Uttoxeter Rotary Quiz. Celebrities Past...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Is The Enlightenment Paradigm Of Material Reductionism Beginning To Creak?
68 Answers
Many biologists now know that genes aren't selfish (and Dawkins has become something of an embarrassment). Lamarck's theories of evolution - which pre-date Darwin- are firmly back on the table being now called epigenetics. The Genome project, though brilliant hasn't produced much in the way of benefits.
Still no one has been able to even begin to suggest how consciousness could have emerged from unconscious matter and we still know intuitively that everything we value in our lives; our loves of our partners and children remains inexplicable, and doesn't stem from reciprocal altruism.
Should we not try to re-locate to the world which was dislocated by the Enlightenment's separation of matter and soul and does man live, 'not by bread alone'?
Still no one has been able to even begin to suggest how consciousness could have emerged from unconscious matter and we still know intuitively that everything we value in our lives; our loves of our partners and children remains inexplicable, and doesn't stem from reciprocal altruism.
Should we not try to re-locate to the world which was dislocated by the Enlightenment's separation of matter and soul and does man live, 'not by bread alone'?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There is no evidence of an intelligent chemical reaction.
Why should natural selection evolve to self awareness when dumb chemicals get no discernible benefit from it?
Pretty daft to me!
Dawkins is pretty daft to me!
He should stick to Zoology and leave philosophy and theology alone.
Or study bus timetables and figure out how they evolved to become the mess they are today!
Why should natural selection evolve to self awareness when dumb chemicals get no discernible benefit from it?
Pretty daft to me!
Dawkins is pretty daft to me!
He should stick to Zoology and leave philosophy and theology alone.
Or study bus timetables and figure out how they evolved to become the mess they are today!
Khandro ... sweetie...
You said: //we still know intuitively that everything we value in our lives; our loves of our partners and children remains inexplicable, and doesn't stem from reciprocal altruism.//
I said: // Since, as you say, we know that, then clearly matter and soul haven’t been separated so what do you want us to re-locate to – and how are we to do it? //
?
You said: //we still know intuitively that everything we value in our lives; our loves of our partners and children remains inexplicable, and doesn't stem from reciprocal altruism.//
I said: // Since, as you say, we know that, then clearly matter and soul haven’t been separated so what do you want us to re-locate to – and how are we to do it? //
?
jim; // As usual, Khandro is misunderstanding matters scientific.//
Thanks a lot jim;
// I don't really have a problem with what he says; only how he says it.//
Dawkins says, (in the book "I haven't read") “We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment..."
That certainly does the same for me, - though perhaps for different reasons. However, do you agree with that, and are you a 'blindly -programmed robot'?
and naomi, if you too are happy with that, then there is no need for you to re-locate anywhere.
Thanks a lot jim;
// I don't really have a problem with what he says; only how he says it.//
Dawkins says, (in the book "I haven't read") “We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment..."
That certainly does the same for me, - though perhaps for different reasons. However, do you agree with that, and are you a 'blindly -programmed robot'?
and naomi, if you too are happy with that, then there is no need for you to re-locate anywhere.
Khandro, //do you agree with that, and are you a 'blindly -programmed robot'?//
Biologically, yes, although not intellectually. The genes one inherits are not a matter of choice so Professor Dawkins is right.
You’re being deliberately obtuse, Khando, but nothing new there. If you’re trying to make a point it would help to tell the rest of us what it is.
//naomi, if you too are happy with that, then there is no need for you to re-locate anywhere.//
Now you see I’m not entirely happy with your interpretation perhaps you’ll tell me where I need to re-locate to and how I do it. I’ve asked you several times now.
Biologically, yes, although not intellectually. The genes one inherits are not a matter of choice so Professor Dawkins is right.
You’re being deliberately obtuse, Khando, but nothing new there. If you’re trying to make a point it would help to tell the rest of us what it is.
//naomi, if you too are happy with that, then there is no need for you to re-locate anywhere.//
Now you see I’m not entirely happy with your interpretation perhaps you’ll tell me where I need to re-locate to and how I do it. I’ve asked you several times now.
naomi; Genes you are born with are not a matter of choice, with that you are correct, but things are moving on, you are not by any means stuck with the hand you are dealt - that's really one of the issues the OP is about.
http://
http://
naomi; Personally I have no need to re-locate, I have always been an advocate of Dualism and believed that our mind is more than just our brain and has a non-material, spiritual dimension that includes consciousness, but since the 18th and 19th century enlightenment it has been a conviction that the natural world, everything that is, could be, and would be explained by material analysis and that nothing else exists in reality than matter.
Better put;
'If dualism is not true, the mind is limited to the physical brain. Assuming this scenario, what kind of a mind would we expect? We certainly would not expect to have consciousness strictly from materials. Perhaps we could expect to see a mechanical mind similar to a computer that is run by a program. We would not expect things like consciousness, sensations, thoughts, emotions, desires, beliefs, and free choice. Such a mind would behave in a deterministic way based upon the laws of matter. Many scientists and philosophers are now concluding that the laws of chemistry and physics cannot explain the experience of consciousness in human beings.
We would not expect people with such a mind to be responsible for their behaviour because everything they do is determined by the attributes of matter. We all know that is absurd. Also, we could not trust our minds since they are just a random collection of materials not produced by an intelligent mind.'
philosophy.org.
'If dualism is not true, the mind is limited to the physical brain. Assuming this scenario, what kind of a mind would we expect? We certainly would not expect to have consciousness strictly from materials. Perhaps we could expect to see a mechanical mind similar to a computer that is run by a program. We would not expect things like consciousness, sensations, thoughts, emotions, desires, beliefs, and free choice. Such a mind would behave in a deterministic way based upon the laws of matter. Many scientists and philosophers are now concluding that the laws of chemistry and physics cannot explain the experience of consciousness in human beings.
We would not expect people with such a mind to be responsible for their behaviour because everything they do is determined by the attributes of matter. We all know that is absurd. Also, we could not trust our minds since they are just a random collection of materials not produced by an intelligent mind.'
philosophy.org.
"Such a mind would behave in a deterministic way based upon the laws of matter."
That's all well and good, but what exactly is meant by "deterministic", here? Any plausible interpretation of Quantum Mechanics will, at least at some point, accept that some results cannot be predicted except in a probabilistic sense; I can tell you that half of a few trillion or so deuterium atoms will decay after about six years, but I couldn't tell you which half.
I'm hesitant to go too far down the road of "quantum consciousness" -- in particular, I'm certainly not proposing that the origins of consciousness have already been "solved" since the discovery of QM -- but I'd suggest that nevertheless the laws of physics are rather less depressingly deterministic than the authors of your excerpt make out.
If I had to summarise my position best then it would probably be along the lines of: "I don't think that the dualist interpretation of mind and matter is the best starting point," -- which, to be clear, is not the same as saying that it's wrong. It is, however, clearly easier in principle to rule out a strictly material origin for consciousness, because you could actually try to test it. We aren't yet at that point, so far as I know -- but I think we're a lot closer now than ever before.
I guess another way of putting it might be that "at least reductionism can be more meaningfully ruled out".
That's all well and good, but what exactly is meant by "deterministic", here? Any plausible interpretation of Quantum Mechanics will, at least at some point, accept that some results cannot be predicted except in a probabilistic sense; I can tell you that half of a few trillion or so deuterium atoms will decay after about six years, but I couldn't tell you which half.
I'm hesitant to go too far down the road of "quantum consciousness" -- in particular, I'm certainly not proposing that the origins of consciousness have already been "solved" since the discovery of QM -- but I'd suggest that nevertheless the laws of physics are rather less depressingly deterministic than the authors of your excerpt make out.
If I had to summarise my position best then it would probably be along the lines of: "I don't think that the dualist interpretation of mind and matter is the best starting point," -- which, to be clear, is not the same as saying that it's wrong. It is, however, clearly easier in principle to rule out a strictly material origin for consciousness, because you could actually try to test it. We aren't yet at that point, so far as I know -- but I think we're a lot closer now than ever before.
I guess another way of putting it might be that "at least reductionism can be more meaningfully ruled out".
Khandro, what difference does your belief that the mind is not limited to the physical brain actually make in human terms? Since you’re of the opinion that those who do not believe as you need to re-locate, you’re clearly convinced that you are in some way morally/intellectually superior - which is abject nonsense.
I don’t happen to believe that the mind is limited to the physical as we currently understand the physical to be – what are the qualities of a thought for example? – Pass! - but my absence of belief in the so-called supernatural doesn’t equate to an absence of compassion, love, honesty, or whatever other commendable attributes you feel are essential to humanity and that you, rightly or wrongly, appear to accredit to yourself solely due to your perceived ‘location’.
I don’t happen to believe that the mind is limited to the physical as we currently understand the physical to be – what are the qualities of a thought for example? – Pass! - but my absence of belief in the so-called supernatural doesn’t equate to an absence of compassion, love, honesty, or whatever other commendable attributes you feel are essential to humanity and that you, rightly or wrongly, appear to accredit to yourself solely due to your perceived ‘location’.
naomi - mon petit chou //Since you’re of the opinion that those who do not believe as you need to re-locate, you’re clearly convinced that you are in some way morally/intellectually superior - which is abject nonsense. //
Why, whenever you disagree with anything I say (which happens all too frequently) you feel the need psychoanalyse me instead of addressing what I have said?
To recap; Despite jim's clever smoke and mirrors post, (leaving all doors ajar), the facts remain that Lamarck's theories of evolution are firmly back on the table under the banner of epigenisis, uncertaincy prevails more than ever, and we are now no nearer than we have ever been to understanding consciousness or how life began (see later) and the smart people are saying so, and I'm sorry to drag him back in, but your false guru, R. Dawkins looks more of an 'embarrassment' than ever, he, the 'Mickey Mouse professor' who when asked what he thought was the origin of life answered that it was "a happy chemical accident" - great scientific answer! OMG! g'night.
Why, whenever you disagree with anything I say (which happens all too frequently) you feel the need psychoanalyse me instead of addressing what I have said?
To recap; Despite jim's clever smoke and mirrors post, (leaving all doors ajar), the facts remain that Lamarck's theories of evolution are firmly back on the table under the banner of epigenisis, uncertaincy prevails more than ever, and we are now no nearer than we have ever been to understanding consciousness or how life began (see later) and the smart people are saying so, and I'm sorry to drag him back in, but your false guru, R. Dawkins looks more of an 'embarrassment' than ever, he, the 'Mickey Mouse professor' who when asked what he thought was the origin of life answered that it was "a happy chemical accident" - great scientific answer! OMG! g'night.
As I hope will be transparently obvious to everyone, Khandro's accusation of "smoke and mirrors" is errant nonsense born of some weird agenda to rubbish evolution of any sort.
Even his talk of epigenesis [sic] is another illustration of misinterpretation -- for sure, epigenetics is a hot topic lately, but is not and never has been seen as a replacement for gene-based evolutionary theory. Equating it with Lamarckism is rather typically inaccurate as well.
Even his talk of epigenesis [sic] is another illustration of misinterpretation -- for sure, epigenetics is a hot topic lately, but is not and never has been seen as a replacement for gene-based evolutionary theory. Equating it with Lamarckism is rather typically inaccurate as well.
Naomi, you say you do not believe in the supernatural, but clearly from past posts going back years, you clearly do.
Sadly you are determined to have no hope, and convey your feelings to the rest of us..
I think that basically you don't WANT thereto be a God so you feel safer in company.
Very sad.
Join the folk who have hope, rather than the hopeless.
Sadly you are determined to have no hope, and convey your feelings to the rest of us..
I think that basically you don't WANT thereto be a God so you feel safer in company.
Very sad.
Join the folk who have hope, rather than the hopeless.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.