Subject:

Comments:
: <JT>I didn't understand what you meant in a great portion of your message, but I'll try to answer the best I can.</JT> : : You've just implicitly stated that reason itself is based on plain luck. : <JT>I would say that the fact that we reason, i.e., the evolutionary path to our current location in time, is partly luck, partly physics, but reason itself is not luck. If I argue that given A, B follows, therefore, C, then the reasoning itself can be verified or argued, but that is separate from the fact that I am able to reason.</JT> : You've undermined, by giving it almost impossible odds of validity, the very basis on which you argue. : <JT>You're going to have to explain/expand upon this a bit. I have no idea what you mean by "odds of validity," or how I undermined anything.</JT> : If the motion of atoms in our brains determine what we think, then what basis do we have for accepting that our brains are composed of atoms? : <JT>Your chain of reasoning escapes me. My reasoning is a function of the mechanics of my neurons, but that in no way binds me to a determined fate. It's an undeniable fact that we have volition and consciousness. That we don't know exactly how our brains work doesn't deny that our brains do work.</JT> : In so many words you've just admitted that what you've said has virtually impossible odds of being true. Your position can only be maintained by a grand (and I mean grrrrrand) leap of faith. : <JT>I'll put this as succinctly as I know how: huh?</JT> : : ::It may be that there is something behind all that we see, but if so, there's nothing besides wanting to see it to back it up. : : My apologies, but I don't understand your point (that's what I get for jumping in on a conversation). Could you clarify this for me? : <JT>I was arguing with Noctilucent about material vs. dualist philosophies. At least, I was. I won't speak for N. : In all my arguments with dualists, I've noticed that all their claims are based on one thing: what we don't know. They claim we don't know X, therefore, Y. Except Y is not a necessary conclusion of not knowing X. In other words, that we don't know how the universe orginated does not necessarily imply that God created it. That we don't know how our brains work does not imply that consciousness exists on a separate, independent, immaterial plane.</JT> : : ::I for one do not suppose that my wishes have any direct effect on the nature of the universe, so when I think about such things as human consciousness and the origins of the universe, keep my wishes out of it. : : How can you? Our knowledge, according to you, is based on the way the cue ball hits the atom balls of our brains. Do you admit some sort of freedom in your theory of determinism? : <JT>I never claimed a theory of determinism. I take it as a primary fact that I have free will and volition. I also take it for granted that no brain=no consciousnesss. The two are not at odds with each other.</JT> : A slippery slope for you I would think. Or will you admit that your conclusion was determined by the way your particular atoms moved and my conclusion, though incompatible with and contrary to yours, is equally valid? : <JT>I don't know where you're getting a slippery slope from what I have said.</JT> : : ::As for your insect example, correct me if I'm wrong, but now we're talking about creationism, aren't we? : : I'm not sure whether or not Noctillucent intended to imply that, but the way I see it is the only basis for trusting reason itself is to admit it comes from an Ultimate Reason. That Ultimate Reason must obviously be more like a person than a thing, therefore God (ultimate Reason) is personal. : <JT>And you accuse <B>me</B> of a leap of faith?</JT> : : ::How do you know that they aren't spelling out a bunch of things in other languages which haven't been invented yet? : : Does it make whether or not it means anything in another language? The point is, can you accept the message (in whatever language) from blind chance as true? Only if you appeal to impossible odds and take the leap. : <JT>You missed the point I was trying to make, that a group of insects as in N's example could in theory randomly spell out a message, but that it would have no meaning or intelligence. I.e., insects may be spelling out messages in a language you don't understand, in yoru backyard right now, and where you don't even notice, a Russian may have conniptions.</JT> : : ::Besides, our brains are hard wired to seek faces in our visual perception. They've proven it with experiements where babies are drawn to shapes which resemble human faces than to otherwise similar shapes. Don't you think it's reasonable to suppose that whatever spiritual God you think is out there is just this, taken to a higher level? : : Before you ask what is reasonable, can you maintain the validity of reason itself? : <JT>Sure.</JT> : Or will you leave us with a sickening (and by sickening I mean literally head spinning...causing nausea) brand of skepticism which can't even tell us what it just told us? : <JT>Take some dramamine and say that again more intelligibly, and I'll answer the best I can.</JT>

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: