Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[seer]

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?

Well me and Jim are discussing the origins of the universe. Jim claims that a natural universe points to a natural cause. But that begs the question. Why would a natural universe point to a natural cause? And what makes one think that this is a natural universe? What does that even mean?

[carpedm9587]

Well me and Jim are discussing the origins of the universe. Jim claims that a natural universe points to a natural cause. But that begs the question. Why would a natural universe point to a natural cause? And what makes one think that this is a natural universe? What does that even mean?

And that still does not explain the claim, "the life-permitting universe needs to be explained."

Why does it need to be explained?

[seer]

And that still does not explain the claim, "the life-permitting universe needs to be explained."

Why does it need to be explained?

The point is you can't claim that the natural universe has a natural cause because it happens to be natural (as Jim claimed). That is begging the question.

[carpedm9587]

The point is you can't claim that the natural universe has a natural cause because it happens to be natural (as Jim claimed). That is begging the question.

We have no clue what caused this universe. I'm not sure what Jim means by "natural" either, in this context. But you still aren't answering my question. You said, "it is the life permitting universe that needs to be explained." I'm asking, "why?"

If you don't want to answer, that's fine. I was just curious.

[seer]

We have no clue what caused this universe. I'm not sure what Jim means by "natural" either, in this context. But you still aren't answering my question. You said, "it is the life permitting universe that needs to be explained." I'm asking, "why?"

If you don't want to answer, that's fine. I was just curious.

Carp are you being dense on purpose? I'm saying that Jim can not use the natural universe to explain the cause of natural universe. That is why he is begging the question and why I said it is the universe that needs to be explained.

[carpedm9587]

Carp are you being dense on purpose? I'm saying that Jim can not use the natural universe to explain the cause of natural universe. That is why he is begging the question and why I said it is the universe that needs to be explained.

And I am asking why "the life-permitting universe" needs to be explained. I wasn't referring to Jim's argument. Just your statement.

NVM, Seer. If you don't want to answer the question, as I said, it's not a major issue. I just found it a curious statement.

[seer]

And I am asking why "the life-permitting universe" needs to be explained. I wasn't referring to Jim's argument. Just your statement.

My statement is in reaction to his claim...I'm saying he can't use the universe to explain the universe, that is begging the question.

NVM, Seer. If you don't want to answer the question, as I said, it's not a major issue. I just found it a curious statement.

I am answering! What the hell is wrong with you!

[carpedm9587]

My statement is in reaction to his claim...I'm saying he can't use the universe to explain the universe, that is begging the question.

I am answering! What the hell is wrong with you!

NVM, Seer. Carry on.

[JimL]

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.

So, in their case, mental states really have nothing to do with it, because, at least as far as I can decipher, they, or at least most of them, believe too that a soul, which has nothing to do with the mental states emergent from the material brain, is emergent from the material body. Perhaps I'm wrong in that, maybe they think they are just an immaterial brain of some sort. It's hard to say what they actual think concerning the soul, because it is never really explained in depth what they mean by either soul or mind. Perhaps someone can better explain that in response!

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.

But mental states, consciousness, are not things in themselves, so they can't be defind as things different in kind, they are not things, they are states of matter Now you could argue that a brain, in that it's complex configuration produces mental states, is different in kind from a rock, but they are both things in themselves, they are still both forms of matter.

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.

As you say the emergent properties of complex systems disappear along with the disappearance of the system itself which suggest that they are simply properties of the system and not things in themselves which is what the basic argument concerning "mind" is all about. I don't disagree with your affirmation that mind is not exactly the same thing as brain, that it's what the brain does, but what we call mind isn't a thing that exist apart from the brain, mental states are not things that exist separately from the brain, mental states, feelings, consciousness are of the brain and are in the brain.

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.

I don't know about all of that carpe, I don't know what you are talking about being surrounded by immaterial things giving rise to material things. If you are talking about virtual particles, I don't know, but I don't think that virtual particles are what you are suggesting they are, i.e that they are nothing, or that they emerge from nothing.

[carpedm9587]

So, in their case, mental states really have nothing to do with it, because, at least as far as I can decipher, they, or at least most of them, believe too that a soul, which has nothing to do with the mental states emergent from the material brain, is emergent from the material body. Perhaps I'm wrong in that, maybe they think they are just an immaterial brain of some sort. It's hard to say what they actual think concerning the soul, because it is never really explained in depth what they mean by either soul or mind. Perhaps someone can better explain that in response!

But mental states, consciousness, are not things in themselves, so they can't be defind as things different in kind, they are not things, they are states of matter Now you could argue that a brain, in that it's complex configuration produces mental states, is different in kind from a rock, but they are both things in themselves, they are still both forms of matter.

Jim, I doubt that you will find any scientist who agrees with the assertion "mind is matter." The brain is matter. The electrochemical processes are a combination of matter and energy. The mind? We really don't know what "mind" is (beyond our experience of it) or how it relates to brain. You are leaping as far to the "materialist" side as theists move to the "immaterialist" side, and with equally as little justification. We don't know is pretty much the best we can do with it at this point.

As you say the emergent properties of complex systems disappear along with the disappearance of the system itself which suggest that they are simply properties of the system and not things in themselves which is what the basic argument concerning "mind" is all about. I don't disagree with your affirmation that mind is not exactly the same thing as brain, that it's what the brain does, but what we call mind isn't a thing that exist apart from the brain, mental states are not things that exist separately from the brain, mental states, feelings, consciousness are of the brain and are in the brain.

Jim, what you are missing about emergent properties is that nothing is added (as far as we have been able to determine) to the individual elements of the system to create the emergent property. It is the organization of the system, and the relationship between the elements that gives rise to the emergent property. If you wonder about this, look at this video:

.

These birds are no different than the individual birds you see sitting on a pole or flying individually or in small groups. But when they gather is larger groups, a property emerges from the whole that is not present in the individuals - only in the assemblage of the group. Not a single bird has been changed. The same is true of cities, economies, mobs, and a host of other complex systems. This "something" is the ineffable referred to as an emergent property. We know precious little about them. We are just starting to study them. Is it related to the physical? Absolutely. But if you cannot find the property in the individuals that make up the complex system, then where, exactly, does the emergent property arise from?

I don't know about all of that carpe, I don't know what you are talking about being surrounded by immaterial things giving rise to material things. If you are talking about virtual particles, I don't know, but I don't think that virtual particles are what you are suggesting they are, i.e that they are nothing, or that they emerge from nothing.

I suggest you look them up. The field is a fascinating one. I am not a physicist, so I cannot pretend to fully understand the science. But then again, maybe I'm not alone. Theoretical physicist Richard Feynman is reputed to have said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

[shunyadragon]

It is not a false dichotomy, you have simply chosen option two: the non-directed, non-conscious, non-rational forces of nature. And BTW Tass, the vast majority of creatures on earth survive fine without consciousness or self-awareness...

Many mammals demonstrate consciousness and some a degree of self-awareness.

[shunyadragon]

Well me and Jim are discussing the origins of the universe. Jim claims that a natural universe points to a natural cause. But that begs the question. Why would a natural universe point to a natural cause? And what makes one think that this is a natural universe? What does that even mean?

Jim would be correct, there is no other objective verifiable evidence fro anything other than Natural origins of our physical existence. There is no objective reason for any other explanation.

[JimL]

Jim, I doubt that you will find any scientist who agrees with the assertion "mind is matter." The brain is matter. The electrochemical processes are a combination of matter and energy. The mind? We really don't know what "mind" is (beyond our experience of it) or how it relates to brain. You are leaping as far to the "materialist" side as theists move to the "immaterialist" side, and with equally as little justification. We don't know is pretty much the best we can do with it at this point.



Jim, what you are missing about emergent properties is that nothing is added (as far as we have been able to determine) to the individual elements of the system to create the emergent property. It is the organization of the system, and the relationship between the elements that gives rise to the emergent property. If you wonder about this, look at this video:

.

These birds are no different than the individual birds you see sitting on a pole or flying individually or in small groups. But when they gather is larger groups, a property emerges from the whole that is not present in the individuals - only in the assemblage of the group. Not a single bird has been changed. The same is true of cities, economies, mobs, and a host of other complex systems. This "something" is the ineffable referred to as an emergent property. We know precious little about them. We are just starting to study them. Is it related to the physical? Absolutely. But if you cannot find the property in the individuals that make up the complex system, then where, exactly, does the emergent property arise from?



I suggest you look them up. The field is a fascinating one. I am not a physicist, so I cannot pretend to fully understand the science. But then again, maybe I'm not alone. Theoretical physicist Richard Feynman is reputed to have said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

I don't believe that there are two substances, or that we need postulate a substance other than matter in order to accommodate the existence of mind or what we call mental states. When I say that mind is a property of matter I don't mean to say that it is an emergent property, I mean to say that it, i.e. mind, is inherent in the nature of matter itself, that it is only emergent in the sense of it's hieghtened capacity in the more complex and evolved systems such as the human brain. But of course these are just my opinions, and I'm not certain of anything, but, that there is the existence of another substance, an immaterial substance to which mind belongs, which is what those on the other side of this issue propose, I see no evidence of and so no reason to accept.

[Tassman]

Again, this has nothing to do with "feeling" like your mind is distinct from your brain, and everything to do with the fact that the attributes that define the mind and it's contents (sensations, feelings, thoughts etc.) are wholly different from the attributes that define the physical brain and it's associated electro-chemical activity. The mind cannot be identical to the brain, or reduced down to the brain for the simple reason that simple logic dictates that if two things differ by even a single attribute they cannot be the same thing, and the mind and the brain differ with regards to several attributes, of which I've already mentioned two (intangibility vs physical/material and intentionality vs "non-intentionality".

The question about how the mind connects to the body is not the so big a problem so as to constitute a defeater for the belief that there exists an immaterial entity called the mind that is distinct from the body. Even if the question never gets a satisfactory answer it's still entirely justified to hold to the belief that the mind is it's own separate existence.

Well it is

Of course it's grounded in existing knowledge, it's grounded in the existing knowledge that two things which do not share exactly the same attributes cannot be identical, but must be distinct from each other.

See above.

What's not grounded in existing knowledge is the belief that the mind is identical to the brain, or brain activity.

There is no good reason to think otherwise. A mere assertion is not sufficient, especially one with the incentivisation of an immortal soul being eternally rewarded.

[Tassman]

It is not a false dichotomy, you have simply chosen option two: the non-directed, non-conscious, non-rational forces of nature.

And BTW Tass, the vast majority of creatures on earth survive fine without consciousness or self-awareness...

This does not alter the verified facts that we have been shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution.