Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2
nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 30 of 301 (282689)
01-30-2006 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by robinrohan
01-30-2006 6:07 PM


Free will and ToE
What matters is determinism versus free will. In order to have free will, you need an incorporeal mind.
This makes no sense to me.
IMO we have free will. IMO, a physicalist account of cognition is possible, at least in principle.
Explain to me where I went wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 6:07 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 6:33 PM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 32 of 301 (282703)
01-30-2006 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by robinrohan
01-30-2006 6:33 PM


Re: Free will and ToE
Let's flesh that out in the form of a syllogism.
premises:
1(a): all you have is a brain;
1(b): (unstated premise)
conclusion:
1: you have no self capable of willing an act.
I would like to know what is the unstated assumption of 1(b). For sure, conclusion 1 does not follow from premise 1(a) alone.
premises:
2(a): it's caused physically;
2(b): (unstated premise)
conclusion:
2: it wasn't "your" decision.
I would also like to know unstated premise 2(b), for conclusion 2 does not follow from 2(a) alone.
The body is just going through automatic reactions to stimuli, like water running down hill.
That seems badly wrong.
Even an ordinary clock is not adequately describe as "automatic reactions to stimuli". The clock isn't receiving any stimuli, yet it still makes actions. You are ignoring the fact that a clock and a person both have stored internal energy, and are using that internal energy to generate actions that are not explainable in terms of external stimuli impinging on the system (clock or person).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 6:33 PM robinrohan has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 69 of 301 (282754)
01-31-2006 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
01-31-2006 12:23 AM


Re: The ToE and Gods
but a God who created everything good and life-enhancing and treats even those who rebelled against him with mercy and protection, is not compatible with the bloody death-driven ToE.
A God who created everything good is not compatible with a God who deliberately murdered almost the entire population of the earth in a global flood.
Your problem is not with ToE. Your problem is that you have invented an inconsistent God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 12:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 12:48 AM nwr has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 220 of 301 (283442)
02-02-2006 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Phat
02-02-2006 10:17 AM


Re: A Cardinal View
Phat writes:
BeliefNet (Cardinal Schnborn) writes:
...
What are your objections to the theory of evolution?
Evolution is a scientific theory. What I call evolutionism is an ideological view that says evolution can explain everything in the whole development of the cosmos, from the Big Bang to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. I consider that an ideology. It's not good for science if it becomes ideological, because it leaves it own field and enters the area of philosophy, of world views, maybe of religion.
What is being called "evolutionism" is more correctly named "materialism". Even that is confusing, in that materialism (as a philosophy, ideology) is distinct from methodological materialism as a practice followed in one's science.
Many scientists will admit to methodological materialism, but often without any commitment to a materialistic ideology.
It is unfortunate that some people try to label all evolutionists as materialists. Many are not.
Can one reasonably say the origin of man and of life can be explained only by material causes? Can matter create intelligence? This question cannot be answered scientifically, because the scientific method cannot grasp it. Here we can only argue philosophically, metaphysically, or religiously.
That's a rather dogmatic statement.
At present, science cannot settle these questions. But it might be able to settle them in the future. It is not up to the Cardinal to dictate what science may study).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Phat, posted 02-02-2006 10:17 AM Phat has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 237 of 301 (283860)
02-04-2006 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by robinrohan
02-04-2006 10:37 AM


Re: on Belief
I think what Iano is saying is that the process of verification itself is ungrounded, which is true.
The type of verification used within a science is well grounded by the methods of that science.
We just have to assume that induction is valid.
Induction is not valid. Fortunately, science does not require any such assumption.
Our logic becomes especially questionable if our world is completely physical. That would mean our thoughts are physically caused.
What is questionable about that? We are near the end of the second thread on this topic, and you still haven't explained it.
Many people think it important that our thoughts are caused -- by us. The opposite to our thoughts being caused by us would be that our thoughts are completely random and arbitrary.
Evolution tells us that our world is completely physical.
No, it does not say anything of the kind. It merely accounts for the physical processes that result in the diverse biology we see. Evolution says nothing at all about the non-physical. As far as evolution is concerned, there could be a complex non-physical world about which evolution says nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by robinrohan, posted 02-04-2006 10:37 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 1:25 PM nwr has replied
 Message 241 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2006 1:38 PM nwr has replied
 Message 249 by robinrohan, posted 02-04-2006 5:21 PM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 242 of 301 (283912)
02-04-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
02-04-2006 1:25 PM


Validity of induction
You mean it's not valid AT ALL, or in this particular context, or what?
I mean "not valid at all."
Of course, it depends on what you mean by "induction." However, what is usually described as induction is not valid at all.
Induction is part of a pseudo-scientific theory that comes from philosophy. It has been falsified many times. However, philosophers who hold that falsificationism is correct still cling to induction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 1:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 2:08 PM nwr has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 244 of 301 (283916)
02-04-2006 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Modulous
02-04-2006 1:38 PM


Re: Induction
Induction plays a large role in science, that is why theories are tentative.
It depends on what you mean by induction. As it is usually described, induction plays no role at all in science.
All observed crows are black
tentative conclusion: all crows are black.
Are you (or is wiki) claiming that no albino crow has ever been observed? That would surely be surprising and worthy of investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2006 1:38 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by NosyNed, posted 02-04-2006 2:19 PM nwr has not replied
 Message 247 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2006 2:29 PM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 248 of 301 (283933)
02-04-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Modulous
02-04-2006 2:29 PM


Please move OT induction discussion to the appropriate thread
Induction: The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.
I have started a new topic at Induction and Science. Let's move this discussion there, to avoid derailing this current thread.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2006 2:29 PM Modulous has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 253 of 301 (284006)
02-04-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by robinrohan
02-04-2006 5:21 PM


Re: on Belief
All our beliefs are physically caused, since there is nothing but the physical; therefore, they are true only accidentally.
Sigh!
Your previous statement was "Our logic becomes especially questionable if our world is completely physical." There is a big difference between "our world is completely physical" and "there is nothing but the physical". The number 5 is abstract, so not physical
There are legitimate questions about whether there are such things as beliefs. Maybe "belief" is a term in an inadequate theory of mind, and doesn't really reference anything.
Even ignoring that, you are saying about beliefs "therefore, they are true only accidentally." You still have not explained this. Why do you claim that physical causation must result in beliefs being accidental?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by robinrohan, posted 02-04-2006 5:21 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 7:54 PM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 257 of 301 (284039)
02-04-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
02-04-2006 7:54 PM


Re: on Belief
This much I think I get: Because there is no actual self or *I* that is the generator of the idea, thought, belief. It's all an illusion.
Maybe that is what robin intended. Still, it is not satisfying. There is a huge leap from physical causation to "there is no actual self or *I*".
It is looking to me like an argument from ignorance. "I cannot understand how physical causation can result in an 'I'; therefore it doesn't."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 7:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 9:15 PM nwr has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 269 of 301 (284134)
02-05-2006 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by robinrohan
02-05-2006 11:02 AM


A self is not possible without incorporeality.
For some meanings of "incorporeality." The self is an abstraction. If abstractions are taken as inorporeal, then you are correct. But this has no important implications.
Abstractions such as the #5 do not exist.
This depends on what you mean by "exist." To mathematicians, numbers certainly exist. Nothing could be more certain. But I can agree that "exist" has a special meaning in mathematics, and is not the same as physical existence.
You can't find our thoughts because our thoughts don't exist except in the sense of an electro-chemical impulse in the brain.
Thoughts are abstractions. Thinking is a process, and we invent thoughts as abstraction, in order to account for what thinking does. This isn't much different from inventing gravitational fields. Sure, you can say that thoughts don't exist, simply by denying the existence of abstractions. But this has no important consequences.
Evolution explains our origins naturalistically.
It doesn't really explain our origins. That is, it explains our origins in terms of other unexplained things. It pushes the problem of origins further away, but does not completely solve it.
There is now no logical need for god.
There was never a logical need for god.
Evolution, being a very cruel process, tells us that no good, all-powerful God would operate in this fashion.
The deist has no problem with evolution. At worst, it is only a problem for belief in a God who is concerned with individual lives. But even that isn't so clear. A person can hold that God cares about the soul, and the cruelty is only to the body and not the soul.
Darwinism is ultimately a nihilistic idea. We are here for no reason.
That is how you see it. The deist need not see it that way. The theistic evolutionist does not see it that way.
All subjective purposes we might come up with are ultimately arbitrary. There's no reason to choose one purpose over another.
That's a positive. That's the basis for free will. If it were not thus, then we would be mere slaves.
There's no ground for any moral system.
Evolution provides the grounds for a moral system, in that we evolved as a social species.
There's no ground for logic.
Logic is a human invention. As such, it is grounded in human culture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by robinrohan, posted 02-05-2006 11:02 AM robinrohan has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 270 of 301 (284135)
02-05-2006 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by robinrohan
02-05-2006 11:22 AM


Still confused about "nihilism"
Back in my twenties I called myself an "aesthete," but then I decided that "aesthete" sounded rather effeminate, remindful of Oscar Wilde and that ilk, so I changed the label to "nihilist," which has a rugged masculine ring to it. I figured that fit me better.
But the two ideas, despite the different labels, are really the same in my view.
I looked up "aesthete" on google. The responses were all pretty much the same, and all fitted well with what one would guess based on the etymology of the word.
I looked up "nihilism". The answers are all over the map. None of them seemed to have much of a relation to "aesthete".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by robinrohan, posted 02-05-2006 11:22 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by robinrohan, posted 02-05-2006 3:02 PM nwr has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 297 of 301 (284480)
02-06-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by robinrohan
02-06-2006 6:48 PM


Faith thinks she and everybody else do have an objective purpose.
We evolved as members of a social species. As such, our purpose is to support the society.

Impeach Bush

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by robinrohan, posted 02-06-2006 6:48 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by robinrohan, posted 02-06-2006 7:01 PM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 299 of 301 (284493)
02-06-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by robinrohan
02-06-2006 7:01 PM


That you choose to reject it, does not demonstrate that there is no such purpose.

Impeach Bush

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by robinrohan, posted 02-06-2006 7:01 PM robinrohan 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