E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
Name the other options...
...at least two.Tell us where we can observe a universe popping out of nothing.Tell us where we can observe something which is eternal and that is natural.
How many more times?If some choice is not entirely due to all its antecedents, then, to the extent that it isn't, it is for no reason at all - which means that it's, to that extent, random. You can't have something that is not fully due to its causes (not 'pre'determined) and yet fully due to its causes (no randomness) at the same time.
How many more times?
How many more times?Choices are certainly not random.It is all down to the power of consciously driven human will, which I am currently invoking to write this post.
OK. First what you said didn't really make much sense, and what sense I could make of it seems to suggest you've got it backwards. So...The quantum mechanics of a given situation allows us to calculate probabilities, so we have a combination of deterministically defined probabilities and random variation within those probabilities.This is where is seems to be backwards. You seem to think we need the probabilities (and some things happening according to them at exact times) to make atoms stable but, in fact, we calculate the structure of atoms using quantum mechanics and it's the solutions to those equations that give the probabilities.For example, to a first approximation, we model the hydrogen atom as an electron in the electric field of a stationary proton (treating both as point charges) and then set up and solve the Schrödinger equation to find the possible states of the system. It's those solutions that provide us with probability densities. The basic structure of the atom follows from the solutions themselves - that's what defines the various possible 'shells' the election can be in and hence the structure of the atom.I really don't know what you're even trying to say here, and what "indeterminate quantum events" you mean. Of course nothing in QM is entirely random. Again: the theory gives us probabilities in any given situation. The theory itself provides the 'cause' for things to behave in the way they do. There are many strange things about QM but there really is no more mystery about why the laws apply than there is about any other theory.
You seem intent of taking an end result and consciously using your considerable intelligence to think up a possible scenario as to how it could have come about by natural means. You then use this to presume that it did come about by natural means, regardless of the complexity or improbability involved.
I bring up the car (or robot) analogy to highlight the distinction of the Self from the physical entity. You bring up the driverless car analogy claiming that this somehow eliminates the idea of a separate self. I don't think it does. In fact, the driverless car analogy only highlights the possibility of the Self being more remote than in the normal car. I have many times brought up the possibility of an accident caused by the driverless car. Who will be held responsible? The idea of someone being responsible for the car doesn't go away.You are merely making an assertion ....'The self is an emergent mental aspect of the organism not something separate'. It is not necessarily true.
It is what the evidence suggests though, and if we are to be diligent and honest enquirers it behoves us to follow the evidence, not carry on in some fantasy direction regardless.If a self is a separate entity to the physical body it is entwined with, how does it communicate with the body ? If you define it as something immaterial, then you are defining it as something that does not interact with matter, which constitutes a physical body.
Have you read through my 'Evidence' link? Evidence can be quite deceptive. How come we have tons of Dark Matter sitting on our laps and yet have no idea of its existence? How does Dark Matter add to the mass of the universe if it doesn't even interact with normal matter? How does Dark Energy push galaxies apart if it cannot even be felt or detected by us? Questions...questions...!
Have you read through my 'Evidence' link? Evidence can be quite deceptive.
We have evidence for dark matter, indirect evidence. It is measurable, so that allows for constraints on the search for candidate particles. We build detectors and put them in deep mines, because we are following the evidence. We have no evidence for spirit beings attaching themselves to physical bodies, so no evidence to follow there.Even if we allow that matter is conscious, in some sense, that still doesn't lead to the conclusion of a self that is independent of its conscious body, it would merely be a tentative explanation for the phenomenon of consciousness produced in brains. To claim that the heightened form of consciousness arising from conscious matter is separate and independent would be like claiming that the heat given off by a blazing fire is independent of the fire or is not a consequence of combustion. It's not the case that there is invisible heat roaming around waiting for a fire to start so that is can go an embody it somehow. Which is what you seem to be suggesting. My self cannot be independent of me, it makes no sense.
These is just your 'hypothesis'. By no means conclusive. Some of the most common experiences among people of all cultures is about Consciousness or Self being independent of the body. It is an almost universal experience. We even have documented NDE cases to corroborate this hypothesis. The idea is also not difficult to understand because we have many instances like robots, cars where the physical entity and its driving force are independent of each other. You are unnecessarily getting yourself into a tizzy about 'how the Self will connect to body?'...'what is the mechanism?' and so on. We don't need to know these things and perhaps cannot know. The idea of the Self being separate from the body is not at all as bizarre as you think. It is the most universally accepted idea around the world.
Have you read through my 'Evidence' link? Evidence can be quite deceptive. How come we have tons of Dark Matter sitting on our laps
and yet have no idea of its existence?
How does Dark Matter add to the mass of the universe if it doesn't even interact with normal matter?
How does Dark Energy push galaxies apart if it cannot even be felt or detected by us?
What is universal (more or less) is the duality of mind/body, ie we feel that we have a physical body and that we all have a mental inner life, which is not 'physical' in quality but the two aspects of being are sublimely and intimately interwoven into a whole experience. Doubtless that is interpreted by some as if we are two separate beings but that doesn't mean the idea stands up to serious scrutiny and all the evidence from the life sciences suggests that the subjective mental aspects derive intimately from the physical aspects. If you turned up in a modern UK surgery telling your doctor you felt as if your 'self' was disconnected from your body you might be assessed on mental health grounds, it could be a disorder such as Depersonalization Disorderhttps://www.webmd.com/mental-health/depersonalization-disorder-mental-health#1
We can argue about this forever. You cannot prove to me that Consciousness is generated by the brain. I cannot prove to you that it is independent of the body/brain.
We can argue about this forever. You cannot prove to me that Consciousness is generated by the brain.
I cannot prove to you that it is independent of the body/brain.
