Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on July 26, 2023, 01:22:13 PM
-
Hi everyone.
People of science claim that life is entirely predetermined based on natural laws and forces. However they are unable to explain random events that they resort to very often nor emergence that goes against a reductionist model.
My impression is that life is both predetermined and also influenced by intelligent external intervention. Though it is not clear as to what this influence is or why and how it works....it is quite clear that it is there.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/destiny-freewill/
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Sriram,
...it is quite clear that it is there.
No it isn't. If it was "quite clear" that it was there there'd be some evidence for it.
-
Sriram,
No it isn't. If it was "quite clear" that it was there there'd be some evidence for it.
Absolutely - Sriram regularly comes up with these hand-waving assertions that something or other is quite clear or must be the case or other similar claims.
If something is quite clear Sriram, then you will be able to provide compelling evidence to support that assertion. But, of course, you never do.
-
We have already discussed many times the several problems associated with evidence. Evidence could be all around...but.....!
-
We have already discussed many times the several problems associated with evidence. Evidence could be all around...but.....!
We certainly have discussed the problem you have with evidence when it doesn't support your un-evidenced assertions.
Of course there are things we don't know, evidence still to be uncovered so to speak. My professional world of scientific research is entirely driven by the notion that there is always more to know and we should always strive to uncover that new evidence.
But Sriram - something where we haven't yet uncovered evidence is indistinguishable from something for which there is no evidence to uncover, however hard you try. So the correct approach is to accept the things on the basis of evidence, accept there are things we might not yet know and strive to find that evidence. But that isn't your approach - your approach is to dismiss evidence where it doesn't fit with your assertions, and then claim that your unevidenced assertions must be right (for reasons I don't really understand). And then claim it is the rest of us who can't accept evidence (which isn't actually evidence at all), when you dismiss exceptionally strong evidence (e.g. how evolution works) all the time.
-
Sriram,
We have already discussed many times the several problems associated with evidence. Evidence could be all around...but.....!
But… now you’re contradicting yourself. In your earlier post you claimed:
My impression is that life is both predetermined and also influenced by intelligent external intervention. Though it is not clear as to what this influence is or why and how it works....it is quite clear that it is there.
If it’s “quite clear that it is there” then you need evidence to justify that claim. If you’re now retreating to “Evidence could be all around” then your claim reduces to “it is clear that it could be there”.
And the problem with that is that it justifies nothing. It is clear that there could be a dragon living in my garage too. So what though?
Your poor reasoning has let you down again here.
-
We certainly have discussed the problem you have with evidence when it doesn't support your un-evidenced assertions.
Of course there are things we don't know, evidence still to be uncovered so to speak. My professional world of scientific research is entirely driven by the notion that there is always more to know and we should always strive to uncover that new evidence.
But Sriram - something where we haven't yet uncovered evidence is indistinguishable from something for which there is no evidence to uncover, however hard you try. So the correct approach is to accept the things on the basis of evidence, accept there are things we might not yet know and strive to find that evidence. But that isn't your approach - your approach is to dismiss evidence where it doesn't fit with your assertions, and then claim that your unevidenced assertions must be right (for reasons I don't really understand). And then claim it is the rest of us who can't accept evidence (which isn't actually evidence at all), when you dismiss exceptionally strong evidence (e.g. how evolution works) all the time.
We all know that consciousness exists. There are then two possibilities. One....consciousness is just a product of the brain and is a result of evolutionary processes. Second is that consciousness is fundamental and directs evolution from inside organisms. Neither view has been established beyond doubt.
I take the second view and my philosophies naturally follow accordingly.
-
We all know that consciousness exists.
We all know that some creatures manifest consciousness, but we need to be careful we don't presume that it's something that exists independently.
There are then two possibilities. One....consciousness is just a product of the brain and is a result of evolutionary processes. Second is that consciousness is fundamental and directs evolution from inside organisms. Neither view has been established beyond doubt.
I'm not aware of any, but I can also not rule out the possibility that there are other options. However, one of those has a body of supportive evidence, and one of them has some old stories about magic.
I take the second view and my philosophies naturally follow accordingly.
And you're at liberty to do so, but you need something more than this attempt to depict the two possibilities as somehow equally unproven to convince many people to agree with you.
O.
-
We all know that consciousness exists. There are then two possibilities. One....consciousness is just a product of the brain and is a result of evolutionary processes. Second is that consciousness is fundamental and directs evolution from inside organisms. Neither view has been established beyond doubt.
I take the second view and my philosophies naturally follow accordingly.
Then you have no interest in following the evidence.
I agree that there is always more that can you found out, but that doesn't mean that the two options therefore have equivalence in terms of credibility and evidence.
Your first possibility has a massive amount of incredible robust evidence in support of it. You second possibility lacks any credible evidence in support and much of the evidence we have contradicts it.
I tend to follow the evidence, which is why I consider the first possibility most likely to be correct. However if, like you, you want to totally ignore the evidence and take a faith-based approach on this matter then I can see why you might prefer the second possibility.
-
We all know that consciousness exists. There are then two possibilities. One....consciousness is just a product of the brain and is a result of evolutionary processes. Second is that consciousness is fundamental and directs evolution from inside organisms. Neither view has been established beyond doubt.
I take the second view and my philosophies naturally follow accordingly.
Maybe there is a third view, which I believe is one of the ideas behind Advaita, that there is no goal to creation, so I suppose there would be no direction. It is seen as if it is spontaneous play, Lila, which implies freedom as opposed to conformity to a plan.
-
Hi everyone.
People of science claim that life is entirely predetermined somewhat explainable based on natural laws and forces.
Cheers.
Sriram
Corrected it for you
-
Then you have no interest in following the evidence.
I agree that there is always more that can you found out, but that doesn't mean that the two options therefore have equivalence in terms of credibility and evidence.
Your first possibility has a massive amount of incredible robust evidence in support of it. You second possibility lacks any credible evidence in support and much of the evidence we have contradicts it.
I tend to follow the evidence, which is why I consider the first possibility most likely to be correct. However if, like you, you want to totally ignore the evidence and take a faith-based approach on this matter then I can see why you might prefer the second possibility.
You don't even regard plants, simple organisms and microbes as having consciousness in the first place....which is absurd!
There is no evidence that consciousness is merely a product of the brain. That is just the assumption. Not that scientists have much of a choice to think otherwise given their material mind set.
-
Maybe there is a third view, which I believe is one of the ideas behind Advaita, that there is no goal to creation, so I suppose there would be no direction. It is seen as if it is spontaneous play, Lila, which implies freedom as opposed to conformity to a plan.
The idea of lila is just an assumption as seen from the point of view of Brahman.
If we ask...why does a string vibrate in eleven dimensions and generate the world? We don't have much of an answer except to say...that's the way it is. Similarly, why does Brahman vibrate and generate the world...its just lila.
Evolution and development are however obvious.... and need to be explained. Problem is that currently evolution theory only considers biological evolution because that is all scientists can see. Evolution of consciousness needs to be considered as the fundamental basis of evolution.
-
You don't even regard plants, simple organisms and microbes as having consciousness in the first place....which is absurd!
There is no evidence that consciousness is merely a product of the brain. That is just the assumption. Not that scientists have much of a choice to think otherwise given their material mind set.
That consciousness emerges from brain function is not an assumption, it is something we have discovered through research. it is what the evidence points to. Ideas like universal consciousness or panpsychism on the other hand make no testable predictions and so remain in the realm of hand waivy fantasies.
-
Sriram,
You don't even regard plants, simple organisms and microbes as having consciousness in the first place....which is absurd!
That evidence contradicts your personal faith beliefs does not render that evidence absurd. Your personal faith beliefs on the other hand...
Once again your poor reasoning is letting you down here.
-
That consciousness emerges from brain function is not an assumption, it is something we have discovered through research. it is what the evidence points to. Ideas like universal consciousness or panpsychism on the other hand make no testable predictions and so remain in the realm of hand waivy fantasies.
Of course it is an assumption! It is just one model.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.955594/full#:~:text=Neuroscience%20today%20says%20consciousness%20is,be%20dependent%20on%20the%20brain.
*************
What if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain? Observational and empirical challenges to materialistic models
Neuroscience today says consciousness is generated by and localized in the brain because it emerges from brain activity. Alternatively, we propose that consciousness may not originate in the brain, although some aspects of human perception of consciousness may be dependent on the brain. We also suggest that awareness also extends beyond the brain. These non-physical, non-local properties of consciousness may be due to a non-local material effect, to consciousness being fundamental, or something else we have not yet discovered.
In conclusion, our reported phenomena of non-local consciousness present intriguing examples that should be addressed when evaluating whether consciousness may be more than an emergent property of brain activity. Despite sophisticated physicalist theories of consciousness dependent on brain function, these examples apparently demonstrate non-local aspects of consciousness, perceiving information in a way that is not limited by our conventional understanding of time and space and that is not dependent on the brain function. Many of these data have been observed with objective measures in the laboratory in a valid and reliable way or collected in the field with impeccable methods and exclusion of fraud. While materialism explains much in our world, it does not explain everything, including these phenomena. Non-materialist theories encompassing consciousness as fundamental and/or non-local may provide a pathway to understanding these phenomena. Perhaps holding the hypothetical assumption that consciousness is fundamental and focusing on what we can learn about the mechanism, mediators, moderators, and practical applications of non-local consciousness will reveal novel areas to explore.
*************
Hear! Hear!
-
Of course it is an assumption! It is just one model.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.955594/full#:~:text=Neuroscience%20today%20says%20consciousness%20is,be%20dependent%20on%20the%20brain.
*************
What if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain? Observational and empirical challenges to materialistic models
Neuroscience today says consciousness is generated by and localized in the brain because it emerges from brain activity. Alternatively, we propose that consciousness may not originate in the brain, although some aspects of human perception of consciousness may be dependent on the brain. We also suggest that awareness also extends beyond the brain. These non-physical, non-local properties of consciousness may be due to a non-local material effect, to consciousness being fundamental, or something else we have not yet discovered.
In conclusion, our reported phenomena of non-local consciousness present intriguing examples that should be addressed when evaluating whether consciousness may be more than an emergent property of brain activity. Despite sophisticated physicalist theories of consciousness dependent on brain function, these examples apparently demonstrate non-local aspects of consciousness, perceiving information in a way that is not limited by our conventional understanding of time and space and that is not dependent on the brain function. Many of these data have been observed with objective measures in the laboratory in a valid and reliable way or collected in the field with impeccable methods and exclusion of fraud. While materialism explains much in our world, it does not explain everything, including these phenomena. Non-materialist theories encompassing consciousness as fundamental and/or non-local may provide a pathway to understanding these phenomena. Perhaps holding the hypothetical assumption that consciousness is fundamental and focusing on what we can learn about the mechanism, mediators, moderators, and practical applications of non-local consciousness will reveal novel areas to explore.
*************
Hear! Hear!
There's no evidence for any of this. Why should we believe it?
-
Of course it is an assumption! It is just one model.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.955594/full#:~:text=Neuroscience%20today%20says%20consciousness%20is,be%20dependent%20on%20the%20brain.
*************
What if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain? Observational and empirical challenges to materialistic models
Neuroscience today says consciousness is generated by and localized in the brain because it emerges from brain activity. Alternatively, we propose that consciousness may not originate in the brain, although some aspects of human perception of consciousness may be dependent on the brain. We also suggest that awareness also extends beyond the brain. These non-physical, non-local properties of consciousness may be due to a non-local material effect, to consciousness being fundamental, or something else we have not yet discovered.
In conclusion, our reported phenomena of non-local consciousness present intriguing examples that should be addressed when evaluating whether consciousness may be more than an emergent property of brain activity. Despite sophisticated physicalist theories of consciousness dependent on brain function, these examples apparently demonstrate non-local aspects of consciousness, perceiving information in a way that is not limited by our conventional understanding of time and space and that is not dependent on the brain function. Many of these data have been observed with objective measures in the laboratory in a valid and reliable way or collected in the field with impeccable methods and exclusion of fraud. While materialism explains much in our world, it does not explain everything, including these phenomena. Non-materialist theories encompassing consciousness as fundamental and/or non-local may provide a pathway to understanding these phenomena. Perhaps holding the hypothetical assumption that consciousness is fundamental and focusing on what we can learn about the mechanism, mediators, moderators, and practical applications of non-local consciousness will reveal novel areas to explore.
*************
Hear! Hear!
That was an interesting read though very speculative. Not anywhere near being a 'hypothesis' for example. If you are hoping that if we merge quantum entanglement across spacetime with consciousness, then souls and reincarnation will nealty fall out, then I think you are being overly optimistic :D
-
Sriram,
Of course it is an assumption! It is just one model.
But only in the sense that women giving birth is "just one model" of where babies come from and storks delivering them as "just one (different) model" of where babies come from. The difference between these "models" though is that one has a huge amount of evidence to justify it, and the other has no evidence at all to justify it.
Rational thinkers opt for the former type of model because of the evidence for it; you opt for the latter type of model because it suits your a priori faith belief.
Again, your poor reasoning is letting you down here.
-
That was an interesting read though very speculative. Not anywhere near being a 'hypothesis' for example. If you are hoping that if we merge quantum entanglement across spacetime with consciousness, then souls and reincarnation will nealty fall out, then I think you are being overly optimistic :D
The point is not about any detailed understanding of such matters. We are far away from that....if at all any kind of objective understanding of consciousness is possible or necessary, since it is the ultimate subjectivity.
Instead of understanding consciousness through QM, we may have to understand QM through consciousness.
The real point is that people of science are increasingly beginning to look in directions that seem to be alien to many of you people here.
-
Sriram,
The real point is that people of science are increasingly beginning to look in directions that seem to be alien to many of you people here.
"People of science" may or may not be "increasingly beginning to look in directions that seem to be alien to many of you people here", but one thing these supposed "people of science" sure as hell aren't doing is abandoning the basic rules and methods of science so as treat woo as real.
Once again, your poor reasoning is letting you down here.
-
The point is not about any detailed understanding of such matters.
The point is ALWAYS about a more detailed - i.e. better - understanding, if only to avoid the sort of vague assertions you regularly come out with.
We are far away from that...
Possibly, yes. If that's the case, the appropriate response is 'we still don't know, let's keep looking' and not '...therefore woo'.
...if at all any kind of objective understanding of consciousness is possible or necessary, since it is the ultimate subjectivity.
You just leapt, within a sentence, from 'we lack sufficient understanding' to 'therefore ground-breaking conclusion'. Do you need a whiplash injury doctor?
Instead of understanding consciousness through QM, we may have to understand QM through consciousness.
Given that your express opinion, as of two sentence ago, was that we don't have a detailed enough understanding, can you explain what you've learnt in the last sixty characters or so to justify this claim?
The real point is that people of science are increasingly beginning to look in directions that seem to be alien to many of you people here.
No. The real point is that scientists are ALWAYS looking in different directions, that's what science is about. What science isn't about is presuming that because they've looked it's therefore a valid conclusion. When you look you have to actually, you know, find something.
O.
-
Rules can provide direction but they can also become a straitjacket if used obsessively.
-
Sriram,
Rules can provide direction but they can also become a straitjacket if used obsessively.
Not when those rules are the only means you have to distinguish justifiable conclusions from woo they can’t. Without rules, all you have is guessing.
Again, your poor reasoning is letting you down here.
-
Rules can provide direction but they can also become a straitjacket if used obsessively.
Not rules, standards. If you don't have standards, you have no basis for anything. You have woo.
Science says 'we need a basis for claims' and then proceeds to consider those earlier findings which have been based on valid claims to be a suitable basis of their own. That's always, by its nature, going to be provisional, but it has an established basis. What science doesn't do is assume that all claims are equally invalid until disproven, that's not having any standards at all. That's woo.
You keep doing woo. Please stop. Please actually have something more of a basis for a claim than 'it's not impossible'. Please.
O.
-
Of course....I am not going to stop writing anything that I believe in! According to me they are valid ideas. You can call it woo or whatever....that's your problem.
-
Sriram,
Of course....I am not going to stop writing anything that I believe in! According to me they are valid ideas. You can call it woo or whatever....that's your problem.
You are of course free to post whatever nonsense you wish to post. Your reliance on terrible arguments for support and your refusal to engage with that problem when it's explained to you just makes you look cowardly and dishonest as well as foolish though.
It's your choice though.
-
You are free to have your opinion. According to me they are just reactions to apparent threats to your fondly held views....
-
Sriram,
You are free to have your opinion. According to me they are just reactions to apparent threats to your fondly held views....
Wrong again. Competing opinions would be, say, one person saying tea is better than coffee and someone else saying the opposite. What happens here though is that logically sound arguments are meeting logically not sound arguments, which is a very different matter.
"According to me" is actually just your avoidance of the logically sound arguments and your repetition of the logically not sound ones. If you weren't so cowardly and/or dishonest and actually addressed that problem perhaps you'd see that it's actually your "fondly held views" that you're terrified of having challenged.
Again, your poor reasoning is letting you down here.
-
Of course....I am not going to stop writing anything that I believe in! According to me they are valid ideas.
We know you believe it, what you're failing to convey is why, or at least why anyone else should.
You can call it woo or whatever....that's your problem.
Is it, really? You're coming here to try to convey ideas, to explain some deeper understanding of reality that you think you have that us 'teen-minded rebels' don't share. If you're failing in that mission, is that really our problem, or is it yours?
You're not connecting with your message, you are not giving anyone an adequate basis to accept your claims. That's your problem, given that it's apparently what you're here for.
O.
-
Communication involves two sides Outrider. One is conveying an idea. The other is the understanding of it.
BTW...I am not forcing any of you to read or respond to my posts. You feel threatened every time I link something about a scientist saying something different from what you think.....and you go into a frenzy.
As they have said in the above link....it will take another generation to open up to new ideas. You guys cannot do it.
But I am not going to stop writing what I think...as long as they are within board rules. You guys are so taken in by your own beliefs that you seem to forget that this is not a science board... It is a R&E board with sections on philosophy and others.
-
Sriram,
Communication involves two sides Outrider. One is conveying an idea. The other is the understanding of it.
We “understand” your ideas, just as you understand my ideas about leprechauns. What we also understand though is that the reasoning you attempt to justify your ideas are as absent or hopeless as my justifications for leprechauns.
BTW...I am not forcing any of you to read or respond to my posts. You feel threatened every time I link something about a scientist saying something different from what you think.....and you go into a frenzy.
No-one feels “threatened” or ‘goes into a frenzy”, and your links have never been to findings that reach even the basic threshold of scientific veracity. At best they're speculations or conjectures, but that’s all they are.
As they have said in the above link....it will take another generation to open up to new ideas. You guys cannot do it.
No it won’t. No-one possessed of a functioning intellect will “open up to new ideas” until and unless they have sound reasoning to justify them. You’re just assuming that your woo claims are true here (yet another of your fallacies by way, called begging the question), and then complaining that the rest of us haven’t caught up with you. Woo claims remain just woo claims though until you (finally) provide some justifying arguments for them that aren’t hopeless.
But I am not going to stop writing what I think...
No-one cares what you think, any more than they care about what I think about leprechauns. What people actually care about is just whether you have sound arguments for why you think them. And so far at least, the answer to that is a resounding “no”.
…as long as they are within board rules. You guys are so taken in by your own beliefs that you seem to forget that this is not a science board...
The only beliefs that people here are “taken by” is that reason- and evidence-based conclusions are likely to be epistemically more robust than blind guessing, fallacious reasoning and avoidance of challenges. That’s your problem remember?
It is a R&E board with sections on philosophy and others.
Yes, but philosophy requires sound arguments – which is where your efforts fall apart.
Yet again, your poor reasoning has let you down here.
-
Communication involves two sides Outrider. One is conveying an idea. The other is the understanding of it.
I could be trite and point out that the burden in an attempt to communicate is on the communicator, but the problem we have here isn't that we don't understand what you're saying, it's that we have a higher threshold for accepting claims than you do. Which is to say, we have a threshold.
BTW...I am not forcing any of you to read or respond to my posts. You feel threatened every time I link something about a scientist saying something different from what you think.....and you go into a frenzy.
And again with the attempted ad hominems. No-one is afraid your woo - we might be afraid of what happens if a considerable number of people start to accept such a low threshold for accepting claims, so we do the world a favour and try to highlight some basic standards of academic rigour. No-one is in a frenzy, we're composing logical, coherent, targetted rebuttals to your woo that you continue to fail to address. Just like here where, instead of having an argument and making it, you attempt to denigrate your opposition in the hope that it will appear like you've made a point because you don't appear to have the capacity to actually make a point.
As they have said in the above link....it will take another generation to open up to new ideas.
These aren't new ideas. Souls, afterlives, magic interconnectedness.... these are not new ideas.
You guys cannot do it.
We can. We won't on the basis of what you've provided, which is basically nothing more than a claim in search of supporting evidence and a sense that you somehow know more that the combined wisdom of all of conventional science because, umm.... hang on....
But I am not going to stop writing what I think...as long as they are within board rules.
And you have that right. I'm simply pointing out that unless you start to improve your reasoning you're going to continue to get the same sort of responses. If you continue to peddle woo, people are going to continue to point out that you're peddling woo.
You guys are so taken in by your own beliefs that you seem to forget that this is not a science board... It is a R&E board with sections on philosophy and others.
You are making claims about the real world, about supposedly testable phenomena. You are suggesting that the conventional science is invalid, but you have no basis for your claims. It's not just that you don't have scientific evidence, it's not that your claims are not material, it's that you have nothing. You have the Emperor's New Clothes of arguments, but you're surrounded by people pointing out that your naked and you continue to wander around the public sphere waving your woo in the face of anyone that happens to wander by.
We aren't taken by our own beliefs, we're waiting for you to put a jacket on your claims so it can go out in public.
O.
-
Well....many of you obviously prefer the usual bible bashing sessions again and again....because you are sure of your ground. But when it comes to subjects like consciousness, panpsychism, randomness, emergence, NDE's and such others....it gets a bit uncomfortable.
I understand!
-
Well....many of you obviously prefer the usual bible bashing sessions again and again....because you are sure of your ground. But when it comes to subjects like consciousness, panpsychism, randomness, emergence, NDE's and such others....it gets a bit uncomfortable.
I understand!
I don't think you do, Sriram: that's the problem.
-
Well....many of you obviously prefer the usual bible bashing sessions again and again....because you are sure of your ground.
Mischaracterisation of the argument, and no actual point.
But when it comes to subjects like consciousness, panpsychism, randomness, emergence, NDE's and such others....it gets a bit uncomfortable.
It doesn't, it gets a bit vague. You have assertions, not arguments. You're not making a case, you're making a wish-list. You hope that your claim is correct, you believe it is, but you have nothing to offer to explain why.
I understand!
You don't appear to be offering any evidence of that, either.
O.
-
Sriram,
Well....many of you obviously prefer the usual bible bashing sessions again and again....
Identifying and explaining to you patiently why your arguments (when you occasionally bother to attempt some) are wrong isn’t “bible bashing”. Not that you care, but what you've done here is called the straw man fallacy.
…because you are sure of your ground.
“We” are only as sure as the supporting logic justifies us to be. That’s enough though to know when and why you go wrong.
But when it comes to subjects like consciousness, panpsychism, randomness, emergence, NDE's and such others....it gets a bit uncomfortable.
No it doesn’t. There’s nothing uncomfortable about finding you overreach to conclusions you can’t justify. You on the other hand really should be uncomfortable about that, except that you’re too dishonest ever to address the problem.
I understand!
Thus far you’ve provided no sound reasons to suggest you understand anything. It’s never too late to start though…
Once again, your poor reasoning has let you down here.