Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.




someone5 wrote:
Nic wrote:
someone5 wrote:
Nic wrote:
someone5 wrote:
Our scientific understanding needs no reference to whether an energy
experiences being an energy, as it has not been found through
experimentation to make any difference even if it did.

What a bizarre sentence. I think what you mean is that our
observations do not imply there is a hidden variable at work.

If there was such a hidden variable, the differences it causes would no
more merit the name self-experiencing-energy, than they would the name
'squizzigy'.

When you think of your hidden variable, how do you *mean* it as
self-experiencing-energy as opposed to squizzigy? I'd like to know.
I'm in to mental callisthenics.

It seems (and forgive me if I'm wrong) your use of the word
'experimentation' serves merely to give bogus respectability to a
notion whose respecatbility ought to stand or fall on logic,
definition, and argument.

If our current scientific understanding is correct, given our
understanding of evolution, it is highly improbable that the source of
our experience is the physical world itself, as if it was, it could
only be coincidental that it made any sense (assuming a way in which,
with no translation layer (no evolutionary reason to evolve one) the
experience of the visual sense for example can be mapped from brain
state to what we experience).

Despite the odds, yet again I think I get what you mean. You need to
be clearer about the word 'source'. I can see you don't mean 'cause' -
you have no problem with the physical world being the cause of the
experiences. The point I think you are making is that naturalistic
explanations fail to explain the resemblance between experiences and
what they are of.

Therefore beyond reasonable doubt, the physical world we are
experiencing is not the source of our experience.

You are pointing out the lack of a physical mechanism explaining the
calibration of experiences to what they are of. I am skeptical about
whether there is any such calibration, and can't see how we would
recognise it if there were. So I can't agree with you up to this
point, and certainly can't accompany you to the next...

Would you accept our evolutionary understanding as being a key piece of
evidence in God's existence?

When you talk about a hidden variable:
If there was such a hidden variable, the differences it causes would no
more merit the name self-experiencing-energy, than they would the name
'squizzigy'.

The problem with your reasoning, and therefore your ability to
understand, is that you need to turn the problem into the way you see
it.

Could you explain the experience of the colour red for example in terms
of a hidden variable?

No. I don't need to because I have experiences of the colour red.
What I don't have is any experience of an energy's experience of
itself. I don't even have an experience of an energy. I believe in
energy because of it's explanatory value (it is a hidden variable I am
happy to posit). An energy's experience of being an energy might be a
similar sort of thing, but as you seem to agree that nothing depends on
it, we can let it go. Science doesn't just remain silent on the
subject of un-needed hidden variables - it actively encourages
disbelief in them.

This only matters as a check on whether we understand each other. I
don't think it matters to your next paragraph, as we seem to be in
agreement that science describes energy without any mention of energy
as an object of direct experience, let alone any mention of energy
itself being the experiencer!

I said:
If our current scientific understanding is correct, given our
understanding of evolution, it is highly improbable that the source of
our experience is the physical world itself, as if it was, it could
only be coincidental that it made any sense (assuming a way in which,
with no translation layer (no evolutionary reason to evolve one) the
experience of the visual sense for example can be mapped from brain
state to what we experience).

and you replied:
"Despite the odds, yet again I think I get what you mean. You need to
be clearer about the word 'source'. I can see you don't mean 'cause' -
you have no problem with the physical world being the cause of the
experiences. The point I think you are making is that naturalistic
explanations fail to explain the resemblance between experiences and
what they are of.

Unfortunately you did not comprehend what was being said.

The point is, that given our understanding there is NO reason for our
experience to make sense, it could have been anything, from crackle to
nothing at all. Also there can be no mechanism that evolved to
translate between

Oh. I understood you to be questioning how perceptions could have
gotten to be like the objects being perceived, to which I responded
with the philosophical point that maybe they are nothing like each
other - we'd be the last to know!


The point was about the experience making any sense, your attempt to
help me in by rewording it unfortunately led you away from the issue at
hand.

You seem to be starting from the point that there aren't patterns in
the brain which are recognisable projections of those in the outside
world. You believe this because you accept there is no advantage in
evolving to meet this additional constraint.


My starting point doesn't really matter.

Where you lose me is when you seem to think it matters if your head is
full of crackle. After all what the insides of your head look like
from the *outside* is nothing to do with it.
I think crackle in a head will make perfect sense to its owner without
any need for further translation. So I don't know what to do about the
challenges below.


Let me put it another way, your visual experience could be similar to
white noise (I think its called) picked up on a television set. Your
auditory experience could be similar to an un-tuned in radio at a noise
level experience of the equivalent to you now putting your ear up to
speaker of the type used in major rock concerts. As long as the
mechanics works the same, what you experience would be unimportant.

Are you understanding it yet, or not?

I am understanding it. You explain it perfectly well in:

@@@@
-------@@@@@@------
@@


(A) (B) (C)


which I have just managed to track down from your posting history
elsewhere.

I don't know what to say. You seemed to start out by saying that we
have valid perceptions of the world, but our impression that we can
influence that world by our wills is an illusion. That is a different
subject from what we are discussing here, but it is related in as much
as you think that (B) is a scrambled version of (C).

I wish you'd explain it with examples.

If you could give a SINGLE REASON for our experience making sense,
given our current scientific understanding (backed by the weight of the
history of experimentation), then I would consider the proof to be
discredited.

The alternative would be to attack our current understanding of physics
and chemistry.

Or, the other alternative, would be to actually understand it, and
understand why beyond reasonable doubt, the physical world we are
experiencing is not the source of our experience.

Can you understand, or is it the way it is worded that makes it a bit
difficult for you?

.