Freewill compatible with materialism

[rocketman]

How can "science" EVER hope to definitively disprove any claim of a non-physical entity (or "force").

It can, if the claimed effects are a no-show.

Some "Flat-Earther's" may yet abide amongst such "early days" of vainglorious hopes....("Someday...someone will PROVE that the Earth is flat...given enough time...!). Good luck with that...

I've never met a flat-earther. If I do I'll send him/her around to your place. That should be fun

Jabberwocky. What?

Lizzie is a neuroscientist. She would have pulled me up if I was wrong. Of-course she strongly believes we'll figure it all out one day and she sees no reason why we won't.

Oops indeed.

Well then...nevermind...

Happy to answer any questions on this over at the brain/soul thread s2a.

 

[s2a]

Hello rocketman...

When I said:
How can "science" EVER hope to definitively disprove any claim of a non-physical entity (or "force").

You replied:

It can, if the claimed effects are a no-show.

Um...don't you mean that such claims must be "definitively" disproved as a "no-show"? I'm an atheist. I'm of the opinion that all claimed effects are, in fact, "no-shows".

I ask you...what evidenced "no-show effects" would allow you to disclaim further adherence to faith-based claims? What "evidence" do you require that would effectively serve to "disprove" all claims of an existent deity/supernatural entity? WHAT? Please feel free to be quite specific. ;-)

When I quipped:
Some "Flat-Earther's" may yet abide amongst such "early days" of vainglorious hopes....("Someday...someone will PROVE that the Earth is flat...given enough time...!). Good luck with that...

You said:

I've never met a flat-earther. If I do I'll send him/her around to your place. That should be fun.

Been there, done that. "Flat-earthers", "YEC's", and Holocaust "deniers". I had my fun. They...did not.

I said:
Jabberwocky. What?

You said:

Lizzie is a neuroscientist. She would have pulled me up if I was wrong. Of-course she strongly believes we'll figure it all out one day and she sees no reason why we won't.

Don't misunderstand me completely. I remain hopeful and circumspectly optimistic that reason will one day (long after my time is spent) prevail over superstition, myth, and fervent religious insistence of uniquely "revealed truth" that persists despite the best efforts of those that pursue relevant facts vs. unfounded claims. I "hope" that our species may one day embrace reason as a superior mode of transportation into the future...and collectively reject all attempts to (yet again) draw the entirety of human progress and understanding back to the 12th century.

You invited me...

Happy to answer any questions on this over at the brain/soul thread s2a.

The religious claim/concept of a "human soul" is one that continues to evade any reasonably acceptable burdens of evidenced proof. Claims that can not be quantified, qualified, measured, or tested...are (and forever remain) bunk. "Hoping against hope" for (long-term) validation is not a strategy, nor any sort of methodological means in presenting any sort of a "revelatory truth". Prayer (in such hopes) is the domain of faith. Reason is the outlet and crucible in which "questions" of faith vs. fact will ultimately play out.

I have a brain. So do chimpanzees, dogs, salamanders, and antelope. So what? Any fifth-grade student of biology can confidently confirmsuch a claim. Is there ANY valid science (of measurable, quantifiable, testable means) that even begins to hint or suggest that paranormal "souls" exist beyond the clams of faith-based religious adherents?

ANY?

 

[s2a]

And NIck Soapdish goes silent...

...at last...

 

[rocketman]

I "hope" that our species may one day embrace reason as a superior mode of transportation into the future...and collectively reject all attempts to (yet again) draw the entirety of human progress and understanding back to the 12th century.

There are neuroscientists who believe we have a soul, such as the one I quoted from in the brain/soul thread. There is no need for people to regress to states that cause great suffering simply because they believe that there is more to the human condition than that which meets the eye. I share your hope as it is stated here.

Is there ANY valid science (of measurable, quantifiable, testable means) that even begins to hint or suggest that paranormal "souls" exist beyond the clams of faith-based religious adherents?

ANY?

I'm going to post an answer to this over at the brain/soul thread.

 

[s2a]

There are neuroscientists who believe we have a soul, such as the one I quoted from in the brain/soul thread.

Cool.

1) I invite you to cite five acclaimed and peer-reviewed "neuroscientists who believe we have a soul".

2) Testaments of personal faith present NO burdened proofs, nor testable evidences of ANY kind.

There is no need for people to regress to states that cause great suffering simply because they believe that there is more to the human condition than that which meets the eye. I share your hope as it is stated here.

Good.

I'm going to post an answer to this over at the brain/soul thread.

OK.

I'll be reading...;-)

 

[rocketman]

Cool.

1) I invite you to cite five acclaimed and peer-reviewed "neuroscientists who believe we have a soul".

2) Testaments of personal faith present NO burdened proofs, nor testable evidences of ANY kind.

#2 is designed to cancel #1 no matter who I cite. Therefore, to give you a clearer picture, I think it's best to focus on what neuroscientists don't know. I quote Joshua Greene, who doesn't believe we have a soul:

"Intuitively, we think of ourselves not as physical devices, but as immaterial minds or souls housed in physical bodies. Most experimental psychologists and neuroscientists disagree, at least officially. The modern science of mind proceeds on the assumption that the mind is simply what the brain does. We don’t talk much about this, however. We scientists take the mind’s physical basis for granted."

"Officially, we scientists already know (or think we know) that dualism is false and that we are simply complex biological machines. But insofar as we know this, we know this in a thin, intellectual way. We haven’t seen the absence of the soul. Rather, we have inferred its absence, based on the available evidence and our background assumptions about what makes one scientific theory better than another."

He does of-course have a theory about ruling out a soul altogether, based on the pinning down of so-called 'moral' decisions in the brain, which will require more research.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

And NIck Soapdish goes silent...

...at last...

Sorry to ruin your celebration, but I have been unable to post over the past 5 days or so. Its been a bad week...

What?

What?

My "freewill" is expressed only within my capacities to think and comprehend. Quite frankly, you have yet to accurately reflect even a scintilla of my "worldview".

Feel free to reveal your ambiguous worldview then.

I will know more when you reveal your worldview, but perhaps, just perhaps, you define "freewill" in way that says, I am the sum of my parts, just lots of particles bouncing around in a ordered fashion, according to the laws of nature, but I feel like I have freewill, therefore I will pretend I do. That is, unless you believe in dualism, or some sort of soul, or free-agent in your mind.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Seek confirmation of this assumption with an adherent of naturalism. There's more that a few resident within RF. I do not regard "nature" as some deterministic outcome or result of any conscious input or design. Nature IS...and in our tiny speck of the cosmos, humans can and do effect how our planetary "nature" (unconsciously) reacts to our presence (from diminishing the ozone layer, to overfishing, to water/air pollution, to deforestation, and so on and so forth...). There are certainly "consequences" that result from choices (of "freewill" that manifest actions (a certain species may be hunted to extinction; or the planet may globally heat up, drastically affecting the weather patterns, oceanic currents, and the pending survival/sustainability of many species--both known and unknown--not excluding our own), but "nature" doesn't "determine" those influential choices...it only incorporates them into "the mix" of an ever changing natural world.

Ok, if we are not wholy part of nature, what are we then? What part of us is not part of nature in your view?

This claim/assertion is nonsensical to me. Your claim presumes that that "spirits or souls" are existent entities...but are they "natural", or something else?

Yes, supernatural. Meaning, they are not directed by the laws of nature which science seeks to describe. They are beyond scientific investigation.

So..."under naturalism" (your manufactured scarecrow, not mine), does any "complex stimulous-response machine, programmed by your genes and environment" have freewill, or not? Does this chemical-physical neural "activity" present any reliably predictible (and consistently repeatable) behaviors (or "responses") that would suggest why "nature (as an independent sentient entity)" would instill ANY notions or conclusions that suggest "unnatural or supernatural" entities would exist?

First off, I am not suggest naturalists believe nature, herself, is an independent sentient entity.. our misunderstanding.

Secondly, supernatural entities of course can't be "predictable (and consistently repeatable), otherwise they would be part of nature.

Can religious/faith-based "belief" (of either unnatural or supernatural "entities") be described as a "choice" that is merely "programmed by your genes and environment"...BY, ummm..."Nature"? If so, I'd love to peruse the contemporary scientific research and and testable evidences that support further investigation of such a fascinating hypothesis.

If I understand your comment, then I would assume that any naturalist would agree that my faith is just the outcome of my genes and environment. As I am not a naturalist, that is not my point of view.

Your presented OP inquiry asks:
"If nature determines all things, doesn't that mean we are determined by nature? In a sense we all would be automatons, programmed by nature through our genes and environment, and in the end just stimulous-response machines."

Your inquiry is founded upon both a false and flawed assumption. It's conclusion doesn't follow, or present any logical/empirical support. The very fact that humans remain utterly unpredictable in their actions, reactions, motivations, and behaviors serves to demonstrate that human reason (as expressed by "free will") invalidates any conjecture or premise that, "we are determined by nature". "Nature" does not impact upon our capacity to think...it only influences the choices we make in our limited existence within "nature"

Your rebuttals have inserted further assumptions, none of which are either testable or experimentally repeatable. Your inquiry only serves to bolster a false and assumptive claim of some derivative rationale.

Good grief Charlie Brown, my argument is directed against naturalism. If you do not believe in naturalism, then obviously you will think it has a flawed assumption.

I will be interested to hear exactly what ground you stand on, and why you would suggest we have a "limited existence within nature".

 

[Nick Soapdish]

In that case, your sentence becomes rather circular:

"Naturalism implies we are determined by what we seek to describe in science, and our identity is molded into the rest of the activity of what we seek to describe in science".

On my calculations, the first clause therefore boils down to: "Naturalism implies that science seeks to describe what determines us", which seems both true and non-controversial. However, I am still unsure of what you might mean by the second part of the sentence - I am assuming that what you mean is that Naturalism implies that our identity a result of nothing other than what science seeks to describe. Which is probably true (about Naturalism). If so, a non-Naturalist, would, conversely, postulate a determinant of our identity that could not, in principle, be described by science.

You have calculated correctly.

Well, it depends what you mean by "reducible". We are certainly reducible, in one sense not merely to molecules, but to subatomic particles, which turn out to be something very strange and probabilistic. But just because an atom can be reduced to some kind of sum of probabilities doesn't mean that it isn't an atom, with properties not possessed by each of its components. Similarly molecules can be "reduced" to atoms, but have very different properties, as do crystals, life forms, galaxies, clusters etc. Just because something can be reduced to fundamental components (if, indeed, anything truly can be) doesn't mean that it is no more than the sum of its parts. Most interesting entities are made of parts, the properties of the entity itself is quite different from the properties of its parts. A brain has completely different properties to a neuron.

Sure, but in the philosophy of science, the whole purpose of reductionism, is so that we can understand the larger thing by its parts. What you seem to suggest is some sort of strong emergence, that properties emerge in entities that can't be described or inferred from its smaller parts. If we can't break down these properties as being the result of the smaller parts, then what are they the result of?

Sure. Also by love, kindness, meditation, prayer. These also come from the "outside world" as part of what we learn. And they physically affect our brains.

Yes, good point.

Um.... you said that "nature" was "what we seek to describe in science". What I seek to describe in science tells me nothing. It isn't an agent.

I'm not sure I follow your objection. Our science seeks to describe nature, and nature, in turn tells us what to believe. In this belief system, nature is somewhat introspective.

I don't know what this means. How could one have "awareness outside" something? I am aware. I am aware because I evolved to be aware. Again, I think you need to unpack this.

What I mean is, in naturalism, you have no objective, outside view of reality, besides what is provided to you by your senses (provided to you by nature).

That is exactly what "makes up [me], and what believe". And it is HUGE. It is unique. It is a chooser. And it is constantly unfolding in ways that can be predicted by no-one. That what has made me a chooser is natural makes me no less of a chooser. And as a chooser I have moral responsibility.

But if you are a naturalist, doesn't that present a contradiction? You are a "chooser", yet you are determined by little particles bouncing around in your head. I could say a computer program I wrote "chooses" certain things, but ultimately it comes down to "if-else" statements that are written in the program. This is why I do not believe in naturalism--because of this contradiction.

 

[s2a]

Hiya NIck Soapdish,

You said:

Sorry to ruin your celebration, but I have been unable to post over the past 5 days or so. Its been a bad week...

Hey.

Any good excuse to enjoy a fine cocktail is all good with me...;-)

When I said:
My "freewill" is expressed only within my capacities to think and comprehend. Quite frankly, you have yet to accurately reflect even a scintilla of my "worldview".

Feel free to reveal your ambiguous worldview then.

I have. From my very first post to RF, which you may read, here.

I'll be pleased enough to reference other posts of mine, if you earnestly promise and swear that you'll read them all, to their bitterly unambiguous ends...;-)

I will know more when you reveal your worldview, but perhaps, just perhaps, you define "freewill" in way that says, I am the sum of my parts, just lots of particles bouncing around in a ordered fashion, according to the laws of nature, but I feel like I have freewill, therefore I will pretend I do. That is, unless you believe in dualism, or some sort of soul, or free-agent in your mind.

I offer you no pretense, nor any ordered adherence to any particular philosophy/religion/spirituality.

I am, therefore I think.
Compartmentalize that espoused "worldview" into one that suits your own sensibilities...or not.

I said:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Seek confirmation of this assumption with an adherent of naturalism. There's more that a few resident within RF. I do not regard "nature" as some deterministic outcome or result of any conscious input or design. Nature IS...and in our tiny speck of the cosmos, humans can and do effect how our planetary "nature" (unconsciously) reacts to our presence (from diminishing the ozone layer, to overfishing, to water/air pollution, to deforestation, and so on and so forth...). There are certainly "consequences" that result from choices (of "freewill" that manifest actions (a certain species may be hunted to extinction; or the planet may globally heat up, drastically affecting the weather patterns, oceanic currents, and the pending survival/sustainability of many species--both known and unknown--not excluding our own), but "nature" doesn't "determine" those influential choices...it only incorporates them into "the mix" of an ever changing natural world.

You then erroneously (purposefully or not) inferred:

Ok, if we are not wholy part of nature, what are we then? What part of us is not part of nature in your view?

"We" (as humans) are inextricably both part and parcel within Nature; neither "above" it, nor "outside" of it.

"We" (as humans) can most certainly effect our own local environment (this planet) by either our actions (or inactions), but "we" do not exert any directing control over how "Nature" acts and/or reacts (as consequence) to either our immediate presence or deeds.

"Nature" doesn't (preferentially) "care" about our species more or less than any other on this planet.

Typhoons, Hurricanes. Earthquakes. Volcanic eruptions. Tornadoes. Floods. Tsunamis. Tidal effects. Climate change. Meteor strikes. Are any of these "natural" phenomena more or less "considerate" of our species, over any other?

When "we" observe a super-novae, or comet impacts (like the twenty-odd fragments of Shoemaker-Levy 9 upon Jupiter in 1994)..."existing" well beyond our comfortable sphere here...what measure of "Our" part is taken or concerned by "Nature" in affecting such "natural" consequences? What does our species have to say, or presume to influence, upon these random and (otherwise) inconsequential events? Anything?

I said:
This claim/assertion is nonsensical to me. Your claim presumes that that "spirits or souls" are existent entities...but are they "natural", or something else?

You replied:

Yes, supernatural. Meaning, they are not directed by the laws of nature which science seeks to describe. They are beyond scientific investigation.

This may explain why "science" neither pursues, nor attempts to define...any claims of an "existent supernatural" as being either valid or "real". Doesn't make any claim borne of such "impossible invalidations" as [being] therefore equally plausible, "better than", "just as likely" [existent], or otherwise "evidently real". People "see" the face of Mother Mary in pancakes, tree bark, potato chips, water stains, and burnt toast. For some...such "evidences" constitute "proof" of a claim. For others...skepticism prevails.

I said:
So..."under naturalism" (your manufactured scarecrow, not mine), does any "complex stimulous-response machine, programmed by your genes and environment" have freewill, or not? Does this chemical-physical neural "activity" present any reliably predictible (and consistently repeatable) behaviors (or "responses") that would suggest why "nature (as an independent sentient entity)" would instill ANY notions or conclusions that suggest "unnatural or supernatural" entities would exist?

You replied:

First off, I am not suggest naturalists believe nature, herself, is an independent sentient entity.. our misunderstanding.

Then I misunderstood you when you said:

Nature herself is certainly sentient through you and any other sentient beings.

That was your singular, personalized view then?

Understood. Hmmmmm.....

Secondly, supernatural entities of course can't be "predictable (and consistently repeatable), otherwise they would be part of nature.

Well..."Of course"!

Nor perhaps...by any extrapolation...[would "they" be] anything that a "naturalist" would ever deem as "existent", or "sentient".

So...what was the thrust of your pointed rebuttal then?

I inquired:
Can religious/faith-based "belief" (of either unnatural or supernatural "entities") be described as a "choice" that is merely "programmed by your genes and environment"...BY, ummm..."Nature"? If so, I'd love to peruse the contemporary scientific research and and testable evidences that support further investigation of such a fascinating hypothesis.

You said:

If I understand your comment, then I would assume that any naturalist would agree that my faith is just the outcome of my genes and environment. As I am not a naturalist, that is not my point of view.

Wow. Way to go. You have effectively illustrated what you are NOT "saying"...

Compelling empty argument.

When I noted...
Your presented OP inquiry asks:
"If nature determines all things, doesn't that mean we are determined by nature? In a sense we all would be automatons, programmed by nature through our genes and environment, and in the end just stimulous-response machines."

Your inquiry is founded upon both a false and flawed assumption. It's conclusion doesn't follow, or present any logical/empirical support. The very fact that humans remain utterly unpredictable in their actions, reactions, motivations, and behaviors serves to demonstrate that human reason (as expressed by "free will") invalidates any conjecture or premise that, "we are determined by nature". "Nature" does not impact upon our capacity to think...it only influences the choices we make in our limited existence within "nature"

Your rebuttals have inserted further assumptions, none of which are either testable or experimentally repeatable. Your inquiry only serves to bolster a false and assumptive claim of some derivative rationale.

You but offered:

Good grief Charlie Brown, my argument is directed against naturalism. If you do not believe in naturalism, then obviously you will think it has a flawed assumption.

I'm not arguing against naturalism...I'm illustrating the failings of your provided arguments and rationale against naturalism. Can you not see what is plainly put before you?

I will be interested to hear exactly what ground you stand on, and why you would suggest we have a "limited existence within nature".

We are mortal. Every living thing (even non-living "things", like stars) eventually cease to exist within any sort of observable (or experiential) "eternity".

Why do I "believe" that all "things" eventually cease to exist? Because EVERY bit of available evidence allows "us" (as a thinking and sentient species) to deduce this relevant and uncontroverted fact of "Nature". There is NO credible, testable evidence of ANY kind (beyond that of faith-based religions/beliefs) that allows "us" to logically presume some supernaturally existent "eternity" (beyond the observable ream of "Nature") is probable, likely, or even a distinctly remote possibility.

Just so happens...I'm OK with that.

And..."Nature" still doesn't "care" whether I am or not...


Howzabout you?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Autodidact requested I create this thread so here it is!

I used to be a materialist and this very topic turned me towards mysticism and spiritualism.

If nature determines all things, doesn't that mean we are determined by nature? In a sense we all would be automatons, programmed by nature through our genes and environment, and in the end just stimulous-response machines.

Thoughts?

(Some) theists have the "problem of evil"; atheists have the "problem of consciousness." In his book, Behold the Spirit, Alan Watts outlined the atheist's problem very well.

 

[Yerda]

(Some) theists have the "problem of evil"; atheists have the "problem of consciousness." In his book, Behold the Spirit, Alan Watts outlined the atheist's problem very well.

Crikey, this is embarrassing, I never knew I had a problem with consciousness. Are my undies showing as well?

What is this problem of consciousness?

 

[s2a]

(Some) theists have the "problem of evil"; atheists have the "problem of consciousness." In his book, Behold the Spirit, Alan Watts outlined the atheist's problem very well.

As you are no doubt well read as to the proffered insights of Mr. Alan Watts, perhaps you might offer up a summary of his conclusions that surmise that atheists endure a "problem of consciousness".

Honestly...I won't even pretend to understand what that obtuse phrase suggests or implies.

From what I might pretend to know/appreciate about author Watts, he was constantly "searching" for some sort of personally acceptable form of spiritualism and identity. Whilst leaping about from this or that, Watts submitted Behold the Spirit as his master's degree thesis. Forgive me if I don't seek guiding wisdom or insight within the ruminations of a twenty-something college student.

Watts indulged himself in Zen, later became an Episcopalian priest, and saw a five year marriage result in annulment.

Watts experimented with hallucinogenic drugs, Jung, and Joseph Campbell.
[As to which interactions were more useless, I leave the reader to surmise for themselves].

Excuse me for saying so...but I remain hugely unimpressed (and unmoved) by the countless philosophical ruminations and expurgations afforded by "noted" (or popular/published) philosophers.

We are each, and quite unto ourselves, our own accomplished philosophers...operating from within and without our own unique experiences, observations, influences, and resultant conclusions. As both an atheist and skeptic, I neither follow, nor subscribe to, any popular...nor especially unique...philosophical evaluation or perspective.

Maybe I'm lucky. Maybe I'm just obstinately self-assured and confident in my own perceptions and convicted conclusions to the extent that I neither seek, nor ever awed by some other philosophical perspective that may differ (simply or succinctly) from my own .

If you're goig to cite Watts as some inspiration of reflection and investigation into the generalized mindset of atheists...at least impress me with his personalized and relevant examples of his efforts to embrace or pursue an atheistic or skeptical perspective. To my knowledge and current understanding...Watts sought to define (or explain) human consciousness within the confines of a mystical or spiritual realm...not a physical or concretely scientific paradigm.

[Lest you misunderstand, I would readily side with Watts in his authored philosophies in favoring social vs. personal ethics...and his advocacy of racial and cultural diversity/tolerance/acceptance. I just find no "need" of a "spiritual" motivation in promulgation of such ideals.]

 

[Rolling_Stone]

As you are no doubt well read as to the proffered insights of Mr. Alan Watts, perhaps you might offer up a summary of his conclusions that surmise that atheists endure a "problem of consciousness".

Honestly...I won't even pretend to understand what that obtuse phrase suggests or implies.

From what I might pretend to know/appreciate about author Watts, he was constantly "searching" for some sort of personally acceptable form of spiritualism and identity. Whilst leaping about from this or that, Watts submitted Behold the Spirit as his master's degree thesis. Forgive me if I don't seek guiding wisdom or insight within the ruminations of a twenty-something college student.

Watts indulged himself in Zen, later became an Episcopalian priest, and saw a five year marriage result in annulment.

Watts experimented with hallucinogenic drugs, Jung, and Joseph Campbell.
[As to which interactions were more useless, I leave the reader to surmise for themselves].

Excuse me for saying so...but I remain hugely unimpressed (and unmoved) by the countless philosophical ruminations and expurgations afforded by "noted" (or popular/published) philosophers.

We are each, and quite unto ourselves, our own accomplished philosophers...operating from within and without our own unique experiences, observations, influences, and resultant conclusions. As both an atheist and skeptic, I neither follow, nor subscribe to, any popular...nor especially unique...philosophical evaluation or perspective.

Maybe I'm lucky. Maybe I'm just obstinately self-assured and confident in my own perceptions and convicted conclusions to the extent that I neither seek, nor ever awed by some other philosophical perspective that may differ (simply or succinctly) from my own .

If you're goig to cite Watts as some inspiration of reflection and investigation into the generalized mindset of atheists...at least impress me with his personalized and relevant examples of his efforts to embrace or pursue an atheistic or skeptical perspective. To my knowledge and current understanding...Watts sought to define (or explain) human consciousness within the confines of a mystical or spiritual realm...not a physical or concretely scientific paradigm.

[Lest you misunderstand, I would readily side with Watts in his authored philosophies in favoring social vs. personal ethics...and his advocacy of racial and cultural diversity/tolerance/acceptance. I just find no "need" of a "spiritual" motivation in promulgation of such ideals.]

Your point being....? I did not appeal to Watts as an authority notwithstanding the fact that the arguments he posed in his book have never been effectively countered by the likes of Dawkins, Harris and the like. The onus is on you to counter those arguments, not to criticize the man.

[Why do I bother with your nonsense? It's not like this hasn't been done to death.]

 

[s2a]

Your point being....? I did not appeal to Watts as an authority...

OK. He's not an authority...then why invoke his name as if it were?

...notwithstanding the fact that the arguments he posed in his book have never been effectively countered by the likes of Dawkins, Harris and the like. The onus is on you to counter those arguments, not to criticize the man.

Oh, c'mon.

That's crap, and you know it.

If I claim that unicorns are "real", and roaming about in Central Park in NYC...then the "onus" is on ME to substantiate MY claim...not upon some one else to "disprove" my claim. YEC's persist in their claims that the Earth (and hey, the cosmos itself) is but some 6000 years old. How many times...in how many ways...must overwhelming evidence to the contrary be so resoundingly administered before abject "deniers" get a grip on current knowledge?

How many authors must debunk the insistent denials of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Jewish Holocaust of WWII is a "myth"?

The evidence of the systematic murder/extermination of millions of ethic people by the Nazis remains undeniable, evidential fact.
So...Ahmadinejad is either a nut, ian deologue, or an historical revisionist of the worst kind imaginable. This isn't even a debatable matter of "philosophical" perspective...it's a matter of readily established fact.

How does one go about (or attempt to categorically debunk/disprove) a unique and personalized philosophical perspective...in essence...an opinion?

It was you that tendered Watts as some argument from authority, not me. I only accounted of his suspect credentials and viability in any lasting support of a focused view. It's hardly unfair to "criticize" any cited reference to authority or especial insight provided by another as support of a particular claim/perspective.

Watts is NOT validated with any especial insight or wisdom simply because folks like Harris or Dawkins have not expended any focused efforts to otherwise deconstruct/debunk Watts' philosophical views.

[Why do I bother with your nonsense? It's not like this hasn't been done to death.]

I don't know.

Perhaps you should relent, and crown me king instead. ;-)

I'm disinclined to depart RF at this time, so deal with my contributions as they may please your own interests of participation therein.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

You are asserting that the interactions of unconscious matter-energy is the sufficient cause of consciousness, that consciousness can emerge from something in which it is entirely absent; in effect, you are saying that something can come from nothing. That's an extraordinary claim. I, on the hand, simply say that that consciousness is as it appears to be: innate in the nature of reality.

As you would say, an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. That puts the onus on you. Deal with it or everyone in RF has to assume you are simply superstitious.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

When I said:
My "freewill" is expressed only within my capacities to think and comprehend. Quite frankly, you have yet to accurately reflect even a scintilla of my "worldview".

I have. From my very first post to RF, which you may read, here.

I'll be pleased enough to reference other posts of mine, if you earnestly promise and swear that you'll read them all, to their bitterly unambiguous ends...;-)

Then it seems you have no worldview and no ground to stand on to defend. It also appears that you are simply one that enjoys tearing down other people's philosophies and religions. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I offer you no pretense, nor any ordered adherence to any particular philosophy/religion/spirituality.

I am, therefore I think.
Compartmentalize that espoused "worldview" into one that suits your own sensibilities...or not.

I said:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Seek confirmation of this assumption with an adherent of naturalism. There's more that a few resident within RF. I do not regard "nature" as some deterministic outcome or result of any conscious input or design. Nature IS...and in our tiny speck of the cosmos, humans can and do effect how our planetary "nature" (unconsciously) reacts to our presence (from diminishing the ozone layer, to overfishing, to water/air pollution, to deforestation, and so on and so forth...). There are certainly "consequences" that result from choices (of "freewill" that manifest actions (a certain species may be hunted to extinction; or the planet may globally heat up, drastically affecting the weather patterns, oceanic currents, and the pending survival/sustainability of many species--both known and unknown--not excluding our own), but "nature" doesn't "determine" those influential choices...it only incorporates them into "the mix" of an ever changing natural world.

You then erroneously (purposefully or not) inferred:
"We" (as humans) are inextricably both part and parcel within Nature; neither "above" it, nor "outside" of it.

"We" (as humans) can most certainly effect our own local environment (this planet) by either our actions (or inactions), but "we" do not exert any directing control over how "Nature" acts and/or reacts (as consequence) to either our immediate presence or deeds.

"Nature" doesn't (preferentially) "care" about our species more or less than any other on this planet.

Typhoons, Hurricanes. Earthquakes. Volcanic eruptions. Tornadoes. Floods. Tsunamis. Tidal effects. Climate change. Meteor strikes. Are any of these "natural" phenomena more or less "considerate" of our species, over any other?

When "we" observe a super-novae, or comet impacts (like the twenty-odd fragments of Shoemaker-Levy 9 upon Jupiter in 1994)..."existing" well beyond our comfortable sphere here...what measure of "Our" part is taken or concerned by "Nature" in affecting such "natural" consequences? What does our species have to say, or presume to influence, upon these random and (otherwise) inconsequential events? Anything?

I said:
This claim/assertion is nonsensical to me. Your claim presumes that that "spirits or souls" are existent entities...but are they "natural", or something else?

You replied:
This may explain why "science" neither pursues, nor attempts to define...any claims of an "existent supernatural" as being either valid or "real". Doesn't make any claim borne of such "impossible invalidations" as [being] therefore equally plausible, "better than", "just as likely" [existent], or otherwise "evidently real". People "see" the face of Mother Mary in pancakes, tree bark, potato chips, water stains, and burnt toast. For some...such "evidences" constitute "proof" of a claim. For others...skepticism prevails.

I said:
So..."under naturalism" (your manufactured scarecrow, not mine), does any "complex stimulous-response machine, programmed by your genes and environment" have freewill, or not? Does this chemical-physical neural "activity" present any reliably predictible (and consistently repeatable) behaviors (or "responses") that would suggest why "nature (as an independent sentient entity)" would instill ANY notions or conclusions that suggest "unnatural or supernatural" entities would exist?

You replied:
Then I misunderstood you when you said:
That was your singular, personalized view then?

Understood. Hmmmmm.....

Well..."Of course"!

Nor perhaps...by any extrapolation...[would "they" be] anything that a "naturalist" would ever deem as "existent", or "sentient".

So...what was the thrust of your pointed rebuttal then?

I inquired:
Can religious/faith-based "belief" (of either unnatural or supernatural "entities") be described as a "choice" that is merely "programmed by your genes and environment"...BY, ummm..."Nature"? If so, I'd love to peruse the contemporary scientific research and and testable evidences that support further investigation of such a fascinating hypothesis.

You said:
Wow. Way to go. You have effectively illustrated what you are NOT "saying"...

Compelling empty argument.

When I noted...
Your presented OP inquiry asks:
"If nature determines all things, doesn't that mean we are determined by nature? In a sense we all would be automatons, programmed by nature through our genes and environment, and in the end just stimulous-response machines."

Your inquiry is founded upon both a false and flawed assumption. It's conclusion doesn't follow, or present any logical/empirical support. The very fact that humans remain utterly unpredictable in their actions, reactions, motivations, and behaviors serves to demonstrate that human reason (as expressed by "free will") invalidates any conjecture or premise that, "we are determined by nature". "Nature" does not impact upon our capacity to think...it only influences the choices we make in our limited existence within "nature"

Your rebuttals have inserted further assumptions, none of which are either testable or experimentally repeatable. Your inquiry only serves to bolster a false and assumptive claim of some derivative rationale.

You but offered:
I'm not arguing against naturalism...I'm illustrating the failings of your provided arguments and rationale against naturalism. Can you not see what is plainly put before you?

We are mortal. Every living thing (even non-living "things", like stars) eventually cease to exist within any sort of observable (or experiential) "eternity".

Why do I "believe" that all "things" eventually cease to exist? Because EVERY bit of available evidence allows "us" (as a thinking and sentient species) to deduce this relevant and uncontroverted fact of "Nature". There is NO credible, testable evidence of ANY kind (beyond that of faith-based religions/beliefs) that allows "us" to logically presume some supernaturally existent "eternity" (beyond the observable ream of "Nature") is probable, likely, or even a distinctly remote possibility.

Just so happens...I'm OK with that.

And..."Nature" still doesn't "care" whether I am or not...

Howzabout you?

It is clear that you are arguing against naturalism, and not my argument. My argument assumes naturalism, and if you wish to attack naturalism, that is not addressing my argument.

You said that this statement is erroneous:

"We" (as humans) are inextricably both part and parcel within Nature; neither "above" it, nor "outside" of it.

Well, then we both agree that naturalism is erroneous.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The belief we are not a product entirely of outside sources/experiences/etc is egotistical, quite human, quite flawed, quite necessary for some people to function.

But above all quite wrong.

The opposite is also true.

 

[View from Here]

Clearly, we can destroy nature (and may even be doing so right now). Therefore, nature doesn't determine all things.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Clearly, we can destroy nature (and may even be doing so right now). Therefore, nature doesn't determine all things.

Except, we are a part of nature.

 

[View from Here]

certainly, but our actions are not all determined by that fact, unless we are prepared to admit that nature determined the destruction of nature