Religous debates and questions [2]

It doesn't bother you that they are gossiping behind your back?

(I understand brussel sprouts are the worst)

David, I am not exactly sure what you mean regarding the third paragraph but I will attempt to expand the arguments.

Part 3a presents a candidate model for the coevolution of mind (rather than it being mapped to physical properties, ie physicalism). It uses biological evolution as a paradigm for how they might evolve (ie it being beneficial to the organism to have a "second" layer of intelligence). However this model really can't be taken too seriously at present as it requires interaction between a mental and a physical realm. We don't observe any potential infiltration (masked as indeterminacy) on these scales. There is a possibility that some quantum effects (indeterminacy) could be amplified via chaos, however this process would not be applicable to large scale information transfers (to date they have rather been considered in the context of thresholds of will; a simple one-way interaction). If such events did occur (NB there is a finite probability of anything happening), they would not occur regularly enough to enable conscious intention-memory transfers. Memories of internal actions are stored in the brain; which strongly suggests a mapping (correspondence) rather than an interaction between mind and matter (substance dualism). If such events did occur they would be classified as miracles (the physical laws of the universe would be considered not to hold in certain regions of the universe, ie human central nervous systems).

Part 3b; if physicalism (and emergence) is assumed, then we are left with no obvious mechanism that a multiverse can select for the existence of complex mental systems. This follows from the definition of physicalism; mental properties are redundant, and appear to just coincidentally map to predefined arrangements (physical subsets) of the universe; the structure or function of the human CNS. NB freewill theory involving will power thresholds appears the exception to true redundancy under physicalism; yet the system can still be described to operate perfectly by physical law albeit indeterministic (and as such can be omitted in this context). Panpsychism is perhaps the best candidate for a philosophical naturalism because it makes the least assumptions (it does not assume certain physical systems are special/facilitate emergent mental properties). It however makes claims of a more widespread existence of mind of which we have no experience. It is also criticised for proposing ill-defined parameters (eg what constitutes a mind, and how can a traditionally considered unconscious material arrangement possess mental properties).

In paragraph 3 I was referring to the application of the weak anthropic principle to the generation of sentient beings (although I use it once in the stronger sense of "only existents can talk about being existent and therefore they must exist"). In the final paragraph of my last post I am referring to the anthropic principle more generally; that we should observe our universe as being conducive to conscious life (and yes I consider it a tautology, unless one presupposes intervention of some kind). In a somewhat abstract sense, both the strong and weak versions can be considered tautologies also (if there is tree falling in a forest that nobody heard, did it make a sound?)

And to put it all in a nutshell, we don't know for sure  why anything in relation to ultimate beginnings, neither superstitionists nor scientists can answer the question without question however much either of them claim they can - but superstitionists imagine God in Man's metaphysical image and He (whatever version) hands down Godly (inconsistent) Rules and Laws which sound suspiciously Manmade while scientists accept that Rules and Laws are Manmade.  

There's a story about a philosophy professor staggering into the classroom on the day of the final exam, and dropping a large rock on the front desk with a thud.

"Your exam", he told the class, "consists of writing an essay proving this rock does not exist."

Everyone in the class bent heads over their papers and started scribbling busily away.  But one of them looked off in space for a few moments - noting the pleasant sunny day outside - then wrote two words on the paper, walked up front to drop it off, and left.

His essay: "What rock?"

What about the lecturer who walked in and put something down on the table which no one could see, touch, hear or smell and asked, "In approximately three hundred words answer the question: 'What's this then?'"

All except one scribbled away. The one who was preoccupied with something outside the window - perhaps it was the same day and same school as your student, Halfy - caught the lecturer's attention.

"So you have no answer, young man?"

"I do. But it's so obvious what it is what's the point of writing an essay about it?"

"Okay, Sir. Tell me what it is."

"It's a rock," the student answered full knowingly.

"Ahh! I understand now," said the lecturer. "You're a superstitionist."

halfwise wrote:There's a story about a philosophy professor staggering into the classroom on the day of the final exam, and dropping a large rock on the front desk with a thud.

"Your exam", he told the class, "consists of writing an essay proving this rock does not exist."

Everyone in the class bent heads over their papers and started scribbling busily away.  But one of them looked off in space for a few moments - noting the pleasant sunny day outside - then wrote two words on the paper, walked up front to drop it off, and left.

His essay: "What rock?"

did he get an A+?

Undoubtably.

halfwise wrote:It doesn't bother you that they are gossiping behind your back?

Not a bit.
We farmers with our crops are just like teachers with their students that way.
We get together and gossip about them, knowing full well that they're doing the same about us.
It's just the nature of the world really. You can't let it get to you.  

RichardBruce,
OK, I think I understand each of the arguments now. If what you're saying is that none of these arguments are really persuasive, but neither are they entirely refutable, then I completely agree!  

I'm cautious about lumping so many possible theories under the term "tautology" though, because some of the most elegant and powerful proofs in mathematics are based on circular arguments. You've got to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

{{{Also I think there's a fun side-discussion on the evolution paradigm you mentioned, but that may keep for another time.}}}

What mathematical proofs are based on a circular argument?

 
Of course you'd hold me to my word, wouldn't you?  

When I made the statement I had in mind the self-referential element of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, but proof by infinite decent is a standard tool in Number Theory when you need to compress [countable] infinity into something more manageable.

In essence you're asking a kitten to chase it's tail till it wears itself out.

(Could somebody please find me a kitten GIF to illustrate the point? )

Do we need a 'Scientific debates and questions' thread? This seems an odd place to air scientific speculations; I mean, on a substantially 'let's discuss our superstitions' thread...  

Is this ok Dave ?

That cat seems touched by God. A whirling dervish-cat no doubt... oooooohhh...

Does a bit doesnt it Orwell ! I like this one also.....

I wonder if the cats in The Little People might do things like that? Bears thinking about.   

  

Orwell wrote:Do we need a 'Scientific debates and questions' thread? :scratch:This seems an odd place to air scientific speculations; I mean, on a substantially 'let's discuss our superstitions' thread...  

It's really all cut out of the same fabric, Orwell. It's never been clear where one stops and the other starts.   

azriel wrote:Is this ok Dave ?

Perrrfect Az!   

Orwell wrote:I wonder if the cats in The Little People might do things like that? Bears thinking about.   

 
BEARS!!!!   
  

Brilliant Dave, brilliant   

As in, "Lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) Lions and tigers and bears..."?   

The problem with these blasted forumshire threads is that if you miss more than 12 hours you have to go back and read a page or two just figure out what the damn-hell everyone's talking about now.    Then you find it's related to what everyone was talking about, just morphed into unrecognizability.

Plus, Azriel's changed her avatar.  (nice skin, by the way.   )

You'd think years of drinking would have gotten me used to this...

Thanks Halfy ! but um....Im more like the left side of the page these days !
And that is the fun (?) thing about this place......... its crackers !! nothing is regimental, its often chaos, & its great !
IL get Mullerd now