God is not intelligent, or, why I am a pantheist

Lao Tse said:
physics isn't every discipline.

it's really as simple as that.
Click to expand...
I started this discussion concerning physical materialism.

Biology is a descriptive science that does not really illuminate first principles and fundamental physical reality.

Physical materialism claims everything can be reduced to the cause and effect of physics and fundamental matter.

Talking about electrical impulses between synapses describes a biological property, but doesn't explain how and why the subatomic matter in your brain has consciousness, morality, subjective psychological experiences.

The quarks and electrons that make up your brain are exactly the same quarks and electrons making up a rock. We do not really know why quarks and electrons in the mind have consciousness and psychological experience.
 
Cypress said:
I started this discussion concerning physical materialism.

Biology is a descriptive science that does not really illuminate first principles and fundamental physical reality.

Physical materialism claims everything can be reduced to the cause and effect of physics and fundamental matter.

Talking about electrical impulses between synapses describes a biological property, but doesn't explain how and why the subatomic matter in your brain has consciousness, morality, subjective psychological experiences.

The quarks and electrons that make up your brain are exactly the same quarks and electrons making up a rock. We do not really know why quarks and electrons in the mind have consciousness and psychological experience.
Click to expand...
yes I agree.

but why is the thread title about God and pantheism?
 
Cypress said:
Biology is a descriptive science that does not really illuminate first principles and fundamental physical reality.
Click to expand...

Are you of the opinion that biological laws should all be reducible to the level of quarks and electrons?

Cypress said:
Talking about electrical impulses between synapses describes a biological property,
Click to expand...

Think of a computer chip. It actually produces a Mathematical result, a real result, using nothing but movement of current through a variety of electronic gates.

Is the thinking that there is some "essence" of "one-ness" or "zero-ness" to each of the electrons flowing through the system?


Cypress said:
but doesn't explain how and why the subatomic matter in your brain has consciousness, morality, subjective psychological experiences.
Click to expand...

Remember I mentioned "temperature" as an emergent property? I see it as kind of like this. There's no "temperature" at the individual atom level. Temperature arises from the ensemble of atoms as molecules together.

Why can't thought be like that? Why does it have to be taking place at the atomic level.

Cypress said:
The quarks and electrons that make up your brain are exactly the same quarks and electrons making up a rock. We do not really know why quarks and electrons in the mind have consciousness and psychological experience.
Click to expand...

I was just poking around the internet looking for examples of "emergent properties" so that you would see that they are neither exotic or simply a handwaving way to brush aside inconvenient points. I found this here which provides some other examples:


The one I like most is "Wetness". There is NO wetness at the molecular level. it is an EMERGENT property of an ensemble of molecules working together which arises from things like the interaction between those molecules.
 
Daylight63 said:
Are you of the opinion that biological laws should all be reducible to the level of quarks and electrons?



Think of a computer chip. It actually produces a Mathematical result, a real result, using nothing but movement of current through a variety of electronic gates.

Is the thinking that there is some "essence" of "one-ness" or "zero-ness" to each of the electrons flowing through the system?




Remember I mentioned "temperature" as an emergent property? I see it as kind of like this. There's no "temperature" at the individual atom level. Temperature arises from the ensemble of atoms as molecules together.

Why can't thought be like that? Why does it have to be taking place at the atomic level.



I was just poking around the internet looking for examples of "emergent properties" so that you would see that they are neither exotic or simply a handwaving way to brush aside inconvenient points. I found this here which provides some other examples:


The one I like most is "Wetness". There is NO wetness at the molecular level. it is an EMERGENT property of an ensemble of molecules working together which arises from things like the interaction between those molecules.
Click to expand...
There are no universal, mathematical laws of biology at the level of first principles, like there are in physics. Even Richard Dawkins will admit this. It's a descriptive science first and foremost.

Physical materialists by definition are claiming everything, including morality and consciousness, ultimately reduce to physics and the motion of fundamental particles.

Invoking cells, organs, and brain tissue is not an explanation for consciousness and morality at the level of physical materialism. We don't even know how DNA came to be, we can only describe it's information coding properties.

I don't have time to read articles. You'll have to accurately explain the science in the article and how it's relevant in your own words in plain-spoken English
 
Last edited:
Daylight63 said:
Are you of the opinion that biological laws should all be reducible to the level of quarks and electrons?



Think of a computer chip. It actually produces a Mathematical result, a real result, using nothing but movement of current through a variety of electronic gates.

Is the thinking that there is some "essence" of "one-ness" or "zero-ness" to each of the electrons flowing through the system?




Remember I mentioned "temperature" as an emergent property? I see it as kind of like this. There's no "temperature" at the individual atom level. Temperature arises from the ensemble of atoms as molecules together.

Why can't thought be like that? Why does it have to be taking place at the atomic level.



I was just poking around the internet looking for examples of "emergent properties" so that you would see that they are neither exotic or simply a handwaving way to brush aside inconvenient points. I found this here which provides some other examples:


The one I like most is "Wetness". There is NO wetness at the molecular level. it is an EMERGENT property of an ensemble of molecules working together which arises from things like the interaction between those molecules.
Click to expand...
you're a fucking idiot.
 
Cypress said:
There are no universal, mathematical laws of biology at the level of first principles, like there are in physics. Even Richard Dawkins will admit this. It's a descriptive science first and foremost.
Click to expand...

Nor would there necessarily be. Like "wetness" doesn't exist at the atomic level. But it emerges in ensembles.

Cypress said:
Invoking cells, organs, and brain tissue is not an explanation for consciousness and morality at the level of physical materialism.
Click to expand...

Why not?

Cypress said:
We don't even know how DNA came to be, we can only describe it's information coding properties.
Click to expand...

That's an excellent example: we don't know how the first DNA was formed and started functioning in a role of information carrier. But we know it would likely have happened purely through known physical things like chemical reactions.

Why can't thoughts and mental states not be the same thing? We know that brains exist and we know the only time we experience thoughts is when a physical brain exists. So it would stand to reason that the thoughts come from that.

Sure, there COULD be something more to mental states than the emergence of a property from a physical brain, but we don't really know anything about that. It doesn't even have a form sufficient to define it let alone a way to detect it so an objective observer would agree on what they are detecting.

Cypress said:
I don't have time to read articles. You'll have to accurately explain the science in the article and how it's relevant in your own words in plain-spoken English
Click to expand...

I'll give it a shot.

The best example is "wetness". We all agree that things can be wet. But that doesn't exist at the molecular level. It doesn't exist at the atomic level.

But it is real.

It is an EMERGENT PROPERTY.

Thoughts don't exist at the quark or atomic level. They don't even exist at the molecule level. Thoughts probably don't even exist at the level of an individual neuron. They are an emergent property of an ensemble of neurons.
 
Daylight63 said:
Nor would there necessarily be. Like "wetness" doesn't exist at the atomic level. But it emerges in ensembles.



Why not?



That's an excellent example: we don't know how the first DNA was formed and started functioning in a role of information carrier. But we know it would likely have happened purely through known physical things like chemical reactions.

Why can't thoughts and mental states not be the same thing? We know that brains exist and we know the only time we experience thoughts is when a physical brain exists. So it would stand to reason that the thoughts come from that.

Sure, there COULD be something more to mental states than the emergence of a property from a physical brain, but we don't really know anything about that. It doesn't even have a form sufficient to define it let alone a way to detect it so an objective observer would agree on what they are detecting.



I'll give it a shot.

The best example is "wetness". We all agree that things can be wet. But that doesn't exist at the molecular level. It doesn't exist at the atomic level.

But it is real.

It is an EMERGENT PROPERTY.

Thoughts don't exist at the quark or atomic level. They don't even exist at the molecule level. Thoughts probably don't even exist at the level of an individual neuron. They are an emergent property of an ensemble of neurons.
Click to expand...
Way too long too read.

Emergent properties is a vague buzzword signifying we don't have a physical materialistic theory of consciousness or morality.

No reputable scientists today would say we have a satisfactory materialistic explanation for consciousness, subjective psychological experience, or morality
 
Cypress said:
Way too long too read.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I tend to use a lot of words. Not everyone is a "reader" I've found.

Cypress said:
Emergent properties is a vague buzzword
Click to expand...

No. That's why I gave concrete examples like "wetness" and "temperature".

Cypress said:
No reputable scientists today would say we have a satisfactory materialistic explanation for consciousness,
Click to expand...

I agree. We do not. But that doesn't mean that any guess is equivalent to any other. We do have a lot of information on the origins of conciousness. It is an active area of study in neurobiology.

 
Daylight63 said:
Sorry. I tend to use a lot of words. Not everyone is a "reader" I've found.



No. That's why I gave concrete examples like "wetness" and "temperature".



I agree. We do not. But that doesn't mean that any guess is equivalent to any other. We do have a lot of information on the origins of conciousness. It is an active area of study in neurobiology.
Click to expand...
Yes, these scientific questions have been around for ever and still invite speculation

I don't think we even have a scientific discipline yet that can explain consciousness. Watching electrical signals in synapses doesn't explain it, anymore than watching apples fall from trees explains gravity. Those are just observations, but they do not have explanatory power.
 
Cypress said:
I don't think we even have a scientific discipline yet that can explain consciousness. Watching electrical signals in synapses doesn't explain it, anymore than watching apples fall from trees explains gravity. Those are just observations, but they do not have explanatory power.
Click to expand...

I get that. I like the comparison with gravity.

But I come at the topic from the point of view of "what DO we know and can it be used to explain this effect?"

I find making blind guesses that involve the development of entire systems that have no objective reality to be less satisfying than the more parsimonious approach.

Also: there actually IS a lot of research on conciousness going on right now. It's weird, but it is going on. And it's starting to explain conciousness in ways that involve the physical and explain a LOT of the variability in the data. That's all science ever really does, anyway.
 
Hume said:
I am. Clearly you are not able to debate ideas.
Click to expand...

And you seriously don't know what it means to have desires to do the "wrong" thing?

Yet you do it on this forum all the time. We all do. We all say intemperate things and hurtful things to other people. That's not right. Yet we all do it. Including you.

You seem like a really smart individual so I'm going to assume this is some ploy to get me to make some comment that you will be able to leverage into a larger point. I don't understand what that point is if we can't agree on reality.

Why not just tell me what the point is you want to MAKE and we can dispense with this silliness of "not knowing what it feels like to want to do something that isn't right".
 
Daylight63 said:
And you seriously don't know what it means to have desires to do the "wrong" thing?

Yet you do it on this forum all the time. We all do. We all say intemperate things and hurtful things to other people. That's not right. Yet we all do it. Including you.
Click to expand...
you aint bery ijnnersesting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top