Author Topic: Has anyone ever though of this before?  (Read 2280 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #29 on: June 05, 2012, 04:35:24 PM »
Certain beliefs can be said to be most reasonable to hold without having to necessarily define them as true/false.   Maybe truth was the wrong word for me to bring into the picture.

To meet the definition of reasonable would require logical basis. What criteria would you use to declare one unverifiable, unfalsifiable claim to be reasonable and another unreasonable?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 04:39:27 PM by Aspie »

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #30 on: June 05, 2012, 04:42:12 PM »
Certain beliefs can be said to be most reasonable to hold without having to necessarily define them as true/false.   Maybe truth was the wrong word for me to bring into the picture.

To meet the definition of reasonable would require logical basis. What criteria would you use to declare one unverifiable, unfalsifiable claim to be reasonable and another unreasonable?

As you said; claims with logical basis.

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #31 on: June 05, 2012, 04:56:25 PM »
That's what I'm asking... if it's inscrutable then what are you using to deem one more logical than another?  How would you declare, say, belief in Santa to be illogical?

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #32 on: June 05, 2012, 05:03:42 PM »
It can be illogical if the concept contradicts something we consider factual.   One would have to list all the things Santa's existence would entail, if they want, and see if it's contrary to facts.   

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #33 on: June 05, 2012, 05:11:57 PM »
So as long as the claim doesn't outright contradict what we know then it should be considered reasonable? Doesn't this then make it reasonable to accept any claim that appeals to undetectable elements and only operates in areas where our most current understanding is limited?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 05:14:13 PM by Aspie »

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #34 on: June 05, 2012, 05:18:47 PM »
I should point out that my contention was specifically over unfalsifiable claims, so you haven't actually addressed my point. If it can be demonstrated to contradict facts then it is falsifiable.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #35 on: June 05, 2012, 05:34:18 PM »
Is an abstract metaphysical claim like physicalism falsifiable?  I'd say in an experimental sense, no, but you could make logical arguments against it.  So then depends on what you mean by falsifiable.

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #36 on: June 05, 2012, 06:19:45 PM »
Careful here, Gil - these people have shown many times that the Bible contradicts Facts, and is Falsifiable...

Also, it is wrong to assume that just because something can't be studied under a microscope or by physical means, that it makes it true.  So far, genetics, biology, ecology, chemistry, physics, etc. have all disproven the contextual meaning of the Bible - by facts, theories that have been proven...

In which case the common theist response is to insert metaphorical claims and theories that ignore proven facts, or just completely ignore everything that was said to be factual...
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 06:21:17 PM by jeremy0 »
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #37 on: June 05, 2012, 06:23:34 PM »
NP, I don't believe the Bible as factual.   If anything I suppose people could call me a deist. 

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #38 on: June 06, 2012, 07:17:21 AM »
NP, I don't believe the Bible as factual.   If anything I suppose people could call me a deist. 

Do you believe in the Biblegod?

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #39 on: June 06, 2012, 03:00:49 PM »
NP, I don't believe the Bible as factual.   If anything I suppose people could call me a deist. 

Do you believe in the Biblegod?

-Nam

See no reason to yet.

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #40 on: June 07, 2012, 02:07:58 AM »
Is an abstract metaphysical claim like physicalism falsifiable?  I'd say in an experimental sense, no, but you could make logical arguments against it.  So then depends on what you mean by falsifiable.

First time I've heard of that one. From a brief once-over I would have to say that it isn't falsifiable. It seems tautological in that it suggests that which can be judged physically can only be explained physically. It's odd in that it's an ontological argument where the physical is outright deemed the sole determining factor of existence. This wouldn't rule out, for example, supernatural superfluity. Not to mention it depends how one quantifies "non-physical" and "interactions with the physical", as hypothetically such an argument could be invoked to reduce any supernatural event to unexplained physical phenomenon that requires further study. When it comes right down to it we would lack the ability to even detect "non-physical", let alone test for it. Therefore, to substantiate such a positive claim it would need to be shown that the existence of non-physical is an impossibility, not that assuming physicality has methodological utility.

If I'm somehow mistaken in my synopsis on the subject anyone can jump in and correct me. My point is simply that beliefs which are beyond human ability to actually know to be true cannot be considered reasonable because they would have to be considered beyond reason.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #41 on: June 07, 2012, 07:42:42 AM »
Gil, what you talking about is an appeal to ignorance. It is the only logical fault of Deism, unlike the manifold logical errors of gnistic theism, but it is a fault none the less.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #42 on: June 07, 2012, 01:29:17 PM »
Is an abstract metaphysical claim like physicalism falsifiable?  I'd say in an experimental sense, no, but you could make logical arguments against it.  So then depends on what you mean by falsifiable.

First time I've heard of that one. From a brief once-over I would have to say that it isn't falsifiable. It seems tautological in that it suggests that which can be judged physically can only be explained physically. It's odd in that it's an ontological argument where the physical is outright deemed the sole determining factor of existence. This wouldn't rule out, for example, supernatural superfluity. Not to mention it depends how one quantifies "non-physical" and "interactions with the physical", as hypothetically such an argument could be invoked to reduce any supernatural event to unexplained physical phenomenon that requires further study. When it comes right down to it we would lack the ability to even detect "non-physical", let alone test for it. Therefore, to substantiate such a positive claim it would need to be shown that the existence of non-physical is an impossibility, not that assuming physicality has methodological utility.

If I'm somehow mistaken in my synopsis on the subject anyone can jump in and correct me. My point is simply that beliefs which are beyond human ability to actually know to be true cannot be considered reasonable because they would have to be considered beyond reason.

Well consider the mind for instance.   Is the mind just the result of physical processes in the brain? If so why? I'd say if a person believes this its because they're taking a physicalist position.    And there are ways to counter such a position. Course, some people don't find these topics very relevant; but I think they can definitely have an impact on people's world-view...
« Last Edit: June 07, 2012, 01:32:04 PM by Gill »

Offline Dynamic

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A Young Atheist
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #43 on: June 07, 2012, 03:06:34 PM »
Okay okay, I thought this thread died after a few posts.
Now there are 2 pages.

I never knew that it was a analogy before, but thanks for letting me know.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

If you want to talk through skype, message me.

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #44 on: June 09, 2012, 12:13:48 AM »
Well consider the mind for instance.   Is the mind just the result of physical processes in the brain? If so why? I'd say if a person believes this its because they're taking a physicalist position.    And there are ways to counter such a position. Course, some people don't find these topics very relevant; but I think they can definitely have an impact on people's world-view...

Why not?  If brain chemistry can account for every aspect of a mind from consciousness to identity then what else is there that needs to be taken into account? Note that I don't posit the non-existence of the "non-physical" (which would need to be better defined anyway to be meaningful), I simply find it irrelevant to anything reality-based. Our capacity to draw knowledge is limited to our ability to, at the very least, test assumptions. However, if the best that can be done is to appeal to gaps in our knowledge to suggest that something mysterious and inexplicable is at work then what has been accomplished? We approach knowledge in terms of utility, as that which works serves a practical purpose. My standpoint isn't to specifically exclude non-physical as a possibility, but to pursue the best results using what has proven useful. Even if the mind weren't something grounded in the physical, how could the proposition as such have any weight behind it without reference solely to the physical?

Logical arguments could also be made for solipsism and Last Thursdayism. However, philosophy without reference to reality is like an engine without its transmission - it revs, but it doesn't get you anywhere. Instead of tossing out possibilities as challenges to worldviews and declaring them reasonable you have to show your work and demonstrate how they fall within the bounds of reason by connecting the dots using our knowledge base, or at the very least by presenting a model that would allow us to distinguish a mind grounded in the physical from one that's not. While the philosophy of science is that knowledge is provisional and is always subject to change, proper methodology is of highest important in drawing conclusions. If all we can do is accept something as true because it could be true, can it truly be called knowledge?

Offline WeZzZzRURR

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • Darwins +9/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • I like music =D
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #45 on: June 09, 2012, 01:16:55 AM »
Something that came to my mind when I read the first post in this thread, I apologize if someone touched base on this, if that is the case, then please correct me.... =)

But, just a thought, and I'm just saying, going back to the santa thing, where those people who grow up continuing to believe in santa and then go on to add attributes to him, the only thing that I question in this, is that while they were making claims and attributes, it is very likely that they would have then went on to publish such things, and following the published of such things, certain aspects about it could have been easily challenged and refuted, resulting in the need of a quick and hasty altering to their publications, afterall, we are not perfect and as such it is highly likely that this would happen...  I'm not sure if you guys would agree with me that that could be a very likely case, but the reason why I bring it up, just as something to ponder, is if Christianity (or some other religions for that matter) are man-made religions, why is it that we lack historical evidence of intentional and blatantly needed altercations being made in the early stages? =)  Just a question...
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 01:21:34 AM by WeZzZzRURR »
I want to leave this world knowing that I did everything I can to make it a better place...

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #46 on: June 09, 2012, 01:54:30 AM »
<snip>... if Christianity (or some other religions for that matter) are man-made religions, why is it that we lack historical evidence of intentional and blatantly needed altercations being made in the early stages? =)  Just a question...

It will be there, can you give some specifics?

Offline WeZzZzRURR

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • Darwins +9/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • I like music =D
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #47 on: June 09, 2012, 01:56:44 AM »
It will be there, can you give some specifics?

Specifics as to what? I thought I was specific enough.... =P
I want to leave this world knowing that I did everything I can to make it a better place...

Offline WeZzZzRURR

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • Darwins +9/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • I like music =D
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #48 on: June 09, 2012, 02:36:20 AM »
*******Edit to what I said:*********

Is there evidence rather than why isn't there, because I don't personally know for sure that there isn't, thus I should have asked is there... =)
I want to leave this world knowing that I did everything I can to make it a better place...

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #49 on: June 09, 2012, 03:09:20 AM »
Specifics as to what? I thought I was specific enough.... =P

Let us say one occasion of "intentional and blatantly needed altercations being made in the early stages". The string of words is a bit unusual, so I found it hard to understand what it really meant. Thats why I wondered if you could point to one such event/location and we can try to understand why you felt there are no evidences for the aforementioned statement.

Offline WeZzZzRURR

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • Darwins +9/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • I like music =D
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #50 on: June 09, 2012, 03:24:55 AM »
Let us say one occasion of "intentional and blatantly needed altercations being made in the early stages". The string of words is a bit unusual, so I found it hard to understand what it really meant. Thats why I wondered if you could point to one such event/location and we can try to understand why you felt there are no evidences for the aforementioned statement.

Oh okay, gotcha.... 

By intentional, I simply mean that the supposed human creators of the religion intentionally altered it.

By blatantly needed, I mean that the altercations had to be made in order for the supposed religion to even be possible even in that early of a time.

A human made religion would probably be subject to significant error at the religion's early ages in this world.

To add to that, considering the time when this religion was supposedly created (at least thousands of years ago), it is also probable that the human creators would make erroneous statements or claims in the religion due to a significant lack of knowledge of the way things work, as well as the world (which obviously today you would argue that there are statements in such religions that are disprovable).

I hope this cleared it up for you. =)
I want to leave this world knowing that I did everything I can to make it a better place...

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #51 on: June 09, 2012, 07:52:08 AM »
Let's say someone in 3K BCE wrote that the Earth was flat and that there was an ocean of water held up via a dome and that water is why the sky was blue and where rain came from. Sounds good right? Now, how long would it take for this incorrect statement to even be challenged to be considered incorrect? The way you word your thoughts seems to indicate that this would have been found out from the very beginning because in can be proven wrong and lies wouldn't hold up. The truth is, this was believed for almost 5,000 years. In fact, there are still people today that think the Earth is on the back of a giant turtle. (therefore flat)

Length of belief means nothing. This is simply an Appeal to Tradition[1]. ie. The longer something's been done, the more *correct* it is. Of the reasons people tell others to circumcise thier children, one used is this Appeal.

By the way, the first sentence of this post is exactly what Genesis asserts. Otherwise God would have said that the side of the Earth not facing the sun would be dark like a ball instead of needing a barrier to seperate light from darkness, as you would need if [the Earth] was like a plate.
 1. I don't think I even saw this on the Logical Fallacy list.

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #52 on: June 09, 2012, 07:57:42 AM »
Oh okay, gotcha.... 
By intentional, I simply mean that the supposed human creators of the religion intentionally altered it.

Can I assume that you mean to say that the Book was created by humans and then altered it? We can discuss it if you can give a rough approximation of when you think the bible appeared in its completed form for the first time. (Q1)
Quote
By blatantly needed, I mean that the altercations had to be made in order for the supposed religion to even be possible even in that early of a time.

"Altercation" means a quarrel (assuming you didn't mean "alteration") and that confounds me further. Altercation with whom?

Quote
A human made religion would probably be subject to significant error at the religion's early ages in this world.

Absolutely!
Quote
To add to that, considering the time when this religion was supposedly created (at least thousands of years ago), it is also probable that the human creators would make erroneous statements or claims in the religion due to a significant lack of knowledge of the way things work, as well as the world (which obviously today you would argue that there are statements in such religions that are disprovable).

-- significant lack of knowledge--- Oh!!! Where do I start?

Quote
I hope this cleared it up for you. =)

Partially, still a good start. An answer to Q1 can get us going.

Offline Grimm

  • Professional Windmill Tilter
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
  • Darwins +61/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Apparently, the Dragon to be Slain
    • The Hexadecimal Number of the Beast
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2012, 08:11:58 AM »
Oh okay, gotcha.... 
By intentional, I simply mean that the supposed human creators of the religion intentionally altered it.

Can I assume that you mean to say that the Book was created by humans and then altered it? We can discuss it if you can give a rough approximation of when you think the bible appeared in its completed form for the first time. (Q1)

Weezur - Sun King is right.  Until we know what you think is true, we can't show you anything effectively.  If you really want the explanation, start by telling us what you know. :)

The thing is, I can point to  an extrabiblical alteration that has bearing, just to show you how easy it is and how common for people to make significant alterations to serve their purpose; take a look at Josephus.

Josephus is a historian who is roughly contemporaneous to the 1st Century CE in Rome.  His book is one of the near-complete manuscripts that have survived from that time, and is often used as a proof of Jesus's existence.  Unfortunately, the passage used for that 'proof' is a late (perhaps 11th Century, last I read the scholarship on the issue) insertion, and is not considered part of Josephus's text.  Instead, one of the scribes copying the work added the passage for their own reasons.

We don't know the reasons, but we can make an assumption that it had to do with validating Jesus's existence within the Church - but it doesn't matter.  Josephus, who never mentioned Jesus, had 'words put into his mouth' by the devout, and that passage is now taken as his by the laity.
"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one."  - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

-- Randall, XKCD http://xkcd.com/900/

Offline WeZzZzRURR

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • Darwins +9/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • I like music =D
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #54 on: June 09, 2012, 11:01:07 AM »
Let's say someone in 3K BCE wrote that the Earth was flat and that there was an ocean of water held up via a dome and that water is why the sky was blue and where rain came from. Sounds good right? Now, how long would it take for this incorrect statement to even be challenged to be considered incorrect? The way you word your thoughts seems to indicate that this would have been found out from the very beginning because in can be proven wrong and lies wouldn't hold up. The truth is, this was believed for almost 5,000 years. In fact, there are still people today that think the Earth is on the back of a giant turtle. (therefore flat)

Think about what you just said though..... I am not making claim to the things of the bible that you would currently claim to be factually wrong, I am stating that wouldn't it be highly likely that in the time when this book could have been created (I don't have a vast understanding of the time frame in which the bible supposedly originated, but I think you would agree that it had to be at least a couple thousand years ago), their lack of knowledge in how things really are in the world would have resulted in them stating or making a claim in error of something that would have been easy proven to be 100% incorrect within their lifetimes, which would have resulted in the altering of the religion, thus historical evidence of this altering would probably exist... Obviously this isn't claimed to be a fact, because it is possible that they worded it just right to use their basic knowledge to make statements that they already knew, but to use ambiguous statements so well as to those statements being ambiguous thousands of years after the creation of the religion, what is the likelihood of that considering these are humans very prone to mistake (i.e. not all-knowing Gods), at an early time where our understanding of everything was "weak" to say the least.

Length of belief means nothing. This is simply an Appeal to Tradition[1]. ie. The longer something's been done, the more *correct* it is. Of the reasons people tell others to circumcise thier children, one used is this Appeal.
 1. I don't think I even saw this on the Logical Fallacy list.

I am in no way or shape talking about this.....  I am not trying to make the claim that christianity has survived for so long, therefore it has to be true.

By the way, the first sentence of this post is exactly what Genesis asserts. Otherwise God would have said that the side of the Earth not facing the sun would be dark like a ball instead of needing a barrier to seperate light from darkness, as you would need if [the Earth] was like a plate.

Or, orrrrrrrrr, bare with me here, maybe barrier was meant to be taken as a metaphorical description, as at the time God might not have wanted to thrust a multitude of unknown knowledge into our weak heads all at once... ;D
I want to leave this world knowing that I did everything I can to make it a better place...

Offline WeZzZzRURR

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • Darwins +9/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • I like music =D
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2012, 11:06:57 AM »
Can I assume that you mean to say that the Book was created by humans and then altered it? We can discuss it if you can give a rough approximation of when you think the bible appeared in its completed form for the first time. (Q1)

Well I actually think you guys might have a better understanding of when that was supposed to be then I do, at least thousands of years ago? =P

"Altercation" means a quarrel (assuming you didn't mean "alteration") and that confounds me further. Altercation with whom?

Sorry! lol it was late and I wasn't thinking straight, make the alteration hahah.....

Absolutely!

Error that would have likely been easily disproven at the time.

-- significant lack of knowledge--- Oh!!! Where do I start?

You're missing the point here, I understand that today there are many things you would call in the bible as being factually incorrect, but what I am saying is that there most likely would have been errors that would have been easily disproven back in that time, if not even a little bit after the religion's inception.

Partially,
still a good start. An answer to Q1 can get us going.

Did that help at all? =)
I want to leave this world knowing that I did everything I can to make it a better place...

Offline WeZzZzRURR

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • Darwins +9/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • I like music =D
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #56 on: June 09, 2012, 11:09:51 AM »
The thing is, I can point to  an extrabiblical alteration that has bearing, just to show you how easy it is and how common for people to make significant alterations to serve their purpose; take a look at Josephus.

Josephus is a historian who is roughly contemporaneous to the 1st Century CE in Rome.  His book is one of the near-complete manuscripts that have survived from that time, and is often used as a proof of Jesus's existence.  Unfortunately, the passage used for that 'proof' is a late (perhaps 11th Century, last I read the scholarship on the issue) insertion, and is not considered part of Josephus's text.  Instead, one of the scribes copying the work added the passage for their own reasons.

We don't know the reasons, but we can make an assumption that it had to do with validating Jesus's existence within the Church - but it doesn't matter.  Josephus, who never mentioned Jesus, had 'words put into his mouth' by the devout, and that passage is now taken as his by the laity.

I am aware of the passage you speak of (what a coincidence, I came upon it last night =D)...

I personally question to what extent that passage could have been altered (if at all), I'll have to look into it for myself, but would you agree with me that making alterations to a passage of one man, that passage having a very limited audience to begin with, would have been MUCH easier to cover up than making alterations to a religious book that had a very very large audience? =)
I want to leave this world knowing that I did everything I can to make it a better place...

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #57 on: June 09, 2012, 11:12:17 AM »
Well consider the mind for instance.   Is the mind just the result of physical processes in the brain? If so why? I'd say if a person believes this its because they're taking a physicalist position.    And there are ways to counter such a position. Course, some people don't find these topics very relevant; but I think they can definitely have an impact on people's world-view...

Why not?  If brain chemistry can account for every aspect of a mind from consciousness to identity then what else is there that needs to be taken into account?

Because chemistry cannot fully account.   Take qualia for instance...