DefendingPremises 4-7 Trascendental Signifier Argument for God

Image result for Metacrock's blog


Thesis: Mind is the missing dimension that makes sense out of the TS, and TS plus mind = God



1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
2. OP's summed up in TS
3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5. minds organize and communicate meaning

6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS

7Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation

for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).





4Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
How is modern thought incoherent, irrational, and meaningless? It has a lot of coherent and a degree of rationality but it's missing certain key elements in those areas, that works to undermine the meaning of the whole. The major incoherence is the inability to explain hierarchical ordering, the OP's and the TS. There are clearly OP's and they point to some higher framework of rationality and meaning but modern Western thought cuts off the top by removing mind from the equation, thus there are many lose ends and no ultimate meaning.
Modern thought seeks a single principle, an ἀρχή that explains everything, (or at least it explains quantum gravity) but not itself. There's no connection between the rationality of the system and it's existence since it's cut off from mind. The forces of blind chance are the only guide, and that may be all that's required, and yet minds are capable of understanding so much more and of putting the system as a whole into a rational framework but one that ultimately has no rationale.
Moreover, there is no explanation for reality. There's no way modern thought can even pose the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” That kind of question is hard enough to answer anyway but with the kind of metaphysical assumptions modern science makes the question can’t even be asked. That stifles thought along the lines of anything that transcends the closed realm of discourse within a society given to a narrow truth regime. There is no accounting for the law-like regularity we find in the universe. Physical laws have even been demoted from actual laws to mere descriptions. Thus though they describe this law-like regularity we are not allowed to call it a law. Thus the universe is irrational and the real explanation is just a lose end. Whitehead observed the irrationality.

We are content with superficial orderings form diverse arbitrary starting points. ... science which is employed in their development [modern thought] is based upon a philosophy which asserts that physical causation is supreme, and which disjoins the physical cause from the final end. It is not popular to dwell upon the absolute contradiction here involved."[Whitehead was an atheist] i
There is no understanding as to why we are here or why reality is so ordered hierarchically and to ask the question no longer makes sense because modern thought has learned to content itself with lose ends. Organizing is always hierarchical, and in comprehending the hierarchy of epistemic answers there are several principles that can be understood as transcendental. Many of these are good candidates for first principles. Mathematics, reason, logic, any of these might be seen as the basic principle upon which all knowledge is grounded. Secondly, humans have always tried to understand a means of conceptualizing and connecting to the ἀρχή (are-kay—first principle) or the TS. In every culture, age, thought tradition there has been some form of first axiom that grounds all knowledge and life. In reasoning Aristotle recognized an axiom.

In every systematic inquiry (methods) where there are first principles, or causes, or elements, knowledge and science result from acquiring knowledge of these; for we think we know something just in case we acquire knowledge of the primary causes, the primary first principles, all the way to the elements. It is clear, then, that in the science of nature as elsewhere, we should try first to determine questions about the first principles. The naturally proper direction of our road is from things better known and clearer to us, to things that are clearer and better known by nature; for the things known to us are not the same as the things known unconditionally (haplôs). Hence it is necessary for us to progress, following this procedure, from the things that are less clear by nature, but clearer to us, towards things that are clearer and better known by nature. ii

Axioms or first principles, in philosophy are called a priori, they are foundational propositions that cannot be deduced from other propositions. But there appears to be an equivocation in this line of thought. Propositions of reasoning and concepts of God are two different things. There is a connection, however, between propositions of first principle and the God concept, and this is connected to the TSED. First, God is the ultimate first principle. God is the top of the metaphysical hierarchy (that is axiomatic). Thus any proposition of first principle would bear an intimate relation to the God concept (if we understand God as the TSED). That is essentially what is being said when we describe God in terms of metaphysical hierarchy, or in terms of modal function. Secondly God would be the ultimate first principle and all other first principles would derive their their being and function from God.
What is the meaning of the phrase of this above premise: [modern thought] Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe? It fails to unite the grounding function of the TS in such a way as to explain a coherent hierarchical ordering in the universe with an understanding of what it means to be. Modern thought explains the behavior of the universe without reference to purpose or goal. Things are not moving toward a desired end, they are just moving. If order results out of chaos it's not the result of any purpose or plan. For that reason there is no assumption of meaning or purpose in being,. Thus no reason to explain what it means to be. As Sartre told us first we are then we decides what it means. We might suspect that the reason for failing to comprehend a purpose has to do with Laplace's lack of needing the God hypothesis (see above fn9). Did he lack the need of God purely as a physical explanation or did he not want the explanation? Was it the moral guidance of which he lacked the need? Or, if we assume this was a straightforward statement about physics, is it our lack of desire for guidance that contents us with the lack of explanation? In either case we go on with modern physics as though we have no need of that hypothesis. If true then why do we still seek the ultimate explanation? Why have we failed to find it? There is a failure because we recognize no higher meaning. Rather we recognize no single higher meaning but we all have various ideas about it. We are not satisfied or we would not keep looking. We are not willing to make some official meaning but the umpires of reality are still seeking a logos. Even when we decide we don't want meaning we don't want truth, meaning finds us anyway and our difference turns into differance and becomes a standard, a first principle. I think Perhaps this is because without overall meaning we seek a standard of guidance in place of meaning. Gudience suggests meaning.
Perhaps the most important aspect of incoherence is that we can't do without a TS. Derrida tried to eliminate the TS and wound up creating one (difference—with an a_a). "The constant danger of deconstuction is that it falls into the same kinds of hierarchies that it tries to expose. Derrida himself is quite aware of this danger--and his response--which is really a rhetorical response...is to multiply the names under which deconstruction traffics..."iii




(5minds organize and communicate meaning

I think that is self evident. That is what minds do and nothing else does it. I am not concerned here with how it it's done. If one chooses to argue “Dennette's multiple drafts or consciousness is brain chemistry that is not the issue here. It doesn't disprove my argument. In fact since that requires hierarchical orderinit might help my argument.


(6) Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS


The reason modern thought is missing the unity (the TS, the nature of the universe, and meaning) is because it leaves out mind as the basis of the ἀρχήminds organize and communicate meaning, thus modern thought is missing the connecting link between the TS and the nature of things (such as hierarchical organizing)Thomas Nagel in his book Mind and Cosmos (the subtitle: of the book says it-- “...the Materialist Noe-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False”) argued that mind is the missing dimension with which modern thought refuses to deal, and this is why they can't solve the so called “hard problem.”ivHe did not argue that evolution is wrong but that the reductionist understanding will never unlock the hard problem because they can't admit there's an aspect of the world their methods can't grasp. He says it's not just about brain and mind but that “it invades our understanding of the entire cosmos and its history...a true appreciation of the difficulty of the problem must eventually change our conception of the place of the physical sciences in describing the natural order.”v Now this doesn’t prove that turning to introduce mind into the equation proves the solution, but it gives us reason to think that if leaving mind out of the equation is a major part of the problem, then including it is probably part of the best hope we have of solving it.
Even so the single first principle by itself is missing the dimension of mind. It's the dimension of mind that really enables an explanation uniting all the major areas of human being: the physical nature of the universe, the moral, and the existential or the dimension of our being where higher meaning and sheer existence meet. This is the full elucidation of being por soir. Science is wiling to stick with en soir. And that's acceptable because it's purpose is not to explain purpose of our being. That's a job for theology. Science really does not require the God hypothesis because it's function is not to unify these noetoic aspects of being. Being in itself is fine for scientific explanation. But we need more. Mind is the missing dimension because mind gives purpose. Consciousness seeks understanding, If the top of the metaphysical hierarchy is mind it would explain how meaning and moral precept and/or virtue could be part of the fabric of what is.
The elephant in the room on this premise is the insistence by physicalism and materialist thinkers that mind is merely brain activity. The skeptic will argue how can there be mind without a brain? The brain/mind reductionism has become so all pervasive in atheist circles any discussion of God or mind on the internet will result in that argument. There are major researchers who don't go along with the reductionist view. Raymond Tallis former professior at University of Manchester, denounces what he calls “neurohype,”  “the claims made on behalf of neuroscience in areas outside those in which it has any kind of explanatory power….”vi

The fundamental assumption is that we are our brains and this, I will argue presently, is not true. But this is not the only reason why neuroscience does not tell us what human beings “really” are: it does not even tell us how the brain works, how bits of the brain work, or (even if you accept the dubious assumption that human living could be parcelled up into a number of discrete functions) which bit of the brain is responsible for which function. The rationale for thinking of the kind – “This bit of the brain houses that bit of us...” – is mind-numbingly simplistic.vii
Aside from arguments based upon neuroscience there's an even better reason to discount the reductionists. The nature of the human mind is not the issue here. We are talking about the assumption of mind in understanding the TS. The nature of biological organisms is irrelevant. There is no justification for thinking of god as a big biological organism. God is not analogous to the most powerful being. He's not Zeus he's not superman. He's not really a “He.” “He's” not even analogous to the laws of physics. “He's” the basis upon which the laws of physics cohere. At that level we can consider God as pure mind or mind itself. It's not a mind, it is mind. The source and origin of mind.
The issue here is not the production of mind but the content. The notion of meaning necessitates purpose. Meaning is the communicated purpose involved in an utterance. That requires consciousness, self awareness and rational purpose. These are all qualities of mind. We can't prove mind behind the universe but we can show that there is no coherence between the various Op's if we assume naturalistic ends. Yet we can understand coherent unity between Ops, moral precepts, an existential meaning if we assume mind. If we assume a creating mind is responsible for hierarchical ordering we can see rationale for organizing, moral motions, and a purposive existence for humans all cohering in the unity of creative wisdom and purpose. That would seem to indicate that mind is the best explanation. Thomas Nagel points out that mind is the missing dimension that naturalism has left out.viii Nagel was scathingly criticized as a creationist (he's an atheist) the man himself avowed in the work that he sought to make the naturalistic explanation more complete.ix A theory of everything has to explain mind and reductionism merely explains it away. The point is that without linking purpose to meaning we have a sort of localized meaning, private truth good for each individual not related to the whole.  
I came into this world, I understood nothing, I saw many things what they meant they only meant that to me. No one else knows that meaning, no one cares nor do I know what those things mean to others. Soon I will be gone. Those things that meant something to me will soon cease to mean anything to anyone. They and I will be forgotten. That is what we get with a purely naturalistic reading of life. That is truly meaningless in any final or lasting sense. That sort of existence is a brute fact only. Some revel in the brute nature of such facts. But we must ask the question, not out of mere personal feeling but in spite of it: are these brute facts or deep structures? If the latter the things we have seen, the lives we live the deaths we all die are not merely brute facts. They are deep structures because they have meaning. They have a sort of meaning that lives on after us and is more than us. Of course a lot skeptics will say that I merely can't take anonymity. They can't either. If they can why do we leave things for posterity? Why do we care about how we leave the earth for future generations? While it seems that so many reductionists want to be robots and don't care about meaning if it's true they revel in being meaningless why do they blog? Why social media? Why are we concerned with what violence is purported upon others or what bigoted things Presidential candidates utter? Because meaning is more to us than just a private, relative, and through away. If that weren’t true we would not have sought so long for a logos or a TS or a theory of everything.


(7) Concept of God unites TS with universal mind, therefore, offers best explanation for a view that is RCM


God is Derrida's Prime example of TS. Nancy Murphy and James McClendon, speaking in the context of Derriodian thought, state, "Without God, who has been the ultimate Transcendent Signified, there is no central perspective, no objective truth of things, no real thing beyond language." x Creating, ordering, and sustaining the cosmos and grounding meaning and all reality would require a metaphysical ἀρχή (first principal) with God-like attributes (from the glossary: The eternal and necessary foundational aspect of all being which creates all things and chooses to do so is compatible with the definition of "God" found in any many major world religionsincluding Christianity ).
God and Mind

I am arguing for warranted religious belief, and belief in God in a general sense, not for any particular tradition, I do have Christian belief and I am committed to the Christian tradition and to a relationship with Jesus, but I am bracketing that for now to deal with the ideas in a more general sense. I understand God to be universal mind which is not only part of the basis of Christian mysticism and the orthodox Church but also reflected in such modern thinkers as Paul Tillich,xi John Macquarrie,xii and Hans Urs Von Balthasar.xiii Tillich and others filter it through Heidegger, saying God is being itself. In History of Christian Thought Tillich interprets Dionysius to say God is the ground of everything, the super essential God beyond everything, inclining Platonic ideas and essences, he says Dionysius thought God is God beyond God (Ibid). That ties the Dionysian concept decisively to Tillich's view. xiv
If we want a rational view of the universe we need to plug mind back in to our understanding. There is a problem in that the imposition of a TS may be understood as a contradiction to the Heidegerrian/Tlillichian view that discussed above.






i Alfred North Whitehead. Science and The Modern World, NY: free Press, 1925, (1953) p.76
ii Aristotle, Physics, 184a10–21
iii Con Davis, Roger. Criticism and Culture: The Role of Critique In Modern Literary Theory, Harloow, England:Longman Group United Kingdom; 1 edition (April 13, 1995)
ivDavid Chalmers “Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness,” On line resource University of Arizona, URL:
Chalmer's concept for for summing up the unresolved aspect of consciousness studies, a precise understanding of what conciousness actually is a nd how to understand itat the experioential level, and how it differed from brain function and what causes it,
vThomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False,. Oxfor: Oxford, London: New York University Press, first edition, 2012,3.(see chapter 1). The reason why a rendition of bran functions is not answer to the hard problem is because the question demands an understanding from the inside out,
vi Raymond Tallis, “Ideas for Godless People” New Haumanist.org.uk (blog—online researche) volume 124 Issue 6 (Nov/Dec 2009) URL: http://newhumanist.org.uk/2172/neurotrash  acessed 5/9/12
viiIbid
viiiThomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos:...op cit., 3.
ixIbid.
x Nancy Murphy and James McClendon jr." Distinguishing Modern and Postmodern Theologies." Modern Theology, 5:3 April 1989, 211
xiPaul Tillich, Systematic Theology volume II, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957, 10-11.
xiiJohn MacQuarrie Principles of Christian Theology. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1966. 92,97
xiiiHans Urs Von Balthasar “A Resume of my Thought,” in David L. Schindler,Hans Urs Von Balthasar: His Life and Work. San Francisco:Ignatious Press, 1991, 3.

xivPaul Tillich, A History of Christian thought, New York, NY:TouchStonme books. 1967, 




Comments

The Pixie said…
What is the point of 3 and 4?

What I mean is, does your argument require them? If it does, then it looks like god-of-the-gaps. No one will take seriously a hypothesis that requires a comment about the competing hypothesis in its basic formulation. And yet this is a huge part of your argument, judging from how much space you dedicate to it.
Joe Hinman said…
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
2. OP's summed up in TS
3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5. minds organize and communicate meaning

6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS

7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation

for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).





What is the point of 3 and 4?


3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.

the point of 3 is to establish the difference in modern thought and my view, the point of 4 is to show the problem with that.


What I mean is, does your argument require them?

obviously. there they are. It shows the importance of the consciousness argument,


If it does, then it looks like god-of-the-gaps.

sorry you can;t just throw terms around without showing how they apply. The argument shows that modern thought originally sounding a Ts then either rejected it (and those who do reject it reject science and reason --such as postmodernists) or reject the mind dimension but not the need for TS itself. That means the view that you defend accepts the need my argent provided. If you reject TS you are rejecting reason you can't,

what makes it God of the gaps?



No one will take seriously a hypothesis that requires a comment about the competing hypothesis in its basic formulation.

nonsense that's not a rule of logic;All arguments presupposes the things they argue against are wrong. You are supposed to demonstrate that, that's what arguments are for.


And yet this is a huge part of your argument, judging from how much space you dedicate to it.
Anonymous said…
Joe: nonsense that's not a rule of logic;All arguments presupposes the things they argue against are wrong.

That is quite different to requiring that as part of the argument.

Certainly Einstein referenced Newton's laws in his discussion, and yes, he even presupposes those laws are wrong. However, the basic formulation of relativity does not cite Newton's Laws.

Pix
Anonymous said…
In fact, the real point of 3 is to bridge the gap from organising principle to mind, whilst hiding the circularity of the argument. By that I mean, is there anything you would consider an organising principle that is not mind (directly or indirectly)?

If not, then what you are saying is:

1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an organising mind
2. Organising mind is summed up in God
3. Modern Thought rejects all aspects of mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5. Minds organize and communicate meaning
6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
In fact, the real point of 3 is to bridge the gap from organising principle to mind, whilst hiding the circularity of the argument. By that I mean, is there anything you would consider an organising principle that is not mind (directly or indirectly)?

yes of coirsethere is isI think I was clearaout taht,ButI do think therteis one bi mind oer all, There;s isnothing circular about that. There are3 lotsovim[personal OPs

If not, then what you are saying is:

1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an organising mind
2. Organising mind is summed up in God
3. Modern Thought rejects all aspects of mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5. Minds organize and communicate meaning
6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation

Pix


a circular argument derives its premise from it's conclusion. I don't do that.

You are confusing defending the premise with the premise itself
The Pixie said…
Joe: yes of coirsethere is isI think I was clearaout taht,ButI do think therteis one bi mind oer all, There;s isnothing circular about that. There are3 lotsovim[personal OPs

So what else could the organising principle be?

I think a possibility is that there is a single mathematical equation that underlies the universe. Something like Schoedinger's equation, but across all particles, evolving over time.

Would that be an organising principle?
Joe Hinman said…
That might be a possibility.But I think you have to deal with mind. You can't just write it off as a side effect. It must be central to existence. Read Thomas Nagel mind and cosmos.
im-skeptical said…
So what else could the organising principle be?
- Dog whistle language for GOD. Of course Joe thinks that's what it is. It's just begging the question.


That might be a possibility.But I think you have to deal with mind. You can't just write it off as a side effect. It must be central to existence. Read Thomas Nagel mind and cosmos.
- Mind is not central to existence. It is a way for biological creatures to more effectively exploit their environment. And Nagel has no scientific understanding of mind. He is one of those atheists who writes for theists. Why should we listen to him? He doesn't know what he's talking about, but he makes money selling it to you.
Anonymous said…
Joe: That might be a possibility.But I think you have to deal with mind. You can't just write it off as a side effect. It must be central to existence. Read Thomas Nagel mind and cosmos.

Sure we can. Every mind we know of is rooted firmly in an organic brain. We know the mind interacts with the physical world through that organic brain, whether that is the mind controlling the body, or the body influencing the mind (brain injury, hormones, alcohol, perception). Every discovery in neuroscience reinforces this view.

Do please tell us what evidence Nagel has.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
So what else could the organising principle be?
- Dog whistle language for GOD. Of course Joe thinks that's what it is. It's just begging the question.

arrogant know-nothing language for "I can't answer arguments legitimately so I have to find ways to short circuit everything my opponet says,


That might be a possibility.But I think you have to deal with mind. You can't just write it off as a side effect. It must be central to existence. Read Thomas Nagel mind and cosmos.


- Mind is not central to existence. It is a way for biological creatures to more effectively exploit their environment.

of course it is Jethro,you can't disagree with the premises.

5. minds organize and communicate meaning [you have failed to take issue with this]

6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS

7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation

for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).

yo have no basis for disagreement,




And Nagel has no scientific understanding of mind.


neither do you Jethro, just saying chemicals and electricity = mind is not science,that is ideology that is memory work,not science.

the scientist says we don't know what consciousness is he says nueroscience is being used for hype. you have no answer.


Raymond Tallis was a professor of Geriatric medicine at University of Manchester, and researcher, who retired in 2006 to devote himself to philosophy and writing. Tallis denounces what he calls “neurohype,” “the claims made on behalf of neuroscience in areas outside those in which it has any kind of explanatory power….”[8]

The fundamental assumption is that we are our brains and this, I will argue presently, is not true. But this is not the only reason why neuroscience does not tell us what human beings “really” are: it does not even tell us how the brain works, how bits of the brain work, or (even if you accept the dubious assumption that human living could be parcelled up into a number of discrete functions) which bit of the brain is responsible for which function. The rationale for thinking of the kind – “This bit of the brain houses that bit of us...” – is mind-numbingly simplistic.

Raymond Tallis New Haumanist.org.uk Ideas for Godless People (blog—online researche) volume 124 Issue 6 (Nov/Dec 2009) URL: http://newhumanist.org.uk/2172/neurotrash visited 5/9/12



He is one of those atheists who writes for theists. Why should we listen to him? He doesn't know what he's talking about, but he makes money selling it to you.


he writes for the theists because he doesn't tow the part line. what you think is science is really just ideology you think being scientific is just spouting the party line and hating the enemy.

science worship is not science,

ignorant dumb ass Nagel has a whole section the book where he argues Agilent bleief in God and shows how you can account for mind and not be a theist,but is not good enough he is not tooting th party line,and you can';t understand it,or is it that you didn;t read the book klike you never read anything,
Joe Hinman said…
Sure we can. Every mind we know of is rooted firmly in an organic brain.

First that is not true, the origin and source of all mind is not rooted in the physical,that would be God.

Secondly, that is of biological organisms because they are biological but the basis of their conscious nature is rooted in universal mind which is not based upon anything, it is the basis of all things.



We know the mind interacts with the physical world through that organic brain, whether that is the mind controlling the body, or the body influencing the mind (brain injury, hormones, alcohol, perception). Every discovery in neuroscience reinforces this view.

that is only it;s primate cause,the reason (distil cause)) nature has hierarchical ordering and responds to mathematical order which requires mind to organize is because it is based upon universal mind,

Do please tell us what evidence Nagel has.

He shows that in refusing to deal with mind naturalism set's itself up to fail in it's explanations,
Anonymous said…
Pix: Sure we can. Every mind we know of is rooted firmly in an organic brain.

Joe: First that is not true, the origin and source of all mind is not rooted in the physical,that would be God.

But we do not know if God exists, therefore that is not a mind we know of. What I stated was exactlyright. Of all the minds WE KNOW, they all reside in an organic brain.

If your argument is based on the assumption that there is a universal, non-phsical mindthat is God, then it is very obviously circular!

Joe: Secondly, that is of biological organisms because they are biological but the basis of their conscious nature is rooted in universal mind which is not based upon anything, it is the basis of all things.

All the evidence indicates biological minds are based on biological brains.

Joe: that is only it;s primate cause,the reason (distil cause)) nature has hierarchical ordering and responds to mathematical order which requires mind to organize is because it is based upon universal mind,

That is possible, but still to be shown. And as far as I can see, your argument that it exists is based on the assumption that it exists.

Joe: He shows that in refusing to deal with mind naturalism set's itself up to fail in it's explanations,

Like what? Can you give an example of anything at all that Nagel's model gives us a better explanation? Anyone can compose a word salad. What I have yet to see is anything that actually explains.

For example, the naturalistic model explains why an injury to the head causes different changes to the mind, depending on where the damage was. The naturalistic model explains why blood flow to certain parts of the brain increases, depending on the thought processes.

If your pet theory (or Nagel's) cannot explain either, then you are merely presenting a god-of-the-gaps. Science cannot (yet) explain, so we can just say God is the explanation.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Pix: Sure we can. Every mind we know of is rooted firmly in an organic brain.

Joe: First that is not true, the origin and source of all mind is not rooted in the physical,that would be God.

PixBut we do not know if God exists, therefore that is not a mind we know of. What I stated was exactly right. Of all the minds WE KNOW, they all reside in an organic brain.


Quite right, If I tried to say this is proven to be true because it's God and so it must be true that would be circular,that's not really what I meant. Don't confuse my beliefsystem with my argumet. thisis my argument:

1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
2. OP's summed up in TS
3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5. minds organize and communicate meaning

6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS

7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation

for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).

so the founding premise is 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops) that this is God is the conclusion not the prmeise,



If your argument is based on the assumption that there is a universal, non-phsical mindthat is God, then it is very obviously circular!


I just told you it;s based upon 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)

Joe: Secondly, that is of biological organisms because they are biological but the basis of their conscious nature is rooted in universal mind which is not based upon anything, it is the basis of all things.

All the evidence indicates biological minds are based on biological brains.


If you keep traces causes back you can go far beyond brains all the way back to elements and even before that to gravity,this is Hawking saying this not me, so the point of the argument is God is the first cause in the chain

Joe: that is only it;s primate cause,the reason (distil cause)) nature has hierarchical ordering and responds to mathematical order which requires mind to organize is because it is based upon universal mind,

That is possible, but still to be shown. And as far as I can see, your argument that it exists is based on the assumption that it exists.

It's based upon the assumption that to have an ordered meaningful uiniverse we need a TS.

Joe: He shows that in refusing to deal with mind naturalism set's itself up to fail in it's explanations,

Like what? Can you give an example of anything at all that Nagel's model gives us a better explanation? Anyone can compose a word salad. What I have yet to see is anything that actually explains.

mind itself since it;s not reducible to brain function it's not accointed for by naturalistic means,

For example, the naturalistic model explains why an injury to the head causes different changes to the mind, depending on where the damage was. The naturalistic model explains why blood flow to certain parts of the brain increases, depending on the thought processes.

we've already disposed of that, it does not disprove mind it merely proves that mind is dependent upon physical states to be accessed.

If your pet theory (or Nagel's) cannot explain either, then you are merely presenting a god-of-the-gaps. Science cannot (yet) explain, so we can just say God is the explanation.

I just did
Anonymous said…
Joe: Quite right, If I tried to say this is proven to be true because it's God and so it must be true that would be circular,that's not really what I meant. Don't confuse my beliefsystem with my argumet.

Okay, so we agree that we do not know that there is a non-physical mind, and hence, all the minds we do know are rooted in organic brains, though you hypothesise that a non-physical mind exists.

Joe: I just told you it;s based upon 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)

But that IS God or the non-physical mind!

Joe: If you keep traces causes back you can go far beyond brains all the way back to elements and even before that to gravity,this is Hawking saying this not me, so the point of the argument is God is the first cause in the chain

God might be. We do not know that. And assuming there is some organising principle, which is God, does not help prove that there is a God.

Joe: It's based upon the assumption that to have an ordered meaningful uiniverse we need a TS.

I.e., God.

Pix: Like what? Can you give an example of anything at all that Nagel's model gives us a better explanation? Anyone can compose a word salad. What I have yet to see is anything that actually explains.

Joe: mind itself since it;s not reducible to brain function it's not accointed for by naturalistic means,

But science can do just as well as that! Mind is reducible to brain function.

Your explanation explains just as much as mine does. Which is to say, nothing at all.

Exactly as expected.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
Joe: Quite right, If I tried to say this is proven to be true because it's God and so it must be true that would be circular,that's not really what I meant. Don't confuse my beliefsystem with my argumet.

PxOkay, so we agree that we do not know that there is a non-physical mind, and hence, all the minds we do know are rooted in organic brains, though you hypothesise that a non-physical mind exists.

(1)in our limited perspective.
(2) We know there must be so considering all else we do know.


Joe: I just told you it;s based upon 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)

But that IS God or the non-physical mind!

I t appears tome you don't understand what arguments are or how they work, you think it's all little scientific experiment. If you ae going to argue you need tolearn howit owrks,

when I make an argument that does not cancel out all else that i know or believe.It means I'm attempt's to indicate why you should accept a certain statement, that is the statement in the conclusion to the argument. My conclusion is that we should believe in God,that's not premise because that would be circulars,the premise leads to the conclusion.
If 1 and 2 and true then 3 God is real. 1 and 2 are true, therefore Gods real. That is a valid argument it is not circular, my belief system does not go away just because I argue for it,


Joe: If you keep traces causes back you can go far beyond brains all the way back to elements and even before that to gravity,this is Hawking saying this not me, so the point of the argument is God is the first cause in the chain.

PxGod might be. We do not know that. And assuming there is some organising principle, which is God, does not help prove that there is a God.


That is the point of an argument to show why we should accept something, I show God must be real given the true premises of my argument. we can't say we do not know because we do know if we know the preemies are true, or rather we have good reason to believe that,

Joe: It's based upon the assumption that to have an ordered meaningful uiniverse we need a TS.

I.e., God.

you really have trouble with ideas don;t you? read what was said above,

Pix: Like what? Can you give an example of anything at all that Nagel's model gives us a better explanation? Anyone can compose a word salad. What I have yet to see is anything that actually explains.

of mind, stop being obtuse. He is saying mind is a real part of reality we have minds, we can't account for then just by brain chemistry so evolutionary theory is incomplete it doesn't account for mind

Joe: mind itself since it;s not reducible to brain function it's not accointed for by naturalistic means,

But science can do just as well as that! Mind is reducible to brain function.

no it is not accounting for it it's just refusing to study it, it does the bait and switch where it studies brain function but not consciousness then it says mind is brain function because that's what we studded,its a trick--reductionist,

Your explanation explains just as much as mine does. Which is to say, nothing at all.

Exactly as expected.

I expected you to not understand the process of argument I was right, your thinking is ghetoized, your so called called exploitation just leaves out thing it can;t explain then claims they don't exist becasue if they did we would understand them
Joe Hinman said…
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)

[basic premise--the intro proved western thought has always assumed this science included--still true that is why they still talk about laws of physics]

2. OP's summed up in TS
true--just demonstrated it

3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.

[true--you yourself have proven this you are willing to scrap the TS bit you want to keep laws of physics--which is a TS so you want a TS you just don't want it to tell you what to do]

4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
[obvious given the previous preemies,which have all been born out, if p then q, p therefore q. if abc are true then we have rational coherentmeaningm thosethingare true,wthereforewe have rationalacoherentmeaning,]

5. minds organize and communicate meaning

[you have failed to deny this]

6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS

[given 5, 6 mist be true]

7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation
The Pixie said…
Joe: (1)in our limited perspective.

Sure.

And when you say "(6) Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS" what you mean is, (6) Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS in our limited perspective, right?

Joe: (2) We know there must be so considering all else we do know.

We certainly do not know that! That is why you are trying to argue for it. If your argument is good, then at best this is merely the best understanding of TS in our limited perspective. That is a long way short of knowing it.

What you mean is that you know it is true as an article of faith.

Joe: when I make an argument that does not cancel out all else that i know or believe.It means I'm attempt's to indicate why you should accept a certain statement, that is the statement in the conclusion to the argument. My conclusion is that we should believe in God,that's not premise because that would be circulars,the premise leads to the conclusion.
If 1 and 2 and true then 3 God is real. 1 and 2 are true, therefore Gods real. That is a valid argument it is not circular, my belief system does not go away just because I argue for it,


You are arguing for a non-physical mind. And you are assuming such a mind exists in your argument. In what way is that not circular?

Joe: That is the point of an argument to show why we should accept something, I show God must be real given the true premises of my argument. we can't say we do not know because we do know if we know the preemies are true, or rather we have good reason to believe that,

But one of those premises is that God, as a non-physical mind exists!

Joe: of mind, stop being obtuse. He is saying mind is a real part of reality we have minds, we can't account for then just by brain chemistry so evolutionary theory is incomplete it doesn't account for mind

But in what sense is that an explanation? What does that tell us about how minds evolved, how a new mind appears, how a mind works, what a mind is? To say god-did-it is not an explanation, it is a cover for ignorance.

Your argument is based on this claim:

4) Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.

It is wrong! Modern thought does provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe. It is easy. Nature did it.

That is every bit as a good an explanation as you can offer (which is to say utter trash).

Joe: no it is not accounting for it it's just refusing to study it,...

Seriously? Shall we compare how much naturalistic research has been done on consciousness in the last twenty years? Here are just a couple of examples.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/consciousness-may-be-product-carefully-balanced-chaos
https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-scientists-think-they-ve-pinpointed-the-neural-source-of-consciousness

Do you want to compare that to your god-did-it hypothesis? How much original research have theologians published on consciousness in the last 25 years? I am guessing zero.

It is god-did-it that is the roadblock to research.

Joe: it does the bait and switch where it studies brain function but not consciousness then it says mind is brain function because that's what we studded,its a trick--reductionist,

It is giving us a better understanding of how the brain and mind work together, which is getting us nearer and nearer to a naturalistic understanding of consciousness.

Joe: ... your so called called exploitation just leaves out thing it can;t explain then claims they don't exist becasue if they did we would understand them

It does no such think. I believe consciousness exists, and arises from emergence. That "explanation" is just as good as yours, in that it is a glib word that fails to explain anything, just like yours.
The Pixie said…
Joe: 4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
[obvious given the previous preemies,which have all been born out, if p then q, p therefore q. if abc are true then we have rational coherentmeaningm thosethingare true,wthereforewe have rationalacoherentmeaning,]


Wrong. Modern thought provides a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe - at least one as good as what you are offering here.
Joe Hinman said…
Wrong. Modern thought provides a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe - at least one as good as what you are offering here.

Not to any extent. Reason meaning thinking, minds think, no mind, no thinking. In a deterministic world there is no thinking because it's irrelevant. In a world where consciousness is just an accident and side effect of brain chemistry there are no overarching reasons such that one might reason his way to them, That's a telos and modern thought abhors telos.
The Pixie said…
Pix: Wrong. Modern thought provides a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe - at least one as good as what you are offering here.

Joe: Not to any extent. Reason meaning thinking, minds think, no mind, no thinking. In a deterministic world there is no thinking because it's irrelevant.

No one is arguing that there are no minds. Of course there are.

In your opinion there is no thinking in a deterministic world; I see no reason to suppose that that is the case. And frankly your justification "because it's irrelevant" is just nonsense.

Joe: In a world where consciousness is just an accident and side effect of brain chemistry there are no overarching reasons such that one might reason his way to them, That's a telos and modern thought abhors telos.

Reason your way to what?

On what basis do you suppose "overarching reasons" even exist?
Joe Hinman said…


What you mean is that you know it is true as an article of faith.


I'e already explained why the argent is not circular,


Joe: when I make an argument that does not cancel out all else that i know or believe.It means I'm attempt's to indicate why you should accept a certain statement, that is the statement in the conclusion to the argument. My conclusion is that we should believe in God,that's not premise because that would be circulars,the premise leads to the conclusion.
If 1 and 2 and true then 3 God is real. 1 and 2 are true, therefore Gods real. That is a valid argument it is not circular, my belief system does not go away just because I argue for it,

You are arguing for a non-physical mind. And you are assuming such a mind exists in your argument. In what way is that not circular?


No I just explained why that is not the premise of the argument,sorry you don't understand logic.

Joe: That is the point of an argument to show why we should accept something, I show God must be real given the true premises of my argument. we can't say we do not know because we do know if we know the preemies are true, or rather we have good reason to believe that,

But one of those premises is that God, as a non-physical mind exists!


I just listed the premises,they are those 7 things I enumerated,that is not one of them, get over it.

im-skeptical said…
arrogant know-nothing language for "I can't answer arguments legitimately so I have to find ways to short circuit everything my opponet says
- Joe, if you assert the existence of this "organizing principle" (without providing any substantiation for it), and you understand this thing to be God, then you are simply using a substitute expression for "God". You then use that in an argument to show logically that this concept of God must be real. That's textbook question-begging.

of course it is Jethro,you can't disagree with the premises
- I can, and I did. Since you are making the assertion, it is up to you to substantiate it (if you expect anybody to take your argument seriously)

neither do you Jethro, just saying chemicals and electricity = mind is not science,that is ideology that is memory work,not science.

- That's not what I say, Jethro. I'm not stuck on an idiotic ideology. That's your department.

he writes for the theists because he doesn't tow the part line. what you think is science is really just ideology you think being scientific is just spouting the party line and hating the enemy.
- Nagel takes a woo-based unscientific view of mind that happens to be very similar to the woo that theists believe. That's why theists think he's so great. And they buy his books under the delusion that they're hearing something valid.

science worship is not science
Then by all means, don't worship it. I don't.

ignorant dumb ass Nagel has a whole section the book where he argues Agilent bleief in God and shows how you can account for mind and not be a theist,but is not good enough he is not tooting th party line,and you can';t understand it,or is it that you didn;t read the book klike you never read anything,
- Oh, I understand it. It's exactly what YOU want to hear, because it is so much like the your own theistic woo. But is ain't science.
Joe Hinman said…
Seriously? Shall we compare how much naturalistic research has been done on consciousness in the last twenty years? Here are just a couple of examples.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/consciousness-may-be-product-carefully-balanced-chaos

that first one here;s a quote:"Scientists have struggled for millennia to understand human consciousness - the awareness of one's existence. Despite advances in neuroscience, we still don't really know where it comes from, and how it arises." that is interesting because skeptics have always claimed that science has that pinned down. This article admits up to now it has not. But these researchers claim they have isolated a physical region that is connected to consciousness.Problem is that is still just brain function it doesn't prove that consciousness is reducible,we know consciousness is accessed through brain function so that's not news in the context of my arguments,



https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-scientists-think-they-ve-pinpointed-the-neural-source-of-consciousness

Do you want to compare that to your god-did-it hypothesis? How much original research have theologians published on consciousness in the last 25 years? I am guessing zero.

that's just another faith statement of scientist. the truth is you have no scientific data on God, you no data that rules God out or in,

what's the point of having spasms over saying God did it?If God exists then he had to have done it, he did it so what?


you are considering the evidence you are merely reacting knee jerk to your feelings about religion, that's typical of what I have learned to expect from atheists,

im-skeptical said…
that's just another faith statement of scientist. the truth is you have no scientific data on God, you no data that rules God out or in
- Joe, I assume you understand what faith is. It is believing without evidence. That's the opposite of science. If you really want to argue that science is faith, you are making the case that faith is not a good way to achieve knowledge. I agree. It's not. That's why science is superior. It's based on actual evidence.

That is not to say that science has all the answers. Sure there are things about mind that remain to be more fully understood. But science already has answered many questions. And the notion that God did it is fully refuted by the things we do know. The physical nature of the brain's function is beyond any serious dispute.

If YOU want to rely on faith, great. But then it's pretty hypocritical to tell us that faith is bad. That's your department, not mine.
Joe Hinman said…
- Joe, if you assert the existence of this "organizing principle" (without providing any substantiation for it), and you understand this thing to be God, then you are simply using a substitute expression for "God".

Organizing principles do not fiction as God in my system. use your pea brain how cold they be summed up in the TS if they were God? you really need to read things that you are going to argue against. Another thing from the post you missed by not reading it was a google search listening several hundred thousand articles about op's in science.


You then use that in an argument to show logically that this concept of God must be real. That's textbook question-begging.

another thing you need to read is a textbook discussion of question begging because that is not it, you stupidly asserting that OPs are God and if you read the deal you would know that's not how it works.

you prove yourself stupid again,




of course it is Jethro,you can't disagree with the premises
- I can, and I did. Since you are making the assertion, it is up to you to substantiate it (if you expect anybody to take your argument seriously)


you disagree that Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops), what do rational coherent and meaningful views of the universes do without things being organized?

how do we have laws of physics and things that work the same way twice if there are not organizing principles?


you can better Skepie. all you have done is say stuff you would not say if you read it and call names, you can do better,try to comne up with a real argumet based upon logic,
Anonymous said…
Pix: Seriously? Shall we compare how much naturalistic research has been done on consciousness in the last twenty years? Here are just a couple of examples.

Joe: that first one here;s a quote:"Scientists have struggled for millennia to understand human consciousness - the awareness of one's existence. Despite advances in neuroscience, we still don't really know where it comes from, and how it arises." that is interesting because skeptics have always claimed that science has that pinned down. This article admits up to now it has not. But these researchers claim they have isolated a physical region that is connected to consciousness.Problem is that is still just brain function it doesn't prove that consciousness is reducible,we know consciousness is accessed through brain function so that's not news in the context of my arguments,

So where is the theistic research? That was the challenge, Joe. A challenge you promptly dodged.

We both know theology has done exactly zero in the last twenty five years. Meanwhile, science has done a tonne of research. You are right, there are still questions to answer. But given how science is actually doing research, and given how theology is doing squat, seems a sure bet science will have the answers first.

Joe: that's just another faith statement of scientist. the truth is you have no scientific data on God, you no data that rules God out or in,

You say that like it supports your argument!

The finding in science are exactly what we would expect if God did not exist.

Joe: what's the point of having spasms over saying God did it?If God exists then he had to have done it, he did it so what?

You were claiming to have an explanation. Merely saying god-did-it is not an explanation, it is something to hide our ignorance, and worse, it is something that actively prevents further investigation.

As evidence, look at how much research theology has done on consciousness in the last twenty-five years. None at all. Why not? Well, they think god-did-it.

Joe: you are considering the evidence you are merely reacting knee jerk to your feelings about religion, that's typical of what I have learned to expect from atheists,

Yes, Joe, I am considering the evidence. And yes, that is a knee jerk reaction to the bizarre claims of religion. And little wonder you have come to expect it.

Meanwhile, we have come to expect zero evidence and zero effort to find evidence from theists.

Pix
im-skeptical said…
Organizing principles do not fiction as God in my system
- You said the TS is a first (organizing) principle that sums up all organizing principles. And you said "God is the ultimate first principle". Don't try to tell me you didn't say that. I think it's pretty clear, but if that's not what you're saying, then why did you say it?

another thing you need to read is a textbook discussion of question begging because that is not it, you stupidly asserting that OPs are God and if you read the deal you would know that's not how it works.
- Again, if your argument contains the conclusion in its premises (and that's what your argument does), that is textbook question-begging.

you disagree that Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops), what do rational coherent and meaningful views of the universes do without things being organized?
- I disagree that there is any single "ultimate first principle". That's the question-begging conclusion contained in the premises of your so-called argument.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
Organizing principles do not fiction as God in my system
- You said the TS is a first (organizing) principle that sums up all organizing principles. And you said "God is the ultimate first principle". Don't try to tell me you didn't say that. I think it's pretty clear, but if that's not what you're saying, then why did you say it?

That doesn't mean all organizing principles are God. Summed up in does not mean synonymous,

another thing you need to read is a textbook discussion of question begging because that is not it, you stupidly asserting that OPs are God and if you read the deal you would know that's not how it works.
- Again, if your argument contains the conclusion in its premises (and that's what your argument does), that is textbook question-begging.

Obviously it doesn't. The first premise is that a rational, coherent, and meaningful view requires OP. that doesn't mean God. God is one idea idea of the Ts or OP TS is not just another word for God,. The conclusion is that God is indicted by the TS that;s not the premise,

you disagree that Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops), what do rational coherent and meaningful views of the universes do without things being organized?

- I disagree that there is any single "ultimate first principle". That's the question-begging conclusion contained in the premises of your so-called argument.

Wineberg thinks so, Western thought has a whole has always disagreed with you
Joe Hinman said…
Hawking says there is just one basic principle but he is wrong about it being gravity,
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
Pix: Seriously? Shall we compare how much naturalistic research has been done on consciousness in the last twenty years? Here are just a couple of examples.

Joe: that first one here;s a quote:"Scientists have struggled for millennia to understand human consciousness - the awareness of one's existence. Despite advances in neuroscience, we still don't really know where it comes from, and how it arises." that is interesting because skeptics have always claimed that science has that pinned down. This article admits up to now it has not. But these researchers claim they have isolated a physical region that is connected to consciousness.Problem is that is still just brain function it doesn't prove that consciousness is reducible,we know consciousness is accessed through brain function so that's not news in the context of my arguments,

PixSo where is the theistic research? That was the challenge, Joe. A challenge you promptly dodged.

It's a stupid argument, there is no anti-theistic research. The same data you think is part of atheism is also part of theism, Science is neutral it's there for both atheists and Christians or theists or anyone one else.

if you want to include thought as research Theists have been thinking about the self a lot longer than atheists have.


We both know theology has done exactly zero in the last twenty five years. Meanwhile, science has done a tonne of research. You are right, there are still questions to answer. But given how science is actually doing research, and given how theology is doing squat, seems a sure bet science will have the answers first.

science is not part of atheism, it is not counting against theistic belief as in favor of atheistic belief.It's neutral for both, It's foolish to speak as though that rewash shows ears out unbelief in theism. Some of the major searchers in to mind and religious experience believe in God. Andrew Newberg or example


Joe: that's just another faith statement of scientist. the truth is you have no scientific data on God, you no data that rules God out or in,

You say that like it supports your argument!

as much as yours


The finding in science are exactly what we would expect if God did not exist.


they are also what we should expect if there is a God, None of them do anything to touch God belief. In fact the findings in study of mystical experience made great God arguments,


Joe: what's the point of having spasms over saying God did it?If God exists then he had to have done it, he did it so what?

You were claiming to have an explanation. Merely saying god-did-it is not an explanation, it is something to hide our ignorance, and worse, it is something that actively prevents further investigation.

Understanding the necessity of Mind in TS is not merely saying God did it. you have not yet disagreed with let alone disproved a single primes since you don't know shit about logic I'm not getting technician but really love lost the debate because you have no argument agaisnt a single premise,


As evidence, look at how much research theology has done on consciousness in the last twenty-five years. None at all. Why not? Well, they think god-did-it.

when people resort top this kind of tripe argument I know they know they've lost.

theism doing any kind of research on consciousness or anything else has 0 berating on the argument.No logician or debate judge or anyone judges a debate that way. When the premises are true and the conclusion flows logically from the the argument is true, you lose the argent,period. there is no rule of logic that requires one to do more research in order to win an argument,,



Joe Hinman said…
Meanwhile, we have come to expect zero evidence and zero effort to find evidence from theists.


there's tons of evidence from theists but that has nothing to do with winning an argent, but it does tells me you know you've lost, you know you have nothing to argue.
The Pixie said…
Joe: It's a stupid argument, there is no anti-theistic research. The same data you think is part of atheism is also part of theism, Science is neutral it's there for both atheists and Christians or theists or anyone one else.

This is about which viewpoint is stopping investigation, and which is encouraging it. You said previously "no it is not accounting for it it's just refusing to study it,..." The reality is that science is all about studying something, and it is theists who are "just refusing to study it".

If this is a stupid argument, why did you make the false accusation about science "just refusing to study it"?

You now think it is a stupid argument because you have been forced to concede that you were wrong. It is simply not true that science is "just refusing to study it".

Joe: if you want to include thought as research Theists have been thinking about the self a lot longer than atheists have.

You think that is a good thing? Thousands of years of thinking, and what have they concluded? Science has discovered far more about the nature of the mind in the last 25 years than theology has in the last 25 centuries!

Joe: science is not part of atheism, it is not counting against theistic belief as in favor of atheistic belief.It's neutral for both, It's foolish to speak as though that rewash shows ears out unbelief in theism.

We are comparing two approaches to the problem of consciousness. I say the naturalistic approach has achieved a lot in twenty-five years, despite your claim that it is "just refusing to study it".

I think the theistic approach has done zero research in that time.

Joe: Some of the major searchers in to mind and religious experience believe in God. Andrew Newberg or example

So tell us about how they have been doing that research from a theistic methodology. There must be something from these major researches that supports substance dualism, right?

Joe: that's just another faith statement of scientist. the truth is you have no scientific data on God, you no data that rules God out or in,

Pix: You say that like it supports your argument!

Joe: as much as yours

Wrong. It supports mine very well, because it is exactly what we would expect if God does not exist. It is NOT what we would expect if God did exist.

Joe: they are also what we should expect if there is a God, None of them do anything to touch God belief.

Then you worship a God who has zero impact on the world, one who, for all practical purposes, is indistinguishable from a non-existent God, a God who choses not to lift a finger when one of his devoted followers is suffering, or when his enemies act against him.

Why would you do that?

Pix: As evidence, look at how much research theology has done on consciousness in the last twenty-five years. None at all. Why not? Well, they think god-did-it.

Joe: when people resort top this kind of tripe argument I know they know they've lost.

Joe, you made the claim that science is "just refusing to study it". That is very clearly not true, and equally clearly it IS true of theology.

If you want to kid yourself that that is not true, that is up to you, but seriously, you are just deluding yourself.

Joe: theism doing any kind of research on consciousness or anything else has 0 berating on the argument.

So why does science supposedly doing no research have a bearing on the argument, Joe?

It had a bearing on the argument when you thought you had a point. Now it has been established you were wrong, you have decided it was actually irrelevant.

Joe: No logician or debate judge or anyone judges a debate that way. When the premises are true and the conclusion flows logically from the the argument is true, you lose the argent,period. there is no rule of logic that requires one to do more research in order to win an argument,,

So why did you bring it, Joe?
The Pixie said…
You said earlier:

He is saying mind is a real part of reality we have minds, we can't account for then just by brain chemistry so evolutionary theory is incomplete it doesn't account for mind

In fact evolutionary theory does account for minds. Minds emerge from brains when they are complex enough.

That is just as good an explanation as you are offering, Joe. In fact it is better; it does not invoke mystical powers or forces for which there is zero evidence. It relies only on what we already known. It fits perfectly with what we know of how the brain affects the mind.

The most reasonable explanation is the one that best fits the evidence, and emergence is just that.

Note that this destroys your points 3 and 4. Modern thought accepts that minds exists, and gives a rational, coherent, and meaningful of them.

You are adamant that your argument requires 3 and 4, and given 3 and 4 fail, your argument fails.
The Pixie said…
Let us take a look at the logic of the argument. I am going to re-word it, in to what I hope is clearer text. I hope I have not changed the meaning, but that is always possible.

1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presupposes one or more organizing principles (OPs)
2. The overarching OP can be called the Transcendental Signifier (TS)
3. Modern Thought either rejects TS outright or rejects that the TS has/is a mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5. Minds organize and communicate meaning
6. Therefore a universal mind offers the best understanding of TS
7. The concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).

1. Some of these OPs are the laws of nature. Behind the laws of nature there may be some other principle or set of principles. Fair enough.

2. The one OP to rule them all is the TS. This therefore could be a single law, of which the others are approximations, or a mind that devised the laws, or something else beyond our imagination.

But why should we suppose it even exists?

3. Wrong. Physicists have proposed several Grand Unifed Theories, and while none are accepted as mainstream yet, it is totally false to say that modern thought rejects TS.

What it does reject is the TS as mind.

4. Wrong. The fact is that modern thought gives us the most rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe that we have. It just happens to disagree with some people's religious beliefs. It is not complete, there are questions unanswered, however, science is actively working to answer them - in stark contrast to theology!

5. Fair enough.

6. Wrong. At best we can conclude that a universal mind offers a possible understanding of TS. It certainly does not follow that it is the best one.

7. Wrong. This fails because 3, 4 and 6 all fail.
im-skeptical said…
That doesn't mean all organizing principles are God. Summed up in does not mean synonymous
- I didn't say that. I merely noted that you equated God with an organizing principle, and then you denied it. You said: "Organizing principles do not fiction as God in my system." But God IS an organizing principle, according to your own words. So there is at least one "organizing principle that you assume to be God. And of course, there is no substantiation for this. It is merely an assertion.

The first premise is that a rational, coherent, and meaningful view requires OP. that doesn't mean God. God is one idea idea of the Ts or OP TS is not just another word for God,. The conclusion is that God is indicted by the TS that;s not the premise
- Here is the conclusion of your argument" "Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM)." An argument usually presents supporting premises that lead to the conclusion. But your argument merely asserts in the conclusion that God (as the ultimate organizing principle) is the best explanation. There is no substantiation for this. All you have done is supplied God in substitution for the ultimate organizing principle. There is not a single word in the argument as to HOW God functions in this manner, or WHY there couldn't be some other answer. It is just an unsupported assertion, and that's not a valid conclusion for a logical argument.

Wineberg thinks so, Western thought has a whole has always disagreed with you
- No, western thought has not always assumed that there is a single overarching organizing principle. Maybe some people do (especially theists), but that doesn't change reality. Science definitely makes no assumption or recognition of any such ideal or law.

Hawking says there is just one basic principle but he is wrong about it being gravity
- You do not understand Hawking. He made a somewhat famous statement: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing", which you have completely misread. First, you should take note of the words "such as". He is not implying that gravity alone is some kind of ultimate organizing principle. He is saying that gravity exists as part of physical reality, and it is the laws that govern physical reality that are responsible for the creation of the universe. None of this should be taken to mean that some kind of rational principle (as the product of a rational mind) is involved. Rationality itself is a by-product of physical reality. It is not something that precedes the the physical system that produces it. And it is safe to assume that in the absence of theistic assumptions, no scientist would ever presume such a thing.
Joe Hinman said…
You guys are and bagging so don;t give me anymore to answer I will do a new one on this argument on Monday.


Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: It's a stupid argument, there is no anti-theistic research. The same data you think is part of atheism is also part of theism, Science is neutral it's there for both atheists and Christians or theists or anyone one else.

This is about which viewpoint is stopping investigation, and which is encouraging it. You said previously "no it is not accounting for it it's just refusing to study it,..." The reality is that science is all about studying something, and it is theists who are "just refusing to study it".

You are conflating two different issues, you are trying to mix philosophical questions about origins with scientific questions about cause and effect. It is beyond the realm of science to seek to know why we are here,that is not science's domain.

It is not our job as theists to do science. But neither is it your job as scientist totalk about God. The idea that no scientists are believers is really wrong headed and has been disproved many times.


If this is a stupid argument, why did you make the false accusation about science "just refusing to study it"?

First that is Nagel's argument,I am quoting him. Secondly it's true science does not study consciousness. The reductionists and functionalists study brain function then do the bait and switch Republican consciousness with that,

You now think it is a stupid argument because you have been forced to concede that you were wrong. It is simply not true that science is "just refusing to study it".

you wont even read Nagel's book. you are so afraid of the truth you wont even read what he has to say. You can't show me a single study where science honestly sought to know what conspicuousness is that they reduce to brain function. You didn't read my blog answers to Parson';s you didn't read the original pages on consciousness that I've linked to many times.


Joe: if you want to include thought as research Theists have been thinking about the self a lot longer than atheists have.

You think that is a good thing? Thousands of years of thinking, and what have they concluded? Science has discovered far more about the nature of the mind in the last 25 years than theology has in the last 25 centuries!


You reductionist boys have not speed five minutes thing on it;Guys like Dennett are not studying consciousness at all nor will ever think about it,they are only interested in losing the phenomena and replacing consciousness with brain function, you can't show me a study where they don't do that,

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: science is not part of atheism, it is not counting against theistic belief as in favor of atheistic belief.It's neutral for both, It's foolish to speak as though that rewash shows ears out unbelief in theism.

We are comparing two approaches to the problem of consciousness. I say the naturalistic approach has achieved a lot in twenty-five years, despite your claim that it is "just refusing to study it".


I wont say it.s achieved nothing but it's insultingly not capable of aching anything
more than just perfunctorily understanding of systems that access consciousness because it can't accept that consciousnesses exists,it has to reduce it to brain function,


I think the theistic approach has done zero research in that time.

Joe: Some of the major searchers in to mind and religious experience believe in God. Andrew Newberg or example

So tell us about how they have been doing that research from a theistic methodology. There must be something from these major researches that supports substance dualism, right?

Joe: that's just another faith statement of scientist. the truth is you have no scientific data on God, you no data that rules God out or in,

Pix: You say that like it supports your argument!

to the extent that you think your reductionist propaganda damages belief in God,

Joe: as much as yours

Wrong. It supports mine very well, because it is exactly what we would expect if God does not exist. It is NOT what we would expect if God did exist.

Joe: they are also what we should expect if there is a God, None of them do anything to touch God belief.

Then you worship a God who has zero impact on the world, one who, for all practical purposes, is indistinguishable from a non-existent God, a God who choses not to lift a finger when one of his devoted followers is suffering, or when his enemies act against him.

Why would you do that?

Pix: As evidence, look at how much research theology has done on consciousness in the last twenty-five years. None at all. Why not? Well, they think god-did-it.

Joe: when people resort top this kind of tripe argument I know they know they've lost.

Joe, you made the claim that science is "just refusing to study it". That is very clearly not true, and equally clearly it IS true of theology.

If you want to kid yourself that that is not true, that is up to you, but seriously, you are just deluding yourself.

Joe: theism doing any kind of research on consciousness or anything else has 0 berating on the argument.

So why does science supposedly doing no research have a bearing on the argument, Joe?

It had a bearing on the argument when you thought you had a point. Now it has been established you were wrong, you have decided it was actually irrelevant.

Joe: No logician or debate judge or anyone judges a debate that way. When the premises are true and the conclusion flows logically from the the argument is true, you lose the argent,period. there is no rule of logic that requires one to do more research in order to win an argument,,

So why did you bring

Screw your head on straight man I said you have done nothing to disprove my premises that means you have lost the debate, no judge of a debate would give it to you that's what I said,

Your attempt at rooting the whole discussion on mind in a tussle between Chalmers and Dennett (essentuallywhatyouare doing) ios just ignoriong the use of mind in the argent I made,
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
You said earlier:

He is saying mind is a real part of reality we have minds, we can't account for then just by brain chemistry so evolutionary theory is incomplete it doesn't account for mind

In fact evolutionary theory does account for minds. Minds emerge from brains when they are complex enough.

That does not account for mind. It accounts for an access system that makes mind alluvial it doesn't tell us what consciousness is, how mind sustains itself or a lot of other things,

that'snit even addressing my argument, you have not cone come close yet,



That is just as good an explanation as you are offering, Joe. In fact it is better; it does not invoke mystical powers or forces for which there is zero evidence. It relies only on what we already known. It fits perfectly with what we know of how the brain affects the mind.

you are arguing in a circle, you are asserting no evidence for God but P3 and P4 are evidence for God. you want to assert the lack of evidence contributes to ditching 3 an 4 yet they are evidence so your argent is just circular shit,

the whole idea that an argument needs prior evidence aside from itself to be true is just an abhorrent misunderstanding of logic,


No you don't even get it. You are not even in the loop, you are focusing on physical processes that enable conscious awareness you are not even thinking about how mind relates to the argument how it is functioning in TS, what is the relation to mind as transcendental signifier?


The most reasonable explanation is the one that best fits the evidence, and emergence is just that.

No evidence pulls back the vail concussions and no evidence deals with it's relation to the universe as a whole

Note that this destroys your points 3 and 4. Modern thought accepts that minds exists, and gives a rational, coherent, and meaningful of them.

wrong, because I was was talking about mind as relates to the argument I made, you are not dealing with that, even so you have no evidence that doesn't reduce mind to brain function. a lot of your evidence is bait and switch,there are thinkers who don't do that but you wont accept them as valid,

The hype on neuroscience is just propaganda it doesn't tell us shit,I already quoted expert saying that Ray Taklis. also includes evidence suipport in the notion of mind reduces to rain, These are positive arguments why mind can't be reduced to bran,


http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2014/05/mind-not-reduceable-to-brain-part-2.html



You are adamant that your argument requires 3 and 4, and given 3 and 4 fail, your argument fails.

you have produced not the slightest suggestion thiat 3 and 4 fail, you have shown none of them as failing, your assertion of their failure was based upon circular reasoning which i show above,


Joe Hinman said…
5/11/2018 04:00:00 AM Delete
Blogger The Pixie said...
Let us take a look at the logic of the argument. I am going to re-word it, in to what I hope is clearer text. I hope I have not changed the meaning, but that is always possible.

1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presupposes one or more organizing principles (OPs)
2. The overarching OP can be called the Transcendental Signifier (TS)
3. Modern Thought either rejects TS outright or rejects that the TS has/is a mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5. Minds organize and communicate meaning
6. Therefore a universal mind offers the best understanding of TS
7. The concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).


the argument was v structured by atheist
Eric Sotnakc who is professional philosopher(professor of ) you sure you want to try and change it?,


1. Some of these OPs are the laws of nature. Behind the laws of nature there may be some other principle or set of principles. Fair enough.

2. The one OP to rule them all is the TS. This therefore could be a single law, of which the others are approximations, or a mind that devised the laws, or something else beyond our imagination.

But why should we suppose it even exists?

Western thought always has,The only attempts to eliminate it have resulted in other versions of it or in the nightmare confession of Derrida.

Joe Hinman said…
3. Wrong. Physicists have proposed several Grand Unifed Theories, and while none are accepted as mainstream yet, it is totally false to say that modern thought rejects TS.

yes I covered that,I said either rejects it or tries to reduce the mind aspect,

What it does reject is the TS as mind.

4. Wrong. The fact is that modern thought gives us the most rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe that we have.

It's ludicrous it's absurd to think that you are really ignoring most of what happened in the 20th century and now. That reading only works for ghettoized consciousness that doesn't care about half the terms of his own private game,

I. reduction of the self and mind reduce people to robots,to me that's a huge crime and major problem. It;s the gravest pretense to Aeneas though nothing wrong there,

II. No cosmological system accounts for origins

III. No morality, The nature of modern thought abuses morality and undersecretary transcontinental basis for it, reduces morality to the will of the community, modern thought could justify the holocaust but it could not justify the civil rights movement,


It just happens to disagree with some people's religious beliefs. It is not complete, there are questions unanswered, however, science is actively working to answer them - in stark contrast to theology!

science has no basis trying to deal with morality
5. Fair enough.

6. Wrong. At best we can conclude that a universal mind offers a possible understanding of TS. It certainly does not follow that it is the best one.


yes it does you have not done shit to deal with that, monday that will change because I will make counter attack,


7. Wrong. This fails because 3, 4 and 6 all fail.

3 and 4 your arguments there faked because your reasoning was circular, I just disproved your take on 6

5/11/2018 06:15:00 AM Delete
7th Stooge said…
In fact, the real point of 3 is to bridge the gap from organising principle to mind, whilst hiding the circularity of the argument. By that I mean, is there anything you would consider an organising principle that is not mind (directly or indirectly)?

I suppose that mathematics would be an organizing principle. A naturalistic teleological principle would be another. I think what Joe's saying is that the most rational, coherent and meaningful way to think of these OPs is in the context of mind. What would otherwise be brute facts are explained in a more intellectually satisfying way through mind as the necessary basis of reality. The necessity /aseity of such a mind is a way to avoid the bruteness that would always accompany any other kind of OP, so in that sense mind is a 'deeper' explanation than non-mind.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
That doesn't mean all organizing principles are God. Summed up in does not mean synonymous
- I didn't say that. I merely noted that you equated God with an organizing principle, and then you denied it. You said: "Organizing principles do not fiction as God in my system." But God IS an organizing principle, according to your own words. So there is at least one "organizing principle that you assume to be God. And of course, there is no substantiation for this. It is merely an assertion.

I think you are being purposely obtuse. You lunched an argument based upon the idea that I make out like all ops are God I said I do not say that, One Op at the top of the hierarchy is God the others are not, get over it,

The first premise is that a rational, coherent, and meaningful view requires OP. that doesn't mean God. God is one idea idea of the Ts or OP TS is not just another word for God,. The conclusion is that God is indicted by the TS that;s not the premise
- Here is the conclusion of your argument" "Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM)." An argument usually presents supporting premises that lead to the conclusion. But your argument merely asserts in the conclusion that God (as the ultimate organizing principle)

idiot, it's 7 premises. if your argument had any validity it would be two premises. what do the other five do?.


is the best explanation. There is no substantiation for this. All you have done is supplied God in substitution for the ultimate organizing principle. There is not a single word in the argument as to HOW God functions in this manner, or WHY there couldn't be some other answer. It is just an unsupported assertion, and that's not a valid conclusion for a logical argument.


Look stupid I devoted two whole posts to answering this, they were both extremely long,this was all that stuff you didn't read understand? you are going to have to start readihg,



Wineberg thinks so, Western thought has a whole has always disagreed with you
- No, western thought has not always assumed that there is a single overarching organizing principle.

yes it has the few thinkers who have gone against that are no one you would want to follow, They are unscientific, Funny how you fail to name a single thinker.


Joe Hinman said…
Stephen Hawking wrote a book, The Grand Design.i in which he argued that gravity accounts for the existence of everything else:
________________________
If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative….Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can….Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.ii

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, New York: Bantum Books, 2010 no page desoignatedn 180

__________________________________________

He is just saying a bunch of stuff like gravity because the rational or it mandates it has to have a negative nature like gravity. It could be a principle like gravity but its still one overarching principle that organizes and brings forth all creation,
Anonymous said…
Joe: You are conflating two different issues...

Sure, because I was responding to something stupid you said.

Joe: It is not our job as theists to do science. But neither is it your job as scientist totalk about God. The idea that no scientists are believers is really wrong headed and has been disproved many times.

It is your job to properly support your claims, just as it is for scientists. Saying theists do not have to because it is not their job is just an admission they have a long history of unsupported claims.

Joe: First that is Nagel's argument,I am quoting him.

Do you agree with him?

Joe: Secondly it's true science does not study consciousness. The reductionists and functionalists study brain function then do the bait and switch Republican consciousness with that,

And yet science has done more in the last 25 years than theology in the last 25 centuries!

Joe: You reductionist boys have not speed five minutes thing on it;Guys like Dennett are not studying consciousness at all nor will ever think about it,they are only interested in losing the phenomena and replacing consciousness with brain function, you can't show me a study where they don't do that,

And yet science has done more in the last 25 years than theology inthe last 25 centuries!

Joe: I wont say it.s achieved nothing but it's insultingly not capable of aching anything
more than just perfunctorily understanding of systems that access consciousness because it can't accept that consciousnesses exists,it has to reduce it to brain function,


And yet science has done more in the last 25 years than theology inthe last 25 centuries!

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: That does not account for mind. It accounts for an access system that makes mind alluvial it doesn't tell us what consciousness is, how mind sustains itself or a lot of other things,

So like your explanation then, which also tells us nothing about what consciousness is, how mind sustains itself or a lot of other things.

Which was my point.

Joe: you are arguing in a circle, you are asserting no evidence for God but P3 and P4 are evidence for God. you want to assert the lack of evidence contributes to ditching 3 an 4 yet they are evidence so your argent is just circular shit,

Are you serriously saying that 3 and 4 are evidence for God?

3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.

They do not even mention God!

Joe: the whole idea that an argument needs prior evidence aside from itself to be true is just an abhorrent misunderstanding of logic,

How else can we tell if the argument relates to the real world instead of a fantasy world? That might be true in maths, which creates its own abstract world, but if you want to prove anything about reality, you need premises based on reality, i.e., evidence.

Joe: No evidence pulls back the vail concussions and no evidence deals with it's relation to the universe as a whole

The lack of any sign of a universal mind outside of consciousness, the effect on consciousness of chemicals and injuries to the brain, studies in neuroscience are all evidence.

And it all fits emergence, not universal mind.

But of course that is why you think an argument can be made without regard to the prior evidence. If we look at the prior evidence, we reject your argument out of hand.

Joe: wrong, because I was was talking about mind as relates to the argument I made,...

I realised that later.

Joe: The hype on neuroscience is just propaganda it doesn't tell us shit,I already quoted expert saying that Ray Taklis. also includes evidence suipport in the notion of mind reduces to rain, These are positive arguments why mind can't be reduced to bran,

Any explanation that holds water has to explain what neuroscientists have observed.

You should try presenting the evidence that mind can't be reduced to brain, because that would seem fundamental here.

I note that in your article from some years ago, the first - and I therefore assume best - argument is that there is no empirical data that PROVES reducibility. Your usual trick of demanding proof from your opponents, and saying your own belief is warranted onthe best explanation if the naturalistic claim is less than 100% certain. Heaven forbid you should have a level playing field.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: yes I covered that,I said either rejects it or tries to reduce the mind aspect,

So in summary, then, it just rejects the universal mind, and your argument (to 4) is:

1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presupposes one or more organizing principles (OPs)
2. The overarching OP can be called the Transcendental Signifier (TS)
3. Modern Thought rejects that the TS has/is a mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.

Care to explain how 4 follows from 3?

I think it is because you are assuming a universal mind is necessary for the rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe... but that would be a circular argument.

Joe: It's ludicrous it's absurd to think that you are really ignoring most of what happened in the 20th century and now. That reading only works for ghettoized consciousness that doesn't care about half the terms of his own private game,

...


Sure there are gaps, but it is more rational, more coherent and more meaningful than anything else. If you are using rational, coherent, and meaningful as your criteria, then science wins by a long, long way.

Certainly your own theory must be rejected because if fails to explain electricity and atoms and stars... As well as morality and mind.

Joe: science has no basis trying to deal with morality

And all theology can offer is unsupported opinions. Is abortion moral? Is homosexuality moral? Is slavery moral? These are questions that even Christians disagree on or have in the past. If you want a rational, coherent, and meaningful view on morality, do not look for it in Christianity!

Pix
7th Stooge said…
And yet science has done more in the last 25 years than theology inthe last 25 centuries!

By what metric? If you say "By the metric of understanding the mechanism of physical causes," you're arguing in a circle. How could you possibly compare these two things other than by reducing the project of one discipline to that of the other?
im-skeptical said…
He is just saying a bunch of stuff like gravity because the rational or it mandates it has to have a negative nature like gravity. It could be a principle like gravity but its still one overarching principle that organizes and brings forth all creation
- Sorry, but I have read that book. Hawking never says gravity is the "overarching principle that organizes and brings forth all creation". It is a key piece of the equation, to be sure. But without both positive and negative energy, spontaneous creation would not be possible. Gravity is PART OF the physical reality that results in spontaneous creation.

Furthermore, Hawking never talks about "organizing principles" at all. There's a reason for that. Science doesn't recognize any such thing. It's like final causes. Religious people will insist that they are real, but science has no use for them to explain anything at all. As far as science is concerned, it's just another theistic concept that explains exactly nothing.
Joe Hinman said…
- Sorry, but I have read that book. Hawking never says gravity is the "overarching principle that organizes and brings forth all creation". It is a key piece of the equation, to be sure. But without both positive and negative energy, spontaneous creation would not be possible. Gravity is PART OF the physical reality that results in spontaneous creation.


Yes he didn't say Garbonzo beans he said chick peas,

"Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.ii" that says it


Joe Hinman said…
Furthermore, Hawking never talks about "organizing principles" at all.

Skepie:
"There's a reason for that. Science doesn't recognize any such thing. It's like final causes. Religious people will insist that they are real, but science has no use for them to explain anything at all. As far as science is concerned, it's just another theistic concept that explains exactly nothing."


stop being stupid I already proved it does, the only reason you don't know is because you are too lazy to read the post,I spent half the post on premise 1-3 proving that point.

from that post

Argument from Transcendental signfier, CADRE comments
April 29
"Western thought has always assumed Organizing principles that are summed up in a single first principle (an ἀρχή) which grounds any sort of meaning: the logos or the transcendental signified (TS). When I have made this argument skeptics have argued that there is nothing in science called an “organizing principle.” One opponent in particular who was a physicist was particularly exercised about my use of this term. While there is no formal term such that scientists speak of the “organizing principles” along side laws of physics or Newtonian laws, they speak of organizing principles all the time. A google search resulted in 320,000,000 results.[4] On every page of this search we see articles by cell biologists, cancer researchers, environmental biologists. Mathematicians, physicists, and so on. Yes there are also articles by crack pots, new age mystics, people with all kinds of ideas. There is even a book by a physicist who argues that the scientific thinking of the poet and dramatist Johann Wolfgang Goethe is valid in modern terms of quantum theory. He talked about organizing principles.[5] An Article in Nature entitled “Organizing principles” discusses a famous experiment in developmental biology: in 1924 carried out by Hilde Mangold, a Ph.D. student in the laboratory of Hans Spemann in Freiburg. “It provided the first unambiguous evidence that cell and tissue fate can be determined by signals received from other cells…This experiment therefore demonstrated the existence of an organizer that instructs both neuralization and dorsalization, and showed that cells can adopt their developmental fate according to their position when instructed by other cells."[6]

M.J. Bissell et. al. Discuss malignancy in breast cancer. “A considerable body of evidence now shows that cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions are essential organizing principles that help define the nature of the tissue context, and play a crucial role in regulating homeostasis and tissue specificity.[7] All objects in nature are connected to other objects. This can be demonstrated easily enough, as William Graham makes clear in discussing “Natures Organizing Principles.[8]. He turns to ecosystems as an example. Fish in a school work by individually possessed set of common principles such that they act in unison without a leader. These are not evidences of God they are not a design argument. They merely serve to bring home the point there are organizing principles about. I know this general informal use of the term does not mean that the Ops I want to talk about exist. But it is clear there are plenty of structures that organize and guide the way things turn out we do not have an understanding of what organizes the OP. Yet modern science still seeks a logos or a TS that would bind them all together and unite them in one over arching principle. "


Joe Hinman said…
foot notes
[4]Google search, organizing principles in nature,https://www.google.com/#q=organizing+principles+in+nature accessed 5/3/16



[5] Henri Bortoft, Wholeness of Nature of The Universe: Goethe’s Way Toward a Science of Conscious Participation in nature. Herdon VA:Lindisfarne Books originally published by Steiner Books,1971, 1985, re worked version 1992, 69.

Henri Bortoft, (1938 – 29 December 2012) received undergraduate degree at university of Hull then did Postgraduate research at Beirbeck college. He studiedQuantum Physics with David Bohm.



[6] Barbara Marte, “Milstone 1: Organizing Principles,” Nature.Org (july 1,2004) doi:10.1038/nrn1449

URL: http://www.nature.com/milestones/development/milestones/full/milestone1.html accessed 6/3/16

Marte is senior editor Nature.



[7] M.J. Bissell, D.C Radisky, and A. Rizki, “The Organizing Principle:Microenvironmental Influences In The Normal amd Malignant Breast.” Pub Med, NCB, Dec;70(9-10): 2002, 537-46. on line resource URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12492495 accessed 6:3/16



[8]William Graham, “Natures Organization Principles,” Nature’s Tangled Web: The Art, Soul, and Science of a Connected Nature. Oct. 30, 2012, Online resource.http://www.freshvista.com/2012/natures-organizing-principles/ accessed 6/3/16.
im-skeptical said…
stop being stupid I already proved it does, the only reason you don't know is because you are too lazy to read the post,I spent half the post on premise 1-3 proving that point.
- Joe, you are (hopelessly) confused. You use the word "principles" in an equivocal manner. If you look up the definition of 'principle', you might find something like this: "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning." Now, the thing to notice about this is that it is proposition. Any proposition is a product of the rational mind. So a principle is our way of thinking about something. Principles do not exist in nature without a mind to think about them. Laws of nature can be said to be principles only in the sense that we understand nature in accordance with these principles. But that doesn't imply that nature itself follows any kind of principles. Reality simple is what it is, and there is no rationality behind it. You are calling God the rational mind behind the principles of nature, as if nature itself wouldn't exist without a rational basis. But that's not what any (non-theistic) scientist would ever say. They would say that physical reality exists first, and rational minds come from it, and rational minds then formulate principles to guide their thinking about how nature works. If some have written things that confuse the issue, you should be aware that science still tells us there is no rational mind making principles upon which nature is based.
Anonymous said…
7th: By what metric? If you say "By the metric of understanding the mechanism of physical causes," you're arguing in a circle. How could you possibly compare these two things other than by reducing the project of one discipline to that of the other?

I am talking more generally of doing actual research that looks at or gathers evidence, as measured by publication. This follows on from what I said at earlier: "Do you want to compare that to your god-did-it hypothesis? How much original research have theologians published on consciousness in the last 25 years?", prompted by Joe's ridiculous claim that the naturalistic view hampers further study.

If you think that is still biased because it requires evidence, well, yes, that is the point. Theology comes up with claims about consciousness that have no basis in evidence. I.e., they are just made up.

I find it bizarre that Joe is so disdainful of evidence. A few quotes from earlier might illustrate that. Here he shows his clear disdain for considering the evidence:

Joe: you are considering the evidence you are merely reacting knee jerk to your feelings about religion, that's typical of what I have learned to expect from atheists,

Here he states that winning an argument has nothing to do with the evidence:

Joe: there's tons of evidence from theists but that has nothing to do with winning an argent...

Here he states that trying to prove something from prior evidence is an abhorrent misunderstanding of logic:

Joe: the whole idea that an argument needs prior evidence aside from itself to be true is just an abhorrent misunderstanding of logic,

What we have here is two very different world views. Science is based firmly on evidence, and is doing real research. Theology, on the other hand, clearly disdains evidence, and is based on making arguments about castles in the air.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
stop being stupid I already proved it does, the only reason you don't know is because you are too lazy to read the post,I spent half the post on premise 1-3 proving that point.
- Joe, you are (hopelessly) confused. You use the word "principles" in an equivocal manner. If you look up the definition of 'principle', you might find something like this: "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning." Now, the thing to notice about this is that it is proposition. Any proposition is a product of the rational mind. So a principle is our way of thinking about something. Principles do not exist in nature without a mind to think about them. Laws of nature can be said to be principles only in the sense that we understand nature in accordance with these principles. But that doesn't imply that nature itself follows any kind of principles. Reality simple is what it is, and there is no rationality behind it.

(1) yes it does obviously but you are getting ahead of the argument,I am not arguing that some imploded nature in the term principle means God hidden behind the principle. I am linking it as a matter of common sense to TS.

(2) On the other hand you are just begging the question. you think it's proven there's no mind behind the universe merely because modern people have decided they refuse to accept it there is no proof. there is ample evidence there must be one.

(3) Molder thought is self contradictory and incoherent at the metaphysical level. no basis for morality no room for reason, not truth to determinism.


You are calling God the rational mind behind the principles of nature, as if nature itself wouldn't exist without a rational basis. But that's not what any (non-theistic) scientist would ever say.

exactly because they want to play God, in reality it just means their reasoning about metaphysics contradicts everything implied by logic and by the existence of reason. you live a pretense because you have no choice but to pretend it makes sense.


That is all contradicted by the fact of human reason we can reason we are capable of it but should not be,




They would say that physical reality exists first, and rational minds come from it,


exactly Sartre's basic premise to atheistic existentialism. It is a contradiction to every concept of the TS which all Western thought embraces,

EXCELLENT JOB BTW!!! i KNOW YOU COULD DO IT. NOW YOU ARE THINKING,



and rational minds then formulate principles to guide their thinking about how nature works. If some have written things that confuse the issue, you should be aware that science still tells us there is no rational mind making principles upon which nature is based.

on;t you see? what you just described is the basic pressie of science,(in bold above) you prove your point you lose the rationale for doing science.

the basic premise of science is in conflict with the metaphysical consequences resulting from that science.,
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
7th: By what metric? If you say "By the metric of understanding the mechanism of physical causes," you're arguing in a circle. How could you possibly compare these two things other than by reducing the project of one discipline to that of the other?

PXI am talking more generally of doing actual research that looks at or gathers evidence, as measured by publication. This follows on from what I said at earlier: "Do you want to compare that to your god-did-it hypothesis? How much original research have theologians published on consciousness in the last 25 years?", prompted by Joe's ridiculous claim that the naturalistic view hampers further study.

You are still not getting it. That research was not done to prove or disprove God. It's neutral,many of the researchers have been believers in God,if you want to count the as doing research for God there's quite a bit, The guy in the Genome project,and Henry Shaffer in chemistry and so on. But that's not the point. That research is neutral it doesn't count either way. It's limited to the immediate systems. If you move beyond that to the metaphysical assumptions then it's disjointed and has no meaning (see my exchange with Skepie above).


If you think that is still biased because it requires evidence, well, yes, that is the point. Theology comes up with claims about consciousness that have no basis in evidence. I.e., they are just made up.

(1) theology does not make claims about consciousness. That is entirely beyond the job description. There are theological dicta dealing with levels of perception in the practice of meditation but those are not claims to unlock the physiology of brain function. Those who study that do not mess around with attention levels perception.

you are comparing apples and hard rock mining




I find it bizarre that Joe is so disdainful of evidence. A few quotes from earlier might illustrate that. Here he shows his clear disdain for considering the evidence:

I love evidence. I've presented a boat load of it you don't even look at it.I put those arguments about educability of mind to brain on the message board once you didn't even look HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE LINK i PUT UP HERE IN THIS COMMENT SECTION GOING TO MY BRAIN/MIND PAGE? OF COURSE NOT!!!

You whole idea that you have evidence is just bull shit because I've already proved it's not consciousness, those researcher who back your ideology don't study consciousness, they study brain function and call it consciousness,


Joe: you are not considering the evidence you are merely reacting knee jerk to your feelings about religion, that's typical of what I have learned to expect from atheists,

Here he states that winning an argument has nothing to do with the evidence:

Joe: there's tons of evidence from theists but that has nothing to do with winning an argent...

Here he states that trying to prove something from prior evidence is an abhorrent misunderstanding of logic:

Joe: the whole idea that an argument needs prior evidence aside from itself to be true is just an abhorrent misunderstanding of logic,

No you misunderstood that badly,you had said that p3.4 have no other arguments supporting them,I was saying if you have an argument that is backed in it's own right evidence or a priori reasoning you don't need another argument to back it up,


What we have here is two very different world views. Science is based firmly on evidence, and is doing real research. Theology, on the other hand, clearly disdains evidence, and is based on making arguments about castles in the air.

No what you have here is a misunderstanding of what I said,
Joe Hinman said…
this topic is close. pick it up in new thread on monday

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

Fine Tuning Bait and Switch

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

The Meaning of the Manger