Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 318 (280527)
01-21-2006 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Modulous
01-21-2006 10:50 AM


Re: Disagreed
Domovoi are not material entities...I provided a link for you to help.
I know, but what's your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 01-21-2006 10:50 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 01-21-2006 11:27 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 318 (280529)
01-21-2006 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
01-21-2006 10:59 AM


Well, in that case, the fact that I can provide thousands and thousands of names of Christians who believe both Christianity and also that the TOE is a valid explanation of life as we can see it will not be accepted as evidence falsifying your assertion?
No, that is not evidence. You are all wrong.
It is evidence, however, of the popularity of this illogical belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 01-21-2006 10:59 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 01-21-2006 11:13 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 318 (280530)
01-21-2006 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by macaroniandcheese
01-21-2006 10:10 AM


Re: oh must i?
why is your god a liar?
My god is not a liar. The God I don't believe in is a good God and always tells the truth.
Let's have some religious tolerance here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-21-2006 10:10 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by mark24, posted 01-21-2006 11:12 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 318 (280531)
01-21-2006 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Ben!
01-21-2006 10:48 AM


Re: ONLY scientific results as "true"
I'm not sure what to do except to reiterate my argument. The argument is that meaning is created by mind. It cannot be objective or subjective, except as created so by a mind.
Then meaning has no place in this discussion. Rationality and logic does not necessitate that meaning be objective (applying to everything / all people) or subjective (applying to only one person). Meaning is created by a person. If you are that person, the meaning is objective. And there is no way to objectively see that it is not objective. If you are not that person, then that person's meaning looks subjective.
In other words, the "objectivity" of meaning is observer-dependent. There are observers who have objective meaning. Just because you view it as subjective doesn't make it subjective. Just because it is only one person holding that meaning doesn't make it subjective.
In other words, there's nothing that can make meaning "objectively subjective". Everybody judging meaning is an observer, and has meaning attached with their viewpoint. There is no observer-dependent position on meaning. Meaning is only subjective insofar as the observer sees it that way.
There is no abstract, observer-independent view on meaning. Nihilism, inasfar as it is true, is only true because that is what you have chosen, and insofar as you are the observer. There is no logical necessity beyond that bare point. Because meaning is created, and you can't ... BE without it.
Just ask Faith.
If Faith can explain this mumbo-jumbo, she's a genius.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Ben!, posted 01-21-2006 10:48 AM Ben! has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 35 of 318 (280532)
01-21-2006 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by robinrohan
01-21-2006 11:08 AM


Re: oh must i?
robinrohan,
The God I don't believe in is a good God and always tells the truth.
So he is a liar, then?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 11:08 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 9:38 AM mark24 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 36 of 318 (280533)
01-21-2006 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by robinrohan
01-21-2006 11:05 AM


No, that is not evidence. You are all wrong.
I don't think I can be wrong since all I have done so far is ask questions, I have not provided any answers which could be considered right or wrong TTBOMK.
Let's examine what has happened so far in the hopes that you can point out where I might be wrong.
You said in your OP that someone who agrees that the TOE is a valid explanation for the life we see must also accept atheism.
If you accept TOE, you must also accept the following:
3. atheism
Is that correct?
This message has been edited by jar, 01-21-2006 10:14 AM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 11:05 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 9:46 AM jar has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 37 of 318 (280535)
01-21-2006 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by robinrohan
01-21-2006 10:59 AM


Re: Disagreed
I know, but what's your point?
My point is that upon learning that somebody accepts that the Theory of Evolution is useful explanatory framework for explaining why populations change (ie they accept the ToE), can you make the deduction that they do not believe in slavic house spirits?
My point is that you have not shown how such a deduction is possible. Your logic does not follow. This is why I said 'non sequitur'. Does that clarify things for you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 10:59 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 9:57 AM Modulous has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 38 of 318 (280541)
01-21-2006 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by robinrohan
01-21-2006 10:34 AM


If there is such a thing as evolution, presumably it would not have been possible without the fall. There would have been no death thus no survival of the fittest to enable evolution. Evolution, if it happened seems to rely on the fall and is thus reconcilable with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 10:34 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 10:18 AM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 39 of 318 (280546)
01-21-2006 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by macaroniandcheese
01-21-2006 10:13 AM


Re: which ISM??
RR writes:
Yes. Physical events are deterministic in the sense that they happen automatically, like water running downhill. The water does not make a decision to run downhill.
Brenna writes:
why does a physical brain preclude choice?
The thoughts you have as a result of reading this are determined. You couldn't have had any different thoughts that the ones you are having now. My input resulted in your output. (proof: if you weren't reading this you wouldn't be having the thoughts you are having now)
Your brain is more complex that water but if physical is of the same order as water - simply following laws of nature which act on the matter and energy that constitute it. What piece of matter or energy in your brain could do anything other than conform to the laws of nature? How can conformance be said to be choice? What is there about it that can cause it to do anything other that what it does?
{AbE}Now, I don't believe the mind is physical unlike the brain which is. The brain is simply a tool employed by the mind. And the mind, not being physical (material) is not forced to conform to the laws of nature which govern the behaviour of material things. And so we have choice.
This message has been edited by iano, 21-Jan-2006 05:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-21-2006 10:13 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2006 12:56 PM iano has replied
 Message 41 by sidelined, posted 01-21-2006 1:10 PM iano has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 318 (280548)
01-21-2006 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by iano
01-21-2006 12:43 PM


Re: which ISM??
The thoughts you have as a result of reading this are determined.
Only if the laws of physics are deterministic, which they don't appear to be. From all appearances there's more than enough room in the universe for chance.
Furthermore - if all we have is the appearance of choice, and there's no way for us to distinguish that from "real" choice, whatever that is, what's the difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by iano, posted 01-21-2006 12:43 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by iano, posted 01-21-2006 1:47 PM crashfrog has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 41 of 318 (280550)
01-21-2006 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by iano
01-21-2006 12:43 PM


Re: which ISM??
iano
The brain is simply a tool employed by the mind. And the mind, not being physical (material) is not forced to conform to the laws of nature which govern the behaviour of material things. And so we have choice.
Would you care to explain the physical mechanism by which the mind is able to manipulate the physical brain? In other wordswhat are the physics of the mind?
Also what is the reasoning behind the claim that the mind is not physical? Are you not aware of what makes you feel that the mind is a seperate entity from the brain?

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by iano, posted 01-21-2006 12:43 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by iano, posted 01-21-2006 1:59 PM sidelined has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 42 of 318 (280554)
01-21-2006 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
01-21-2006 12:56 PM


Re: which ISM??
Only if the laws of physics are deterministic, which they don't appear to be. From all appearances there's more than enough room in the universe for chance.
Perhaps, but arrival at a thought by it being determined or it being chance makes little difference. Neither are our choice.
As an aside, what is it that would make law of nature non-deterministic? Is it that they vary or that matter and energy don't always conform as they should to consistant laws?
Furthermore - if all we have is the appearance of choice, and there's no way for us to distinguish that from "real" choice, whatever that is, what's the difference?
If we are only physical then all we have is the appearance of choice. There is no independant us to make choices

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2006 12:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2006 5:48 PM iano has replied
 Message 130 by JavaMan, posted 01-23-2006 12:15 PM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 43 of 318 (280557)
01-21-2006 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by sidelined
01-21-2006 1:10 PM


Re: which ISM??
Would you care to explain the physical mechanism by which the mind is able to manipulate the physical brain? In other wordswhat are the physics of the mind?
I don't presume that there are any physics involved - in fact there cannot be if the mind isn't physical. If the location of the mind as part of the physical brain could be established (as opposed to the location of cognitive function - which are of the physical brain) then I would be inclined to believe other than I do. To presume the mind is physical without evidence that it is so is a philosphical decision to which we are all entitled. I just don't share this philosophy
Also what is the reasoning behind the claim that the mind is not physical? Are you not aware of what makes you feel that the mind is a seperate entity from the brain?
The reasoning is partily described above (a negative). Positively, I know that I, that is, the essence of what makes me be me is spiritual. Exactly how to two: physical/spirit, interact with each other I have no idea. But it doesn't cause me to lose sleep

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by sidelined, posted 01-21-2006 1:10 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2006 5:51 PM iano has not replied
 Message 52 by sidelined, posted 01-21-2006 9:03 PM iano has replied
 Message 179 by nator, posted 01-26-2006 8:47 AM iano has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 318 (280572)
01-21-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by iano
01-21-2006 1:47 PM


Re: which ISM??
Perhaps, but arrival at a thought by it being determined or it being chance makes little difference. Neither are our choice.
How is it free in your model? Under your system, we make choices according to the aspect of our will, or the machinations of a soul, or whatever. How is that any more free than random electric potentials in the brain?
Reasonable people make reasonable choices. Even unreasonable choices are made because, at the time in that situtation, the chooser thought that was the best, for whatever reason. It stands to reason that, were a person in that exact situation again, knowing only what they knew then, they'd make the same choice. So how are any of us truly free under your concepts of freedom?
As an aside, what is it that would make law of nature non-deterministic? Is it that they vary or that matter and energy don't always conform as they should to consistant laws?
No, just that the laws themselves aren't deterministic. They're statistical. They describe the universe not in terms of this being definately here or that there, but in terms of probability that such a thing will happen, or won't.
There is no independant us to make choices
"Us" is the physical. How could we be independant from ourselves?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by iano, posted 01-21-2006 1:47 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Brad McFall, posted 01-21-2006 6:01 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 50 by iano, posted 01-21-2006 7:58 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 318 (280573)
01-21-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by iano
01-21-2006 1:59 PM


Re: which ISM??
If the location of the mind as part of the physical brain could be established (as opposed to the location of cognitive function - which are of the physical brain)
This seems like a game of moving goalposts. Any time that something we consider mental is found to have a physical basis in the brain, you're free to simply redefine "mind" in such a way that the function in question isn't part of it.
We know where speech and self-awareness are the brain, where memory is, where decision-making occurs. If those things aren't the province of the "mind" then the mind has no relevant function; it's not needed to explain human consciousness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by iano, posted 01-21-2006 1:59 PM iano has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024