Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 226 of 318 (282040)
01-27-2006 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by nwr
01-27-2006 6:29 PM


I remember discussing that thoughts might not be physical. But a deduction is not a thought, it's an action.
It's not a thought? How can that be? Aren't we using the term in its most general sense to refer to what the mind does? It thinks. That includes deductions. We're also using "mind" in the very broad sense of including all the incorporeal parts of our selves. The *I* or the self or the soul. It also includes imaginations and daydreams and whimsies. All these things are "thoughts" in the general sense it's been used in this thread. Or so I thought. Anyway, how does it make sense to talk of an "action" that has no physicality, no impact on physicality, no substance, no body, no extension in space, no identifiable existence in itself except through recognition by other sentient beings? What does it act upon? It seems to me this idea does violence to language and to sanity. What is the source of this idea? Parasomnium said something similar, but it just makes no sense.
Never mind. I just blurted this out, but I'm going to bow out of this thread as it's getting close to the end -- except eventually to answer some posts that were addressed to me earlier.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-27-2006 07:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by nwr, posted 01-27-2006 6:29 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by nwr, posted 01-27-2006 7:16 PM Faith has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 227 of 318 (282041)
01-27-2006 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Faith
01-27-2006 6:41 PM


Thoughts and deductions
I remember discussing that thoughts might not be physical. But a deduction is not a thought, it's an action.
It's not a thought? How can that be? Aren't we using the term in its most general sense to refer to what the mind does? It thinks. That includes deductions.
Thinking is clearly an action. Neuroscientists can observe the physical activity of the neurons during thinking. Deduction is an example of thinking, so is also physical action.
The problem with "thought", is that it is a kind of abstraction that we invent to meet the needs of language. It is because it is some kind of abstraction, that it is not made of stuff.
Compare driving (as with your car). That's an action. As a result, we say that there was a ride. The linguistic usage requires that "ride" refer to a thing, rather than an action. But the thing "ride" refers to is an abstraction, not made of stuff. The problem with "thought" is similar to the problem with "ride". Both words are invented to satisfy a linguistic role, and then we invent abstract things that we say those words refer to.
There isn't a corresponding problem for deduction. A deduction is an action, and example of thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 01-27-2006 6:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 01-27-2006 7:22 PM nwr has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 228 of 318 (282043)
01-27-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by nwr
01-27-2006 7:16 PM


Re: Thoughts and deductions
Thinking is clearly an action. Neuroscientists can observe the physical activity of the neurons during thinking. Deduction is an example of thinking, so is also physical action.
Thinking is not synonymous with the activity of neurons no matter how consistently that activity can be found accompanying thinking.
The problem with "thought", is that it is a kind of abstraction that we invent to meet the needs of language. It is because it is some kind of abstraction, that it is not made of stuff.
This is nonsense, nwr. The term "thought" is necessary to describe the experience we all have of thinking thoughts, not an invention to meet the needs of language. Words were invented to meet our own practical needs of communicating necessary ideas to others. Language is the vehicle for meeting that need. Nobody gives a rap about the "needs of language" for pete's sake. If it doesn't serve our practical needs, begone with it.
But I said I wouldn't answer. I've got to stop making promises.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by nwr, posted 01-27-2006 7:16 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by nwr, posted 01-27-2006 8:10 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 230 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2006 8:12 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 231 by nator, posted 01-27-2006 9:23 PM Faith has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 229 of 318 (282049)
01-27-2006 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Faith
01-27-2006 7:22 PM


Re: Thoughts and deductions
Thinking is not synonymous with the activity of neurons no matter how consistently that activity can be found accompanying thinking.
Driving isn't identical to the motion of the gears and the cranshaft either. Nevertheless, driving is physical action and thinking is physical action.
The term "thought" is necessary to describe the experience we all have of thinking thoughts, not an invention to meet the needs of language.
The word "thought" is pretty lame for describing anything.
Maybe one of us is strange. But I don't think thoughts. I think all kinds of things, but thoughts are not what I am thinking. "Thought" is just a label people use in their language. It's an abstraction, in that is is supposed to refer to what the thinking is about but without ever saying what the thinking is about.
Words were invented to meet our own practical needs of communicating necessary ideas to others. Language is the vehicle for meeting that need.
I have a very different, and probably unconventional view of what language is. While we use it to communicate ideas, I see it as more importantly there for achieving social cohesion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 01-27-2006 7:22 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 230 of 318 (282051)
01-27-2006 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Faith
01-27-2006 7:22 PM


Re: Thoughts and deductions
Words were invented to meet our own practical needs of communicating necessary ideas to others. Language is the vehicle for meeting that need.
Then wny do we think in words in our own language?
It seems to me that language and thought develop together; language allows for high-level symbolic thought. Evidence for this would be that humans who (terribly) develop absent language also aren't capable of the high-level symbolic thought that typefies being human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 01-27-2006 7:22 PM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 231 of 318 (282058)
01-27-2006 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Faith
01-27-2006 7:22 PM


Re: Thoughts and deductions
quote:
Thinking is not synonymous with the activity of neurons no matter how consistently that activity can be found accompanying thinking.
Can you give a specific example of an instance where "thinking" has been observed to occur without neuronal activity?
That is, is there any rational reason to conclude that "thinking" is possible without neuronal activity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 01-27-2006 7:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 01-27-2006 9:37 PM nator has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 232 of 318 (282062)
01-27-2006 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by nator
01-27-2006 9:23 PM


Re: Thoughts and deductions
I haven't claimed it occurs without neuronal activity. It's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by nator, posted 01-27-2006 9:23 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by nator, posted 01-27-2006 10:03 PM Faith has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 233 of 318 (282068)
01-27-2006 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
01-27-2006 9:37 PM


Re: Thoughts and deductions
Can you show us what is involved with thinking other than neuronal activity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 01-27-2006 9:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 01-27-2006 10:12 PM nator has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 234 of 318 (282069)
01-27-2006 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by nator
01-27-2006 10:03 PM


Re: Thoughts and deductions
Why don't you read the thread for a change, Schraf?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by nator, posted 01-27-2006 10:03 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by nator, posted 01-27-2006 10:24 PM Faith has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 235 of 318 (282072)
01-27-2006 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
01-27-2006 10:12 PM


Re: Thoughts and deductions
I have read the thread.
Perhaps you would like to apologize for being so snotty?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 01-27-2006 10:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 01-27-2006 10:41 PM nator has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 236 of 318 (282075)
01-27-2006 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by nator
01-27-2006 10:24 PM


Re: Thoughts and deductions
"What is involved with thinking other than neuronal activity" would be a rabbit trail at this point in the thread, which you ought to know if you really have read it. It didn't appear you had the slightest idea what is on the thread. However I apologize if I am wrong about that. Nevertheless I don't want to go down this trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by nator, posted 01-27-2006 10:24 PM nator has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 318 (282117)
01-28-2006 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Modulous
01-25-2006 2:31 PM


Re: pratical applications versus theory
On its own, the Theory says nothing whatsoever about what happened 10 million years ago. We actually need to plug data into the theory to reach conclusions. Data such as genetic similarity, fossil morphology, current morphology, etc etc. We can then see if a hypothesis about common ancestors can be falsified, or strengthened...using the theory.
I am not suggesting there is evidence for the theory but no evidence for its conclusions. Actually quite the contrary. The conclusions are based on combining physical evidence with the ToE.
I don't see how this distinction you are making between theory and "practice" matters. If there is plenty of evidence for the "practice," then I'm including that as part of the definition.
If that is imprecise, then we can just say I mean the TOE plus conclusions. What matters is the evidence.
So let me reiterate my central position: Even if accepting ToE somehow means rejecting a supernatural creator it does not mean rejecting all other supernatural entities and explanations.
What might these "supernatural entities" be? If supernatural, then they are not natural. Aliens are natural beings--at least that's the normal definition--so we can rule them out.
These beings are supernatural in that they are purely mental. Yet they were created by the physical universe at its inception. It seems we are right back to where we started.
Just as the physical cannot produce the supernatural on earth, it also cannot produce the supernatural in intersellar space during the age of a young universe.
abe: sorry about the earlier sarcasm.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-28-2006 06:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Modulous, posted 01-25-2006 2:31 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Modulous, posted 01-28-2006 9:15 AM robinrohan has not replied

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


Message 238 of 318 (282126)
01-28-2006 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by robinrohan
01-28-2006 7:40 AM


Re: pratical applications versus theory
I don't see how this distinction you are making between theory and "practice" matters. If there is plenty of evidence for the "practice," then I'm including that as part of the definition.
If that is imprecise, then we can just say I mean the TOE plus conclusions. What matters is the evidence.
Creationists would tell you its all about interpretation. They accept the collection of explanations that is the ToE, (ie they accept microevolution) but they reject massive population change (macroevolution). In essence you are discussing common ancestry rather than ToE. It might seem pedantic, but I think its important.
What might these "supernatural entities" be? If supernatural, then they are not natural. Aliens are natural beings--at least that's the normal definition--so we can rule them out.
I've mentioned three types of supernatural entity: Eos (Goddess of Dawn), Domovoi (house spirit) and Leszi (Woodland spirit).
abe: sorry about the earlier sarcasm.
No worries - its a busy thread with lots of different directions, perfectly understandable, sorry about my impatience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by robinrohan, posted 01-28-2006 7:40 AM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 318 (282199)
01-28-2006 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by crashfrog
01-25-2006 12:51 PM


Re: Just a little theory
Your concept, maybe.
It doesn't do anything to my concept.
Your sensibilities must be very dull, Crashfrog. But there is an advantage that comes out of a philosophy of which evolution is the base. It is so good, so satisfying, isn't it, to not be egotistical like all those religious people are. I just love myself for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2006 12:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2006 6:48 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 241 by Michael, posted 01-28-2006 7:29 PM robinrohan has not replied

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


Message 240 of 318 (282242)
01-28-2006 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by robinrohan
01-28-2006 4:36 PM


Re: Just a little theory
Your sensibilities must be very dull, Crashfrog.
Hardly. I'm simply intelligent enough to recognize the difference between the significance some things or some people have to me, personally, and the significance those things or people have to everybody else, or the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by robinrohan, posted 01-28-2006 4:36 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by robinrohan, posted 01-28-2006 9:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024