"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist"

[In Bloom]

The rational argument for the existence of God doesn't depend on the fact that the universe exists, it depends on the fact that the human mind exists in its current form. The mind exhibits qualities that do not arise from experience but make experience possible. So where do these qualities come from? Your answer to that question will be your definition of "God."

What if the answer is brain chemistry and neurology?

 

[Fruitloop]

Human experience reflects the structure and functioning of the brain.

 

[kyser_soze]

Umm, an incredibly complex series of chemical and electrical systems in the brain and body interacting with each other to process, store and evaluate in ways science is only starting to understand. That's where the qualities come from mate - doesn't presuppose God at all unless you're arguing that I'm my own personal God.

 

[phildwyer]

The modern theory of evolution (which has changed and developed since Darwin, Dawkins tends to attribute way to much importance to Darwin, IMO), makes no claims about comet impacts, afaik.

It doesn't make any claims, because it doesn't have to. The facts are indisputable: the fundamental cause of evolution is the collision of distant galaxies, not competition between indidivual organisms, as Darwin thought. The significance of this is that Darwinism leaves no place for deity in creation, whereas the collision of distant galaxies does. Note that I do not say it *proves* the existence of deity, since it obviously does not.

 

[phildwyer]

You really are mad, aren't you?

And you, Bloom, are eighteen years old. Aren't you?

 

[phildwyer]

Umm, an incredibly complex series of chemical and electrical systems in the brain and body interacting with each other to process, store and evaluate in ways science is only starting to understand. That's where the qualities come from mate - doesn't presuppose God at all unless you're arguing that I'm my own personal God.

Consciousness, or ideas in general, can't be explained by material factors because they are not material things.

 

[Fruitloop]

Neither are software or symphonies physical entities, but you can see how they arise from material things.

 

[phildwyer]

I'm pretty sure that any of the inidigenous populations wiped out or 'saved' by priests would have a very different perspective on this. That allied to the fact that more primitive societies were just as destructive to the natural environment as we are - it just happened over longer time scales.

First of all, priests didn't wipe out any indigenous populations (and I'm certainly no fan of priests.) Secondly, I think there's a qualitative difference, rather than a merely quantitative one as you suggest, between a group of hunter-gatherers over-fishing their local pond and the nuclear bomb.

 

[phildwyer]

Neither are software or symphonies physical entities, but you can see how they arise from material things.

Yes, but you *can't* see how an idea arises from a physical thing, because it doesn't.

 

[Fruitloop]

Secondly, I think there's a qualitative difference, rather than a merely quantitative one as you suggest, between a group of hunter-gatherers over-fishing their local pond and the nuclear bomb

The Maori managed to cause something like 70% deforestation through hunting by burning out areas of bush in NZ.

 

[In Bloom]

It doesn't make any claims, because it doesn't have to. The facts are indisputable: the fundamental cause of evolution is the collision of distant galaxies, not competition between indidivual organisms, as Darwin thought. The significance of this is that Darwinism leaves no place for deity in creation, whereas the collision of distant galaxies does. Note that I do not say it *proves* the existence of deity, since it obviously does not.

1. Darwin believed in God when he wrote The Origin of Species, it even includes several references to a "Creator", IIRC, anyway, Darwinian evolution certainly doesn't exclude the possibility of God.
2. What evidence exists for your claim that "the fundamental cause of evolution is the collision of distant galaxies".
3. Why is your colliding galaxies stuff any friendlier to God than Darwinian evolution?
   
   

   And you, Bloom, are eighteen years old. Aren't you?

   What does my age have to do with anything? What a pointless ad hom that was.

 

[kyser_soze]

Consciousness is, IMV based on the existing evidence, a subjective state that humans experience as a result of neurological activity - you can 'see' consciousness on brain scans cos there's electrical activity even when the brain is at rest. Are you trying to say that there is some mystic force that 'adds' to the chemical experience of falling in love with someone? Your argument about them 'not being material' may fall down completey once we know how the brain stores and organises memory which is the basis for experience and how we learn, have ideas etc.

The 'concept' of an idea isn't material, but the processes the brain goes through to get them is - and an idea does physically exist - as I've said, the neurological activity of the brain having an idea can be observed (and it's usually massive as well). Have you ever seen a brain scan of someone in the first flush of being in love with someone? There 'resting' brain actvity is radically different from the norm - and it's this activity that they are experiencing as falling in love.

 

[In Bloom]

Yes, but you *can't* see how an idea arises from a physical thing, because it doesn't.

What do you call the human brain then?

 

[Fruitloop]

What do you call the human brain then?

And can you imagine an idea existing without a brain? What would it be like?

 

[belboid]

The facts are indisputable: the fundamental cause of evolution is the collision of distant galaxies, not competition between indidivual organisms, as Darwin thought.

are you realy saying that that is indisputable? Because that is blatantly untrue if so.

 

[kyser_soze]

First of all, priests didn't wipe out any indigenous populations (and I'm certainly no fan of priests.) Secondly, I think there's a qualitative difference, rather than a merely quantitative one as you suggest, between a group of hunter-gatherers over-fishing their local pond and the nuclear bomb.

But we're not talking about a few h-gs are we? Europe lost over 90% of it's forest during the middle ages.

No it doesn't 'compare' with having the capacity to wipe ourselves out (diseaese and starvation were, and still are, far more effective ways of wiping out poor populations) but to say that previous societies didn't fuck the planet up places you in the same category as moron primitivists who labour under the false belief that somehow the h-g lifestyle was really good.

 

[phildwyer]

Consciousness is, IMV based on the existing evidence, a subjective state that humans experience as a result of neurological activity - you can 'see' consciousness on brain scans cos there's electrical activity even when the brain is at rest. Are you trying to say that there is some mystic force that 'adds' to the chemical experience of falling in love with someone? Your argument about them 'not being material' may fall down completey once we know how the brain stores and organises memory which is the basis for experience and how we learn, have ideas etc.

The 'concept' of an idea isn't material, but the processes the brain goes through to get them is - and an idea does physically exist - as I've said, the neurological activity of the brain having an idea can be observed (and it's usually massive as well). Have you ever seen a brain scan of someone in the first flush of being in love with someone? There 'resting' brain actvity is radically different from the norm - and it's this activity that they are experiencing as falling in love.

No-one experiences falling in love in terms of brain patterns. When we fall in love, as with other experiences, the differences in the physical activity in the brain are caused by ideas, not the other way around. You cannot "see consciousness," you can see physical reactions to consciousness. Even in order to have the concept of "matter" we need to have the concept of something that is *not* matter. The structure of logic itself dictates the independent existence of ideas.

 

[phildwyer]

What does my age have to do with anything? What a pointless ad hom that was.

Your age suggests that you don't know very much. Not your fault, obviously. I wouldn't have brought it up had you not called me mad.

 

[Fruitloop]

How could something non-physical like an idea 'cause' a brain pattern? That would suggest that physical changes in the brain take place that are not explicable in terms of physical interactions within the brain/nervous system itself, which doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[kyser_soze]

And can you imagine an idea existing without a brain? What would it be like?

It wouldn't exist would it? You need a brain to make an idea exist. They don't exist in some kind of vacuum...

 

[belboid]

It wouldn't exist would it? You need a brain to make an idea exist. They don't exist in some kind of vacuum...

must live in Plato`s realm then...

 

[phildwyer]

How could something non-physical like an idea 'cause' a brain pattern? That would suggest that physical changes in the brain take place that are not explicable in terms of physical interactions within the brain/nervous system itself, which doesn't appear to be the case.

Well, if you do a brain scan of someone reading a book, say, you will see that their brain patterns change when they come to a particularly exciting passage. Obviously in such a case the physical reaction is caused by the idea, rather than the other way around. Ideas and brain patterns are two different orders of being. To admit this doesn't commit you to the belief that ideas can exist without the physical brain, if that's what's bothering you.

 

[phildwyer]

It wouldn't exist would it? You need a brain to make an idea exist. They don't exist in some kind of vacuum...

That is certainly true, at least while we're alive.

 

[Fruitloop]

Well, if you do a brain scan of someone reading a book, say, you will see that their brain patterns change when they come to a particularly exciting passage. Obviously in such a case the physical reaction is caused by the idea, rather than the other way around. Ideas and brain patterns are two different orders of being. To admit this doesn't commit you to the belief that ideas can exist without the physical brain, if that's what's bothering you.

Brain patterns change in response to sensory input, certainly - probably the most obvious change in brain patterns can be effected by opening and closing your eyes. Processing of linguistic information is essentially the same but is of a higher order of complexity and is located in a different part of the brain, but I still see it just as a cascade of changes brought on by a sensory stimulus rather than by an 'idea' per se.

 

[kyser_soze]

No-one experiences falling in love in terms of brain patterns. When we fall in love, as with other experiences, the differences in the physical activity in the brain are caused by ideas, not the other way around. You cannot "see consciousness," you can see physical reactions to consciousness. Even in order to have the concept of "matter" we need to have the concept of something that is *not* matter. The structure of logic itself dictates the independent existence of ideas.

Sorry mate, but the brain responds to the physical stimulus not the other way round, runs that through the giant sensory/filtering system called the brain and experiences consciousness - the material world comes first.

An example of the censoring function: you or I would not be able to return a cricket ball bowled by a professional player. Another professional player would and this is acheived, (as are most sporting and martial disciplines) by repeating and practicing the same movements over and over again until you reach a point where the brain doesn't have to think or assses the situation it's in, it reacts without thinking. When you or I attempt to hit the ball our conscious mind has to process, evaluate and send 'action' signals around the body before we act and because of this we're a lot more likely to miss the ball.

The human brain is a remarkable thing but it's also VERY clunky at processing on the fly, especially in situations of heightened awareness/activity such as sport. The problem with your argument Phil, is that every year it's increasingly disproved that we 'experience' in the mind before there is a physical component - it's the other way round.

And of course we don't experience love as a series of brain waves and chemical reactions but that's how it happens. Been shown. Lots.

 

[kyser_soze]

must live in Plato`s realm then...

I'd forgotten our Phil was a Platonist and still believes that the logos exist and aren't just a cutlural artefact of human existance.

 

[phildwyer]

Sorry mate, but the brain responds to the physical stimulus not the other way round, runs that through the giant sensory/filtering system called the brain and experiences consciousness - the material world comes first.

On the contrary, we could have no experience of the material world--it would not exist for us--unless we had a certain kind of mind, with certain concepts hard-wired into it. For example, time and space do not exist "out there," they are functions of the human mind.

 

[kyser_soze]

Well, if you do a brain scan of someone reading a book, say, you will see that their brain patterns change when they come to a particularly exciting passage. Obviously in such a case the physical reaction is caused by the idea, rather than the other way around. Ideas and brain patterns are two different orders of being. To admit this doesn't commit you to the belief that ideas can exist without the physical brain, if that's what's bothering you.

No mate - the brain is responding to physical input - in this case reading - which upon interpretation by the brain causes the neural activity. The 'idea' is the brains interpretation of the words on the page, which is sensory stimulus - your brain isn't making the story up itself, it's interpreting the information on the page of the book.

 

[phildwyer]

And of course we don't experience love as a series of brain waves and chemical reactions but that's how it happens. Been shown. Lots.

This is a deeply superstitious allegation. You claim that, although, we never experience love that way, somehow, at a level beyond (beneath?) our experience, that's what love "really' is? What nonsense! Can you really be claiming that "brain waves and chemical reactions" are the *cause* of love? Is it not perfectly obviously to everyone that they are the *effects* of love?

 

[kyser_soze]

On the contrary, we could have no experience of the material world--it would not exist for us--unless we had a certain kind of mind, with certain concepts hard-wired into it. For example, time and space do not exist "out there," they are functions of the human mind.

Both time and space exist outside of the human mind and our concept of reality simply because the universe changes with or without us. The rest of the universe that we observe doesn't exists because we say it does, it exists because it's actually there in material reality.

What do you mean by 'certain type of mind'? One that is simply more complex at sensory processing than other animals that we are aware of our own existance and are capable of using that advantage to make highly complex tools etc? Our brains are just an animal brain with some fancier design work, nothing more, nothing less.

Humans don't have a hardwired concept of space either - if they did we'd all be born with perfect physical coordination instead of having to learn it.