Miracles probably do happen

[Gordy327]

Classic “god of the gaps” input. Really nothing more to say.

That's essentially what all "miracles" boil down to.

 

[Mithrae]

That's essentially what all "miracles" boil down to.

Everything boils down to seeking the best available explanation; pretending that it's not the best available explanation merely out of worry about what it might imply would be obviously irrational.

Out of interest though, have you ever stopped to ask yourself "Gaps in what?" Humanity has assembled reliable/scientific observations across maybe one percent of the land surface areas of a single planet during an infinitessimally small fraction of its temporal existence: But even if we had much more extensive observations - covering a millionth or a thousandth or a tenth or even half of the universe - obviously those observations and any apparent patterns we might derive from them would not in and of themselves preclude the possibility of exceptions to the 'rules' occurring. When you or others are talking about 'gaps' in something you're obviously not referring to our observations, because the 'gaps' in our observations constitute something like 99.99999999999999% of reality! So what are you talking about? Gaps in what? Pseduo-scientific reductionism? A deterministic metaphysics? The implication seems to be that you think reality has largely been explained and understood as much as we could desire, with just a few small areas left to fill in, but if that's the case I must have missed the memo. Feel free to enlighten me... because otherwise it kind of looks like you're just trying to sneak in a philosophical worldview as something to be taken for granted without acknowledging or even recognizing it!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Everything boils down to seeking the best available explanation; pretending that it's not the best available explanation merely out of worry about what it might imply would be obviously irrational.

Out of interest though, have you ever stopped to ask yourself "Gaps in what?" Humanity has assembled reliable/scientific observations across maybe one percent of the land surface areas of a single planet during an infinitessimally small fraction of its temporal existence: But even if we had much more extensive observations - covering a millionth or a thousandth or a tenth or even half of the universe - obviously those observations and any apparent patterns we might derive from them would not in and of themselves preclude the possibility of exceptions to the 'rules' occurring. When you or others are talking about 'gaps' in something you're obviously not referring to our observations, because the 'gaps' in our observations constitute something like 99.99999999999999% of reality! So what are you talking about? Gaps in what? Pseduo-scientific reductionism? A deterministic metaphysics? The implication seems to be that you think reality has largely been explained and understood as much as we could desire, with just a few small areas left to fill in, but if that's the case I must have missed the memo. Feel free to enlighten me... because otherwise it kind of looks like you're just trying to sneak in a philosophical worldview as something to be taken for granted without acknowledging or even recognizing it!

In 1889, Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office. He is widely quoted as having stated that the patent office would soon shrink in size, and eventually close, because… “Everything that can be invented has been invented.”

This is going to come as quite a surprise to those viewing this post.

 

[Galactic Spin]

How do you know that you're not in the Matrix, or something similar?

I don't. Why should I care? That explains nothing. It yields no useful predictions. It adds an unnecessary mystery.

 

[watsup]

The implication seems to be that you think reality has largely been explained and understood as much as we could desire, with just a few small areas left to fill in, but if that's the case I must have missed the memo.

Yet another strawman lie. No one has “implied” any such thing. Why do you insist on being so dishonest in your debate tecniques?
A subset of theism is evidently the need to promote a huge amount of REPETITIVE words, phrases, and sentences without much overall meaning, with you and DrewPaul as prime examples.
Look, nobody is buying your excuse-making for your primitive belief in miracles and “God”, no matter how many words you hide behind.

 

[Mithrae]

I don't. Why should I care?

Okay, so you recognize that you were incorrect or at least unjustified in advocating "The idea that the brain is a physical system governed by the same deterministic physical laws as any other"?

That explains nothing. It yields no useful predictions. It adds an unnecessary mystery.

Quite the opposite; one of the greatest and most enduring 'mysteries' of all is the question of how supposed non-conscious, objective, quantitative matter could give rise to conscious, subjective, qualitative minds, a divide so deep and fundamental that it permeates our thinking and language. That is an unnecessary mystery created entirely by your unjustified supposition above. We don't know what reality is really made of - as you now seem to acknowledge - but the simpler and more parsimonious way of thinking about it is to avoid introducing this hypothetical notion of non-conscious material stuff and its associated mystery of consciousness. We know that conscious minds exist, it's literally the most certain thing that each individual can know... so until we learn otherwise that is the best way to frame our thinking about reality.

Everything that I experience is physical through my physical body. My mind is contained within my brain, it is just another word for the functioning of the physical input via senses to my nervous system and processed by my brain. Other living things exist that I experience the same way they experience me, through physical means and the same processes occur within their physical bodies. There are no minds floating around that are not part of a physical living being.

Do you have any evidence for this theory? How do you know that your pets or coworkers or the like actually have conscious experience? And more to the point, how do you imagine that you or anyone else can detect the absence of conscious minds?

I think you'll find that the answer to the first question is that since we can't actually see or measure consciousness, it's simply an inference by analogy; the similarities of structure and behaviour lead us to infer a similarity of experience. But then, if you've got a basic understanding of logic you'll understand that such reasoning provides no basis for inferring the absence of consciousness; it would be equivalent to the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Hence saying "There are no minds..." is an unsupported, fallacious assumption which (as I suggested in post #192) is likely so widespread only because it stems from a fundamental step in infants' development of a sense of self (coupled with religious traditions of dualism or the like).

 

[Jacksprat]

one of the greatest and most enduring 'mysteries' of all is the question of how supposed non-conscious, objective, quantitative matter could give rise to conscious, subjective, qualitative minds, a divide so deep and fundamental that it permeates our thinking and language.

The problem is wrongly posed. Physical objects do not cause non-physicality. Consciousness--thought--is a primary property of the universe.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Okay, so you recognize that you were incorrect or at least unjustified in advocating "The idea that the brain is a physical system governed by the same deterministic physical laws as any other"?

That's actually a fact. The Matrix fantasy wouldn't have any effect on that whatsoever.

What you are doing here is a common but tired fallacy called special pleading.

You haven't even begun the work of establishing the premise that the brain is somehow exempt from physical laws anymore than a river or a volcano or glass of water. You will never successfully accomplish that, so you are spinning your wheels.

 

[watsup]

think you'll find that the answer to the first question is that since we can't actually see or measure consciousness

You’ve never heard of an EEG?

 

[Galactic Spin]

You’ve never heard of an EEG?

No no. When doctors decide if a person is brain dead, they usually just flip a coin.

 

[watsup]

Okay, so you recognize that you were incorrect or at least unjustified in advocating "The idea that the brain is a physical system governed by the same deterministic physical laws as any other"?

Brain activity is electro-chemical. That has been proven by science, your “god of the gaps” theory notwithstanding.

 

[watsup]

No no. When doctors decide if a person is brain dead, they usually just flip a coin.

“It’s a mystery”. *L*. Next he’ll be telling us about souls.

 

[Galactic Spin]

“It’s a mystery”. *L*. Next he’ll be telling us about souls.

That's precisely the space he is trying to carve out.

 

[Mithrae]

That's actually a fact. The Matrix fantasy wouldn't have any effect on that whatsoever.

How would you know what substance/s correlate with conscious minds if nothing you see, hear and touch bears any correspondence to reality? In an extreme case you wouldn't even know that brains exist to begin with! But more reasonably and more to the point, the fact is that while we can reasonably suppose that they do exist we actually don't know what brains/neurons/atoms/quarks are really made of, whether it's conscious stuff or nonconscious stuff.

The problem is wrongly posed. Physical objects do not cause non-physicality. Consciousness--thought--is a primary property of the universe.

I think that's the most reasonable way of thinking about it, but it's dangerously close to theism for some folks' taste.

 

[Jacksprat]

How would you know what substance/s correlate with conscious minds if nothing you see, hear and touch bears any correspondence to reality? In an extreme case you wouldn't even know that brains exist to begin with! But more reasonably and more to the point, the fact is that while we can reasonably suppose that they do exist we actually don't know what brains/neurons/atoms/quarks are really made of, whether it's conscious stuff or nonconscious stuff.




I think that's the most reasonable way of thinking about it, but it's dangerously close to theism for some folks' taste.

It has nothing to do with theism. Or, need not.

 

[Galactic Spin]

How would you know what substance/s correlate with conscious minds if nothing you see, hear and touch bears any correspondence to reality?

. This is where the Matrix fantasy completely Falls apart. The Matrix would only work if all the rules are always followed. Else we would notice we were in the matrix. The Matrix fantasy really is meaningless and useless.

And your special pleading fallacy really is not getting better with repetition. You keep forgetting that all of your work still lies ahead of you. You have not even begun to argue why a human brain would follow any different rules than a glass of water.

 

[watsup]

fact is that while we can reasonably suppose that they do exist we actually don't know what brains/neurons/atoms/quarks are really made of, whether it's conscious stuff or nonconscious stuff.

And where exactly does your god fit into this? Do you know what electro-chemical means?

 

[Mithrae]

. This is where the Matrix fantasy completely Falls apart. The Matrix would only work if all the rules are always followed. Else we would notice we were in the matrix. The Matrix fantasy really is meaningless and useless.

You've constructed a worldview of brains and bodies and planets and so on, all made of nonconscious material stuff and all following certain "rules." You don't seem able to even question this worldview, to even comprehend the possibility that it might not be accurate. If we were in a simulation it could all be wrong; brains, bodies, planets, atoms, all of it... but you can't even seem to grasp that concept. Obviously I don't think we're in a simulation and I don't think those parts are wrong, but I do think that the latter half - the material stuff and the deterministic rules - are unjustified and unnecessarily complicating assumptions. However it seems you just cannot understand the possibility of your assumptions being incorrect.

 

[Mithrae]

It has nothing to do with theism. Or, need not.

It doesn't have to I agree, but if "Consciousness--thought--is a primary property of the universe" the only obvious non-theistic possibilities would be either consciousness too simple to be reasonably considered godlike (some form of panpsychism or impersonal pantheism), or consciousnesses too numerous to be considered godlike (some form of animism). In fact both of those have been essentially theistic or at least religious views regardless. Furthermore the latter seems strikingly at odds with the fairly consistent/patterned nature of reality as we mostly observe it, whereas the former doesn't seem to account very well for some of the most important observations which would lead to that conclusion in the first place (eg. the apparent fine-tuning of our universe, the apparent occurrence of miracles, the known existence and mystery of complex consciousness in humans).

 

[Jacksprat]

if "Consciousness--thought--is a primary property of the universe" the only obvious non-theistic possibilities would be either consciousness too simple to be reasonably considered godlike (some form of panpsychism or impersonal pantheism), or consciousnesses too numerous to be considered godlike (some form of animism). In fact both of those have been essentially theistic or at least religious views regardless.

Panpsychism is not religious or theistic. It only states that all objects have consciousness. The ancient Greeks referred to thought and intelligence as nous.
Later Christians made nous into a subjective being, God. Thus, intelligence is just a property of the universe.

 

[Jacksprat]

Furthermore the latter seems strikingly at odds with the fairly consistent/patterned nature of reality as we mostly observe it, whereas the former doesn't seem to account very well for some of the most important observations which would lead to that conclusion in the first place (eg. the apparent fine-tuning of our universe, the apparent occurrence of miracles, the known existence and mystery of complex consciousness in humans).

Fine tuning is theology which I have no interest in. Miracles also, I have no interest in.
Consciousness is only mysterious to those wanting a mysterious universe.

 

[Jacksprat]

It doesn't have to I agree, but if "Consciousness--thought--is a primary property of the universe" the only obvious non-theistic possibilities would be either consciousness too simple to be reasonably considered godlike (some form of panpsychism or impersonal pantheism),

Panpsychism is the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. The view has a long and venerable history in philosophical traditions of both East and West, and has recently enjoyed a revival in analytic philosophy. For its proponents panpsychism offers an attractive middle way between physicalism on the one hand and dualism on the other.

Panpsychism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[watsup]

You've constructed a worldview of brains and bodies and planets and so on, all made of nonconscious material stuff and all following certain "rules." You don't seem able to even question this worldview, to even comprehend the possibility that it might not be accurate. If we were in a simulation it could all be wrong; brains, bodies, planets, atoms, all of it... but you can't even seem to grasp that concept. Obviously I don't think we're in a simulation and I don't think those parts are wrong, but I do think that the latter half - the material stuff and the deterministic rules - are unjustified and unnecessarily complicating assumptions. However it seems you just cannot understand the possibility of your assumptions being incorrect.

It has become quite clear that you live so much in your ethereal world of philosophy and excessive language that you can no longer recognize pure reality. That does not mean that we have to join you in your rabbit hole, Alice.

 

[watsup]

but I do think that the latter half - the material stuff and the deterministic rules - are unjustified and unnecessarily complicating assumptions.

But overlaying them with a super-powerful entity that could actually construct a universe is not an “unjustified and unnecessarily complicating assumption”, right? Do you even read this illogical garbage that you post?

However it seems you just cannot understand the possibility of your assumptions being incorrect.

I’m sure you know what psychological projection is, right?

 

[watsup]

Consciousness--thought--is a primary property of the universe.

What do you mean by “primary property”? Surely you can’t mean that there is consciousness outside of life and thought outside of hominid life?