A question for Materialists/Atheist/ Humanists and their allies

[seer]

No, I'm making straight-forward, to anyone who understands science and philosophy of science, in the context of levels of explanation.

For at least the third time:

"Instead I said that no informed naturalists thinks all psychologically-relevant processes occur at the level of chemical reactions. And that's straightforwardly true, since there are processes that occur at levels other than chemistry, such as the processes discussed by functionalists. Not every process is a chemical process, since not every process occurs at the level discussed by chemistry."

First of all Jichard I'm not speaking of how we got where we are but our present brain states. And those brain states are chemical, and nothing more. Of course you are free to invent whatever analogy you wish, but that fact does not change. So I will ask again, show me, scientifically one psychologically-relevant event that is not chemically driven, where there is something more, physically, than chemistry. I will be waiting.

[seer]

Go kiss your wife and I'll kiss mine.

She died of lung cancer in 06.

[seer]

"Instead I said that no informed naturalists thinks all psychologically-relevant processes occur at the level of chemical reactions. And that's straightforwardly true, since there are processes that occur at levels other than chemistry, such as the processes discussed by functionalists. Not every process is a chemical process, since not every process occurs at the level discussed by chemistry."

What is unclear about that? NOT every process occurs at the level of chemistry. For example, natural selection is not a chemical process. It does not occur at the level of chemistry. It's an evolutionary process thatoperates at a level higher than chemistry. Similarly, psychological processes occur at a level higher than that of chemistry.

I have been reading about this and you are incorrect, there are informed naturalists who do not, on any level, buy into functionalism. Some Physicalists and Behaviorists don't buy it in the least. I was reading some stuff by men like Ned Block, Hilary Putnam and John Searle who argue directly against functionalism - are these men not informed?

[pancreasman]

She died of lung cancer in 06.

I'm really very sorry to hear that. I had no idea.

[seer]

I'm really very sorry to hear that. I had no idea.

You had no reason to know, thank you...

[Jorge]

No, I'm making straight-forward, to anyone who understands science and philosophy of science, in the context of levels of explanation.

For at least the third time:

"Instead I said that no informed naturalists thinks all psychologically-relevant processes occur at the level of chemical reactions. And that's straightforwardly true, since there are processes that occur at levels other than chemistry, such as the processes discussed by functionalists. Not every process is a chemical process, since not every process occurs at the level discussed by chemistry."

What is unclear about that? NOT every process occurs at the level of chemistry. For example, natural selection is not a chemical process. It does not occur at the level of chemistry. It's an evolutionary process thatoperates at a level higher than chemistry. Similarly, psychological processes occur at a level higher than that of chemistry.

For the love of all that's holy, I spent a post explaining that: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...865#post181865
How about actually reading that post, instead of proceeding with your strawman of my position?



If you still think deny that there are processes that are not chemical reactions, then open up any basic textbook on cognitive science. That will introduce you to processes that don't occur at the level of chemistry. Or open about a biology textbook. Or an astronomy textbook. Or an..

And at this point, I don't think you understand Chalmers work at all. You've basically just quote-mined (as many Christians tend to do, especially creationists) his work, without reading it. I think this because Chalmers spends page after page discussing non-chemical processes involved in psychologically-relevant events (that is: processes that don't occur at the level of chemistry), and yet you seem utterly unaware of this. For example, Chalmers focuses on processes discussed by functionalists, as I told you:

Getting ready for a trip so I don't have much time ... let me be very brief:

Fine, substitute "chemistry / chemical" with "physical" (which includes chemistry/chemical, mechanical, all of the four basic forces, etc.). The question that I posed remains the same: how did ANY physical process, or combinations of physical processes, become self-aware? At what stage, at what moment, did that happen?

Show that the 'right combination of matter (mass-energy)' -- "right" in terms of space-time position -- implies or leads to or produces self-awareness. That is, after all, what Materialists like yourself believe, isn't it?

Please proceed ... we be a-waiting.

Jorge

[Roy]

Fine, substitute "chemistry / chemical" with "physical" (which includes chemistry/chemical, mechanical, all of the four basic forces, etc.). The question that I posed remains the same: how did ANY physical process, or combinations of physical processes, become self-aware? At what stage, at what moment, did that happen?

And the question you have avoided remains the same:

How in your worldview do humans become self-aware?

You've made some empty claims about unverified and unverifiable phenomena, and totally failed to support your original contention of knowing how human self-awareness came about. Try explaining how your supposed spiritual link is set up, and how it leads to human self-awareness.

I won't bother waiting though, because I know you have nothing. Just ignorance, insults, fallacies and hypocrisy.

Roy

[Omniskeptical]

And the question you have avoided remains the same:

How in your worldview do humans become self-aware?

You've made some empty claims about unverified and unverifiable phenomena, and totally failed to support your original contention of knowing how human self-awareness came about. Try explaining how your supposed spiritual link is set up, and how it leads to human self-awareness.

I won't bother waiting though, because I know you have nothing. Just ignorance, insults, fallacies and hypocrisy.

Roy

You think Jorge is being unintentional ignorant, insolent, fallacious, and hypocritical. No ones reputation has been hurt by Jorge. Jorge is ignorant of caluculus; he seems to be a mediocre biologist. He supposedly hasn't learned his own fallacies, and his hypocrisy is feigned at best most of the time. Feel free to impugn thyself by giving him negative attention, since he has little to offer, and has nothing to defend.

[HMS_Beagle]

You think Jorge is being unintentional ignorant, insolent, fallacious, and hypocritical. No ones reputation has been hurt by Jorge. Jorge is ignorant of caluculus; he seems to be a mediocre biologist. He supposedly hasn't learned his own fallacies, and his hypocrisy is feigned at best most of the time. Feel free to impugn thyself by giving him negative attention, since he has little to offer, and has nothing to defend.

You spelled "Omniskeptical" wrong three times in one post.

[Omniskeptical]

You spelled "Omniskeptical" wrong three times in one post.

No, I didn't. I tend to be a poser. Jorge is a troll. There's a big difference between the two words.

Internet Marxists are mostly trolls. You might find a few to be redeemable posers.

[Roy]

You think Jorge is being unintentional ignorant, insolent, fallacious, and hypocritical. No ones reputation has been hurt by Jorge. Jorge is ignorant of caluculus; he seems to be a mediocre biologist. He supposedly hasn't learned his own fallacies, and his hypocrisy is feigned at best most of the time. Feel free to impugn thyself by giving him negative attention, since he has little to offer, and has nothing to defend.

Jorge has many flaws, but I do not think racism is one of them.

Roy

[oxmixmudd]

Getting ready for a trip so I don't have much time ... let me be very brief:

Fine, substitute "chemistry / chemical" with "physical" (which includes chemistry/chemical, mechanical, all of the four basic forces, etc.). The question that I posed remains the same: how did ANY physical process, or combinations of physical processes, become self-aware? At what stage, at what moment, did that happen?

Show that the 'right combination of matter (mass-energy)' -- "right" in terms of space-time position -- implies or leads to or produces self-awareness. That is, after all, what Materialists like yourself believe, isn't it?

Please proceed ... we be a-waiting.

Jorge

Why do you act as if not-knowing how self-awareness emerges within an organism is of some massive importance as it relates to belief in God? What is the big deal? Do you suppose that not knowing PROVES self-awareness is not (at least in part) a physical phenomenon? If you do, you are wrong. The only way this element of reality would related to belief in God would be if it could be shown to be something beyond the natural - something which is currently impossible.

In short, there is nothing here, except an appeal at best to "God of the gaps", which is historically a vacuous argument. We learn constantly, if this element of existence is knowable, we may someday understand it. And if the inability to understand it is what 'proves God', then at that point your supposed proof will fail.

In general, it is foolish to base belief (or non-belief) in God on these kinds of exchanges or discussions. God is not a scientifically verifiable being, unless for some reason He has chosen to be. You either believe in Him or you don't, and that belief in all cases will rest on personal constraints (possibly verifiable) and experiences possibly coupled with real events of low probability or unknown natural source. As Christians, we also believe those elements can only be properly oriented through direct interaction with and obedience to God through Christ as He is revealed in Scripture.


Jim

[seer]

Why do you act as if not-knowing how self-awareness emerges within an organism is of some massive importance as it relates to belief in God? What is the big deal? Do you suppose that not knowing PROVES self-awareness is not (at least in part) a physical phenomenon? If you do, you are wrong. The only way this element of reality would related to belief in God would be if it could be shown to be something beyond the natural - something which is currently impossible.

In short, there is nothing here, except an appeal at best to "God of the gaps", which is historically a vacuous argument. We learn constantly, if this element of existence is knowable, we may someday understand it. And if the inability to understand it is what 'proves God', then at that point your supposed proof will fail.

In general, it is foolish to base belief (or non-belief) in God on these kinds of exchanges or discussions. God is not a scientifically verifiable being, unless for some reason He has chosen to be. You either believe in Him or you don't, and that belief in all cases will rest on personal constraints (possibly verifiable) and experiences possibly coupled with real events of low probability or unknown natural source. As Christians, we also believe those elements can only be properly oriented through direct interaction with and obedience to God through Christ as He is revealed in Scripture.


Jim

Jim, in your opinion, is there anything in the universe that points to God? The supernatural?

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, in your opinion, is there anything in the universe that points to God? The supernatural?

The Resurrection, the regeneration of the believer by the Holy Spirit. The vastness and majesty of the universe. The miracle of life itself. To name a few.

To him who has eyes to see, let him see.

Jim

[seer]

The Resurrection, the regeneration of the believer by the Holy Spirit. The vastness and majesty of the universe. The miracle of life itself. To name a few.

To him who has eyes to see, let him see.

Jim

Ok, thanks..