Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[JimL]

Not exactly. Thoughts appear to be "real time" activities of the brain...and can actually form memories. Memories are images/sounds/experiences that must be stored in some part of the brain in order for them to be recalled. "Mind" is simply the word we give to the sum total of all of the conscious and subconscious activities of the brain: thought, memory recall, will, focus, etc.



Memory = stored previous experiences.
Thought = real-time mental activities with semantic content (as discussed with Chrawnus).



I personally think both (thoughts and memories) have aspects of both (material and immaterial).

Again, how can they, or in what sense are they, thoughts and memories, both material and immaterial? Would you say, is it your opinion, that stored, inactive memories are immaterial, or do they only become immaterial when they become aspects of conscious thoughts?

[carpedm9587]

Right and I'm not sure why you don't get, the distinction has no rational merit.

Don't get it? Seer, I'm not the one who seems to be struggling with the nature of language. You want the definitions of words to have "rational merit?"

Does the choice of "penny" for the "round, brown coin that is the smallest U.S. denomination" have "rational merit?"

Unlike the distinction between a rock and a tree there is no objective way to judge between the natural and supernatural, what can be included or excluded. Besides a bald face assertion. Nothing more.

The definition of "rock" and "tree" are no more or less "rational" than the definition of "natural" and "supernatural." Every definition in human language is a "bald-faced assertion." You think "rock" has an absolute/universal meaning?

• Rock: the solid mineral material forming part of the surface of the earth and other similar planets, exposed on the surface or underlying the soil or oceans.
• Tree: a woody perennial plant, typically having a single stem or trunk growing to a considerable height and bearing lateral branches at some distance from the ground.
• Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
• Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

So if I find something matching the definition of "rock," I call it a rock. If I find something matching the definition of "tree," I call it a tree. If I find something matching the definition of "natural" I call it "natural." If I find something matching the definition of "supernatural," I call it "supernatural."

I have no clue what the fuss is about, or how you see any of these uses of language as different from one another.

No, I'm claiming that this universe as it stands is supernatural, and that you can not claim otherwise apart from a logically unjustifiable assertion.

You can claim it all you want, Seer - but the universe I live in is repeatable/predictable/intelligible, and can be investigated by the scientific method - ergo we call the things we find within it "natural." How the universe came to be we do not yet fully understand. You want to slip "supernatural" into that gap of knowledge and claim "god done it." You are free to do so. I have no reason whatsoever to affirm your belief. I have absolutely no evidence that the supernatural exists as anything other than mythology. I strongly suspect that the origins of the universe will give way to scientific investigation - but right now all I can say for sure is "we don't know." And you don't know either - you just think you do.

Sure, I'm saying we can define things by comparison. We define a tree, we define a rock. We define they by physical qualities. You are not doing this with the universe because you do not know that this universe is natural or non-supernatural. They very qualities of this may just as well be qualities of a supernatural universe. How could you know? Compare to what?

I have responded to this multiple times, so I'll let those responses stand. Meanwhile, if you want to use the word "supernatural" for things like gravitation, atomic mass, electromagnetism, and evolution, knock yourself out. I respectfully suggest you are going to confuse the heck out of pretty much everyone because I don't know of anyone who uses the language that way. It's not what the term means.

[carpedm9587]

Again, how can they, or in what sense are they, thoughts and memories, both material and immaterial? Would you say, is it your opinion, that stored, inactive memories are immaterial, or do they only become immaterial when they become aspects of conscious thoughts?

They are "material" in so far as we can trace the activities in the brain as electrochemical interactions.
They are "immaterial" in so far as the experience of "mind" and "thought" and "memory" transcends the merely physical, and manifests as an "I" that is experiencing, thinking, and feeling. YOu (and Harris) want to call the latter an "illusion." You are free to is you wish. I do not.

[JimL]

They are "material" in so far as we can trace the activities in the brain as electrochemical interactions.
They are "immaterial" in so far as the experience of "mind" and "thought" and "memory" transcends the merely physical, and manifests as an "I" that is experiencing, thinking, and feeling. YOu (and Harris) want to call the latter an "illusion." You are free to is you wish. I do not.

Okay, but the only way for there to be that "I" that you believe to be real, is if there is a spirit, a soul, the ghost in the machine if you will, and, however it be possible, that immaterial "I" would need be the mover or director of the material brain. Time for you to go back to church I think, carpe.

[Tassman]

No you are just as clueless in defining natural. You (we) have no idea. You are free to use the term, but unlike the objective difference between a tree and a rock, have no objective comparison between the natural and supernatural. You are shooting in the dark with no objective reference.

There is "no objective comparison between the natural and supernatural" because there is no good reason to posit the notion of the "supernatural" in the first place.

[Tassman]

They are "material" in so far as we can trace the activities in the brain as electrochemical interactions.
They are "immaterial" in so far as the experience of "mind" and "thought" and "memory" transcends the merely physical, and manifests as an "I" that is experiencing, thinking, and feeling. YOu (and Harris) want to call the latter an "illusion." You are free to is you wish. I do not.

Are you suggesting that that “consciousness, mind and thoughts”, i.e. the “I”, are immaterial beyond the brain, on what basis? Yes, they are "material" in so far as we can trace the activities in the brain as electrochemical interactions. But, as shunya said in the other thread: “Based on the scientific research cited on the consciousness, mind and thoughts they are not immaterial beyond the brain. They are emergent from the brain as the input and output of computers and TVs are emergent from the source, and NOT immaterial”.

[carpedm9587]

Okay, but the only way for there to be that "I" that you believe to be real, is if there is a spirit, a soul, the ghost in the machine if you will, and, however it be possible, that immaterial "I" would need be the mover or director of the material brain. Time for you to go back to church I think, carpe.

Jim - you are speculating. We don't now HOW the sense of "I" arises from the hardware - only that the evidence suggests that it does. We don't know HOW the collective motion dynamics of a flock of birds or school of fish arises from the complexity of the flock/school - we only know that it does. The same is true for all emergent properties. I don't need to resort to "soul" or "spirit." I can simply say, "I don't know" and leave it at that. Sometimes...we don't know.

[carpedm9587]

Are you suggesting that that “consciousness, mind and thoughts”, i.e. the “I”, are immaterial beyond the brain, on what basis?

On the basis of my experience of "I" and "self" and "consciousness."

Yes, they are "material" in so far as we can trace the activities in the brain as electrochemical interactions. But, as shunya said in the other thread: “Based on the scientific research cited on the consciousness, mind and thoughts they are not immaterial beyond the brain. They are emergent from the brain as the input and output of computers and TVs are emergent from the source, and NOT immaterial”.

I am not 100% sure what "beyond the brain" means to you. If you mean it spatially - then no - I don't think we can "project consciousness." If you mean "independent of," then again no. All evidence I know of suggests the mind stops when the brain stops. If you mean "transcending the biology of the brain," then I would say "yes." That is essentially what an emergent property is: it's a property that emerges as a function of complexity (we think) whose nature is not detectable in the individual elements that make up the complexity. You will not find "mind" in a neuron. You WILL find mind in a collection of interconnected neurons of sufficient complexity, yet it is the same neurons. This emergent property is transcendent - and immaterial. It does, however, depend on the immaterial for its existence.

[carpedm9587]

There is "no objective comparison between the natural and supernatural" because there is no good reason to posit the notion of the "supernatural" in the first place.

I would say there is as much "objective comparison" as there is for any other two things. In this case, the comparison has to do with the applicability of the scientific method to investigate. In this case, the two "things" in question are not objects so much as they are "classes of things." It's like comparing "geological things" to "astronomical things."

But I agree that the supernatural (most likely) does not exist outside of human mythology.

[seer]

So if I find something matching the definition of "rock," I call it a rock. If I find something matching the definition of "tree," I call it a tree. If I find something matching the definition of "natural" I call it "natural." If I find something matching the definition of "supernatural," I call it "supernatural."

Except we have no idea what the difference between the supernatural and natural actually is. Unlike the known properties or a rock or a tree we have no idea what the supernatural could or could not include. We have no frame of reference when calling one thing natural and another supernatural. These, unlike a rock or tree, are completely arbitrary definitions. Tell me Carp, without taking arbitrary definitions at face value, why couldn't the supernatural include repeatable, predictable properties? How would you know?

[carpedm9587]

Except we have no idea what the difference between the supernatural and natural actually is. Unlike the known properties or a rock or a tree we have no idea what the supernatural could or could not include. We have no frame of reference when calling one thing natural and another supernatural. These, unlike a rock or tree, are completely arbitrary definitions.

All definitions are "arbitrary" in so far as none of them is "necessary." We create symbols as a tool to reference reality. As such, we have defined "supernatural" and "natural" in a particular way to classify things/concepts, just as we have created "rock" and "tree" to classify things/concepts.

Tell me Carp, without taking arbitrary definitions at face value, why couldn't the supernatural include repeatable, predictable properties? How would you know?

Seer, you don't seem to be struggling with the definitions of the terms, but rather with how we would go about assigning a particular thing to one class or another. Let's take "god" for instance. The concept of "god" or "gods" is widely accepted as belonging to the "supernatural class" and beyond the reach the science for investigation. This seems to be your hiccup. If it turns out that any god is real, and that god has repeatable/predictable/intelligible properties and can be investigated/verified by science, then that god would be deemed "natural" rather than "supernatural."

Does that help you with your problem?

[seer]

All definitions are "arbitrary" in so far as none of them is "necessary." We create symbols as a tool to reference reality. As such, we have defined "supernatural" and "natural" in a particular way to classify things/concepts, just as we have created "rock" and "tree" to classify things/concepts.

But again, unlike with a rock or tree we have no objective, knowable qualities for the distinction between the natural and supernatural. Except that which we make up out of whole cloth.

Seer, you don't seem to be struggling with the definitions of the terms, but rather with how we would go about assigning a particular thing to one class or another. Let's take "god" for instance. The concept of "god" or "gods" is widely accepted as belonging to the "supernatural class" and beyond the reach the science for investigation. This seems to be your hiccup. If it turns out that any god is real, and that god has repeatable/predictable/intelligible properties and can be investigated/verified by science, then that god would be deemed "natural" rather than "supernatural."

Does that help you with your problem?

Like I made clear earlier, everything in the supernatural may not be open to investigation. That does mean some isn't. This universe being one of them. So again Carp, without taking arbitrary definitions at face value, why couldn't the supernatural include repeatable, predictable properties? How would you know?

[carpedm9587]

But again, unlike with a rock or tree we have no objective, knowable qualities for the distinction between the natural and supernatural. Except that which we make up out of whole cloth.

OK - I'm going to let my previous posts stand. You're apparently not going to see this. There is no distinction, but you apparently need to make/see one.

Like I made clear earlier, everything in the supernatural may not be open to investigation. That does mean some isn't. This universe being one of them. So again Carp, without taking arbitrary definitions at face value, why couldn't the supernatural include repeatable, predictable properties? How would you know?

Like I said earlier - if science can investigate and falsify/verify it, then it's "natural." If it can't, then it's "supernatural." That's what the words mean. All definitions are "arbitrary." And I have gone around in circles on this often enough. If you haven't gotten it by now, I don't think it's going to happen. I'll leave the last word to you.

[seer]

OK - I'm going to let my previous posts stand. You're apparently not going to see this. There is no distinction, but you apparently need to make/see one.

Like I said earlier - if science can investigate and falsify/verify it, then it's "natural." If it can't, then it's "supernatural." That's what the words mean. All definitions are "arbitrary." And I have gone around in circles on this often enough. If you haven't gotten it by now, I don't think it's going to happen. I'll leave the last word to you.

No Carp, the definition of tree or rock is based on actual physical characteristics, natural and supernatural are not since we have no idea what could or does actually constitute either.

[JimL]

But again, unlike with a rock or tree we have no objective, knowable qualities for the distinction between the natural and supernatural. Except that which we make up out of whole cloth.

That's because, unlike the distinction between a rock and tree, there is no evidence of this supernatural thing that you are trying to make a distinction of. Except that which you make up out of whole cloth, that is.