Summations Only

How do you reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains? Why do you think that matters?

Well with the wider audience in mind perhaps you can consider this much evaded question?How do you reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains?

Too funny. It is also a fact that physical changes can demonstrably effect the things you are claiming lack any physical cause.But I guess some facts are less convenient, less in line with your chosen beliefs and thus don't matter so much.

Shit yeah!! When you think of it like that it's downright spooky.I think some sort of creepy psychological horror movie could be made along these lines.

These ambiguous "ideals" of yours are not what I or Mod or anybody else started out asking you about at the outset of this discussion. Message 49Now it turns out that you are a dualist and all of your original assertions are at least consistent with that flawed belief system. That you are unable to reconcile these beliefs with the demonstrable facts is now obvious.Frankly jar it's the same same old with you. You start out in a discussion making some trite assertions and treating anyone who questions these as if they are just too silly to see what is obviously true. Then after much effort on the part of others it slowly becomes clear that these original assertions of yours are based on some unsupportable starting assumption (dualism in this particular instance). Then all further objections are met with your standard fallback position of (to paraphrase) "It's what I believe, it's what I believe, you can't tell me what to believe".Maybe if you started out discussions by making clear that your starting points are nothing more than the consequences of your baseless beliefs a lot of time could be saved.

Science can and does ask and answer all sorts of ‘why’ questions about purpose where purpose is evidenced. What science cannot do is answer ‘why’ questions about purpose when there is no evidence to suggest that any purpose actually exists. In these cases we have every reason to think that claims of purpose are nothing more than the result of human proclivities to assign purpose regardless of whether it is justified or not.An interesting question that science can and does ask is why it is that humans are so prone to teleological answers. Unfortunately the answers provided by science regarding this particular ‘why’ question are probably not particularly compatible with your own belief in some sort of causeless purpose. But that’s OK because you will happily ignore as irrelevant any aspects of demonstrable reality which cannot be reconciled with your beliefs anyway.

This assertion only makes sense if one assumes mind/body dualism.That you keep stating the consequences of your baseless beliefs as if they are somehow incontrovertible facts is not helping this thread progress.

Well the evidenced answer to that question is because of various psychological, cultural, genetic and neurological factors that make you "unique". All of which are able to be investigated using the methods of science.That you have devised some un-evidenced purpose behind these things is neither here nor there beyond seeking why it is that you are looking for such baseless teleological answers. But this also a question that science can address.

Given that your current beliefs pertaining to this matter cannot be reconciled with the existing evidence I see little reason to think that any future evidence will have much effect.

As thoroughly enlightening as I am sure message 70 is it still fails to provide any objective means of identifying which 'why' questions are beyond the scope of science. So let me suggest the following:Science can and does ask and answer all sorts of 'why' questions. Science can and does answer 'why' questions which pertain to purpose where there is evidence of the existence of a purposeful agent. E.g. humans with brains.What science cannot do is answer 'why' questions pertaining to the imagined purpose of imagined entities.

No. But it is a way of clarifying your position regarding the burning issue of banana preferences in monkeys.So which of the 4 options do you think best fits your position regarding preferences and from whence they are derived?

But these apply to any question regardless of whether it is a 'why' question or not. These restrictions apply equally to 'how' questions. So, still, you have provided no way of identifying which 'why' questions it is that science should leave to religion to answer.Do you at least agree with this - "What science cannot do is answer 'why' questions pertaining to the imagined purpose of imagined entities". But neither of these are specific to 'why' questions. Your above statements apply equally to 'how' questions and are thus of little consequence to anything this thread is actually about.

Whether science can address a question or not is not dependent on whether it is a 'why' question, a 'how' question, a 'who' question etc.Science is simply limited to meaningful questions pertaining to things that are demonstrably real. It can no more tackle how it is that leprechauns can teleport than it can answer who made unicorns pink or why it is that fairies have wings or when it was Thor fought Zeus.But the reason it cannot ask or answer these questions has nothing to do with their semantic structure or some ambiguous notions of uncaused purpose. The reason science cannot address these questions is because none of them pertain to anything demonstrably real. Where a purposeful agent is evidenced science can and does ask why questions about purpose. Where the thing in question is not even evidenced as a possibility (e.g. gods, souls etc.) asking any such question about them is pretty meaningless. And my ongoing question to you is how you are objectively identifying these questions? When you ask 'Why are we here' and seek some sort of purpose the only meaningful answers that can be obtained are from those purposeful agents which demonstrably exist (e.g. us humans). And the causes of our purposes can be investigated.If you are asking that question and seeking the purpose of some unevidenced entity then the question has no more legitimacy than asking why it is that trolls want to eat goblins.

So you think god is ultimately responsible for the banana preferences of monkeys and the tree preferences of koalas.Is god responsible for all the preferences of all living things or just those that you choose to assign to him? Is god responsible for the sexual preferences of paedophiles?Do you see what it is that Panda was trying to get at? How are you deciding which preferences are god given and which are not? Gosh Chuck why would anyone consider evidence based answers when we can invoke all sorts baselessly conceived purposes derived from equally baselessly conceived entities?

It depends what you mean. If you are asking for the purpose of the existence of the universe then you are necessitating some purposeful agent that is not part of the universe. Who is this purposeful agent?Why do you think this purposeful agent exists? Unless a purposeful agent exists how (or why) is it meaningful to ask for what purpose the universe exists?Unless a purposeful agent exists can purpose exist?