Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-09-2015, 12:31 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 12:29 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Having minds, capable of breaking down reality to what it truly is, and the existence of reality that’s able to be broken down by such minds, is sufficient evidence of a creative order.

No, it isn't.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 12:34 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 12:31 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 12:29 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Having minds, capable of breaking down reality to what it truly is, and the existence of reality that’s able to be broken down by such minds, is sufficient evidence of a creative order.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 12:40 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 12:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 12:31 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

Cute.

Unfortunately, that isn't how this works. "No, it isn't" is sufficient rebuttal for a non sequitur assertion such as the one that you made. Trying to come back with "yes, it is" does not in any way make "the existence of minds indicates the existence of design" any less of a fallacious statement.

The mind is brain activity. Brain activity is physical, and brains evolved naturally. There is no need for a designer's involvement. There is not even the implication of a designer's involvement.

So. Again.

No. It isn't.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
21-09-2015, 12:47 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 12:29 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Perhaps you’ll quibble over the terms...

You would have to coherently define them first.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 01:46 PM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2015 02:01 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 12:40 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Cute.

Unfortunately, that isn't how this works. "No, it isn't" is sufficient rebuttal for a non sequitur assertion such as the one that you made. Trying to come back with "yes, it is" does not in any way make "the existence of minds indicates the existence of design" any less of a fallacious statement

You didn’t listen correctly, it not just the existence of minds here.

It’s mind capable of deciphering the truth, and recognizing the foundational nature of reality. And it’s not just the existence of such minds. But the existence of a reality that discernible to it’s foundations by them. I said this is sufficient evidence of a created order. You stated “no, isn’t”, without providing a single reason as to why it isn’t sufficient.

Is it sufficient evidence for uncreated order? Is it what we would expect from a reality lacking intentionality, any teleological qualities? You’re likely not being entirely forthcoming if you say yes to this. Because there should be something that screams intentionality to you about this picture, if you comprehend it. Even if you don’t believe the conclusion is true.

Even if you tried to offer evolutionary explanations for this, such as these mind were selected for, because of their survival and reproductive benefits they offered. That would be problematic, because you’re not speaking of the sort of mind we’re predisposed to by birth. In fact it’s sort of mind that transcends those limitations. Our predisposed minds remains in the dark about the foundational truths of reality, as historical narrative I highlighted earlier suggested. So you couldn’t say it was a direct product of adaptive selection.
You could perhaps say this acquired quality of the mind, is a byproduct. An unintended but exploitive feature of a malleable mind whose maps can be reorganized, in this case organized to point correctly at the foundational nature of reality. While somewhat plausible it’s not quite believable as you might want it to be. Now add to this, not just the existence of minds that can acquire this capacity, but the existence of reality which can be comprehend and understand to it’s foundation. Then it’s not just that this is sufficient evidence of a created order, but the claim of an uncreated order is insufficient.

I claim that this alone is sufficient evidence of a created order, that it defies our exceptions of what we would expect from uncreated one. If you say that’s it precisely what we would expect from an uncreated order, either that’s because you can’t comprehend the picture being described to you here, or you’ll likely to fail a polygraph.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 02:00 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 07:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But merely pointing out that your way of thinking is so radically different than my own.
The main difference in our thinking is epistemology.
My thinking is evidentiary based. I find it extremely important for idea to be supported by evidence.
There is no evidence for absolute morals so I reject it.
There is no evidence for magical gods so I reject it.
There is no evidence for a consciousness seperate from an underlying material substance so I reject it.
There is no evidence for a consciousness (seperate from and underlying material substance) being able to manipulate the material world via will power so I reject it.


Your thinking is faith and belief based. To you evidence is not so important. For you "personal experience" and an interpretation of that personal experience which is consistent with Christianity is the way to go.
You want there to be a god so you accept magic and supernatural causes
You want there to be free will so you accept morality and the unfounded proposition that a god gave humans free will.
You assume it all to be true becasue it fits your desire for the Xtian god to be real
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
21-09-2015, 02:09 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 01:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I claim that this alone is sufficient evidence of a created order, that it defies our exceptions of what we would expect from uncreated one.

Hint: this is pure feels.

What you "claim" we should "expect" based on a series of ill-defined assumptions doesn't actually mean anything.

(21-09-2015 01:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you say that’s it precisely what we would expect from an uncreated order, either that’s because you can’t comprehend the picture being described to you here, or you’ll likely to fail a polygraph.

You... do know polygraph tests are bullshit, right? I hope?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I still love the implication that anyone who disagrees is lying, because that's just so incredibly classy. And the ol', "if you don't agree you're just not smart enough to understand me" is a nice touch, too.

Can you coherently define "order"? Can you coherently define - and contrast - "created" and "uncreated"? Can you categorically preclude any emergence absent some nebulous "creation"?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 02:15 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 02:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 07:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But merely pointing out that your way of thinking is so radically different than my own.
The main difference in our thinking is epistemology.
My thinking is evidentiary based. I find it extremely important for idea to be supported by evidence.
There is no evidence for absolute morals so I reject it.
There is no evidence for magical gods so I reject it.
There is no evidence for a consciousness seperate from an underlying material substance so I reject it.
There is no evidence for a consciousness (seperate from and underlying material substance) being able to manipulate the material world via will power so I reject it.


Your thinking is faith and belief based. To you evidence is not so important. For you "personal experience" and an interpretation of that personal experience which is consistent with Christianity is the way to go.
You want there to be a god so you accept magic and supernatural causes
You want there to be free will so you accept morality and the unfounded proposition that a god gave humans free will.
You assume it all to be true becasue it fits your desire for the Xtian god to be real

Well that's one stupendous non-answer to a post with a variety of different questions. But okay.

Everything is important to me. My personal experiences, my introspections, my intuitions and common sense, as well as what ever the results of some scientific observations about reality are. Both theists and non-theists perspective are important to me.

Everything that leads me to believe that something is true is evidence. Where as you try and create the rules and criteria to limit what can be point you in the right direction, I don't. Learning of a person's personal experience might lead me to believe something is true, like the experience of slaves, the spirituals expressing their conditions, their sense of faith and hope, can illuminate, be a candle in the dark, directing me to what the truth is.

For you it can't. Why? because it doesn't meet the rules of the parameters you've created for yourself. And I think as a result of these parameters, you feel so obligated to adhere to, whatever picture you offer of reality remains fractured and incomplete, and out of touch. In my opinion.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 02:19 PM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2015 02:31 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 02:09 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 01:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I claim that this alone is sufficient evidence of a created order, that it defies our exceptions of what we would expect from uncreated one.

Hint: this is pure feels.

What you "claim" we should "expect" based on a series of ill-defined assumptions doesn't actually mean anything.

(21-09-2015 01:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you say that’s it precisely what we would expect from an uncreated order, either that’s because you can’t comprehend the picture being described to you here, or you’ll likely to fail a polygraph.

You... do know polygraph tests are bullshit, right? I hope?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I still love the implication that anyone who disagrees is lying, because that's just so incredibly classy. And the ol', "if you don't agree you're just not smart enough to understand me" is a nice touch, too.

Can you coherently define "order"? Can you coherently define - and contrast - "created" and "uncreated"? Can you categorically preclude any emergence absent some nebulous "creation"?

I don't know. Who am I defining it for? Someone who believes that we are product of an uncreated order?

Or for someone who lacks a beliefs in both a created and uncreated order?
(21-09-2015 02:09 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 01:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I claim that this alone is sufficient evidence of a created order, that it defies our exceptions of what we would expect from uncreated one.

Hint: this is pure feels.

Hint: all sufficiencies are feels. The short-form birth-certificate was not sufficient enough for birthers. The Gospels and NT writing are sufficient enough for most historians to conclude that there was a historical Jesus, but not sufficient enough for Ahistoricist and Mythicist.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 02:41 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 01:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You didn’t listen correctly

I did.

You're just wrong.

(21-09-2015 01:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It’s mind capable of deciphering the truth

Not evidence.

(21-09-2015 01:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  and recognizing the foundational nature of reality.

Not evidence, appeal to mysticism.

(21-09-2015 01:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And it’s not just the existence of such minds. But the existence of a reality that discernible to it’s foundations by them.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

(21-09-2015 01:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I said this is sufficient evidence of a created order. You stated “no, isn’t”, without providing a single reason as to why it isn’t sufficient.

Because it isn't evidence.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: