Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[seer]

While I understand what he is trying to say - I think he goes too far. To reject identity and non-contradiction as absolute universal truths is the very definition of irrational.

Goes to far? Like you said - he is dead in the water - rationally. On every possible point or claim.

I am not surprised, Seer. I didn't expect you to think any other way. I am sure you find them compelling.

This is my point Carp, when you don't find an argument compelling you hint that it is illogical (as if it violated a law of logic). Peter Kreeft's deductive arguments are not illogical, you may disagree with certain premises but that is a different story. So what you often claim as illogical only means that which you subjectively don't find compelling. Which can be taken with a grain of salt.

[seer]

No, we either have a universe that was created by a rational mind, or we have an uncreated natural universe which gave rise to rational living beings. We definitely have evidence for the existence of the latter, but no evidence for the existence of the former. It took some 10 billion years or so, in so far as we know, for rational beings to arise in this universe, highly unlikely the work of an omnipotent rational mind.

You are begging the question, it is the life permitting universe that needs to be explained.

[seer]

I am comfortable with "we don't know." Perhaps we may never know. Or perhaps, someday, we will.

Yes the sunlit upland of the agnostic, where there is nothing to be defended or believed...

[carpedm9587]

Yes, but, being that the mind and soul would be both one and the same thing, and the whole would be distinct from the material brain and body, the argument would amount to the same thing in either case, whether taken together or separately. There is no evidence of either, mind or soul, other than, as you pointed out previously, that of personal experience. Now that of course is my opinion, that there is no real evidence of either distnct souls, or distinct minds, seperate from the material brain and body, therefore in my opinion there is only one sound answer to your question, that being that the mind is synonomous with the brain, that what we think feel and experience is all in the brain, but that what we call that experience is, the mind.

So first, you declaring that mind/soul are the same doesn't make it so, Jim. As I said, I believe most theists differentiate between the two. You might want to listen to what they say so you are addressing what they are actually saying rather than what you think they are saying.

And I have no issue with mind being distinct from brain. By distinct I do not mean separate. I believe mind emerges from brain and is intrinsically linked to it. You can have brain without mind, but not mind without brain. But, as I noted, even modern scientists cannot explain how "mind" (self-reflection, sentience, the sense of "I", etc.) is created by the synaptic activity of the brain. Will we someday? I have no idea. I'm not sure why you feel a need to deny what I have to assume is your experience as well - that the gray matter between your ears creates an sense of "I" that we do not yet understand.

[carpedm9587]

Well yes, separate as in "not the same thing", and not as in "one not depending on the other for it's existence" (I believe the mind and brain are separate in both senses, but I'm only arguing for the former in this thread).

I'll admit I should have been clearer what I meant by a characteristic in my initial post, but let me assure you that I've always had "inherent characteristics" in mind in this discussion. So, "where it can be found" is not something I consider a basic characteristic of a thing, unless "where it can be found" is something that is an integral part of the nature what that thing is.

And this is where we part company, I think. Since I believe the evidence suggests mind emerges from brain and the two are inseparable (in so far as the former cannot exist without the latter), then "where they are located" is a basic characteristic of both.

I don't agree it's suddenly at all. And I think it's pretty clear the way thoughts relate to the mind and the way they relate to the brain are completely different, so equating those two characteristics as being the same characteristic isn't something with which I'm willing to agree. As to whether thoughts are primarily associated with the mind and secondarily with the brain I'd assert that it at least appears like the relation between thoughts and the mind is far more "intimate" than the relation between thoughts and the brain. And absent compelling reasons to the contrary I think I'm justified in believing that "what it appears like is actually how it is", to put it in a slightly clumsy way.

I would consider most of this highly speculative. We don't know how the brain gives rise to the mind, so we don't know any of these things. We cannot definitively say "yeah" or "nay"

Well, I'm beginning to think I probably should have been more precise in my language.

I probably should have clarified that I meant inherent characteristics, by which I mean an attribute that is fundamental to the nature of the thing in question, and not an attribute that is dependent on it's relation to other things (unless how the thing relates to other things is a fundamental part of it's nature). But you are absolutely right that based on what I wrote in the initial post about common characteristics then lobster and men both having appendages would be a shared characteristic.

I find discussion with you SO refreshing. Many (most?) here would simply have accused me of "nitpicking" or "twisting words." I find words fascinating - and how we use them even more so. I have a core philosophy: most of our disagreements boil down to differences in language use. If we take the time to define the terms and agree on what they mean, most disagreements disappear, as with this one.

I don't think so at all. Even if I for some reason became an emergentist I don't see any compelling reason why anyone should believe the brain itself is sentient, instead of simply being the cause of a sentient mind. Even if one could precisely map every thought in the mind to a specific electro-chemical impulse in the brain I see no reason to think that the electro-chemical impulses that would give rise to the thoughts in the mind would themselves constitute sentience.

After giving this some thought, it dawns on me that we are splitting hairs a bit. There is no distinction in my experience between "sentience" (the sense of I), thought, and mind. They are different words for basically the same thing: that ineffable sense of I - reflection - that I experience every moment of every day. SO saying "thought is associated with mind" is like saying "gases are associated with air." The air IS a collection of gases. The mind IS a collection of thoughts.

Well, I would agree that if one person's brain has a vision center that isn't functioning properly or lacks a vision center altogether, then that individual and their brain would deviate from the norm. And their sensation of vision would also differ from other persons, or be lacking altogether. But the nature in which the brain and the mind would deviate from the norm would be quite different from each other. They would be still be similar, but not identical, or the same characteristics. But I will concede that based on my initial post where I didn't specify the type of characteristics I was thinking of then they probably would qualify as shared characteristics.

I have not experienced being in sensory deprivation tank, no. But it seems to me like even if you completely deprived your hearing and vision from stimuli you would still have the feeling of the mind being located in the head based on memories of previous visual and aural stimuli, combined with the sensation of touch (as it seems to me like the sensation of touch, or rather, the mind's map of the body is also integral to our "feeling" of where the mind is located). I'm willing to bet that if you completely removed each and every single stimuli from all of the senses then your feeling of the mind being located in the head would also disappear, for the simple reason that you would have lost the sensation of even having a head in the first place. And I'm having a hard time seeing how you could "feel" like the mind is located in the head if you can't even feel your head, or any other part of your body for that matter, any more.

THAT would be an intriguing experiment - and I have no idea how you would accomplish it. I wonder what a person with "locked in" syndrome experiences. Since I see no avenue for verifying this speculation, I guess we have to leave it at "we don't know."

As for the brains electrochemical activity actually being the mind, well, I'm skeptical of that, to put it mildly. For one, one integral aspect of the mind and thoughts that electro-chemical activity seem to lack completely is intentionality. A mind can be focused on a specific subject, and thoughts are always about something, but I have a hard time seeing how electro-chemical activity can be either focused on anything (unless you equivocate between to different meanings of "focused"), or about something.

Think about what "being focused on" means. In my experience, my thoughts are sifting through various memories and striving to find associations to address a problem, question, or make a decision. Why cannot electrochemical activity be doing that in much the same way a computer accesses memory to derive data, elements of programming, and address a particular problem (i.e., displaying something on a screen, solving an equation, etc.)? The human brain's ability to do this puts the computer to shame due to the exponentially greater complexity of the neural connections - not the situations are analogous.

For me on the other hand, the experience has been the complete opposite. The more I read and consider the arguments for or against, the stronger the reasons to believe in the existence of God and an immortal soul seem to become, and just like you (except my experience has been about the arguments/reasons for not believing) I end up feeling like the arguments for the other side are simply "wishful thinking".

Same path - opposite directions...

[carpedm9587]

Of coarse it is, as Carp mentioned, rationally you are "dead in the water." You have no rational basis for any claim since it opposite could be equally true.

"course"


Fondly -

Your friendly neighborhood Grammar Nazi!


(I chuckle because my son does this all the time)

[seer]

"course"


Fondly -

Your friendly neighborhood Grammar Nazi!


(I chuckle because my son does this all the time)

Really? Do you want me to spell check you again? Remember what happened last time.

[JimL]

So first, you declaring that mind/soul are the same doesn't make it so, Jim. As I said, I believe most theists differentiate between the two. You might want to listen to what they say so you are addressing what they are actually saying rather than what you think they are saying.

What I meant is that they are the same in the sense that, according to the argument, they are both distinct and separable from the material body.

And I have no issue with mind being distinct from brain. By distinct I do not mean separate. I believe mind emerges from brain and is intrinsically linked to it. You can have brain without mind, but not mind without brain.

I think then that you need to make clearer what it is that you mean by that distinction if you do not mean separate from. That you can have matter without mind, doesn't make the functions emerging from matter a thing in itself. The mind, the functions of the brain, the mental states, obviously emerge from the complex nature of the material brain, but those mental states of the brain don't exist outside of the brain in the sense that believers of spirit are arguing.

But, as I noted, even modern scientists cannot explain how "mind" (self-reflection, sentience, the sense of "I", etc.) is created by the synaptic activity of the brain. Will we someday? I have no idea. I'm not sure why you feel a need to deny what I have to assume is your experience as well - that the gray matter between your ears creates an sense of "I" that we do not yet understand.

Well, that is true, the brain is extremely complex and far from understood, but I don't understand how the sense of "I" created by that gray matter need be seen as something distinct from that gray matter itself. That's why it's so complex, that's why it's a brain and not a rock.

I would just like to add that, as with the argument for creation, ex nihilo nihil fit, from nothing nothing comes. The immaterial can't come from the material since the one has nothing to do with the other. In order to emerge from it, it would need first be of its nature.

[carpedm9587]

Goes to far? Like you said - he is dead in the water - rationally. On every possible point or claim.

Hence, "goes too far."

This is my point Carp, when you don't find an argument compelling you hint that it is illogical (as if it violated a law of logic). Peter Kreeft's deductive arguments are not illogical, you may disagree with certain premises but that is a different story. So what you often claim as illogical only means that which you subjectively don't find compelling. Which can be taken with a grain of salt.

Actually, I don't recall saying anything about why I don't find them compelling. Generally, those that are logically structured tend to begin with premises that cannot be shown to be true. Others swap the meaning of a word midstream, or otherwise violate the structure of a proper syllogism. All in all, I have not found a single one of them a compelling argument. Whether or not you take that with a "grain of salt" is not germane to the issue.

[carpedm9587]

You are begging the question, it is the life permitting universe that needs to be explained.

Why?

[carpedm9587]

Yes the sunlit upland of the agnostic, where there is nothing to be defended or believed...

Actually, it's the practical view that does not simply resort to a "god of the gaps." Sometimes, we don't know. I find it more intellectually honest to simply say, "I don't know."

[carpedm9587]

Really? Do you want me to spell check you again? Remember what happened last time.

Oh I am always open to being corrected, Seer. Spell check away!

[carpedm9587]

What I meant is that they are the same in the sense that, according to the argument, they are both distinct and separable from the material body.

In that you are correct - those who believe in both would probably agree with this statement. So they share some common characteristics, but I think you will find they are seen as different things.

I think then that you need to make clearer what it is that you mean by that distinction if you do not mean separate from. That you can have matter without mind, doesn't make the functions emerging from matter a thing in itself. The mind, the functions of the brain, the mental states, obviously emerge from the complex nature of the material brain, but those mental states of the brain don't exist outside of the brain in the sense that believers of spirit are arguing.

Distinct: recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type.

Distinct does not imply separate, Jim, although things that are separate may also be distinct. It generally means "different in kind," at least in this context.

Well, that is true, the brain is extremely complex and far from understood, but I don't understand how the sense of "I" created by that gray matter need be seen as something distinct from that gray matter itself. That's why it's so complex, that's why it's a brain and not a rock.

We are talking about emergent properties: properties that emerge from complex systems that are not present in individual members of that complex system. As such, they they arise from the complex system, they are also distinct from it. If you were to separate the elements of the complex system into it's individual elements, the emergent property would disappear.

I would just like to add that, as with the argument for creation, ex nihilo nihil fit, from nothing nothing comes. The immaterial can't come from the material since the one has nothing to do with the other. In order to emerge from it, it would need first be of its nature.

So this seems to conflate two things: an argument about creation, and the relationship between the material and immaterial.

Concerning the first, there is some intriguing research concerning virtual particles that suggest that "nothing" is a very unstable state, and can give rise to "something." It runs counter to everything we think we know about cause/effect, but our knowledge about cause/effect has always been based on our experiences at this macroscopic level. It appears at extreme microscopic levels, the rules may not be the same.

As for material/immaterial, I think the hard line people place between these things is a mistake. We are surrounded by material things giving rise to immaterial things, and vice versa. Generally, I am inclined to think that the material gives rise to the immaterial which can then impact the material in a feedback mechanism. But if immaterial virtual particles can give rise to real photons...then it may be that the immaterial can, in the right circumstances, give rise to the material.

[seer]

Why?

Why what?

[carpedm9587]

Why what?

Seer: You are begging the question, it is the life permitting universe that needs to be explained.
Carpe: Why?

The "why" was about your second claim.

And what is it about the life-permitting universe that you question?