excreationist

boneyard bill:
Do you agree that bees have belief systems?
If they do, then do you think that bees are just a complex arrangement of matter? Or is there something else? (A "life force" or "spirit"?)

If bees don't have belief systems, then do mice? And are they just a complex arrangement of matter? Or do mice possess a mysterious "life force" or "spirit"?

And BTW, why did this "spirit" just appear in certain kinds of animals (or just humans)? Did some kind of mysterious god give them the spirit?

I know it sounds like I'm avoiding your questions but if you can answer these questions then I will be able to answer you earlier post better.

boneyard bill

excreationist asks:

Yes, I think bees have something akin to what we would call a beleif system. But why attribute this to some mysterious force like a "life force" or "spirit?" I assume that they have a belief system that is somewhat akin to ours because they have minds that are somewhat akin to ours.

No. I assume that mental properties are inherent in matter in the same way that gravity is inherent in matter. According to the theory of gravity, a flea exerts a gravitational force. But that force is so insignificant compared to the force of the earth, that we can discount it. By the same token, I assume that a rock possesses some kind of mind-stuff since that is an inherent property of matter. But, due to the nature of rocks, its mind-stuff is no more apparent to us than is the gravitational force of a flea.

But with certain forms of complexity, the mind-stuff of matter becomes apparent. Such a view accounts for what we know about the world where materialism does not.

You're right. It sounds like you're avoiding my questions.

tronvillain

I'm curious what would falsify your view bonyard bill. Would you abandon it if a human mind could be explained in mechanistic terms? What if a bee's mind could be explained in mechanistic terms?

excreationist

I think aware systems are like little machines - like a clock or a see-saw. See-saws could form by chance - e.g. a thin rock could fall onto a smaller rock and rock side to side from changes in air pressure.
So is there a little see-saw in every atom, just waiting to be manifested?
Or sometimes in nature there is erosion - water can erode away rock, meteorites can erode away the moon, etc. So is there a bit of erosion in every atom?
I'm just confused...

boneyard bill

Tronvillain asks:

If all mental processes, including the sense of touch and other senses could be explained by reducing them to material processes, that would render my position pointless. Whether it would actually falsify it, I don't know.

My position is necessary because we cannot reduce all mental phenomena to physical processes. The only other alternative is a supernatural explanation, and while a supernatural explanation is perfectly coherent, it doesn't lead anywhere else. Once you get to God, there's nothing left to explain.

Of course, you can always say that science will solve this problem someday. But that isn't reason, that's faith. If you take that view, you will sit there until, god knows when. Perhaps forever. So my point is that a mind/matter position is the most rational position to take given the available evidence.

Such a position offers a complete, in principle, explanation and provides the basis for further investigation.

boneyard bill

excreationist writes:

And some Hindus think the earth is sitting on the back of a giant turtle. But do you have any rational reason for thinking the way you do? What is it about clocks that make you think they have anything in common with aware systems? How would you hope to go from this model to an explanation of mind as "nothing but" material processes in the same way, for example, that water is "nothing but" h2o molecules? How do you think your proposal provides a better explanation than supernaturalism?

It sounds that way. But why don't you really try to answer some of my questions and maybe you will achieve a little clarity.

Gurdur

Polemics, not analysis, this.
Have the supernaturalists ever come up with some answer that doesn't beg the question ultimately? No.
Michael Turton has answered you time & time again on this one, Boneyard Bill, no?

The building up from simple elements and rules to complex systems.
Self-awareness is an ideational construct; if you like, a seperate system being 'aware' of others.

A hint of polemical misrepresentation here.
Michael Turton really went into this at very great length with you earlier, no?

Parsimony, evidence, coherence and cogency, that's how.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

tronvillain

boneyard bill:
So, what would falsify your position?

Your explanation, like the supernatural explanation, does nothing but push the problem back a step - it solves nothing. The "problem" still exists.

No, it is not. Given the available evidence, the most rational position to take is that the mind is the result of physical processes within the brain. That we don't currently know the details of the processes is meaningless to the rationality of the position. What you want to do, in the absence of any evidence or increased explanatory power, is push the explanation back a step.

As far as I can tell, the previous position offers a complete, in principle, explantion and provides the basis for further investigation. By all means, attempt to investigate using your position - you may very well be right, but to me the previous position appears to have much more to offer.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Gurdur

Do you have any evidence for this?
Your theory is nothing more than extension from analogy and metaphor.

Oh, really.
No, it simply begs the question.

boneyard bill

Gurdur writes:

[quote]How would you hope to go from this model to an explanation of mind as "nothing but" material processes in the same way, for example, that water is "nothing but" h2o molecules?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A hint of polemical misrepresentation here.
Michael Turton really went into this at very great length with you earlier, no? [/QUOT

Yes, Michael Turton and went into this earlier and the only answer I got was that we have to give science more time to come up with the answer. That, of course, assumes that materialism is the correct answer to begin with.

And incompleteness. There simply isn't any materialist explanation for mind. I'll grant that supernaturalism doesn't get you very far as an explanation but it does complete the system. Personally, I prefer an explanation that sees matter and mind as aspects of a single thing. That's something you can work with. And it gives a you a complete explanation.