Starting with God, the Bible or Jesus?

[Doug Shaver]

The mind in the black box has no beliefs

To what black box are you referring?

I get it that you're being metaphorical, but I can't figure out what this is a metaphor for.

[ZackMartin]

None of what you described are actually basic beliefs, in my opinion. They are all, in fact, derivative. The mind in the black box has no beliefs, thus there are no actual basic beliefs.

I don't believe in minds in black boxes. To me, a mind to exist must have experiences, must have content; a mind which is truly empty is no mind at all. There is no evidence that such a mind has ever existed, or could exist, and I believe that such a mind can't exist.

Imagine a newborn infant placed in a sensory deprivation chamber, provided with food and water, but no sight, no sound, no varying sensations. It is tied down so it can't move, tubes provide it with nourishment and remove its excrement; it is tended to by a robotic arm. If a human need touch it, it is anaesthetised so it has no awareness of any human contact. Now imagine it is kept in this chamber for the next twenty years. Would it have a mind? I would suggest it would not have one. What if we then allow it out of the sensory deprivation chamber? I think it likely that it would suffer from permanent neurological damage. But, let us suppose it somehow overcame that damage, and managed to become a functioning (to however limited a degree) member of the human community. All that would mean is that it has a mind now, not that it had one during its twenty years inside that chamber; I would suggest it had a mind beginning at sometime around when it was released into the world of sensation.

(I am not for a moment suggesting anyone try such an inhuman experiment; it is meant purely as a thought experiment, not as one that anyone should attempt in practice.)

[robrecht]

Welcome back, Zack.

[Tassman]

I don't believe in minds in black boxes. To me, a mind to exist must have experiences, must have content; a mind which is truly empty is no mind at all. There is no evidence that such a mind has ever existed, or could exist, and I believe that such a mind can't exist.

But a brain can, albeit in a vegetative state.

Imagine a newborn infant placed in a sensory deprivation chamber, provided with food and water, but no sight, no sound, no varying sensations. It is tied down so it can't move, tubes provide it with nourishment and remove its excrement; it is tended to by a robotic arm. If a human need touch it, it is anaesthetised so it has no awareness of any human contact. Now imagine it is kept in this chamber for the next twenty years. Would it have a mind? I would suggest it would not have one. What if we then allow it out of the sensory deprivation chamber? I think it likely that it would suffer from permanent neurological damage. But, let us suppose it somehow overcame that damage, and managed to become a functioning (to however limited a degree) member of the human community. All that would mean is that it has a mind now, not that it had one during its twenty years inside that chamber; I would suggest it had a mind beginning at sometime around when it was released into the world of sensation.

All of which undercuts your argument that the mind exists as an entity separate from the brain. In the scenario you’ve outlined the brain would exist throughout, albeit emotionally crippled. But as you yourself acknowledge there could be no ‘mind’ as we generally conceive ‘mind’ to be, namely consciousness and memory although, 'sensory deprivation' experiments indicate that that there would likely be hallucinations of some sort.

What would “have a beginning”, when removed from its “sensory deprivation chamber", would not be a separate entity called the “mind” but simply the brain reacting to new stimulus. This is a common enough occurrence - although an extreme example of it in this instance.

[robertb]

Hi Zak. You are now at the head of the staircase. As you can see, there is no precipice.

[ZackMartin]

All of which undercuts your argument that the mind exists as an entity separate from the brain.

I don't see how it does. The fact that you can provide a "mind's existence depends on the brain" interpretation of the situation doesn't preclude me from giving a "brain's existence depends on the mind" interpretation.

[Tassman]

I don't see how it does. The fact that you can provide a "mind's existence depends on the brain" interpretation of the situation doesn't preclude me from giving a "brain's existence depends on the mind" interpretation.

The two interpretations are not reversible unless you are prepared to ignore verified and empirically tested evidence re the natural universe. The brain is a material entity which can be prodded, poked and physically examined; it can be empirically shown to produce the phenomena we commonly refer to as “mind”. The same cannot be said of the “mind” vis-a-viz the “brain” except as a metaphysical exercise.

[shunyadragon]

The two interpretations are not reversible unless you are prepared to ignore verified and empirically tested evidence re the natural universe. The brain is a material entity which can be prodded, poked and physically examined; it can be empirically shown to produce the phenomena we commonly refer to as “mind”. The same cannot be said of the “mind” vis-a-viz the “brain” except as a metaphysical exercise.

Good response!!!

[robertb]

I don't see how it does. The fact that you can provide a "mind's existence depends on the brain" interpretation of the situation doesn't preclude me from giving a "brain's existence depends on the mind" interpretation.

Give it then. Use the situation described and explain it using a "brain's existence depends on the mind" interpretation.

[gerry]

Originally posted by headheart
It is easier done than said.

Myself, I believe in God, but I don't find any form of the cosmological argument convincing. I'm sure I'm not the only theist who feels this way.

Consider e.g .the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which many (e.g. William Lane Craig) claim is the best version of the cosmological argument available:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a Cause

2) The universe began to exist

3) Therefore the universe has a Cause

Let's say that (2) is demonstrated. My real problem is (1). It's clearly true when we are talking about the kinds of objects we deal with in every day life, but I'm not convinced it is universally true, in the sense of applying also to situations distant from our everyday experience (i.e. talking about the universe as a whole instead of the tiny part of it which we interact with). If there's legitimate doubt about (1), the argument doesn't succeed.

You say:

If there's legitimate doubt about (1), the argument doesn't succeed.

Well, you have to present one legitimate doubt about (1) and I will help you to resolve it.

And then another one, and I will continue to help you to resolve it.


What do you say?

Let us be specific and not be bringing up general statements without any specific examples.




Cheers.

Gerry

[gerry]

This doesn’t make any sense.

Your opinion is noted.

I’m not denying it is possible. I’m wondering what this present evidence is though. Are you talking about conceptual models?

What this shows is that you are not willing to allow an argument from conceptual possibility to falsify one conclusion (Socrates is mortal) but are willing to allow an argument from conceptual possibility to falsify the conclusion from another argument (The universe had a cause).

No. The KCA “works” because it is valid and the premises are true.

Whether or not you find the KCA (or any other argument for that matter) convincing is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it is both valid and sound.

Where has it been demonstrated that our universe is possibily infinite? Please provide a link of some type.

Or are you referring to purely conceptual models and theories? Because if conceptual models are enough to falsify the KCA which has premises verified by plenty of observable data then if we were to apply your reasoning consistently we only need a conceptual model in which it is possible that not all men are mortal. The model for this could simply be a multi-verse. In this model the sheer vastness of the multi-verse allows for the possibility that on some planet in some universe there is at least one immortal man.

My experience with Shuny is that he makes broad general statements but when requested to produce specific particulars he will evade and then eventually clam up with "This dialog is ended."


Ask as he is a Baha'i theist what is his concept of God.





Gerry

[gerry]

Originally posted by Doug Shaver
Maybe that's because the only evidence for it is that lots of people believe it.

Would you care to defend the thesis that whatever is believed by lots of people is probably true?

No, I would not argue on those grounds, because they are ridiculous. Truth is not determined by a majority vote. Also you are mistaken that that is the "only evidence". Everything in that has a beginning needs a sufficient cause, and this is admitted by most people, what that cause is, well that's another matter.

@ Kane, no I wouldn't say "anything" just to save my life. The truth is far more important than my physical body. To save family or friends, there might be some things that I would be willing to say, but not just anything(I could never deny Christ for example), but if you have the old hypothetical Nazi's are here, and you are hiding Jews, then I wouldn't tell them that the Jews were here, and this would apply to family, friends, and even those who I might not even like that much. Also I wasn't speaking of admitting it "rhetorically". I was speaking of getting an atheist to truly admit that the universe, and life at the minimum have an appearance of being designed, is not an easy thing. Dawkins admits that evolution gives him the ability to rationalize said "appearance of design" away.

Dawkins says that everything in the universe and in man has only the appearance of design, which he calls designoid.


The man is presently into his third marriage with women; so to go into anatomy and physiology, can Dawkins from his experience in marriage claim that his penile shaft is a designoid only, and its function is all 'designoidal', and he is functioning as a designoid?

In which case it can be said or I can say that he has defrauded his three wives and is still defrauding the third one: because his penile shaft is all a designoid only, nothing genuinely designed and genuinely functioning.


Sometimes rational folks must come to anatomy and physiology in order to rebut the intentional ambiguity and equivocation and all manners of quibblings from intellectually insincere talkers.




Cheers.

Gerry

[gerry]

Originally posted by Juice
By the way, how much more evidence does that first premise in the KCA need? All our observable data suggests this premise is true and so far nothing has conclusively falsified it. The closest anyone seems to have come is suggesting virtual particles. Even if they are real, which it doesn’t seem to be clear that they are, they do not come into existence without a cause strictly speaking – i.e. a quantum vacuum. Look at it this way, there are many more reasons to think that (1) is true than to think it is false. So yes, as far as an argument can be sound, I would say it is. If the first premise of the KCA can be objected to then I’m not sure any argument can be sound.

Seriously? I think the first premise of the KCA is incredibly weak!

"Everything that begins to exist ..." seems to be referring to our everyday experience of identifying objects, yet in (almost!) every case, these objects did not "begin to exist" in the sense that William Lane Craig wants to nudge us towards. Everything you see around you is just a reorganisation of pre-existing matter and energy. My body "began to exist" when the sperm met the egg, but again, this is just a reorganisation of matter (the sperm and the egg), not something that has been created out of nothing. It is only your object-identifying brain that labels it as something "new".

What it boils down to is that there are two possible examples of things "beginning to exist" - virtual particles in a quantum vacuum, and the universe. The virtual particles are a very new discovery and we don't know enough about them to make strong conclusions, or form a solid premise. Whether the universe "began to exist" is itself the second premise, so it's basically question-begging.

On a related note, are there any physicists/cosmologists out there that actually say "the universe began to exist" in the sense that there was nothing and then there was something?

Well, I can see you are into ambiguity and equivocation i.e. quibbling with the word reorganization.


Everything that begins to exist has a cause, means before it was not existing in any way at all, and also it was not existing as what it has become afterwards when it has been caused by an agent to come to its present kind of existence.

About creation from nothing, it means there was nothing of pre-existing materials, but it does not mean that there was no pre-existing agent of causation.

So, everything that begins to exist has a cause means previously it was nothing not even materials for organizing i.e. assemblage into anything with any kind of existence, and secondly it was not existing as what it has become after its causation by an agent of causation.

Your body coming to existence from the union of sperm and egg is an example of previous existence distinctly different from the existence that follows after the agent of causation worked on the sperm and egg to effect its union, and the subsequent whole process of gestation finally ending up with a baby.


About the physical universe has a beginning, from stock reading I learned that the current standard cosmological model of the origin of the universe says that the universe has a beginning at which point time and space and everything started to exist and develop further up to the present universe as we have it now.

Would you take exception to the current standard cosmology model of the origin of the universe i.e. the physical universe?


For your information the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe is:

God is the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

Cheers.

Gerry

[robrecht]

Weird, Gerry, weird. Do us all a favor and do not speak about Dawkins' private parts.

[pancreasman]

Weird, Gerry, weird. Do us all a favor and do not speak about Dawkins' private parts.

Is it wrong to add 'or anything else for that matter'?