

 

belief that is not based on proof

 

From Websters:

 

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

 

 

Sorry but you do not get to redefine words because they are inconvenient to you. This is the most ridiculous attempt to redefine faith I have ever seen. Silly, because i have never seen ANYONE else attempt to define the word this way. I bet I could ask a 100 people at random and not get this definition from ANYONE. Indeed, I checked more than half a dozen dictionary websites and your definition does not appear in ANY of them.

 

What you describe, using past events to predict future outcomes, is not faith but empirical reasoning, and it is used by everyone everyday. Your definition of faith would render the word meaningless by virtue of it being common place. It would be like accusing me of breathing.

 

Me and my pesky "misunderstanding" of a word. That'll teach me to use the dictionary.

 

 

 

Give me a break, I have come to expect a better quality from you. Your apologetic is slipping. Did you think I can not use a dictionary?

 

There is no redefining going on by me. What you are demonstrating is a good example of equivocation. You see, words have different usages in different circumstances. The biggest problem is that you have defined the English word used as the translation of the Greek rather than defining the original Greek word. Even in the Greek there are different words translated into English as faith, so it is helpful to go back to the Greek to get the original word and then to read the context to see how that word is used. I will say that the English definition given by Dictionary.com is not the understanding of the word used in the N.T.

 

Let me give you an example and see if you agree with the definition of atheism given by Dictionary.com and see if you agree with them. Simply put, they define atheism as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." Would you agree with that definition? I know a lot of atheists here would not; however, that is what they have in the dictionary.

 

So, let's examine the word used in the Greek. Easton's Bible dictionary defines faith as:

 

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Philippians 1:27; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests.

 

Faith is the result of teaching (Romans 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of God.

 

It goes on from there, but that gives you an idea that it is not a blind faith as some would have you believe, nor is it ever portrayed in the Bible that way. So, the fact that you are unfamiliar with this or have never heard anyone define faith in this way tells me that you aren't speaking to people who understand the Bible or Greek as this is pretty commonly understood by those who do.

 

Empirical reasoning can only tell us what we think will happen in the future (thus your use of the word predict); however, it cannot tell us what will happen in the future. One can only have faith that reasoning is a good predictor of the future but we can never know with certainty, which is where faith comes in (or if you prefer, trust or hope) - however, you can never have knowledge of what will happen in the future (those who could would be the rulers of all!)

 

So, sorry to burst your balloon on this one but your pesky misunderstanding of words seems to have gotten the better of you as you didn't do enough homework (i.e., to realize that the Bible was written in Greek and that Greek words require a Greek dictionary and not Dictionary.com). It looks like my apologetics remain on solid ground after all (whew!)

 

LNC

[agnosticator]

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Philippians 1:27; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests.

 

Faith is the result of teaching (Romans 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of God.

 

It goes on from there, but that gives you an idea that it is not a blind faith as some would have you believe, nor is it ever portrayed in the Bible that way.

 

Really.....

faith: Heb 11:1

 

Faith is the substance of hope

 

"Substance": Lit. Greek: "a standing under"

 

Faith "stands under" our hope, is the foundation of our hope: Rom 8:24.25

 

Faith is the conviction of things not seen: Heb 11:3

 

Faith accepts even that which appears unreasonable: Rom 4:17

 

Heb 11:1,6 Assurance of things hoped for conviction of things not seen

 

2 Cor 4:18 We look at not at things seen, but at things not seen

 

2 Cor 5:7 we walk by faith not sight

 

Jn 20:27-29 how blessed are they who have not seen but believe

[Kuroikaze]

 

 

Let me give you an example and see if you agree with the definition of atheism given by Dictionary.com and see if you agree with them. Simply put, they define atheism as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." Would you agree with that definition? I know a lot of atheists here would not; however, that is what they have in the dictionary.

 

 

it is also defined as

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

a definition I would agree with.

 

Quote mining makes you look dishonest.

 

 

So basically your argument is that all the scholars who translated the bible used the wrong word.

 

Look I define faith in that way not just because of the dictionary anyway, I see Christians use faith as a cover to ignore sound reasoning all the time. I am sorry, but people who run around shouting that the earth is 6000 years old ARE most emphatically believing things despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. I think the dictionary definition fits modern believers to a T, despite the anachronistic use in the bible.

 

Id say more on this but I gotta go to work.

[Shyone]

What I'm about to write is really a nonsequitur, but it just occurs to me that my whole medical education was based on reductionism.

I find that surprising Shyone. It seems to me that if you ever examined the functions of the various components of human physiology then you were at least touching upon the outskirts of a relational (non-reductionistic) approach.

 

I don't mean to be confusing, but I started medical school with Biochemistry, Then cellular organelle structure and function, metabolism of cells, then Histology and on up the chain. Bottom to top. Top to bottom. The "reductionist" part is the bottom part. The "holistic" part is the top part. They are a continuum in medicine, and that was the point I was making about medical education being reductionist. I know, for example, what makes muscle fibers contract. I know how neurons transmit impulses. I also know about the systems, systems integration, and "health". Moving right along...

 

I have another non-sequitur for you my man, seeing as you're a doctor and all. Can you define "health"? What is health? Or, why is an organism "healthy"?

 

Without referring to a dictionary, I would say:

 

When measured parameters are "within normal limits." Almost everything human can be placed into a bell curve, and so "normal" and "healthy" are essentially the same. This may also be considered "homeostasis" which fits the same basic definition.

 

It gets complicated when people feel sick but there isn't anything we can find physically wrong. Some Diseases can't be easily measured - fatigue, fibromyalgia, depression, etc.

 

Also, you have to have the right measuring stick to find a problem. Some tests are more sensitive than others at finding particular problems.

 

Also, some of the parameters change with age or physical conditioning in predictable ways. So "health" changes. An 80 year old man may be considered healthy if he's still alive.

 

I also accept that there are other definitions of healthy, but as long as they don't contradict one another I see no problem with adapting another definition if it is helpful.

[Legion]

Fair enough Shyone. Fair enough. Thank you. This is why I ask... What is life? What is consciousness, awareness, or mind? What is health? I think these are pressing and perhaps even related questions. Those who subscribe to the methods of natural science proceed with the assumption that these things have natural explanations. This is how I proceed. But increasingly I suspect that if I only probe into the material and efficient causes of things then I will be provided with only a partial explanation and be able to predict only fragments of behavior.

 

A scholar-friend of mine who shares my interest in relational biology recently said the following...

 

"... the universe is first and foremost the relations and organization; the atoms, the chemistry, etc. are by comparison merely the duct tape and glue used to hold those relations in place. To look out the window at a tree is thus to first and foremost see a set of persistent relations entirely separately from the physical structure and to which it has no 1:1 relation; the physical molecules are merely the scaffolding on which those persistent relations hang."

 

That may be the problem with reductionism. It's not that it's wrong. Rather, it is incomplete. Yet too often those who suggest that we need supplements to reductionism are castigated as vitalists at worst, and humored as holists at best.

 

If I could change the past and rewalk my inquiry into the mind, among the questions I would keep is, "What is the function of the brain?" I think this would have steared me in different directions. In any case, at the moment I believe that it's primary function is to anticipate. That is, its purpose is to model (explain and predict) and control.

[oddbird1963]

 

There is no redefining going on by me. What you are demonstrating is a good example of equivocation. You see, words have different usages in different circumstances. The biggest problem is that you have defined the English word used as the translation of the Greek rather than defining the original Greek word. Even in the Greek there are different words translated into English as faith, so it is helpful to go back to the Greek to get the original word and then to read the context to see how that word is used. I will say that the English definition given by Dictionary.com is not the understanding of the word used in the N.T.

 

Let me give you an example and see if you agree with the definition of atheism given by Dictionary.com and see if you agree with them. Simply put, they define atheism as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." Would you agree with that definition? I know a lot of atheists here would not; however, that is what they have in the dictionary.

 

So, let's examine the word used in the Greek. Easton's Bible dictionary defines faith as:

 

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Philippians 1:27; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests.

 

Faith is the result of teaching (Romans 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of God.

 

It goes on from there, but that gives you an idea that it is not a blind faith as some would have you believe, nor is it ever portrayed in the Bible that way. So, the fact that you are unfamiliar with this or have never heard anyone define faith in this way tells me that you aren't speaking to people who understand the Bible or Greek as this is pretty commonly understood by those who do.

 

Empirical reasoning can only tell us what we think will happen in the future (thus your use of the word predict); however, it cannot tell us what will happen in the future. One can only have faith that reasoning is a good predictor of the future but we can never know with certainty, which is where faith comes in (or if you prefer, trust or hope) - however, you can never have knowledge of what will happen in the future (those who could would be the rulers of all!)

 

So, sorry to burst your balloon on this one but your pesky misunderstanding of words seems to have gotten the better of you as you didn't do enough homework (i.e., to realize that the Bible was written in Greek and that Greek words require a Greek dictionary and not Dictionary.com). It looks like my apologetics remain on solid ground after all (whew!)

 

LNC

LNC,

 

You are quote mining and using a quote from a bible dictionary that uses the word evidence somewhere in it's lengthy definition. But the core of what your source was saying was that "Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith." Assent does not have to be based on evidence. Or, rather, the "evidence" to which Paul referred was not some empirically verifiable set of data or truth claims. It was the reception of the spoken or preached doctrine of the Christian religion (Romans 10:17). The only requirement the New Testament makes is that you believe what people tell you.

 

That's not 'evidence' based faith. It's not faith based on reason. Basically what was good enough for Paul was that you believe what he preached and live under his authority or the authority of those of whom he approved. Whatever got you to that point was good enough.

 

Plainly, the kind of faith spoken of in the New Testament is not the kind of faith you adhere to. Yours is a modern, apologist's strain of faith, cooked up so as not to be laughed at by those who adhere to reason but get all the kudos from those factions of the church that want to see true "hero of the faith" material in their teachers and preachers. The kind of faith you are championing is the "have it both ways" kind of faith, which is not faith at all.

 

The use of the word "evidence" by your source was an anomaly that does not fit the context of the scriptures the article quoted. At the end of the day, by what this dictionary really says, what you have is blind faith in mere dogma with no real search for evidential truth.

[Shyone]

Fair enough Shyone. Fair enough. Thank you. This is why I ask... What is life? What is consciousness, awareness, or mind? What is health? I think these are pressing and perhaps even related questions. Those who subscribe to the methods of natural science proceed with the assumption that these things have natural explanations. This is how I proceed. But increasingly I suspect that if I only probe into the material and efficient causes of things then I will be provided with only a partial explanation and be able to predict only fragments of behavior.

 

A scholar-friend of mine who shares my interest in relational biology recently said the following...

 

"... the universe is first and foremost the relations and organization; the atoms, the chemistry, etc. are by comparison merely the duct tape and glue used to hold those relations in place. To look out the window at a tree is thus to first and foremost see a set of persistent relations entirely separately from the physical structure and to which it has no 1:1 relation; the physical molecules are merely the scaffolding on which those persistent relations hang."

 

That may be the problem with reductionism. It's not that it's wrong. Rather, it is incomplete. Yet too often those who suggest that we need supplements to reductionism are castigated as vitalists at worst, and humored as holists at best.

 

If I could change the past and rewalk my inquiry into the mind, among the questions I would keep is, "What is the function of the brain?" I think this would have steared me in different directions. In any case, at the moment I believe that it's primary function is to anticipate. That is, its purpose is to model (explain and predict) and control.

To answer the last question, the brain is an information gathering organ. The thinking part is necessary to make the information gathered useful. Usefulness may have more than one meaning, but clearly "anticipation" is a big part of learning from infancy onward.

 

Everything we do we do in parts. We walk without thinking about the anatomy of our feet - until we can't walk because of a problem with the anatomy of our feet. We see without thinking about the eyes or occipital cortex, until we can't see because of problems with either. And so forth. We process information in bits and pieces using whatever means is available. I don't think it's harmful to have the extra knowledge of anatomy and physiology as we walk and look around, and I'm not implying that the "reductionist" view of eyes, touch, structure and so forth deals with everything, but it doesn't hurt either.

 

Part of the problem of "what is life" questions is that we are alive. It is difficult to view life "from the outside" and see how it fits into the whole.

 

There is also the problem of multiple ways of expressing something that all may be true, as in the story of the blind men and the elephant. Life is a chemical reaction. Life is procreation. Life is enjoyment. Life is learning. Life is the universe knowing itself. All true at some level, but some are more useful at different times than others. When a person has a genetic disorder, the chemical part of life becomes important. When one is seeking entertainment, life is enjoyment. When one is feeling frisky, life is procreation. When one is trying to piece together the tiny into the great whole, life is the universe knowing itself.

 

Perhaps, also, life (as expressed in the first Star Trek Movie) is "carbon contamination."

 

I'd write more, but I'm dying slowly as I write, and I would like to read a few more posts before I die.

[Shyone]

Let me also add, as a parting thought, that holism is incomplete.

 

If all you knew was that "Everything is one" and that we are a part of the whole, you wouldn't know anything useful in your daily life. Where is the garbage can? Where do we get food?

 

Holism is like trying to read a book without knowing the alphabet. Start with reductionism, then appreciate the whole.

[Kuroikaze]

 

Now, can you go back to the initial questions and address them and tell me how you can account for them via physicalism?

 

 

I gave this some thought while I was driving home tonight.

 

The short answer is that cannot, at least in the way you wish for me too. I can explain the evolutionary processes that gave rise to intelligence, but that is not satisfying to you because you seem to think there is a basic philosophical problem with our conciseness being contained in "mere" matter.

The best I can say is that I do not see the same problem you do.

 

I am not sure if this means no one could, I am not a nurologist, and my knowledge of these things are quite limited, as is yours by the way. Part of what I find silly about this debate is that even among humans (whose overall knowledge of things is laughable) we are both pretty ignorant. I would argue that you are more so than me, but that is another topic. I think many of the philosophers you quote are just as ignorant as they mostly base their arguments on the notion that science is not answering these questions adequately, but they are, by and large, quite ignorant when it comes to what science DOES know.

 

 

In any case, it does not bother me greatly that I can not fully answer the question. Why does this not bother me?

For one, you (and theists in general ) cannot, despite your claims otherwise, answer the question any better than I.

 

Second, and more importantly, it does not bother me because this question is really only a problem if I were claiming to know without a doubt that there is nothing metaphysical. Of course you seem to think this is exactly what my position is and you have been arguing based upon that assumption from the start, but it is not a position I would defend because I have never claimed it.

 

Third, and perhaps most important, I would point out that we must consider the problems that are leveled at the notion that the mind emerges entirely from the brain. The problem that is traditionally leveled is that the physical world opertates by certain mechanistic laws which precludes free will and would make inteligence a simple illusion.

 

My thought on this is that I find it strange that you (or anyone else) would submit the concept of the metaphysical as something that does away with this issue completely. Most theists would admit that God and by extension the metaphysical is beyond human understanding so how can we be certain that the metaphysical does not obey a set of mechanistic laws of its own, perhaps different than the ones we know, but laws just the same. We have no reason to think that positing the metaphysical would solve these problems.

 

So how do YOU account for the mind with the metaphysical?

[Shyone]

 

Now, can you go back to the initial questions and address them and tell me how you can account for them via physicalism?

 

 

I gave this some thought while I was driving home tonight.

 

The short answer is that cannot, at least in the way you wish for me too. I can explain the evolutionary processes that gave rise to intelligence, but that is not satisfying to you because you seem to think there is a basic philosophical problem with our conciseness being contained in "mere" matter.

The best I can say is that I do not see the same problem you do.

 

I am not sure if this means no one could, I am not a nurologist, and my knowledge of these things are quite limited, as is yours by the way. Part of what I find silly about this debate is that even among humans (whose overall knowledge of things is laughable) we are both pretty ignorant. I would argue that you are more so than me, but that is another topic. I think many of the philosophers you quote are just as ignorant as they mostly base their arguments on the notion that science is not answering these questions adequately, but they are, by and large, quite ignorant when it comes to what science DOES know.

 

 

In any case, it does not bother me greatly that I can not fully answer the question. Why does this not bother me?

For one, you (and theists in general ) cannot, despite your claims otherwise, answer the question any better than I.

 

Second, and more importantly, it does not bother me because this question is really only a problem if I were claiming to know without a doubt that there is nothing metaphysical. Of course you seem to think this is exactly what my position is and you have been arguing based upon that assumption from the start, but it is not a position I would defend because I have never claimed it.

 

Third, and perhaps most important, I would point out that we must consider the problems that are leveled at the notion that the mind emerges entirely from the brain. The problem that is traditionally leveled is that the physical world opertates by certain mechanistic laws which precludes free will and would make inteligence a simple illusion.

 

My thought on this is that I find it strange that you (or anyone else) would submit the concept of the metaphysical as something that does away with this issue completely. Most theists would admit that God and by extension the metaphysical is beyond human understanding so how can we be certain that the metaphysical does not obey a set of mechanistic laws of its own, perhaps different than the ones we know, but laws just the same. We have no reason to think that positing the metaphysical would solve these problems.

 

So how do YOU account for the mind with the metaphysical?

That was very well put. Kudos.

 

Argument from ignorance is never very convincing, even if peppered with big words.

 

I think the key to the problem, of course, is your last question (highlighted). Metaphysical explanations are not explanations at all, but mental shortcuts without data. IOW, one does not account for mind with the metaphysical; one merely asserts it and leaves it at that.

 

Strategies for theology mostly rely on attacks of the natural, which is generally futile and has resulted in faux pas throughout the history of religion. LNC, like many theists, thinks that if one can show that we don't "understand" the mind, then there must be a soul.

 

Likewise, attacks on evolution rely on "gaps" or "unknowns." The replacement, however, answers no questions.

 

And attacks on the physical universe rely on unknowns from a time that is almost impossible for us to understand.

 

Replacing the unknown with the unknowable is senseless, counterproductive and ultimately futile.

[LNC]

Really you are open to it? since it does not support your theistic leanings, pardon me if I am skeptical.

 

I think I have already explained my take on deductively justifying ANY position on this topic.

 

How do I justify it? I do not think it is the problem you make it out to be in the first place. We see emergent properties everywhere, and I have seen no argument demonstrating that the mind CANNOT be emergent.

 

The truth is you are an apologist, it does not matter what explanation I offer you will just assert a problem which you cannot even demonstrate is really a problem.

 

First of all, you claimed that I dismissed emergentism and showed no evidence and still don't, so I would ask that you check your facts before making assertions like this. Like I said in my post, if it can be shown to be a viable option without resulting in reductionism, I would consider it.

 

However, emergent properties that we see are always reducible to the physical. If that is what you are claiming then you are ultimately a reductionist. Is that your position? If not, please explain how you avoid reductionism.

 

You are an apologist as well, my friend. The term means to give an answer back and that is what you have been doing, so that door swings both ways. I haven't seen where you have changed your mind about anything that I have said, so I'm not sure why you see this as problematic when others don't roll over and see things your way. I am willing to change my views if the arguments and evidence are convincing. I have already demonstrated that in other discussions on this site.

 

This depends on how you define reductionism.

 

And you seem to have a habit of defining words to suit your needs.

 

You have a habit of making assertions that later turn out to be false as I demonstrated in my previous reply to you. However, lest you accuse me of creating my own definition, let me quote from SEP:

 

(i) Ontological reduction is the idea that each particular biological system (e.g., an organism) is constituted by nothing but molecules and their interactions. In metaphysics this idea is often called physicalism (or materialism), which assumes in a biological context that (a) biological properties supervene on physical properties (i.e., no difference in a biological property without a difference in some underlying physical property), and ( each particular biological process (or token) is metaphysically identical to some particular physico-chemical process. This latter tenet is sometimes called token-token reduction, in contrast to the stronger tenet that each type of biological process is identical to a type of physico-chemical process. Ontological reduction in this weaker sense is a default stance nowadays among philosophers and biologists though the philosophical details remain controversial, such as whether there are genuinely emergent properties. Various conceptions of physicalism may yield different implications for ontological reduction in biology (cf. Dowell 2006). The denial of physicalism by vitalism, the doctrine that biological systems are governed by forces that are not physico-chemical, is largely of historical interest. Some authors have argued vigorously for the significance of metaphysical concepts in the discussion of reductionism in biology (Rosenberg 1978, 1985, 1994, 2006).

 

I think that pretty well summarizes what I mean by reductionism. Now, given that definition can you show me how you can arrive at emergentism without it ending up with reductionism? Or, maybe you claim to be a reductionist. If the former, please show me how you avoid reductionism, if that latter, then no defense is needed, but other questions arise.

 

LNC

[Kuroikaze]

First of all, you claimed that I dismissed emergentism and showed no evidence and still don't, so I would ask that you check your facts before making assertions like this. Like I said in my post, if it can be shown to be a viable option without resulting in reductionism, I would consider it.

 

This seems like double speak to me, you start by saying you will consider emergentism but then go on to argue that it is a form of reductionism which you have already stated you will not consider.

 

However, emergent properties that we see are always reducible to the physical. If that is what you are claiming then you are ultimately a reductionist. Is that your position? If not, please explain how you avoid reductionism.

I generally see emergentism as necessarily different than reductionism. Though I maybe misusing the terms and emergentism is more properly defined as a subset of reductionism. I really do not care about labels much. Truth is much more important than what you choose to label it.

 

You are an apologist as well, my friend. The term means to give an answer back and that is what you have been doing, so that door swings both ways. I haven't seen where you have changed your mind about anything that I have said, so I'm not sure why you see this as problematic when others don't roll over and see things your way. I am willing to change my views if the arguments and evidence are convincing. I have already demonstrated that in other discussions on this site.

 

I am quite willing to change my mind if someone can demonstrate I am wrong. I do not think you have done so. I am also doubtful that you are willing to change your mind. I have not changed my mind here because your arguments are bad, simple as that

 

Though I imagine you would say the same as me. The difference is that I used to be a christian and came to reject that system so I have a historical basis for the claim that I can change my mind as evidence dictates.

 

As for a demonstration of your ability to change your mind. I am sure I have not seen it, certainly not on the level of giving up ones entire belief system.

 

 

I think that pretty well summarizes what I mean by reductionism. Now, given that definition can you show me how you can arrive at emergentism without it ending up with reductionism? Or, maybe you claim to be a reductionist. If the former, please show me how you avoid reductionism, if that latter, then no defense is needed, but other questions arise.

 

If you wish to call me a reductionist I do not particularly care. The term seems to have taken on a negative connotation in the context of debates along this line, if you think I fit the definition then I guess I am at least for the context of this discussion. The label means nothing to me as the only thing that means anything is the facts that come to bear on the issue not the labels you attache to people so you can dismiss their ideas out of hand.

[Kuroikaze]

I think that pretty well summarizes what I mean by reductionism. Now, given that definition can you show me how you can arrive at emergentism without it ending up with reductionism? Or, maybe you claim to be a reductionist. If the former, please show me how you avoid reductionism, if that latter, then no defense is needed, but other questions arise.

 

Reductionism is more than a claim that there is nothing but the material world. We already have a term for that "materialism," I would openly admit to being a materialist, at least methodologically speaking.

 

Reductionism is, as the passage you mention says, an ontological position which claims that we can UNDERSTAND all systems by reducing them to there basic parts.

 

While, I am a materialist because I see no evidence of the existence of non-material things, which leads me to conclude that all systems are made up entirely of material, my disagreement with reductionism is with the claim that we can understand these systems by reducing them to their individual parts.

 

A car, for instance, is a complex system but we will never fully understand how a car works by simply looking at the individual parts, we must see them working together as well to get a full understanding.

 

I have explained this as being my basic disagreement with reductionism several times....but you never listen. You will probably be asking me if I am a reductionist or not in your next post......again......

[Abiyoyo]

I'm trying to understand this free will/God thing. I'm really, really trying. I keep getting stuck.

 

If God is omniscient (can see into the future), and God is the Creator of all things, he created us and in that moment also saw what direction this creation would go in and why it, or parts of it, would go in one direction or another. Nothing created is not created by God, and nothing created by God is unpredictable by God. So, how are we possibly free? What is this thing that makes us free?

 

I suppose...I suppose what I'm asking is how do we make a choice? Can you describe, functionally, how our choices are made independent of God as a puppetmaster (not using Bible quotes, please...I know you don't usually do that, but I will only have a chance to understand this if you use regular language).

 

I don't get it. Do you think you understand what I am asking?

 

Thanks, LNC.

Phanta

That is a good question and one that often confuses people. First, to know the future is not necessarily to dictate the future. If I put out cookies in front of my kids and tell them that they are free to either eat or not eat them, I am pretty sure what they will choose even though I am not omniscient. I have not dictated or determined their choice, they have freely chosen. Now, that is an imperfect illustration in that I don't have true omniscience and they could, for many reasons, choose not to eat the cookies. In the case of God, he is omniscient and does know the choices that we will freely make, even though he does not dictate them. Yes, he has made us and our environment, but he has made us to make free choices in our lives.

 

How we make choices is a complicated discussion which would take more discussion than I think would work in this environment; however, I believe that it is tied to the questions that I asked in the OP regarding consciousness, knowledge, intentionality and perception. When all of these interact together we make free choices that are not necessarily determined by past events or physical matter.

 

I think we all experience what we perceive to be free choices and the question is whether these truly are free choices or merely determined choices and what impact that belief has upon the totality of our lives (knowledge, morality, scientific understanding, etc.).

 

LNC

 

 

I just wanted to chime in a response to this and say that in a similar way this is how I to view freewill. The difference for me is that I believe God has a will on Earth, and there are two sides of that will, but they are all apart of God's will.

 

People frequently ask, 'Why do people get tortured, molested, rapped, beat to death etc if God is omniscient'. I to believe that these people do not make choices to do these things, yet, it is not out from under God. Some would say to that, 'Doesn't that mean God is evil too, if he knows these people are doing these things, not stopping it, and it is actually apart of his will.'

 

There is an answer for that too. No, it doesn't make him evil, just knowledgeable of all things. In the end, all the bad is suppose to turned into good to further his will. I can get sick, twisted, or even hard to imagine, but, I see it as He made us this way, set motion, with freewill, and has intervined and also set in motion a will, which is fulfilling what the prophets said about Him in the OT and Christ.

 

This has caused another motion in my opinion, one that really was set out by man, but God has his hand on it, and it has become His will. To fulfill that will, things have to happen a certain way.

 

I do believe though that they are some of God's elect, chosen, that are held accountable to a different degree, and God has put a spirit in them to accomplish a certain task,bring a certain message, to groups, regions, in furthering His will on Earth. As He did with Jonah. Jonah had no choice, his freewill was limited to God's will. God willed him to go to Nineveh, so things happened in his life to persuade him to go, such as near death experience.

 

In that scenario, Jonah does not seem to have freewill, but he did, he choose to go on the boat, he choose to walk away from God, he choose to pray for God to forgive him, he choose to obey God.

 

So, freewill was still there, just not recognized if someone reads it as, Jonah was forced by God to do it. I have always felt imo that Jonah really didn't have a choice, yet I do realize that if God calls someone to do a certain task, Biblically, He doesn't just let it go when that person decides to not obey.

[Shyone]

 

In that scenario, Jonah does not seem to have freewill, but he did, he choose to go on the boat, he choose to walk away from God, he choose to pray for God to forgive him, he choose to obey God.

 

So, freewill was still there, just not recognized if someone reads it as, Jonah was forced by God to do it. I have always felt imo that Jonah really didn't have a choice, yet I do realize that if God calls someone to do a certain task, Biblically, He doesn't just let it go when that person decides to not obey.

Life becomes a lot simpler when you take God out of the equation. The ethical contortions you have put forth are incomprehensible, and people pretty much do what people do given the circumstances and their particular personalities, abilities, and so forth.

 

Plus, really, in the belly of a fish? Even as allegory, the story is nonsensical.