Re: Materialist Evolutionists

On 2 Apr, 13:53, "Jim" <jimwille...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 2, 7:01 am, "someone3" <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>



Every person violates the known laws of physics, they are not robots.

Speaking as a methodological naturalist, that is a mighty big
assertion. Just what laws of physics (or of nature) are violated by
any given person? Can you give a specific example? If not, I suggest
that you are arguing from incredulity.

A full explanation for brain activity won't ever given, though those
that claim the activity does follow the known laws of physics will
claim that this is because of the complexity of the brain. There are
also other experiments that could be done, but again, these will never
be proof, as there will always be excuses, chaos theory, technology
not capable etc.

Just out of idle curiosity, do you believe random events occur
naturally, or do you believe that the universe is entirely
deterministic?

<snip bit about subjective experiences - come to think of it, what
would an objective experience be? Subjective experience is redundant>

If we didn't violate the laws of physics, then there would be no means
by which we could express what we were experiencing.

We do have an experience that correlates to our behaviour, we even
talk about our subjective experiences, yet without violation of the
laws of physics, it would have to only be a coincidence that they
actually existed, and that you actually experienced what your
behaviour expressed. It would obviously have to be a deception that
what you experienced had any influence on your behaviour.

With regards to the universe and whether quantum effects have no
physical cause throughout the whole universe, or whether the quantum
effects have a non-local physical cause generally, but in someparts of
our brain have no physical cause I am not sure of. The violation of
the laws of physics in our brain, might simply be that some quantum
effects would be shown to not to exhibit seemingly random behaviour.
It would seem as though the universe we are presented with is designed
in such a way that we would never know for sure, and would require
faith that our experiences aren't a coincidental deception.

With regards to subjective and objective experiences, there are only
experiences. When publically conversing about them though, and placing
labels to them, talking of the colour green for example, what
experience you attach to the label might vary from subject to subject.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: FTL causality problems. I dont get it.
    ... ruled out by a violation of a Bell's inequality (if I ever learn ... "new laws of physics", as in: given new laws of physics, current ... discovery would in fact require the possible discovery of new laws of ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Materialist Evolutionists
    ... that the person experiences little interruption in his thought processes. ... biological robot. ... explained by the node following the laws of physics), ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Materialist Evolutionists
    ... a robot is a machine that it totally under the laws of physics. ... think it had any conscious subjective experiences, ... If subjective experiences are node/neuron activity, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Materialist Evolutionists
    ... a robot is a machine that it totally under the laws of physics. ... think it had any conscious subjective experiences, ... If subjective experiences are node/neuron activity, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Implausibility that we can be explained by evolution
    ... follow the known laws of physics? ... physics, subjective conscious experiences don't influence behaviour. ...
    (talk.origins)