Faith, Reason, and Self-evident truths

[Jester]

This is currently being discussed in the Holy Huddle room, but for those non-Christians who wish to participate, I'm adding the topic here.

Is there proof, reasonable evidence, some evidence, etc for the existence of reality?

Or:

Must we accept some things on a non-rational basis?

Or:

Do you have some response not mentioned above?

[cnorman18]

You misunderstand; I don't say that mind and brain are separate things. That thought depends on and is carried, so to speak, by the brain can much more conveniently and quickly be demonstrated with a bullet than with electrodes. No brain, no thoughts.

My point, really, is this; what is the nature of the reality of an idea?

The existence of electrical activity in the brain can be proven; the existence of a specific thought or idea cannot. That a particular thought or sensation can be stimulated by applying electrodes is irrelevant; that is going in the other direction. I can make you taste chocolate either by applying electrodes to the "taste" area of your brain--or by feeding you a Hershey bar. So far, so good. That's real.

But can you determine what I am thinking by analyzing my brain activity? Put my brain under a microscope or EEG or whatever and tell me to think of a person; can you tell me who I'm thinking of? Can you objectively prove that I'm thinking of Harry and not Tom?

Is that thought objectively real if the only way you can access it is through my subjective report? Why or why not?

You have said that subjective experience cannot be evidence even for myself if it's not demonstrable and provable to anyone else. How, then, am I to take the subjective experience of my own thoughts seriously? I can't prove to you that they even exist!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophenomenology

TC

I dunno, TC. Daniel Dennett certainly has credentials out the wazoo, but he still sounds like a dedicated atheist and physicalist who's trying to find a line of research that will justify his a priori beliefs, as opposed to an objective scientist out to find the truth.

In any case, it doesn't sound like he's there yet, has very little following in the scientific community, and I didn't see any answers to my questions. Looks like thoughts are still inaccessible and unprovable unless the subject cooperates, and to an enormous extent there's still nothing but his word for what he's thinking.

I really don't see why this guy's work should be taken any more seriously than Trofim Lysenko's, or a Creationist's, for that matter. It's research that's motivated and directed by ideology, and therefore suspect from the get-go.

[Thought Criminal]

I dunno, TC. Daniel Dennett certainly has credentials out the wazoo, but he still sounds like a dedicated atheist and physicalist who's trying to find a line of research that will justify his a priori beliefs, as opposed to an objective scientist out to find the truth.

He's certainly an atheist and physicalist, but that's not where his dedication is. I realize that, from your point of view, he might seem biased, but that turns out not to be the case. It seems pretty clear that you've prejudged him harshly, and on very little information.

You've read a WP entry written largely by his harshest critics (look at the history of edit wars if you doubt this), while I've read all of his non-obsolete books, so we're going to see this from different places.

In any case, it doesn't sound like he's there yet, has very little following in the scientific community, and I didn't see any answers to my questions. Looks like thoughts are still inaccessible and unprovable unless the subject cooperates, and to an enormous extent there's still nothing but his word for what he's thinking.

I believe that everything in this quote is inaccurate, often exceedingly so. Perhaps you might want to dig a little deeper before passing judgement.

I really don't see why this guy's work should be taken any more seriously than Trofim Lysenko's, or a Creationist's, for that matter. It's research that's motivated and directed by ideology, and therefore suspect from the get-go.

You keep this paranoia up and you're going to ruin your status as relatively sane theist.

TC

[cnorman18]

I dunno, TC. Daniel Dennett certainly has credentials out the wazoo, but he still sounds like a dedicated atheist and physicalist who's trying to find a line of research that will justify his a priori beliefs, as opposed to an objective scientist out to find the truth.

He's certainly an atheist and physicalist, but that's not where his dedication is. I realize that, from your point of view, he might seem biased, but that turns out not to be the case. It seems pretty clear that you've prejudged him harshly, and on very little information.

You've read a WP entry written largely by his harshest critics (look at the history of edit wars if you doubt this), while I've read all of his non-obsolete books, so we're going to see this from different places.

In any case, it doesn't sound like he's there yet, has very little following in the scientific community, and I didn't see any answers to my questions. Looks like thoughts are still inaccessible and unprovable unless the subject cooperates, and to an enormous extent there's still nothing but his word for what he's thinking.

I believe that everything in this quote is inaccurate, often exceedingly so. Perhaps you might want to dig a little deeper before passing judgement.

I really don't see why this guy's work should be taken any more seriously than Trofim Lysenko's, or a Creationist's, for that matter. It's research that's motivated and directed by ideology, and therefore suspect from the get-go.

You keep this paranoia up and you're going to ruin your status as relatively sane theist.

TC

For the record, I also read his biography page, which had more information.

I admit it's a snap judgment, and I do plan to did a bit deeper. The nature of consciousness is one of my own interests, whether or not it's related to religion. I'll be going by the bookstore later today; give me a title that would be a good place to start in getting familiar with Dennett's work. .

As I said, it's a snap judgment, but it's not sheer paranoia out of the blue. If you heard about a Christian scientist trying to prove that consciousness is related to a separate nonphysical soul, would you not be a trifle suspicious?

One might say that that is trying to prove something impossible; and I would say the same here. I believe that consciousness is and will remain unavoidably and irreducibly subjective, barring the development of some sort of Vulcan mindreading machine; and given that the physical structure of human brains diverges as broadly as the physical structure of human faces, I don't think that's possible either.

[Thought Criminal]

For the record, I also read his biography page, which had more information.

I admit it's a snap judgment, and I do plan to did a bit deeper. The nature of consciousness is one of my own interests, whether or not it's related to religion. I'll be going by the bookstore later today; give me a title that would be a good place to start in getting familiar with Dennett's work. .

As I said, it's a snap judgment, but it's not sheer paranoia out of the blue. If you heard about a Christian scientist trying to prove that consciousness is related to a separate nonphysical soul, would you not be a trifle suspicious?

One might say that that is trying to prove something impossible; and I would say the same here. I believe that consciousness is and will remain unavoidably and irreducibly subjective, barring the development of some sort of Vulcan mindreading machine; and given that the physical structure of human brains diverges as broadly as the physical structure of human faces, I don't think that's possible either.

It's entirely possible for a reasonable person to read Dennett, more or less understand it and still disagree. Robert Wright, for example, is quite bright, yet in his interview with Dennett, they stalled on Wright's inexplicable commitment to epiphenomenalism. However, this is demonstrably not the case here. Your comments were prematurely dismissive and said much more about your own biases than they do about Dennett. To be quite frank, I'm disappointed by the shallowness and unfairness of your remarks.

TC

[cnorman18]

For the record, I also read his biography page, which had more information.

I admit it's a snap judgment, and I do plan to did a bit deeper. The nature of consciousness is one of my own interests, whether or not it's related to religion. I'll be going by the bookstore later today; give me a title that would be a good place to start in getting familiar with Dennett's work. .

As I said, it's a snap judgment, but it's not sheer paranoia out of the blue. If you heard about a Christian scientist trying to prove that consciousness is related to a separate nonphysical soul, would you not be a trifle suspicious?

One might say that that is trying to prove something impossible; and I would say the same here. I believe that consciousness is and will remain unavoidably and irreducibly subjective, barring the development of some sort of Vulcan mindreading machine; and given that the physical structure of human brains diverges as broadly as the physical structure of human faces, I don't think that's possible either.

It's entirely possible for a reasonable person to read Dennett, more or less understand it and still disagree. Robert Wright, for example, is quite bright, yet in his interview with Dennett, they stalled on Wright's inexplicable commitment to epiphenomenalism. However, this is demonstrably not the case here. Your comments were prematurely dismissive and said much more about your own biases than they do about Dennett. To be quite frank, I'm disappointed by the shallowness and unfairness of your remarks.

TC

Okay, so I'll explicitly apologize. I thought it was implicit in what I just said, but maybe not. Anyway, like I said, I'd like to learn more, and in spite of my premature judgment here, my mind is open. Where should I start reading Dennett or about his work?

[Thought Criminal]

Okay, so I'll explicitly apologize. I thought it was implicit in what I just said, but maybe not. Anyway, like I said, I'd like to learn more, and in spite of my premature judgment here, my mind is open. Where should I start reading Dennett or about his work?

No need to apologize; I took your comments too personally.

Actually, I'd suggest you bone up on Dawkins first, as Dennett takes evolution very seriously, not merely as a key part of biology but as a general concept for explaining how complexity and organization arises from simplicity. The Dennett book I'd recommend is, in fact, best read immediately after reading Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which isn't an endorsement of selfishness, but rather a popularization of Trivers' gene-centric selectionism.

TC

[daedalus 2.0]

Okay, so I'll explicitly apologize. I thought it was implicit in what I just said, but maybe not. Anyway, like I said, I'd like to learn more, and in spite of my premature judgment here, my mind is open. Where should I start reading Dennett or about his work?

No need to apologize; I took your comments too personally.

Actually, I'd suggest you bone up on Dawkins first, as Dennett takes evolution very seriously, not merely as a key part of biology but as a general concept for explaining how complexity and organization arises from simplicity. The Dennett book I'd recommend is, in fact, best read immediately after reading Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which isn't an endorsement of selfishness, but rather a popularization of Trivers' gene-centric selectionism.

TC

If I'm not mistaken, or biased, I believe "Consciousness Explained" is Dennet's seminal work.

[cnorman18]

For TC and Daedalus:

Thanks, guys. I'll pick up both, but I just spotted a book on a secular response to liberal Jewish theology, and that'll take first priority for a bit. It's endorsed by Dennett, though, so maybe I'm not too far off the reservation. It's a little more directly concerned with my present thoughts and interests. I'll post a review when I've read it.

Thanks again.

[Thought Criminal]

If I'm not mistaken, or biased, I believe "Consciousness Explained" is Dennet's seminal work.

Yes, that's correct. However, I don't think it's a good idea to jump right into that book. The order I've found works best is Dawkin's The Selfish Gene to show the power of replicators, followed by Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which picks up right where Dawkins left off, preparing the reader for Consciousness Explained. Those who've followed this order seemed happy, while those who didn't often responded with "Duh, why didn't I think of that?!"

TC

[cnorman18]

If I'm not mistaken, or biased, I believe "Consciousness Explained" is Dennet's seminal work.

Yes, that's correct. However, I don't think it's a good idea to jump right into that book. The order I've found works best is Dawkin's The Selfish Gene to show the power of replicators, followed by Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which picks up right where Dawkins left off, preparing the reader for Consciousness Explained. Those who've followed this order seemed happy, while those who didn't often responded with "Duh, why didn't I think of that?!"

TC

My reading list is getting longer. Guess I better take some time off the forum...

Thanks for the recommendations.