Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on April 11, 2023, 06:46:58 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Belief in a God is not entirely because of religions. Religions only create images, legends and stories of God and gods. They cannot instill real faith. In fact, real faith leads to religious beliefs and ideas.....which help in forming anthropomorphic deities and images.
Faith is something that arises due to ones direct experience and insight. One feels and realizes the hidden hand of a superior intelligence in ones life.
Most humans seem to have a natural inclination towards faith and a subtle understanding of hidden patterns and influences in our life. I for example, have had it from childhood. But for this natural inclination, we would stop believing in a God regardless of religious teachings.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Belief in a God is not entirely because of religions. Religions only create images, legends and stories of God and gods. They cannot instill real faith. In fact, real faith leads to religious beliefs and ideas.....which help in forming anthropomorphic deities and images.
Faith is something that arises due to ones direct experience and insight. One feels and realizes the hidden hand of a superior intelligence in ones life.
Most humans seem to have a natural inclination towards faith and a subtle understanding of hidden patterns and influences in our life. I for example, have had it from childhood. But for this natural inclination, we would stop believing in a God regardless of religious teachings.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
Nature or nurture? Who knows? Either way it doesn't mean that people's interpretation of experiences is correct or that there is a superior intelligence.
-
It doesn't mean there isn't either. People across the world interpret the experience in similar ways (though the images may be different).
-
It doesn't mean there isn't either. People across the world interpret the experience in similar ways (though the images may be different).
No it doesn't but I hadn't claimed that. People sharing similar experiences tells us nothing about the 'truth' behind those experiences.
-
Yes...I agree it is just our impression and the reality behind it remains unknown. This is however true of all knowledge to a degree. In fact even in scientific 'truths' the reality behind our observations remain unknown.
-
Hi everyone,
Belief in a God is not entirely because of religions. Religions only create images, legends and stories of God and gods. They cannot instill real faith. In fact, real faith leads to religious beliefs and ideas.....which help in forming anthropomorphic deities and images.
Faith is something that arises due to ones direct experience and insight. One feels and realizes the hidden hand of a superior intelligence in ones life.
Most humans seem to have a natural inclination towards faith and a subtle understanding of hidden patterns and influences in our life. I for example, have had it from childhood. But for this natural inclination, we would stop believing in a God regardless of religious teachings.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
While not entirely disagreeing with you Sriram, I think it is much more fundamental than 'religion', 'faith' or 'god'.
I think fundamentally the evolutionary advantage for humans is intelligence and inquisitiveness. Humans don't have strong claws, can't fly, can't run fast etc etc. We have survived because our intelligence and inquisitiveness allows us to work stuff out, to solve problems and to derive solutions that help us survive, breed and pass on that knowledge to the next generation.
And that passage of knowledge requires protection and careful nurturing of offspring - humans are born with the survival ability as some other species have. It takes years for a baby human to attain the knowledge to survive in the world and over those years the young human needs protection as well as learning. Hence the best approach to raising humans is a society - humans are social animals for evolutionary benefit. So complex societal behaviours arise that both protect the tribe and its young but also establish a sense of 'belonging' to that tribe rather than the tribe down the road so to speak.
So where does this lead us in terms of the OP. Well unlike other species if there is something that is apparent through experience, but where the reason why it happens is unknown, the human response will be to try to explain it. Now sometimes that explanation will be correct, but in plenty of other cases it will be a best-case guess in the absence of actual knowledge - hence the sun 'chased through the sky in a golden chariot', hence the thunder being 'the wrath of the gods' etc. Now from an early human perspective it is likely that many explanations for natural phenomena will be anthropomorphised, as the 'human' experience is what they know. So what is created are what might be described as 'explanation myths' - a way to explain things through the prism of the human experience and inadequate actual knowledge.
So where might these 'explanation myths' lead in a tribe or societal group. Well they need to be promulgated, but also can be gently expanded to support the social cohesion of the group and to set one group apart from the other. So the 'explanation myth' that explains thunder as some unseen super-human fighting morphs into those super-humans being powerful, to being 'gods'. And the culture morphs into adopting those 'gods' as their own through promulgating the myth through ritual. So we end up with a society who god will protect as long as they worship the god, and in this way individuals are incentivised to remain part of that tribe, rather than another for fear that the other tribe has no similar protection from the gods.
So I can easily see why the development of myths, leading to religions, faith and belief in self-created gods can arise through evolutionary advantage. But that doesn't mean those myths, religion and faith are true. Further this seems to be a stepping stone to real knowledge, which likely confers still more evolutionary advantage. So understanding that lightning is electricity and being able to use it to heat, light, hunt etc etc is more evolutionarily advantageous than explaining it to be god.
I can see howe the preservation of a societal norm (e.g., but not necessarily a religion) can help with social cohesion in smaller tribe-type situations, but things get much, much more complex when those tribes combine into larger societies that need to determine how to run themselves for a much broader good. And that's where the problems start.
-
That is such a contrived and convoluted explanation. If survival and reproduction are the only criterion ...we would have developed very differently, the way other animals have. Rather, we would have remained at the level of bacteria. Nothing more complex is required.
We can't evolve to be complex beings.....physically weak and unfit to survive.....and then compensate by developing social skills, religious faith and culture to 'survive'. And all this through random variations and 'Natural Selection'! That is ridiculous.
There is obviously something else going on here at a fundamental level, that we don't understand.
-
That is such a contrived and convoluted explanation. If survival and reproduction are the only criterion ...we would have developed very differently, the way other animals have. Rather, we would have remained at the level of bacteria. Nothing more complex is required.
We can't evolve to be complex beings.....physically weak and unfit to survive.....and then compensate by developing social skills, religious faith and culture to 'survive'. And all this through random variations and 'Natural Selection'! That is ridiculous.
There is obviously something else going on here at a fundamental level, that we don't understand.
Nothing ridiculous about that at all. There are many ways lifeforms evolve to pass on their genes and becoming a social animal is one. Nothing obvious going on at a fundamental level.
-
That is such a contrived and convoluted explanation. If survival and reproduction are the only criterion ...we would have developed very differently, the way other animals have.
What do you mean 'the' way that other animals have? Have you looked at the colossal variety of life on just the one planet that we know has life - from things that verge on being on the cusp of whether they're alive or not, like viruses, through plants, fungi, eukaryotes, prokaryotes, bacteria and archaeobacteria, before you even get to the diversity just within the animal kingdom that ranges from cartilaginous fish through to humans. The entire motivation for generating the modern theory of evolution by natural selection was the observation that there are multitude of different expressions of life.
Rather, we would have remained at the level of bacteria. Nothing more complex is required.
Evolution does not drive towards necessity, it merely responds to short-term conditions with selection for immediate fitness.
We can't evolve to be complex beings.....physically weak and unfit to survive.....and then compensate by developing social skills, religious faith and culture to 'survive'.
Wow. So much wrong in such a short paragraph. To paraphrase, Never (perhaps), in the field of human bullshit, has so much error been owed to so few words. Notwithstanding that any attempt to measure 'complexity' immediately falls apart, the idea that humanity is somehow weak and unfit to survive is demonstrable nonsense; there are a number of reasons why humanity hasn't just survived, but flourished and spread to almost all the regions of the planet (and, at least temporarily, beyond it). Developing social skills was not a 'compensation', it was an integral part of our success, just as the pack instincts of creatures like wolves, horses, llamas, dolphins, ants, termites...
And all this through random variations and 'Natural Selection'! That is ridiculous.
You've repeatedly attempted to show how 'ridiculous' the theory of evolution by natural selection is, and repeatedly failed. Whilst it's theoretically possible that there might be some guiding intelligence directly steering evolution throughout history, neither you nor anyone else has given a credible explanation of what form that might take, how it might interact with the rigorously demonstrated process or why the current explanation needs to include the idea as it operates perfectly satisfactorily without it. That you think it ridiculous is a failure not of the theory, but of your understanding: this is just the argument from incredulity.
There is obviously something else going on here at a fundamental level, that we don't understand.
It's not 'obvious' at all. There is nothing observed that the current theory cannot adequately explain. There is no evidence for something more being involved. There's just your lack of acceptance - there is something fundamental going on, but it's not in evolution.
O.
-
That is such a contrived and convoluted explanation.
It is neither contrived nor convoluted.
If survival and reproduction are the only criterion ...
They are in evolutionary terms - evolutionary traits only survive if the individual organisms are able to survive and pass those traits on to their offspring.
we would have developed very differently, the way other animals have.
But animals (and plants, fungi, bacteria etc) have evolved in a huge range of different ways. The key is that these species are able to survive and reproduce to pass on that trait. If they cannot do that (and of course there will be plenty of mutations that are lethal and/or prevent reproduction) then those species won't exist. And if those traits confer evolutionary disadvantage, again those species will disappear.
Rather, we would have remained at the level of bacteria. Nothing more complex is required.
Blimey, you really don't understand evolution. It isn't about 'requirement' - sure a bacteria can survive - but if randomly a new trait arises that allows that species to survive better or survive in a different environment then that trait and that new species will also survive (indeed it may supersede the earlier one). And as we go on we attain an increasing level of diversity of species, the only key element being that each has the ability to survive and pass on those genetic traits.
We can't evolve to be complex beings.....
Of course we can, and we have - the evidence for this is incontrovertible.
physically weak and unfit to survive.....and then compensate by developing social skills, religious faith and culture to 'survive'.
Wrong way around - humans (and a whole bunch of related species) are highly intelligent and highly social and that intelligence and societal structure allows individuals to survive and reproduce despite the fact that they are physically unremarkable. So when we look at human ancestor species they were likely physically far stronger (we see that in related species, e.g. gorillas and chimps) but less intelligent. But the intelligent traits are the ones for our species that confer evolutionary advantage (along with the societal structure to protect young and pass on that learning) so those traits were selected for while physical traits became increasingly less critical. We could have taken a different evolutionary route, and indeed some species did - back to gorillas and chimps. Us than them have all evolved from a common ancestor, and each have traits that confer evolutionary advantage. Sure all are intelligent and social, but for humans the intelligence predominates while for gorillas and chimps there is a greater emphasis on physical traits.
And all this through random variations and 'Natural Selection'! That is ridiculous.
It isn't ridiculous at all - there is so much evidence that the basic mechanism that you describe is beyond any reasonable doubt.
There is obviously something else going on here at a fundamental level, that we don't understand.
Sure, in our anthropocentric world many societies used to think that, but they had no evidence and it was based on ignorance and, to an extent, wishful thinking. Now we have a proper understanding of the basic mechanisms of evolution, which is evidence based. So, no, it is not obvious that there is something else going on at a fundamental level. The evidence doesn't suggest that at all.
-
You are basing your entire argument on random variations. Randomness is just a cop out, not a meaningful explanation.
-
You are basing your entire argument on random variations. Randomness is just a cop out, not a meaningful explanation.
In what sense? In the microscopic they are likely individually caused by something, but they are random in the sense that they do not seem to be part of some overlying consistent mechanism.
O.
-
You are basing your entire argument on random variations. Randomness is just a cop out, not a meaningful explanation.
No it isn't a cop out at all.
We know that when DNA replicates itself that errors occur that are effectively random in nature. We know that a whole variety of external agents can induce genomic mutations that may, or may not, affect the genes that are coded. We know that cells have DNA repair mechanism that do not exhibit 100% fidelity of repair, so errors creep in.
All of these, along with the genetic variation induced by sexual reproduction produce variations in the genome. Some of these variations will be highly detrimental
, in some cases, lethal so will be eradicated. Some will be beneficial and will likely be retained in future generations if they provide a evolutionary benefit. Others still will be neutral, neither beneficial or detrimental and will be retained (or not) dependent on co-transmission with other genetic traits.
And of course some may remain 'dormant' until there is a change in the environmental conditions that may suddenly confer a otherwise neutral trait to be either beneficial or detrimental.
-
Faith is something that arises due to ones direct experience and insight. One feels and realizes the hidden hand of a superior intelligence in ones life.
Most humans seem to have a natural inclination towards faith and a subtle understanding of hidden patterns and influences in our life. I for example, have had it from childhood. But for this natural inclination, we would stop believing in a God regardless of religious teachings.
Sounds like cognitive bias to me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection)
An evolutionary trait that helped people survive in the past.
-
Why should agent detection help us to survive? No animal as far as we know, has this quality, yet billions of them have survived.....
-
Why should agent detection help us to survive? No animal as far as we know, has this quality, yet billions of them have survived.....
Read the wiki article. Agent detection exists in other species, not just homo sapiens. You could think of it as a tendancy to err on the side of caution and posit an intelligent agent is involved in something we do not understand. In humans, this gives us religion as a spandrel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology))
-
Read the wiki article. Agent detection exists in other species, not just homo sapiens. You could think of it as a tendancy to err on the side of caution and posit an intelligent agent is involved in something we do not understand. In humans, this gives us religion as a spandrel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology))
This is what I call a contrived and convoluted explanation And how do you know there isn't any agent given so many events that you dismiss as random.
-
This is what I call a contrived and convoluted explanation.
Whereas an invisible, undetectable, independent intelligence manipulating reality from behind the scenes is neither contrived nor convoluted?
And how do you know there isn't any agent given so many events that you dismiss as random.
In the absolute sense we don't - perhaps can't - know that there isn't an agent, but on the practical level we look for possible causes and when we find explanations that don't require unevidenced magic we test them, and if they work we presume that's the actual case.
O.
-
In the absolute sense we don't - perhaps can't - know that there isn't an agent, but on the practical level we look for possible causes and when we find explanations that don't require unevidenced magic we test them, and if they work we presume that's the actual case.
But I think the point is that there is an evolutionary advantage in assuming that there is an agent as that allows precautions to be taken which can help survival. If there is an agents (e.g. a lion) and you assume there isn't you become the lion's lunch. If there isn't an agent and you presume there is one and therefore take precautions then you survive.
And once unexplained things are evolutionarily presumed to be due to an agent, then that approach will be applied to other unexplained things - e.g. why the sun goes down and then reappears again, why sometimes the sky flashes and has loud noises, why sometimes the earth shakes. And this will be especially true for a species where survival is critically linked to the ability to be inquisitive and work stuff our.
-
What you must realize is that such complex processes happening because of random causes is really...'magic'. If there is an intelligent agent operating behind these complex mechanisms, it is not magic. There would be some intelligent process involved, even if they would probably be beyond our comprehension.
-
What you must realize is that such complex processes happening because of random causes is really...'magic'. If there is an intelligent agent operating behind these complex mechanisms, it is not magic. There would be some intelligent process involved, even if they would probably be beyond our comprehension.
Beyond parody.
Randomness is the very opposite of 'magic'.
And explaining things we don't understand in terms of some supernatural entity that we don't know exists (indeed some claim we can't know exists) directing all this stuff is about the closest thing to 'magic' that you are likely to get.
-
Have you seen the thread on life being a simulation? You think the people who propose that idea are talking of supernatural beings?
-
But I think the point is that there is an evolutionary advantage in assuming that there is an agent as that allows precautions to be taken which can help survival. If there is an agents (e.g. a lion) and you assume there isn't you become the lion's lunch. If there isn't an agent and you presume there is one and therefore take precautions then you survive.
And once unexplained things are evolutionarily presumed to be due to an agent, then that approach will be applied to other unexplained things - e.g. why the sun goes down and then reappears again, why sometimes the sky flashes and has loud noises, why sometimes the earth shakes. And this will be especially true for a species where survival is critically linked to the ability to be inquisitive and work stuff our.
And that inquisitiveness would arise through random causes?
-
But I think the point is that there is an evolutionary advantage in assuming that there is an agent as that allows precautions to be taken which can help survival. If there is an agents (e.g. a lion) and you assume there isn't you become the lion's lunch. If there isn't an agent and you presume there is one and therefore take precautions then you survive.
Oh, absolutely, the evolutionary advantage of selecting for Type 1 errors over Type 2 errors is clear.
And once unexplained things are evolutionarily presumed to be due to an agent, then that approach will be applied to other unexplained things - e.g. why the sun goes down and then reappears again, why sometimes the sky flashes and has loud noises, why sometimes the earth shakes. And this will be especially true for a species where survival is critically linked to the ability to be inquisitive and work stuff our.
But as with so much of human culture we do not need to be slaves to our evolutionary history any longer, surely.
O.
-
What you must realize is that such complex processes happening because of random causes is really...'magic'.
But the process is not random. The process is the precise selection based on fitness of a random distribution of traits - over time it is a highly selective process.
If there is an intelligent agent operating behind these complex mechanisms, it is not magic.
In order for it not to be magic you'd need to be able to suggest a mechanism, and so far all you do is cite personal incredulity and presume intent. You need to establish the mechanism by which this proposed 'intent' gets integrated into the mechanics of a system which is incredibly well-established.
There would be some intelligent process involved, even if they would probably be beyond our comprehension.
In every story of magic I've read there has been a magician.
O.
-
Faith is natural
...so is superstition.
-
Have you seen the thread on life being a simulation? You think the people who propose that idea are talking of supernatural beings?
Yes I have - and my reading of that videos is that it is discussion a philosophical possibility rather than anything which has real scientific validity.
But actually were the argument in that video to be the case it wouldn't lead to 'god' at all - because the argument is about the advance in human-driven technology which attains a level of complexity that it can generate simulated worlds which is completely convincing. There is no place for 'god' within this philosophical argument.
-
If the idea of intelligent beings simulating our universe is convincing....why do you keep referring to supernatural beings?
-
If the idea of intelligent beings simulating our universe is convincing....why do you keep referring to supernatural beings?
Who is this comment directed to Sriram.
No I don't find the idea of intelligent beings simulating our universe convincing. I accept that is might be a vaguely plausible possibility within a philosophical 'thought experiment' context, but I don't find it convincing at all.
-
Who is this comment directed to Sriram.
No I don't find the idea of intelligent beings simulating our universe convincing. I accept that is might be a vaguely plausible possibility within a philosophical 'thought experiment' context, but I don't find it convincing at all.
"the argument is about the advance in human-driven technology which attains a level of complexity that it can generate simulated worlds which is completely convincing".
-
"the argument is about the advance in human-driven technology which attains a level of complexity that it can generate simulated worlds which is completely convincing".
Yes - I know - I watched the video. The person promulgating this argument is a philosopher, not a scientist. It is a philosophical 'thought experiment' type argument, and similar to ones promulgated for years - e.g. how do you know that all other people aren't just creations of our imagination.
But the problem with these arguments is you have to address elements of fundamental physics - not least that much of what we observe in the universe physics tells us has happened billions of years ago. So either a simulation would have to have been running for that long, or it would have to fundamental alter basic physics principles.
So, no I'm not convinced one iota. I accept the possibility of this being the case, however the evidence doesn't not point to the notion that this is somehow likely whatsoever.
-
Yes - I know - I watched the video. The person promulgating this argument is a philosopher, not a scientist. It is a philosophical 'thought experiment' type argument, and similar to ones promulgated for years - e.g. how do you know that all other people aren't just creations of our imagination.
But the problem with these arguments is you have to - not least that much of what we observe in the universe physics tells us has happened billions of years ago. So either a simulation would have to have been running for that long, or it would have to fundamental alter basic physics principles.
So, no I'm not convinced one iota. I accept the possibility of this being the case, however the evidence doesn't not point to the notion that this is somehow likely whatsoever.
In what way does hard solipsism have to 'address elements of fundamental physics'?
-
In what way does hard solipsism have to 'address elements of fundamental physics'?
Because the argument in the video is based on the simulation being simply highly advanced technology created initially by humans or other such intelligence. Hence this isn't something 'outside' the laws of physics, but something bounded by them. It isn't an argument that the universe is created by our mind, but that our mind is presented with a simulation generated by sophisticated technology.
-
Because the argument in the video is based on the simulation being simply highly advanced technology created initially by humans or other such intelligence. Hence this isn't something 'outside' the laws of physics, but something bounded by them. It isn't an argument that the universe is created by our mind, but that our mind is presented with a simulation generated by sophisticated technology.
I didn't ask anything about the video. I asked 'In what way does hard solipsism have to 'address elements of fundamental physics'? - perhaps you could address what was asked?
-
...so is superstition.
Turns out, that was Stevie Wonder.
-
If the idea of intelligent beings simulating our universe is convincing....why do you keep referring to supernatural beings?
Surely this way of thinking just runs into the same problems of infinite regress as 'Goddidit'. If some beings in a higher plane instantiated the reality that we call home, then who instantiated the reality of the simulators ? Beings even more intelligent still ? As an explanation for our world, it is headed in an unfruitful, wrong, direction.
-
You keep bringing up the infinite regress issue as though scientists have a complete and comprehensive answer to the origin of the universe. Infinite regress is always an issue regardless of the theory.
With regard to other points.....if the idea of life being a simulation is acceptable even as a philosophical possibility...then intelligent intervention is automatically relevant in all aspects of life, The idea of a biblical God is not relevant.
Secondly...if life is like a video game, all the laws of physics are only a part of the game and the 'real' world outside the game might have laws entirely different from them and these laws could be beyond our comprehension.
What we regard as the time span of the universe would naturally be only within the game and not 'real' in an absolute sense.
-
I didn't ask anything about the video.
Yet your response included my comment which literally started "Yes - I know - I watched the video." While there was a little sideline into other related issues my comment was primarily about the video as should have been obvious to you. So to ask about things not related to the video is a clear derail. But nonetheless I will humour you - please see my next comment.
-
Yet your response included my comment which literally started "Yes - I know - I watched the video." While there was a little sideline into other related issues my comment was primarily about the video as should have been obvious to you. So to ask about things not related to the video is a clear derail. But nonetheless I will humour you - please see my next comment.
Asking you about what you wrote is not a derail.
-
I asked 'In what way does hard solipsism have to 'address elements of fundamental physics'? - perhaps you could address what was asked?
Which was a derail, but nonetheless here is my response.
As far as I am aware solipsism is the notion that we cannot be sure that anything exists except the mind (and presumably the brain, but that second point isn't really necessary).
So let's take as a starting point that the laws of physics as we understand them remain - then this argument needs to address them. Specifically if the mind exists, what sustains the mind. As this would be an energy-using process where does that energy come from. If the mind is the only thing that exists, it would itself need to be energetically self sustaining - an energetic closed system so to speak. But that makes no sense on the basis that if certain processes in that mind are 'energy consuming' then others must be energy generating at the same rate. Either those second set of processes are part of 'the mind' in which case we should know they exist (solipsism is about the mind and the mind alone existing), so what are they. If they are outside the mind then we have incontrovertible evidence of existence outside of the mind.
If we take it in a slightly softer manner - i.e. we accept the brain - then how is the brain sustained without some level of external input - oxygen, nutrients etc.
So solipsism needs to address these fundamental elements of physics.
Alternatively we could posit that in this alternative reality there are different laws of physics - but this simply begs the questions.
What are those laws of physics
Do we have any evidence to support their existence and critically
How do these laws of physics sustain the processes of the mind without there being anything outside of the mind.
-
Sriram,
Hi everyone,
Belief in a God is not entirely because of religions. Religions only create images, legends and stories of God and gods. They cannot instill real faith. In fact, real faith leads to religious beliefs and ideas.....which help in forming anthropomorphic deities and images.
What is “real” faith as opposed to any other kind?
Faith is something that arises due to ones direct experience and insight. One feels and realizes the hidden hand of a superior intelligence in ones life.
You may think that “Faith is something that arises due to ones direct experience and insight. One feels and realizes the hidden hand of a superior intelligence in ones life” but you’ve yet to provide even the slightest cogent reasoning to indicate that there is a “hand of hidden intelligence” rather than just some unqualified guesses about that.
Most humans seem to have a natural inclination towards faith and a subtle understanding of hidden patterns and influences in our life.
No, “most humans” have a propensity for seeking patterns and explanations and will often accept answers for that purpose that are entirely false – that is, for some a conspiracy theory is better than no theory at all.
I for example, have had it from childhood. But for this natural inclination, we would stop believing in a God regardless of religious teachings.
So you claim. How would you satisfy yourself that you are in fact detecting a “hidden hand” etc at all though rather than just indulging in some wishful thinking?
Just some thoughts.
But ill-considered ones – see above.
-
Sriram,
What is “real” faith as opposed to any other kind?
You may think that “Faith is something that arises due to ones direct experience and insight. One feels and realizes the hidden hand of a superior intelligence in ones life” but you’ve yet to provide even the slightest cogent reasoning to indicate that there is a “hand of hidden intelligence” rather than just some unqualified guesses about that.
No, “most humans” have a propensity for seeking patterns and explanations and will often accept answers for that purpose that are entirely false – that is, for some a conspiracy theory is better than no theory at all.
So you claim. How would you satisfy yourself that you are in fact detecting a “hidden hand” etc at all though rather than just indulging in some wishful thinking?
But ill-considered ones – see above.
I think I have already discussed these points earlier.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/faith/
You can keep dismissing other peoples experiences as imagination or wishful thinking or whatever....but that brings us back to the stubborn blind man's denial of light. So...let us leave it at that. :)
-
Which was a derail, but nonetheless here is my response.
As far as I am aware solipsism is the notion that we cannot be sure that anything exists except the mind (and presumably the brain, but that second point isn't really necessary).
So let's take as a starting point that the laws of physics as we understand them remain - then this argument needs to address them. Specifically if the mind exists, what sustains the mind. As this would be an energy-using process where does that energy come from. If the mind is the only thing that exists, it would itself need to be energetically self sustaining - an energetic closed system so to speak. But that makes no sense on the basis that if certain processes in that mind are 'energy consuming' then others must be energy generating at the same rate. Either those second set of processes are part of 'the mind' in which case we should know they exist (solipsism is about the mind and the mind alone existing), so what are they. If they are outside the mind then we have incontrovertible evidence of existence outside of the mind.
If we take it in a slightly softer manner - i.e. we accept the brain - then how is the brain sustained without some level of external input - oxygen, nutrients etc.
So solipsism needs to address these fundamental elements of physics.
Alternatively we could posit that in this alternative reality there are different laws of physics - but this simply begs the questions.
What are those laws of physics
Do we have any evidence to support their existence and critically
How do these laws of physics sustain the processes of the mind without there being anything outside of the mind.
Interesting points, since we are not discussing God here nothing is at all compromised as it were by my being convinced by it and yet I'm not.
I think it might be that you assume the conclusion.
A mind dependent does not describe the solipsistic mind does it. It assumes the physical mind and explains the solipsistic mind away and so your argument IMHO tends to lose any force.
Of course the solopsistic mind can be seen as a necessary being, It exists, it overcomes true nothingness because of it's necessary existence and it doesn't need anything external to it.......and then you bring your physics in vis the perception of time and change for a succesful challenge to solipcism.
-
Sriram,
I think I have already discussed these points earlier.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/faith/
Which I quickly falsified as drivel, in response to which you just ran away.
You can keep dismissing other peoples experiences as imagination or wishful thinking or whatever....
That’s called a straw man (as you should know by now). I don’t dismiss anyone’s experiences at all – what I actually dismiss is the epistemolgical value of the explanatory narratives some people attach to them.
Try to remember this – it may help you avoid making the same mistake in future.
..but that brings us back to the stubborn blind man's denial of light. So...let us leave it at that.
The “stubborn blind man's denial of light” analogy has been falsified several times here (it's a category error), so I don’t know why you’ve just returned to the same mistake once more. Are you incapable of learning anything?
"A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property...[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake