C.S. Lewis on materialistic thoughts

Just for the record, C.S. Lewis had no problem with evolution or the Genesis creation story and he did trust the mainstream science.I think you've all missed his point. His point really has nothing to do with evolution or science or spilled milk, but the philosophy of the search for truth.Here I think C.S. Lewis is saying that it just seems a bit odd that an unintended chain of natural cause and effects of unknown length should result in an intentional search for truth that actually finds truth. It is a part of the mystery of consciousness.At what point did this chain of cause and effects become "intentional" and if it wasn't "intentional" from the beginning what basis do we have for believing what we believe to be true is true?This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 04-01-2005 10:48 AM

Perhaps the main cause of atheism is lack of imagination... of course I guess I can't say that since I just read Hitchiker's guide and that author certainly has an imagination. But anyway... Symbolically represented to what and by what? Another collection of random events? You don't find it the least bit mysterious that a collection of purely random events would lead to and eventually make up something unpredicted, unpredictable, and indescribable in objective scientific terms: the subjective experience of consciousness? Right, right... solipcism ruins everything... but not really because if we are going to judge the worth of a philosophy by its practicality, then this point is irrelevant because you do not walk down the street everyday continually keeping in mind the fact that everything you see might not be real, and if you did you'd soon lose your sanity. Solipcism is useful in science which is, IMO, a tool, not a philosophy or worldview which is evident by the fact that science depends on facts which solipcism destroys.So for all practical purposes everyone believes something is really real, that is: truth, and everyone believes we can be certain of at least a good deal of it. I don't know what you mean by the "ultimate real truth of the universe," but if we know even a little bit of truth, something extrordinary has happened. SOMETHING exists that is indescribable in objective scientific terms. You cannot describe anything in the realm of experience without using subjective language, which is why Kant(...I think...?) said there must be two realms of knowledge: the subjective and the objective which do not cross over.Here is the argument:
Those such as yourself say that the universe is unintended.
This includes every event that led to your existence.
This must also include every event that makes up your existence.
Therefore every thought is the result of unintended causes and effects.
Objective truth exists.
A search for truth requires intent to find the truth.
If every action in the universe from the big bang to the final neuron firing in your search for truth is unintended and therefore random, then your search for truth is also random and therefore successful only by mere chance.I can see some potential holes in this argument, but no one here has really attacked the argument so far.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 04-01-2005 04:45 PM

Hi Loudmouth,I'll go ahead and reply to your post since I incorporated your word "intention" into my posts. And are you not a part of the "random" universe? Aren't the collection of events that make up you and your thoughts random? That is what Lewis is asking.If you are somehow separate from the randomness of the universe and able to act with intent in a non-random purposeful manner, what enables you to do this?

Thanks for your reply. You assume that the copulating couple is copulating because somewhere along the line they gained a free-will in a universe where everything is absent of will or "intent." You assume that intent has already entered the cause/effect chain. First you have to explain how intent enters a random series of events (which I see from the end of your post that you don't know).That's what C.S. Lewis was saying: we don't know how the intent gets in the cause/effect chain. And you're right, this is an argument from ignorance, but a very powerful one that even causes some people to believe in God. Well, that sounds smart, but I never took debate... You can just flat out tell me it's false, but if you want me to believe you, you have to give me a reason.What question is it begging again?And yes, I spose you're right to assume that the original argument is restricted to the "underlying physics and chemistry" as that's all the scientist assumes there really is at work. No metaphysics is assumed.I understand your "fallacy of composition" argument. You are saying that though every physical action that makes up a thought is random, this doesn't mean the thought is random? I think this is true, but why is it true? If we can't explain why it's true, then all we have to go on is our subjective experience and that's not scientific. But that's what makes it fun: it's a question without an answer. Questions that have already been answered aren't much fun to wonder about.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 04-01-2005 05:21 PM

Thanks for your reply. I was just kiddin Because random processes are predictable with some degree of accuracy. Like Loudmouth's example of the dice.If even a small part of the universe loses its randomness, then either the whole of the universe loses its randomness or something must distinguish the random from the non-random. As yet we have not defined what if anything can be said to make this distinction. Agreed. But there is no way that the laws of physics can predict "consciousness" and there is no way to objectively describe it therefore it must not exist, but for some reason, we know not what, it does.That IS mysterious, IMO, and I can't wait until we have the technology to create a human-like AI and see what kind of consciousness if any it will have and what kind of free-will if any it will have. But anway... I know... I didn't mean "philosophy" as in literally the love of wisdom, but in the broader sense of an accepted doctrine of a particular worldview. If my understanding of solipsism is correct it means that it is entirely possible that even what we observe is not real. So if you are going to actually apply solipsism your facts are worthless. Instead we must choose NOT to apply solipsism and say, "we will go ahead and accept this information as true." If we do this then solipsism is merely a philosophical abstraction held in reserve rather than an applied doctrine. In fact it seems to only get applied in philosophical conversations where the nature of science is being discussed rather than in the actual practice of science. Furthermore, solipsism is only itself a theory. Why are you now using solipsism? You don't use it at any other time. And why are you arguing against consciousness since it seems that a scientific explanation for the existence of consciousness would defeat Lewis's argument? It's not my argument. I think that a scientific explanation for consciousness would defeat the argument and I truly don't know whether a scientific explanation exists. If no such scientific explanation exists, then this is a perfectly valid argument for the existence of metaphysics. I do not know whether a scientific explanation ever will be found, however, it seems odd that we cannot unlock the secrets that are so close to us, even a part of us.You admit that science cannot now explain consciousness and you admit that consciousness exists. That is a hole in our understanding. Both myself and C.S. Lewis would agree that one can never base faith in God on holes in human understanding, however, if the metaphysical exists and is to interact with the physical then this must surely create a hole that science cannot fill. In fact a hole will be the only kind of evidence that could ever be found for the metaphysical. By pointing out the hole Lewis is saying, this MIGHT be an evidence of the metaphysical.

Thanks for your reply. Of course some of our behavior is predictable as would be expected from any random thing in nature, but some may not be. Psychology has never to my knowledge explained consciousness nor determined whether we have free-will or not, so I don't think bringing it in can add to this argument. You are running around the issue and I can't figure out why. I mean heck solipsism hasn't even been brought into this discusion of C.S. Lewis's argument in any meaningful way. In your previous post you claimed that solipsism does not destroy facts, yet when I stated for the sake of argument that we have a thing called consciousness, you attacked this statement based solely on solipsism thereby proving my point that the use of solipsism destroys facts, which makes no sense since you already admitted that humans are conscious. You cannot use solipsism to undermine whatever argument you choose unless you want a stalemate in which case there's no point in even arguing. I said that the application of the theory of solipsism is a choice, and you have not refuted that nor is there any reason too since this is obviously true (unless you want to refute this again based on solipsism).Gravity effects us physically no matter what. Solipsism can effect you only if you have knowledge of it and can only be used in argument if you wish to destroy all presuppositions except the one that you exist. It is like the nuke of philosophical debate and you are applying it very inconsistently in an argument that doesn't yet concern it. Perhaps this is true, but Dictionary.com said it was a theory. And, with the given definition, I spose it must be a theory since proving it as true goes against it's own definition. But whatever... I'm sick of debating solipsism which has nothing to do with anything in the argument. I understand perfectly well what solipsism is and we needn't discuss it anymore.

I never suggested that. What I did say is that a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the existence of "intent" must be provided in order to defeat Lewis's argument. Is that a true statement? ...you don't know. Therefore, your argument, while valid, is useless for anything but to stalemate the argument. You are trying to win a debate about a tiny hole in human knowledge by digging a hole big enough for all of human knowledge. What is the point of that? Furthermore, this is being inconsistent. Everytime a question comes up in science, we attempt to find a theory or rational explanation to answer it rather than say, "well, we really can't know anything, so what's the point?" Referring to consciousness I said that we know something exists that is indescribable in objective terms, and you said, "MAYBE, given solipsism I don't see how we can know that." See? You are saying that we cannot assert that people have consciousness.Obviously nothing is completely provable, but to have any kind of fruitful discussion we have to make some pressuppositions. If you don't want to argue about this, that's cool, but you don't have to go off destroying all pressuppositions using solipsism and force us off-track with it. What??? "I think therefore, I am." You refute that? Solipsism says that nothing can be certain except the fact that the one doing the thinking exists so it does not destroy that one presupposition. And it's a cop-out argument that doesn't prove anything (obviously). So, unless you want to retract that argument and let us lay down the presuppositions necessary for argument, this argument is stalemated.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 04-02-2005 05:51 PM

Thanks for your reply. Well, crashfrog would take issue with you here because of solipsism, but I take issue with you here because no attempt has been made at a rational argument supporting this, only a subjective opinion that you have intent has been given. Yes, it would. That's what C.S. Lewis said. That's what we are aruging about: to find out whether or not our arguing is pointless. Just because you can come up with fallacies to fit doesn't mean the conclusion of the argument is not true. You cited the fallacy of composition. I could argue that every cell in your body is alive therefore you are alive and you could call that a fallacious argument, but the conclusion would be true. We do not yet know whether or not the same is true of intent in actions therefore, citing fallacy of composition is not enough to soundly defeat the argument. You are right in saying the mind does display behaviour not found at the level of the basic physical entities involved; however, both Crashfrog, Loudmouth, myself, and surely you would also agree that the mind also displays random and predictable behavior such as is found in the basic physical entities involved.The argument does not assume that it is impossible for the mind to have properties not found at the basic level of its components. The argument implies that either intent must have existed from the beginning or must enter metaphysically. The argument could be defeated by showing how intent can get naturally into this physical process, but since this hasn't been done, the argument stands. I don't really think this can be done since objective scientific reasoning cannot have an argument that bridges the gap into subjective experience. I'm not quite sure what to make of this. You are saying your computer does not have intent? Does a bug have intent? I would say no. Does a dog have intent? I don't know. Aren't our minds merely a more complex version of the computer on your desktop? If they are not, then what makes them special that they have consciousness and intent? Perhaps intent is an illusion caused by some funky wiring in your head.In the next 30 or 40 years we will see the evolution of machine intelligence. Right now your computer has the intelligence of a bug, and in 30 or 40 years it might be smarter than you. At what point will it gain intent, or will it ever? Can we say that a shear number of mindless processes can produce genuine intent or free-will? It seems to me that if the appearance of free-will is a product of the circuit design and number of processes per second, then it must be an illusion, at least that must be the materalistic conclusion as far as I can see. Perhaps you have a different opinion?

Thanks for your reply. Uh herm... I guess you didn't read any of his posts. In a way we are... If you don't see what I mean here, then I guess you don't understand the argument C.S. Lewis made. True, but if it isn't pointless, then we could potentially find out by arguing. You say it's not pointless therefore we should be able to determine this. I AGREE! 'Splain that to Froggy. At least I can write good... haha... j/k By citing "fallacy of composition" you are really just ignoring the issue and calling it quits. The deeper issue hidden in his argument is one that no one really has a grasp on (how the objective realm can sort of give birth to the realm of subjective experience). The argument doesn't rely on this fallacy. It relies on the fact that no one can 'splain where intent came from. I did not do this. I stated at least once and probably more that the argument could be proven false when an objective scientific argument can explain consciousness and free-will. What??? ...nevermind. I would suggest you read your own arguments as well before you post them to remove some grammatical errors, spelling errors, and also to check that they are coherent. If you did this perhaps I would understand your argument the first time around. Yes, I recognize that you placed it outside the example, and that is why the example really has no bearing on the argument except to show me what fallacy of composition is, and that I already knew. So... I was trying to prod you to consider consciousness in your example so that we might actually do some useful thinking on the matter. That's okay, I actually did understand your example the first time around; I know what the fallacy of composition is!As usual, Paulk, our arguments are never fruitful, but fun. I'm done. have a good'un.

Apparently ya'll both think I'm dumb and don't understand your arguments, and I wouldn't want to leave it like that so I'll recap frog's and Paulk's main arguments and if I don't have it right, then ya'll can correct me and tell me I'm a moron.Crashfrog:
C.S. Lewis's argument leaves the question open as to whether or not we can find truth. His argument implies that if we can know truth and there is no objective argument to show how intent can get into the universe, then it must enter metaphysically.Crashfrog says that we (certainly?) cannot know if we can know truth making the argument moot. And he's right. This does end the argument.My response to this is that a logical philosophical argument is had in order to find truth and holds the presupposition that the truth can be found. Therefore, Crashfrog's argument based on solipsism makes all philosophy junk, and this makes me wonder why Frog even bothers to engage in a philosophical argument.... to show me that I'm wrong and he's right?....maybeCrashfrog's response to this is: so what? Philosophy is really a waste of time, and all that really matters is: can we get our VCRs to work? We rely on science, which is purely practical, for that.Paulk:
Paulk argues that it is a fallacy of composition to assume that because the processes that make up our thoughts have no intent, then we cannot have intent. I completely agree with this.My response is that we should not make this assumption, nor should we automatically assume as Paulk has done that we do have intent, but question it to see whether or not it is true rather than cite this fallacy that does not necessarily prove it false.Paulk also argues that this is an argument from ignorance since our knowledge of consciousness is incomplete and likely always will be. As long as our knowledge of something is incomplete people will say that it is metaphysical.I agree that this makes the argument weaker, but I would also add that there will never be any other kind of evidence of the metaphysical except that which we cannot explain; therefore, any attempt at making a logical argument for the metaphysical will be an argument from ignorance. If Jesus performed a miracle in front of your eyes, you would still only have an argument from ignorance for the metaphysical.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 04-04-2005 07:15 PM

Now that is a self-contradicting statement. You essentially just said: I know this to be true: I cannot know truth.Plus, that is not solipsism (BTW, I think you spell it with an 's'). Solipsism is a theory that says: the self is the only thing that can be known and verified. That's what all the definitions I can find say and if you break it down to it's roots it means "alone-self". And if it wasn't a tentative theory, it would be self-contradictory too.If you want to create a new definition for solipsism, that's cool I guess, but I don't think it will catch on since it's obviously self-contradictory and counter-intuitive. Yet another self-contradicting statement. Yet another self-contradicting statement. I do. I just don't get how you can say you know I'm wrong when you don't believe anyone can know what's really right or wrong. I don't assume the solipsistic condition doesn't apply to me. I know very well that I cannot verify anything. I also know that this does not mean that that which I seek to know is not true. To know anything you have to make unprovable assumptions the first of which is the assumption that you can know truth. You seem to think that because these assumptions are unverifiable that they must be false, which is yet another self-contradiction.You say that by making these assumptions I am "pretending". This implies another self-contradiction: that you know that what I believe to be true is really false.