Summations Only

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.

This is not true. Using fMRI and little bit of calibration with the actual individual involved, scientists have indeed been able to determine which object a person is going to choose moments before they are aware of the choice themselves.

Because I myself have no idea which one I will pick or why I picked one over another.And of course, no I did not exclude brain activity.

But it is irrelevant what can be reconciled with my beliefs. The question is why are these my unique beliefs?

But that still does not explain why I made those choices, only the mechanics of how I made those choices.

And if the mechanics are all there is? I know you don't think this is the case, but much like the ID debate...what would a world be like if mechanics was it and how would it be different from the world we are in now?

It would be far less interesting and pretty much worthless.

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.

Argument from ignorance. Sure you do. You claim that there is more going on than just the phsycial interactions because . . . well, you just believe it so it is true.So I will also say that there is more going on in weather than just the physical and mechanical interactions because I say so, therefore science can not explain why it rains.

Why do you say this? How would you recognize the difference?

I think it does. Its setting up a dichotomy that is practically taughtological - the why-questions that science cannot answer are the ones being referred to that religion can. Those that are diametrically opposed to the questions that science does answer. I read it as why-qustions like the ones of purpose that Dawn was talking about, but not of any kind at all. But you can't limit what they are talking about to what makes the most sense to you. Perhaps they were just talking bollocks all along, but that in itself doesn't mean that they should be interpreted as meaning something else.

See Message 70

Well mayhaps some day it will, and if so I will reconsider my position.

Okay, if that is your position then of course you are free to believe that.