Yo atheists ...

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
...but I think it is true that thinking our view of how the universe operates, however comfortable, puts some constrants on actuality is one step too far ??

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed I didnt mean to imply that I am a dualist and that means science wont be able to solve the problem of consciousness. I meant that I am a dualist and that means that I believe science wont be able to solve it.

[ QUOTE ]
That would mean we believe we are right about the actua
lity ... an error that science doesn't make ( ok, shouldn't make) or even claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know - I think science may well be right about an actuality. Although I dont think it can ever claim to demonstrate that fact.

[ QUOTE ]
Iow, as long as you concede you could be <shudder> wr-rr-roooong-g, then there's no constraint on science to do it's usual stuff.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Nod - I was speculating that science had failed to make any progress because it is a field inherently closed to the scientific method. I dont think scientists should stop trying (even though I currently believe they will fail).

[Shroomy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't believe this is true. I thought they could produce simple life with energy and amino acids ?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the question the OP was trying to ask is: where did those amino acids come from? Then of course, where did the things that made up the amino acids come from, etc...

[/ QUOTE ]
and then you can immediately see how silly it is to posit the existence of something as the answer.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

misunderstanding alert! this has nothing to do with original topic but just logical arguments in general.

true is is silly ... but it does point out something notable. When something is explained by a scientific method, it only answers that question at a certain level. Unless it is a theoretical problem it never (or at least very rarely) answers all questions relating to the issue, that would require a complete understanding of of the universe, one that is impossible while we are part of it.

For example we can ask why does art exist.
We can show what portions of the brain and what neurotransmitters are released in what group of neurons, in response to it, etc.. but that doesn't really answer the question, of why that portion of the brain developed in the first place.

This is not to say that there is no answer, just that any answer is going to create more questions.

[Shroomy]

[ QUOTE ]
Um I agree.

I acknowledge my beliefs rather than hiding them but dont make any claim to infallibility. I would dearly like there to be a scientific account of consciousness (and cant imagine any other method giving us a better objective account), yet I dont believe it will ever happen.

Does this make me haughty?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it will never happen, for a couple reasons, first is that it is going to be difficult to get a definition of consciousness just like it is to get a definition for God. And science needs concreate definitions, and some things just do not lend them selves well to that. You would need a pretty narrow definition, and it wouldnt be the definition that a typical person would have for it.

second, it is going to be imposible to explain consciousness when it is our consciousness that we are using to examine it. We are always going to be limited by it. It is just like the problem of being in a moving box (constant speed) and trying to figure out how fast you are going. It can't be done. (not that you can ever really say how fast something going, since it is all relative to something else.

science is all about narrowing things down, and to narrow them down you need to eliminate as many variables as you can. Some times the variables make no difference, but often times eliminating them changes the problem.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that it will never happen, for a couple reasons, first is that it is going to be difficult to get a definition of consciousness just like it is to get a definition for God.

[/ QUOTE ]
There seems a fundamental difference in that consciousness is universally accessible to everyone who is discussing it - God clearly isnt. Although we may not be able to define consciousness, we all know what it is. This is not true with God.

[ QUOTE ]
second, it is going to be imposible to explain consciousness when it is our consciousness that we are using to examine it. We are always going to be limited by it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see how this follows (it may be true, but I think it requires justification).

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
For example we can ask why does art exist.


[/ QUOTE ]

you cannot ask this question and think that there is an asnwer

you can ask, "How, and for what purpose did humans evolve the desire to create art?"

or

"How,and for what purpose did humans evolve their appreciation for art?"..

but asking why art exists doesn't make sense..art exists because it can...because a likeness of objects can be made by putting colors and such beside each other..

And I'm not sure what you are looking for when you ask WHY like this??

I suppose you think that science can't answer WHY?..but belief in a gods can...but let me ask you then...

accoridng to your religious beliefs, Why does art exist?..

I suppose the only real answer is "God felt like it.."

[ QUOTE ]
When something is explained by a scientific method, it only answers that question at a certain level.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, that level being reality (as every conscious being in our universe can know it)...

if there is another level, then it does in no way affect our universe, so there is no reason to even begin to care about whether or not this other level exists...

and if it does actually effect our universe, then is on our level, and can be subject to the scientific analysis

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, There are two hurdles to overcome to say humans exist the way we are now in the absence of God. How life started, and how that life evolved into humans.

There are pretty much two choices for how life began spontaneous generation or some external force (aka God)


[/ QUOTE ]

No, the two mutually exclusive alternatives are that life has always existed for all eternity, or it emerged a finite time ago. If you accept the latter, then the question is by what mechanism did life come to be.


[ QUOTE ]
science has pretty much disproved spontaneous generation, or at least come up with no answers, until they do, why does everyone think the other possibility is so implausible?


[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. You are equivocating modern theories of abiogenesis, or the chemical origin of life, with the classic "spontaneous generation" of complete organisms from decaying matter disproved by Pasteur in the 19th Century. Those two ideas are completely different and the respective theories have nothing to do with each other.

Although modern theories of abiogenesis are somewhat speculative (due to the expected lack of surviving chemical evidence), much progress has been made, and the emergence of life from non-life is not considered to be scientifically inexplicable. It's best described as a chemical synthesizing process. A good article which summarizes actual theories of abiogenesis and compares them to the creationists' straw-man characterizations is found here:
Talk Origins Abiogenesis Link

Yes, life could have been created magically by "god" or a flying spaghetti monster or whatever. Scientifically, that can't be considered either plausible nor implausible, it's just an arbitrary assertion. For that matter, we can arbitrarily assert everything was magically created 15 minutes ago, including our memories of everything that happened before then. To claim life was created "somehow" by magic still provides no explanatory mechanism and is essentially meaningless.

[ QUOTE ]

Once life existed, it had to evolve into humans. Im saying that there are many things that make up humans that are very difficult to explain by saying the most fit lifeform survived to reproduce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to give specific examples? Be careful: there exists a mountain of evidence from research by a multitude of brilliant scientists spanning over 150 years which conclusively supports the common origin (including humans) of all life. That evidence explains, explicitly, how "complex" structures and organisms evolved. So it's quite unlikely you'll be able to falsify evolution.

Here's an idea. Before you blithely dismiss evolution via philosophical (and superficial) hand-waving, why don't you at least learn what the theory actually states, and what evidence exists to support it? I recommend you start at www.talkorigins.org .

[ QUOTE ]

and on a side note... For those people who believe that we are just a result of nature, since that makes us just another species, how is anything that we do unnatural (aka morally wrong?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Since humans live by making volitional choices via our rational faculty, it's not a matter of whether we live by a moral standards, but what particular standards we choose. There is certainly nothing implied by evolution (or any other scientific theory) which would lead us to "immorality" or to abandon morality as such.

If you are asking what type of moral standards can be rationally justified without religion or the supernatural, that's a broad question in it's own right, which again has nothing (necessarily) to do with evolution or other scientific theories.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still, I find it very suspicious that there isn't really anything major that we haven't been able to explain with science.


[/ QUOTE ]
We havent been able to explain consciousness. By that I mean the subjective experience of feeling alive, not "this part of the brain gets active when we experience that sensation" or something.

I remember in the 1970s reading AI enthusiasts claiming computers would be intelligent by the late eighties. The belief was that the problem of consciousness would be cracked anytime soon and that belief is still going strong, though actual progress since then seems pretty limited to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy cow, thirty years ago? And they still havent figured it out? Truly, this is a mystery that will never be solved then. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I'm just goofing with you, obviously, but complaining that the answers to every possible question we could ask aren't immediately available whenever we ask for this is a bit silly, I think. And AI tends to take FAR more than its share of the abuse on that front.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didnt make my point very clearly - I certainly wasnt saying they havent solved it yet so they never will. I was providing a counterexample to "science has explained everything".

The only reason I mentioned the thirty years was I was anticipating the "But they're nearly there" response, which is what materialists often resort to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew what you were getting at, thus the toothy grin smiley. Just giving you a hard time.

[Shroomy]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's an idea. Before you blithely dismiss evolution via philosophical (and superficial) hand-waving

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post in general [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Ill reply to the other stuff later, when I have time.

but I never dismissed evolution, Im certain that it is the mechanisim by which we were created, (whether it was guided, or affected by anything other than "that which lives reproduces" is the only real issue)

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
but I never dismissed evolution,Im certain that it is the mechanisim by which we were created, (whether it was guided, or affected by anything other than "that which lives reproduces" is the only real issue)

[/ QUOTE ]