1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Against Scientific Materialism

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by sayak83, Jan 8, 2019.

  1. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,796
    Ratings:
    +12,871
    Religion:
    Non-theist

    Again, no more so than to say that digestion happens in the stomach. In both cases, a *living* organ is required for function.

    And why is a living organ required? Because the basic chemical properties of a living organ and one that has died are quite different. The process of death means that waste chemicals are made that make reversal of the process impossible.

    And yes, we *do* know that life is a chemical process.

    Sorry, but this isn't correct. Godel's results apply to first order logical systems that have a recursively defined axiom system. Biological systems are, at the very least, second order and do NOT have a recursively defined set of rules. And we *know* that Godel's results do not apply to second order logic.


    And I agree that the mind is not a Turing machine.
    In particular, the fact that it is an interactive system in the real world means that a Turing machine model isn't even appropriate for *computers* that are interacting int he real world.

    Again, only if the universe is merely a first order system with a recursively defined axiom system. In all likelihood, though, neither is the case.

    Yes, I know of Godel's biases in this regard. I think he was mistaken in this (as well as his Platonism). Furthermore, the *reason* he was wrong is as I have said above: that biological systems do not have a recursively defined set of rules and are not first order logical systems.

    And, like I noted, we *know* that second order systems are not subject to Godel's results. For example, there are infinitely many non-isomorphic models of first order number theory, but only one second order model.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,965
    Ratings:
    +2,966
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    In science I avoid the word 'proof'. In law it means 'satisfactory demonstration that accords with the rules' but from its use in maths it connotes a totality that neither law nor science claims. So I prefer to say 'demonstration'.

    That the working brain can maintain breathtakingly complex bioelectrical and biochemical patterns is very well demonstrated. Some of the patterns are in a general way understood, making EEGs meaningful, and leading to, and explaining, serotonin reuptake inhibitors &c. How do you explain those?
    Speaking of 'empirical basis', you still haven't told me how your version of consciousness actually functions. Is it by chains of cause+effect? Is it random? Is it a mix of the two? Because if it's none of those, that only leaves magic, yes?

    Please set out the specifics. As I've said before, this is at the heart of our different views.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,788
    Ratings:
    +2,799
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    Yes. And math indicates: "either ... the human mind (even within the realm of pure mathematics) infinitely surpasses the power of any finite machine, or else there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems." (Godel 1951). 

    Explain what? That the apparent physical medical food/medicine affects mind-body is well known. The Auyrvedic medicines work on that principle.

    But, thoughts are not consciousness. Thoughts are known through consciousness.

    That is silly actually. I asked "And since naturalism presupposes that there is nothing beyond the material, its conclusion of absence of consciousness is without empirical basis. Is this not clear to you?"

    Instead of answering that you counter question regarding functioning of consciousness. That is double silly. Can you answer how gravity works?

    Consciousness is that by which all physical and mental movements are known. So, how do you propose to study that which enables your knowing? By ascribing that competence of discernment, which is inherent in life to chemicals? As if, you know the mechanism of generation of consciousness (power of discernment) from chemical interaction.

    What we are saying is simply that consciousness is the fundamental datum that IS. One's nature is that.
     
  4. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,788
    Ratings:
    +2,799
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma


    You know life is a chemical process? Really? Or is it just an unproven guess?

    I do not see any bias. He speaks of both the possibilities that arise of his Incompleteness theorems. He says: "either ... the human mind (even within the realm of pure mathematics) infinitely surpasses the power of any finite machine, or else there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems."

    That has no bias at all.
     
  5. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,965
    Ratings:
    +2,966
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    That is not the position of science. And the use of 'infinitely' is wild hyperbole here since infinite things have never been found in reality.

    Still, Gödel is as entitled to be wrong, and to be guilty of wishful thinking, and of self-flattery as a mathematician as anyone else.
    Please give a definition of consciousness meaningful in scientific terms, and describe what it does and HOW it does it.
    Yes, but since the classical view, not necessarily a perfect one, is that thoughts are formed in the wakeful state, let me have your definition of 'consciousness' before we go further with that.
    That too depends on your definition of 'consciousness'. In my view, consciousness / awareness / wakefulness arises from brain function. As for consciousness being 'immaterial', no objective test distinguishes the 'immaterial' from the imaginary.
    Fine, but what IS it?

    As you know, I think it's a particular pattern of brain interactions determined by particular brain states, describable in principle if not yet definitively described in fact.

    What do you think it is?
    Why should we not study whatever enables our breathing, our appetite, our mental faculties including knowing? We maximize objectivity, explore, gather data, form hypotheses, and test them.

    Nothing magic about knowing, it's something even a fish's brain can do. I see no reason in principle why computers (or their descendants) shouldn't know things. The trick will be to build in motivations for them to do so ─ equivalents for curiosity, rewards, disappointments. Do you disagree?
     
    #145 blü 2, Feb 9, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,796
    Ratings:
    +12,871
    Religion:
    Non-theist


    Yes, that is very clear from the study of biochemistry, for example. There is absolutely NO evidence of anything other than chemistry and some physics involved in life.


    And I think it is wrong. The mind is NOT a first order logical system, so the incompleteness results simply don't apply. If anything, it is more of a second order system and we *know* that the incompleteness results are *false* for such.
     
Loading...