Reasons to postulate the existence of a God.

[Divine Insight]

If you think you have a valid reason for postulating the existence of a supernatural entity that supposedly created the world in which we live please post those reasons here for discussion and possible rebuttal.

Thank you.

[Bust Nak]

Because they are told how to do it by human minds.

Sounds to me like you accept that computers can do it though. Besides, if we programmed it to spot pattern, and it spots the pattern by itself, does it still count as being told how to do it?

Intuition is a conscious experience.It is non algorithmic awareness. The mind is directly aware of the order of the world.

They don't call it gut feeling for no reason, as you don't think with your guts. MRI scans shows intuition activate a different area of the brain (caudate nucleus) from the part assocated with conscious thought (cerebral cortex.)

That is one reason why intellect based science is not the only way to knowledge. That the mind does not have to laboriously figure everything out, like a computer, is self evident. Creativity is above the intellect. It is understanding by consciousness.

Can something generated from intuition be called knowledge? It's often wrong afterall.

[mgb]

Sounds to me like you accept that computers can do it though. Besides, if we programmed it to spot pattern, and it spots the pattern by itself, does it still count as being told how to do it?

They only work out the consequences of logical statements created by humans. You really need to post something that explains what you are talking about. I don't dispute that computers are impressive but I don't see them as intelligent and there are important areas of human thought that they cannot compete with. Post a link.

They don't call it gut feeling for no reason, as you don't think with your guts. MRI scans shows intuition activate a different area of the brain (caudate nucleus) from the part assocated with conscious thought (cerebral cortex.)

Yes these areas of the brain are correlated with thought but as I have said, correlation is not necessarily causation. The brain = mind hypothesis is mainly being sold on the back of 'correlation is causation' which, by itself, is bad science.

Can something generated from intuition be called knowledge? It's often wrong afterall.

Intuitive insights are usually translated into intellectual terms and maybe sometimes there are mistakes in translation or in interpreting what intuition tells us.

[Bust Nak]

They only work out the consequences of logical statements created by humans.

Figuring a generalised rule like A=A out is more than working out the consequences of logical statements created by humans.

You really need to post something that explains what you are talking about.

Wiki is a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_learning

I don't dispute that computers are impressive but I don't see them as intelligent and there are important areas of human thought that they cannot compete with.

Those areas are rapidly disappearing.

Yes these areas of the brain are correlated with thought but as I have said, correlation is not necessarily causation. The brain = mind hypothesis is mainly being sold on the back of 'correlation is causation' which, by itself, is bad science.

Then all science is bad science, as causation is a philosophical concept and we can only ever observe correlations.

Intuitive insights are usually translated into intellectual terms and maybe sometimes there are mistakes in translation or in interpreting what intuition tells us.

Wait, you are suggesting that intuition is never wrong and any incorrectness that result from following one's intuition, is because of mistakes in execution?

[mgb]

Figuring a generalised rule like A=A out is more than working out the consequences of logical statements created by humans.

On the most basic level it is about sending electrons through logic gates and semiconductors https://whatis.techtarget.com/definitio ... R-and-XNOR. The basis of computing is the remarkable fact that primitive logical statements can be physically configured in digital circuits. To determine if A=A a computer sends electrons through these gates, which are a physical analogue of logic, and the resulting configuration of electrons determines if the result is TRUE or FALSE. That is, if A=A. It is a purely physical process. What amazes me about computers is not so much what they can do but that fact that they function at all. They function because it is possible to make physical analogues of abstract logical statements.

Then all science is bad science, as causation is a philosophical concept and we can only ever observe correlations.

Do a search for "David Hume on causation"...

Wait, you are suggesting that intuition is never wrong and any incorrectness that result from following one's intuition, is because of mistakes in execution?

I don't claim to know how the mind works but I know the mind can see. It can see the order of the world. If mistakes are made there could be all kinds of reasons.

[Bust Nak]

On the most basic level it is about sending electrons through logic gates and semiconductors. The basis of computing is the remarkable fact that primitive logical statements can be physically configured in digital circuits. To determine if A=A a computer sends electrons through these gates, which are a physical analogue of logic, and the resulting configuration of electrons determines if the result is TRUE or FALSE. That is, if A=A. It is a purely physical process. What amazes me about computers is not so much what they can do but that fact that they function at all. They function because it is possible to make physical analogues of abstract logical statements.

Doesn't this amazement give you pause before you announce the relationship from matter to mind is mere correlation?

Do a search for "David Hume on causation"...

I presume you are referring to the problem of induction? Are you actually proposing that all science is bad science?

I don't claim to know how the mind works but I know the mind can see. It can see the order of the world. If mistakes are made there could be all kinds of reasons.

That's neither here or there, can intuition be wrong? If so then what advantages other than speed, does it have over laboriously figuring things out?

[mgb]

Doesn't this amazement give you pause before you announce the relationship from matter to mind is mere correlation?

Not really because mind is so far above physical analogues. The mind does not work in terms of opening and closing millions of logic gates. It does things no computer can even come near. My conviction is that they are operating on very different levels. Computers are physical and are limited by physicality. Minds don't seem to have these limitations.

I presume you are referring to the problem of induction? Are you actually proposing that all science is bad science?

Hume had some intriguing arguments about this. But I believe our perception of cause and effect really does tell us something about the order of the world. However, Hume's argument is a salutary lesson in the dangers of confusing correlation with causation.

That's neither here or there, can intuition be wrong? If so then what advantages other than speed, does it have over laboriously figuring things out?

It is the essence of both mathematical and artistic creativity.

[Bust Nak]

Not really because mind is so far above physical analogues. The mind does not work in terms of opening and closing millions of logic gates. It does things no computer can even come near. My conviction is that they are operating on very different levels. Computers are physical and are limited by physicality. Minds don't seem to have these limitations.

Are all of the above your conviction or just the last three sentences? I ask because I don't see how you can know that the mind is above physical analogues or does not work in terms of opening and closing millions of logic gates, when that's what the brain essentially is. As for things that no computer can even come near, the last great hurdle is consciousness.

Hume had some intriguing arguments about this. But I believe our perception of cause and effect really does tell us something about the order of the world. However, Hume's argument is a salutary lesson in the dangers of confusing correlation with causation.

So apply his argument to this mind brain relationship, why do you thin it is on the wrong side of the line, so to speak?

It is the essence of both mathematical and artistic creativity.

I thought you accepted that brute force is sufficient to do this, even if it does not qualify as intelligent or thinking? Computers can certainly generate rules and patterns that seem to fit the definition of mathematical and artistic creativity.

[mgb]

I don't see how you can know that the mind is above physical analogues or does not work in terms of opening and closing millions of logic gates, when that's what the brain essentially is.

But is the brain a collection of logic gates? I'm not so sure even the brain is computer-like.

So apply his argument to this mind brain relationship, why do you thin it is on the wrong side of the line, so to speak?

I have all kinds of reasons for thinking we exist primarily as spirits, even before physical birth. I think the mind is aware of spiritual reality and God. It is a different order of things altogether.

I thought you accepted that brute force is sufficient to do this, even if it does not qualify as intelligent or thinking? Computers can certainly generate rules and patterns that seem to fit the definition of mathematical and artistic creativity.

It depends on how you define creativity. For me it is insight and a direct awareness of reality. Artistic creativity is about awareness and emotion. Computers are about artificial intellect. These are very different levels of being.

[Bust Nak]

But is the brain a collection of logic gates? I'm not so sure even the brain is computer-like.

How simular do they have to be to warrent the label computer-like? I mean neurons are wire-like with limited amplifier capability, synapses are gate-like.

I have all kinds of reasons for thinking we exist primarily as spirits, even before physical birth. I think the mind is aware of spiritual reality and God. It is a different order of things altogether.

Okay that sounded a lot like your conviction, not sure how that's supposed to cast doubt on the brain = mind hypothesis.

It depends on how you define creativity. For me it is insight and a direct awareness of reality. Artistic creativity is about awareness and emotion. Computers are about artificial intellect. These are very different levels of being.

Let me try a different angle, lets say in the future, we have the technology to simulate in real time, an adult human brain in a computer, cell by cell, molecule by molecule. And lets say the simulation is generating human-like results, passing the Turing test with flying colors, as it were. Is that enough to demonstate scientifically that our consciouness is material?

[mgb]

Let me try a different angle, lets say in the future, we have the technology to simulate in real time, an adult human brain in a computer, cell by cell, molecule by molecule. And lets say the simulation is generating human-like results, passing the Turing test with flying colors, as it were. Is that enough to demonstate scientifically that our consciouness is material?

I don't think so. Even if a computer could be programmed to experience emotion it would only show that there is more than one way to make a human being. They might still be based on different fundamental principles. Not that emotion is programmable anyhow.

I play chess and I have noticed that there are two different kinds of players; one that plays very logically, 'cerebrally', and another that brings great emotion to the game. In the latter case emotion has a huge effect on the way they play. But most players are between these two extremes. This shows that thought is not purely logical; it is a marriage of emotion and logic. So thought and creativity are much more than intellect.


In the current reductivist mindset the materialists are trying to convince everyone that it can all be reduced to scientific laws and atomistic materialism, but I don't believe this...