Determinism And Rationality.

[seer]

If your desires are handed to you by genetics/environment (i.e. not chosen by you), that kind of points to a will that is determined.

OK, I misunderstood, I thought you meant that you can act against your desires. Which I believe we can, and often do. Especially our more base desires.

The forces of nature ARE reality

.
Truths are conceptual and the forces of nature know nothing of these. Nor do they aim for such things.

I don't see God as an explanation. It's just putting a label on "I don't know" and calling it an explanation.

Well no, God is not a "I don't know." Do you have a better explanation for a fine tuned, intelligible universe where rational, conscious beings developed than a rational, conscious Creator?

[Stoic]

OK, I misunderstood, I thought you meant that you can act against your desires. Which I believe we can, and often do. Especially our more base desires.

I see that as some of our desires outweighing other desires.

Truths are conceptual and the forces of nature know nothing of these. Nor do they aim for such things.

The forces of nature determine which creatures will survive and reproduce. At least in some ecological niches, creatures that are better able to understand their environment and anticipate the future will have an advantage in surviving and reproducing. So without aiming for it, the forces of nature produce creatures that are rational.

Well no, God is not a "I don't know." Do you have a better explanation for a fine tuned, intelligible universe where rational, conscious beings developed than a rational, conscious Creator?

I'd say that the weak anthropic principle is a more parsimonious explanation.

[seer]

I see that as some of our desires outweighing other desires.

And that is where are rational immaterial minds make choices.

The forces of nature determine which creatures will survive and reproduce. At least in some ecological niches, creatures that are better able to understand their environment and anticipate the future will have an advantage in surviving and reproducing. So without aiming for it, the forces of nature produce creatures that are rational.

So nature did it? And again, truths (like the anticipating the future) are conceptual in nature, something that has no part or grounding in nature. That seems like a great leap to me.

I'd say that the weak anthropic principle is a more parsimonious explanation.

How does the anthropic principle explain this universe? Yes we must be aware of the universe to understand it, but it does tell the why of this kind of universe exists.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=seer;781605]And that is where are rational immaterial minds make choices. within the limits determined by natural laws and natural processes.

So nature did it? And again, truths (like the anticipating the future) are conceptual in nature, something that has no part or grounding in nature. That seems like a great leap to me.

I do not believe 'Truths' can be determined from the human perspective. The future can be predicted by the objective verifiable evidence within a range of possible outcomes. For example the weather and geologic processes.

How does the anthropic principle explain this universe? Yes we must be aware of the universe to understand it, but it does tell the why of this kind of universe exists.

Consistent and predictable natural laws and natural processes.

[seer]

I do not believe 'Truths' can be determined from the human perspective. The future can be predicted by the objective verifiable evidence within a range of possible outcomes. For example the weather and geologic processes.

Consistent and predictable natural laws and natural processes.

Please leave my thread...

[Stoic]

And that is where are rational immaterial minds make choices.

We agree that our rational minds make choices. Whether they are immaterial is still in question.

So nature did it? And again, truths (like the anticipating the future) are conceptual in nature, something that has no part or grounding in nature.

It appears that nature did it. If God did it, he seems to have concealed his involvement.

That seems like a great leap to me.

Claiming that the conceptual has no part or grounding in nature seems like a great leap to me.

How does the anthropic principle explain this universe? Yes we must be aware of the universe to understand it, but it does tell the why of this kind of universe exists.

The weak anthropic principle explains why we might think the universe is fine tuned, and was specifically intended to produce rational, intelligent creatures, when that might not be the case.

[seer]

We agree that our rational minds make choices. Whether they are immaterial is still in question.

It is self-evident. With certain equipment you can see and follow the electro-chemical interactions in my brain. But you can't see my thoughts. So there is something non-physical.

It appears that nature did it. If God did it, he seems to have concealed his involvement.

Concealed? "The Heavens Declare the Glory of God, and the skies proclaim His handiwork." Seems rather clear to me.

Claiming that the conceptual has no part or grounding in nature seems like a great leap to me.

Well how do non-rational, physical forces come up with non-physical conceptual rationality?

The weak anthropic principle explains why we might think the universe is fine tuned, and was specifically intended to produce rational, intelligent creatures, when that might not be the case.

The anthropic principle gives no explanation for universal constants or why we have a life permitting universe in the first place. I mean it really isn't scientific principle is it.

[Tassman]

It is self-evident. With certain equipment you can see and follow the electro-chemical interactions in my brain. But you can't see my thoughts. So there is something non-physical.

This is your usual Argument from Ignorance. Neuroscience is increasingly able to read thoughts.

https://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/ca...ead-your-mind/

Concealed? "The Heavens Declare the Glory of God, and the skies proclaim His handiwork." Seems rather clear to me.

This is poetry, NOT science.

Well how do non-rational, physical forces come up with non-physical conceptual rationality?

Rational behavior is an evolved quality to enable optimal level of benefit or utility for individuals. It is a survival mechanism.

The anthropic principle gives no explanation for universal constants or why we have a life permitting universe in the first place. I mean it really isn't scientific principle is it.

The “life-permitting universe” is an anomaly. The vast majority of the universe is utterly hostile to life in any form. It's laughable to think that it exists for us.

[Stoic]

It is self-evident. With certain equipment you can see and follow the electro-chemical interactions in my brain. But you can't see my thoughts. So there is something non-physical.

When you look at a computer, you don't see the software. But that doesn't mean the software is non-physical.

Concealed? "The Heavens Declare the Glory of God, and the skies proclaim His handiwork." Seems rather clear to me.

I guess we can agree that it seems clear to you.

Well how do non-rational, physical forces come up with non-physical conceptual rationality?

Again, that conceptual rationality is non-physical isn't at all obvious. But non-rational physical forces come up with conceptual rationality through the process of evolution. And it seems like we've been here before.

The anthropic principle gives no explanation for universal constants or why we have a life permitting universe in the first place.

No, it's more about explaining why the universe appears to be fine-tuned to produce us.

I mean it really isn't scientific principle is it.

No, it's more philosophical than scientific.

[seer]

When you look at a computer, you don't see the software. But that doesn't mean the software is non-physical.

So are you saying thoughts are physical? If I picture my dear mother in my head is that a physical picture? And if the brain is the hardware, what is the software? Where is it in the brain?

I guess we can agree that it seems clear to you.

Yes, the best explanation for an intelligible life permitting universe where rational, self aware creatures developed.

Again, that conceptual rationality is non-physical isn't at all obvious. But non-rational physical forces come up with conceptual rationality through the process of evolution. And it seems like we've been here before.

Aren't you begging the question? That it must have happened that way with no evidence about how it actually did? And how is the idea that 2+2=5 a physical thing?

No, it's more about explaining why the universe appears to be fine-tuned to produce us.


No, it's more philosophical than scientific.

OK

[Stoic]

So are you saying thoughts are physical? If I picture my dear mother in my head is that a physical picture?

No, it's not a physical picture, just like a pdf file in your computer's memory is not a physical picture.

And if the brain is the hardware, what is the software? Where is it in the brain?

It's the connections between neurons, and the electrical and chemical patterns in the brain.

Yes, the best explanation for an intelligible life permitting universe where rational, self aware creatures developed.

In your opinion.

Aren't you begging the question? That it must have happened that way with no evidence about how it actually did? And how is the idea that 2+2=5 a physical thing?

I'm not trying to prove it. I'm just providing a reasonable alternative to your "explanation", for which there is even less evidence.

[Tassman]

So are you saying thoughts are physical? If I picture my dear mother in my head is that a physical picture?

It derives from the physical activity of the brain. Without a physical brain there are no “pictures of your dear mother in your head”.

And if the brain is the hardware, what is the software? Where is it in the brain?

Neuroscience is increasingly able to locate and read thoughts in the brain.

https://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/ca...ead-your-mind/

Yes, the best explanation for an intelligible life permitting universe where rational, self aware creatures developed.

It is not an explanation at all, it is a ‘bare assertion’, i.e. a logical fallacy.

[seer]

No, it's not a physical picture, just like a pdf file in your computer's memory is not a physical picture.

Except that pdf file is accessible to anyone, it is public, or can be. The image of my mother is not.

It's the connections between neurons, and the electrical and chemical patterns in the brain.

Which part is the software and which is the hardware?

In your opinion.

Why would your position make more sense?

I'm not trying to prove it. I'm just providing a reasonable alternative to your "explanation", for which there is even less evidence.

You keep bringing up the computer as an example, but that is the rational (us) creating the rational (the computer). I see no good reason to believe that non-rational forces that don't care about or aim for truth or rationality somehow cobbled together creatures that do. Heck we have never seen the forces of nature whip together a simple working abacus, no matter how much time you give it.

[Stoic]

Except that pdf file is accessible to anyone, it is public, or can be. The image of my mother is not.

So? The computer could easily be designed so that its memory is not accessible to anyone.

Which part is the software and which is the hardware?

Given that the brain is a product of evolution, there is no reason to expect such a separation. It's not like a human design where we modularize and compartmentalize everything.

Why would your position make more sense?

It's more parsimonious.

You keep bringing up the computer as an example, but that is the rational (us) creating the rational (the computer). I see no good reason to believe that non-rational forces that don't care about or aim for truth or rationality somehow cobbled together creatures that do. Heck we have never seen the forces of nature whip together a simple working abacus, no matter how much time you give it.

No, nature doesn't design the way humans do. Humans usually have a purpose in mind for the design, and are aiming for a particular result. We use some trial and error, especially for particularly complex designs, but we try to minimize that in order to save time and effort. Nature is all trial and error.

Once you accept that we are a product of evolution, it isn't really hard to believe that our rationality is, too. Just look at the animals around us, with a range of abilities with regard to perceiving our environment and anticipating future events. Having one animal be "best" at that is not really much different than having one animal be "best" at running, another being "best" at swimming, another being "best" at reproducing, etc.

[JimL]

Except that pdf file is accessible to anyone, it is public, or can be. The image of my mother is not.



Which part is the software and which is the hardware?



Why would your position make more sense?




You keep bringing up the computer as an example, but that is the rational (us) creating the rational (the computer). I see no good reason to believe that non-rational forces that don't care about or aim for truth or rationality somehow cobbled together creatures that do. Heck we have never seen the forces of nature whip together a simple working abacus, no matter how much time you give it.

Most of the decisions you make are non rational anyway, seer. Your brain is on autopilot most of the time. Remember that study, we've discussed it before, where the decision making process, the choices made, were made before you were actually conscious of the choice. That's an example of how the non-rational forces of nature can produce "what you would call" rational choices.