Avalanche!

The Avalanche Technique. Another Case Study

We've seen a brief example of this technique before but here's a full blown example.

An Apologist kicks off a debate on scientific materialism, referring to two articles on the subject (which he never refers to again) and also inventing his own rather odd definition of scientific materialism ("mindless mechanical processes"!)

Before long, he's equating science with scientism, and the avalanche begins. Believe it or not - this is less than half the conversation!

Hold tight!

#	Post	Commentary
1	A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
2	Posted by A Christian Apologist   on 22 Mar 2016 at 1:28AM
3	A complaint has been registered over my use of the term "mindless mechanistic processes" to describe the perspective of those who take a fundamentally non-theistic approach to the nature of reality. The more commonly understood term might be the philosophical position of "Scientific Materialism."	There was no complaint, just a request for clarification because I have no idea what a “mindless mechanistic process is”. Apparently it’s apologistese for “scientific materialism” !
4	I must say I was rather disappointed by the lack of response by the non-theists who often post to this board when I inquired whether Blakemore represented their basic position or not. All I heard from was Jim, who merely stated that Blakemore was wrong to think that science will ever replace religion, yet didn't really indicate to what extent he may have shared Blakemore's basic views on the nature of "reality" or not.	For the record I did explain in a separate thread that I agree with some of Blakemore’s opinions, and not others.
5	We've heard from Sheldrake of course on the basic philosophical assumptions underlying the perspective of "scientific materialism".	Ah… Sheldrake. His mistaken ideas were also covered separately. I wonder when we will get to the point?!
6	Here are a couple of more interesting articles on the subject, the first referencing a direct response to Blakemore's perspective as well as claims regarding consciousness and the second a further critique of the philosophy of scientific materialism:	At last!
7	http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/27/philosophy-consciousness-religion-science http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainly-false/	Hmm… Pretty good articles. Neither of them refer to mindless processes or whatever. But never mind.
8
9	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
10	Posted by JimC   on 22 Mar 2016 at 7:24AM
11	I didn't see a complaint, but I did say I've never understood what you mean by "mindless processes" and I asked you for a real life example of a process that is not mindless, and for comparison, a process that is mindless so that I can see the difference. Could you do that for me please? You now say that "mindless mechanical processes" is not actually a reference to processes but it is equivalent to "scientific materialism" and that is a term I recognise. My issue with scientific materialism is that it is pretty much the same as scientism, and in particular it attempts to explain aspects of the mind that are unfalsifiable or not defined, or possibly not definable at all. So how can it explain them? As for Blakemore, I'm not sure what his approach to reality is, so I don't know if it's the same as mine. In the article you provided he was arguing that science would eliminate religion and disprove the existence of God and as I said, I think that's nonsense because again it smacks of scientism. I think you and I both agree that if something is unfalsifiable it is not within the remit of science. The two opinion pieces you've provided here are rather good I think.
12	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
13	Posted by A Christian Apologist   on 22 Mar 2016 at 11:53PM
14	The term "Scientific Materialism" does indeed carry some extraneous baggage in its definition, hence my offering of my own term--"mindless mechanistic processes"--for those who believe that the forces of "nature"--or the "cosmos"--or anything outside of the "intentional" purposes of those possessed with a human/animal mind (and perhaps not even there)--rely on forces/processes unguided by intelligent purpose and form the basis for what we perceive as "reality."	Still no comparison between a mindless process and a process that is not mindless, but never mind.
15	Nonetheless, apart from its triumphalist presuppositions that lead to "Scientism", "Scientific Materialism" as a concept still seems to provide the philosophical basis for the non-theistic approach to the nature of "reality" that I see being proffered by those who generally agree with your perspective--and, as noted, such opinions as posited often do cross the line into "Scientism" as well.	So much for scientific materialism. The subject now appears to be “scientism” which is certainly not an approach I agree with.  What scientism actually means is the assumption that science can be the only source of knowledge, where all knowledge can be reduced to that which is measurable. This is obviously a bogus idea, as Karl Popper (among many others) pointed out.
16	Just off the top of my head what I see as Blakemore's perspective is: 1.     Biological life is the result of processes unguided by conscious intelligent input. 2.     Life itself is a chemical process. 3.     There is no "why" or purpose to existence. 4.     The "free will" necessary to make conscious choices is itself an illusion. 5.     Our choices are only what our brain has already decided to do. 6.     Even "religious" feelings have a biological source. 7.     Basically, all "natural" forces are chemical and mechanical.	The Apologist seems to have lost all interest in the two articles he provided – I thought they were the whole point of the post. Never mind! I assume the apologist can’t be bothered to quote Blakemore and has just made up some bullet points. The language is not like Blakemore’s - For example “biological life” is a tautology. What’s the difference between “biological life” and “life”?
17	So--which of the above do you subscribe to and which do you not? By "you" of course I hope to address all members who participate here and note all perspectives.	“Subscribe”. LOL.
18	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
19	Posted by JimC   on 23 Mar 2016 at 12:01AM
20	I'm afraid your own term of "mindless mechanical processes" only confuses the issue. If we stick to known philosophical concepts it makes conversation much easier! Anyway I think we both agree that scientific materialism / scientism is not going to get anyone anywhere. Regarding your bullet points my response to each one is: - probably - no it isn't - yes there is - makes sense - makes sense - probably - no
21	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
22	Posted by A Christian Apologist   on 23 Mar 2016 at 12:04AM
23	Thanks for your input! Care to elaborate?	I thought it was obvious. Maybe not. I suspect this is going to get confusing.
24	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
25	Posted by JimC   on 23 Mar 2016 at 12:16AM
26	Pick a point that you'd like me to elaborate on and I will try.
27	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
28	Posted by A Christian Apologist   on 23 Mar 2016 at 12:32AM
29	How about all of them?	Oh God. <deep breath>
30	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
31	Posted by JimC   on 23 Mar 2016 at 8:07AM
32	Let's start with the first one. Note that I'm allergic to tautologies i.e. "biological life" and "conscious intelligent" so...
33	Q1 Is life the result of processes unguided by intelligent input?
34	Probably, but not necessarily. We can design, modify and create life, and it is difficult to tell the difference between a living thing that is the result of "intelligent input" (e.g. IVF, genetic modification, hormone therapy, selective breeding, etc.) and a living thing that developed naturally. The banana is a classic example.	In retrospect might be a bit of a crap answer because I think he probably meant the origin of all life on earth, rather than the subsequent development of life.
35
36	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
37	Posted by A Christian Apologist   on 29 Mar 2016 at 12:05AM
38	They're not "tautologies," Jim. Biological life and non-biological life may both exist--in fact, for something we would recognize as life to exist even on another planet would make it "non-biological" from a terrestrial perspective, much less any other manifestation of consciousness and intelligence--and also "consciousness" and "intelligence" are separate matters as well.	Yes they are. If there’s life on other planets, there’s no reason to assume it’s “non-biological”. Or maybe the apologist is referring to the existence of life produced by technology? Robots?
39	It has not been demonstrated that life has been "created" from scratch by non-living, unconscious processes, and your assertion is false.	OK – he is referring to abiogenesis after all.
40	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
41	Posted by JimC   on 29 Mar 2016 at 12:10AM
42	Life on another planet would not be "non-biological" just because it lives on another planet. It would be extra terrestrial, but it could still be biological. Non biological life would be life that is not biological, such as a robot - and the debate then is whether a robot is "alive". It's quite hard to define life.
43	And I agree that the creation of life "from scratch" has not been replicated in a laboratory. But there's a lot of evidence that life did occur in nature form inert chemicals, over 4 billion years ago, hence my answer "probably but not necessarily".
44	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
45	Posted by A Christian Apologist   on 4 Apr 2016 at 1:29AM
46	Again Jim, please don't ask us to take your word uncritically that such is the case--what is the evidence that life occurred from "inert" chemicals, rather than from matter in some sense imbued with consciousness?	I thought the theory of abiogenesis was well known, but maybe not. Here goes…
47	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
48	Posted by JimC   on 4 Apr 2016 at 7:07AM
49	One source of evidence is the record we observe in ancient rocks. We see the progressive appearance of simple inert chemistry, then more complex chemistry, then organic chemistry, then biology, then Mick Jagger, and so on. Or put it another way, we see the progressive appearance of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, amino acids, proteins, RNA, DNA, cells, brown sugar, and so on.	Mick Jagger. Brown Sugar. You see Brown Sugar was a song by the rolling… …never mind.
50	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
51	Posted by A Christian Apologist   on 8 Apr 2016 at 1:07AM
52	Your assumption is that such was directly responsible for life rather than being a byproduct of such.	Er… what?
53	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
54	Posted by JimC   on 8 Apr 2016 at 7:25AM
55	That's not my assumption. That's a statement you've made up so you can refute it. Each of those steps in the process is the result of the previous step. There is no evidence of life before those steps, hence no evidence that they are the by-products of life, but significant evidence that they led to the emergence of life.
56	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
57	Posted by A Christian Apologist   on 11 Apr 2016 at 2:04AM
58	Again, for evidence you are referring to chemical traces left in rocks--nothing more or less. Rocks wouldn't be expected to show anything more than chemical traces, nor to define the origin of whatever left those traces. You are asking us to accept that those chemical traces demonstrate and define life itself rather than being a byproduct of such, and chemical traces left in rocks cannot make that distinction.	I’m not following this. Of course rocks can show signs of organic life, anything from dinosaur bones to imprints of leaves or insects or even ancient bacteria.  Perhaps he’s not aware of how rocks are formed?
59	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
60	Posted by JimC   on 11 Apr 2016 at 8:29AM
61	Those chemical traces and the sequence in which they appear and then life subsequently appears, are evidence. They can't be a by product of life if life didn't exist. I didn't say they "define life itself" - I said they provide the evidence on how living things came into existence, step by tiny step over billions of years.
62	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
63	Posted by A Christian Apologist   on 15 Apr 2016 at 12:59AM
64	You say that chemical traces provide evidence of how life came to be without making that case!	It’s a pretty obvious case that hardly needs making, if one looks at the evidence.
65	An alternative explanation--that life, which came into existence through forces yet to be accounted for and left those traces as life continued to develop in complexity--is equally valid.	A weird idea that I suppose could be true, but this idea has no evidence at all to support it. How can ancient RNA or proteins and so on be by-products of life? What kind of life is he assuming roamed the earth 4 billion years ago?
66	Again, you would have us uncritically accept your view that life came into existence through mindless physical/chemical processes, to which you provide chemical/physical evidence in support of such--classic circular reasoning!	Oh dear. It’s those mindless processes again. Circular reasoning?  I’m just providing a list of the evidence.
67	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
68	Posted by JimC   on 15 Apr 2016 at 6:33AM
69	Your idea, like any idea, could of course be true, but I don't see any evidence to support it - i.e. there's no evidence of life before the existence of the components I described, which themselves appear in a specific sequence over time. If we go by the evidence we see a clear timescale with the appearance of inert chemicals, proteins, RNA, DNA, cells, microbes, simple organisms and so on, increasing in complexity and sophistication until eventually, over an unimaginable 4 billion years, Donald Trump appears.
70	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
71	Posted by A Christian Apologist   on 18 Apr 2016 at 12:19AM
72	It isn't a matter of "no evidence of life before the existence of the components" you described--the issue is your interpretation of that evidence!	Sort of true – a theory explains evidence.
73	What we know--or believe--is that early life existed and left chemical traces--period! You're asking us to believe that those chemical traces define that early life and are responsible for it!	I suppose it did – bones and excrement and footprints and so on. But that’s not the evidence I’m talking about.  And why does he keep saying those chemical traces “define life”? I never said that!
74	I could drop dead at any moment and there would undoubtedly be chemical traces left of my formerly living body, but you cannot reanimate me and/or create a living simulacrum of me merely from those chemical traces, nor claim or demonstrate that such chemicals in and of themselves can form a living being!	That’s true. And a dead apologist will leave some biological evidence for future scientists to discover. But there’s no such evidence 4 billion years ago.
75	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
76	Posted by JimC   on 18 Apr 2016 at 7:24AM
77	I don't follow your argument. The chemicals I referred to existed before life existed. You can't say life left those chemical traces. How could life have left those traces if it didn't exist at the time?
78	Perhaps theoretically you could be reanimated from your component molecules, or maybe cloned post mortem from your DNA, but they are completely different processes to the origin of life which is what we are discussing. The chemicals and conditions present 4 billion years ago didn't combine to form a person. All they could do was form very simple molecules which gradually became more complex over billions of years, through the processes of evolution.
79	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
80	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 22 Apr 2016 at 1:09AM
81	How does the fact that those chemicals existed first prove cause and effect? I leave chemical traces wherever I go. Those chemicals are older than I am--but you can't make a case for those chemicals "creating" me.	“prove”? Who said anything about proof? And who said chemicals created the apologist? That’s a straw man.
82	Nobody is arguing that our bodies aren't made up of chemicals, nor that chemicals weren't part of the "bodies" of the earliest life forms. What hasn't been ascertained is the circumstances and mechanism in which life came about and developed.	Nothing’s been “ascertained” – that’s true. We are discussing a theory. Or we were. I’m getting confused.
83	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
84	Posted by JimC  on 22 Apr 2016 at 7:41AM
85	The existence of the clues doesn't "prove" cause and effect. It provides the evidence which is explained by theories of how life began. You do indeed leave chemical traces but you didn't exist 4 billion years ago so you were not responsible for those traces.
86	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
87	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 25 Apr 2016 at 2:08AM
88	Yet you fail to provide evidence of how life "constructs" itself on its own from those chemicals. Without such evidence what you refer to as "theories" of how life began are merely hypotheses.	Life doesn’t “construct itself” – that’s just another straw man.  This statement also confuses “evidence” with “theory”. The chemicals, proteins, etc. are the evidence and the explanation is the theory. It’s disappointing that I have to explain that repeatedly.
89	You are the one trying to make a case that chemical trace remains are indicative of life forming in a certain way without intelligent guidance. Again, chemical traces in and of themselves demonstrate nothing in that regard.	It’s not the chemicals in isolation but rather the sequence in which they appear. They are laid down in rocks in a particular timeline.  Why am I having to explain this?
90	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
91	Posted by JimC  on 25 Apr 2016 at 6:53AM
92	I did provide evidence which supports the explanation of how primitive life came to exist, and how all subsequent life (including us) evolved from it, and that explanation of course includes hypotheses and theories. This information is widely available. Coincidentally I was just reading about new biogenic evidence that pushes the first appearance of life on Earth even further back than previously thought. Let me know if you're interested.
93	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
94	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 25 Apr 2016 at 7:15AM
95	I realize that you have faith in this being the case, but all you offer is chemical traces and presume that they somehow ordered themselves or otherwise were the result of forces unguided by intelligence and will, but that again ignores the reality of the existence of intelligence in the first place and what role intelligence and consciousness may have played in the process--unless, of course, you consider intelligence, consciousness and will to be matters unique to our tiny speck of cosmic dust in the entire universe. If it exists here, it is reasonable to assume it exists elsewhere, even in a hyper sense permeating all of what we perceive to be "reality."	The existence of intelligence “in the first place?” There’s no evidence of intelligence existing on earth 4 billion years ago.  And why should anyone assume life is unique on earth? Maybe it is maybe not. The possibility of life on other planets is a whole new topic. Hyper sense permeating all of what we perceive… oh dear.  <sigh>
96	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
97	Posted by JimC  on 25 Apr 2016 at 8:27AM
98	I don't have faith in that being the case. All I'm presenting is a theory which explains the evidence. I don't know what you mean when you say "the reality of existence in the first place" because there's no evidence of intelligence or consciousness "in the first place.” There is evidence that intelligence and consciousness appeared perhaps as early as insects, and has evolved over an unimaginable length of time since then. So the evidence shows a process over time with a sequence that goes: sub atomic particles - elements - molecules - organic molecules - simple organisms - more complex organisms - intelligence - consciousness.
99	Of course, that's an over simplification because arguably a simple organism has intelligence. But you seem to require intelligence to exist at the start of the process, and there's no evidence of that.
100	Using your logic, if that's the process that existed here, then it's reasonable to assume it existed elsewhere. But we won't know until we find traces of life on other planets.
101	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
102	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 28 Apr 2016 at 12:08AM
103	Do you believe the "theory" has any merit?	Well yeah because it provides an explanation that fits the evidence.
104	Again you appeal to that model as if it were "fact" or even "theory" rather than hypothesis! What you claim to be a "theory" offers no explanation whatsoever of how "molecules" become "organic molecules.	But the theory does explain how molecules become organic molecules. Perhaps I need to provide some links to the specific detail of the theory. Can’t help thinking this should be on the science db. Ho hum.
105	A hypothesis may fit the evidence yet not explain it, and that is all you offer.	That makes no sense. A hypothesis is an explanation. I think what he means is a hypothesis provides an explanation he doesn’t accept.
106	You presume a transition from "molecules" to "organic molecules" that has never been demonstrated--at least not demonstrated to have occurred through processes unguided by intelligent input!	Actually, individual steps in the process have been demonstrated.
107	Again, because of your a priori philosophical bias, you presume that unconscious, non-intelligent processes can create "consciousness". There is no demonstrable evidence for that. Neither is there evidence that un-intelligent, unguided, non-organic processes can lead to life at all, much less complex life.	Oh boy… another new topic. And again confusing evidence with theory. He seems unaware of the concept of consciousness as an emergent property.
108	Neither is there evidence that unintelligent, non-guided forces can manipulate non-intelligent matter into something with consciousness, self-awareness, abstract thinking, values, preferences, etc. or conceptualize things like color, or how one perceives something or even "feels" about something actually affecting a physical outcome.	Confusing evidence and theory again. Consciousness, perceptions and awareness are all evidence.  The parts of the brain which provide vision are evidence. Emergent properties are evidence. The appearance of consciousness as an emergent property is a theory.
109	However, if "matter" is in some way imbued with consciousness--or for that matter if "matter" itself is an illusion and all that we experience is from a hyper-conscious "mind"--the model fits what we perceive to be the reality of the situation much better .	Eh? I suppose hyper conscious whatever is a hypothesis but it doesn’t fit any better. In fact it’s worse because it introduces new concepts that haven’t been explained.
110	Even a single example of existence of life on other planets  would pretty much shoot down your hypotheses of consciousness being a result of specific processes in the human/animal brain and the biochemical reactions involved in such.	Surely the opposite is true? If there’s life on other planets it would have to display intelligence because intelligence is an attribute of life.
111	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
112	Posted by JimC  on 28 Apr 2016 at 7:23AM
113	Explanations of how molecules become organic molecules, and how life emerged from inert chemicals, are easily available if you look for them. Coincidentally, yesterday's edition of New Scientist is devoted to this very topic. It's subscription only but I can put the content on the blog site and share it with you if you promise not to report me for copyright infringement. I will do that over the weekend.
114	The theory that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain is based on the evidence provided by brains (of all species) and the existence of consciousness. Perceptions, feelings, values, preferences etc. are essential to survival (of any species). That's how a living thing models the world around it. The more sophisticated the brain, and the more information that is captured, the more sophisticated the perceptions. Your reference to a "hyper conscious mind" doesn't seem to explain anything. Can you give a specific example of something which can be explained by that hypothesis?
115	It is reasonable to assume, I think, that if life can emerge from inert chemicals on this planet then it should happen on other planets with similar conditions. A single example of life elsewhere would demonstrate that the process that gave rise to life is not unique to this planet. Studying that life would give us more clues on the origin of life. Studying the consciousness of that life would give us more clues on the nature of consciousness. Having said that we are still learning a lot about consciousness by studying different species on Earth. It seems from recent discoveries that even insects have consciousness. You can't assume an idea will be "shot down" by new information until we know what that information is.
116	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
117	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 29 Apr 2016 at 12:38AM
118	Note what has to be demonstrated, Jim: organic life developing from inorganic material WITHOUT INTELLIGENT INPUT OR GUIDANCE--rather hard when experimentation/verification is under human control. The laboratory conditions would have to have been completely sterile--not the slightest trace of organic life present to contaminate the experiment, and a recreation as close as possible to what conditions were like a billion or two or three years ago, depending on the premise of when such first appeared. That should be quite interesting, I agree.	Some truth in this - Recreating the original conditions is a problem mainly because we don’t know what the conditions were 4 billion years ago.
119	The theory that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain explains nothing from the perspective of one who assumes that humans are basically programmed robots.	Explains nothing? The theory explains what it explains. I presume the reference to “robots” has something to do with free will. Are we going to get yet another new topic thrown into the thread? It’s increasing in size exponentially!
120	Here's a bit more candid presentation of the overall problem of consciousness: "Why on earth should all those complicated brain processes feel like anything from the inside? Why aren’t we just brilliant robots, capable of retaining information, of responding to noises and smells and hot saucepans, but dark inside, lacking an inner life? And how does the brain manage it? How could the 1.4kg lump of moist, pinkish-beige tissue inside your skull give rise to something as mysterious as the experience of being that pinkish-beige lump, and the body to which it is attached?" https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/-sp-why-cant-worlds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness	Good questions – all of which have explanations. But of course, the detailed study of how the mind works is a very new discipline – about 20 years old - and has a long way to go.
121	Or for those more technically inclined: "The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience." "It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does." http://consc.net/papers/facing.html	This is good stuff. Chalmers is a leader in the field. And Nagel! I love Nagel! But again, as with the previous point, there are explanations for many of these things. And even if there are currently no explanations, so what? I don’t see why science is obliged to explain everything before April 2016. This thread seems to have degraded into a rant against science in general. Pity. Anyway, the Apologist seems to have shot his own argument down in flames… “Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does."
122	The concept of a "hyper conscious mind" explains consciousness that transcends human limitations and responds to other forms of consciousness in ways that transcend human experiences. How that functions we really wouldn't know because it would be beyond our experience and ability to fathom. My point was that if consciousness in some form permeates everything--or if, indeed, "consciousness" is the ultimate reality with "material" being illusory--speculatively speaking, hyperconsciousness in one form or another would seem to be likely to exist."	Does it? I don’t see how it can if there’s no explanation of what a “hyper conscious mind” is. I don’t see how something that’s not explained qualifies as the basis of an explanation. What is “hyperconsciousness”?
123	Your assumption that life can emerge from inert chemicals again, of course, rests on chemicals being "inert" and somehow being capable of organizing themselves into something living without intelligent direction or guidance.	Well it depends how we define inert I suppose. But I didn’t say chemicals “organise themselves”. They don’t have a self. And it’s not that they are “organising” – they are simply combining. And when chemicals combine, things can happen.
124	By "shot down" I am of course referring to the narrow parameters in which you yourself have chosen to define the nature of consciousness as only an emergent property of the human/animal (and now insect) brain, arising from the combination of inert chemicals as a result of non-intelligent, unguided forces.	“only” an emergent property? Why “Only”? Consciousness as an emergent property is an explanation. I don’t understand the objection. Is the theory too simple perhaps? Doesn’t Occam’s Razor imply the simplest explanation is often the best?
125	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
126	Posted by JimC  on 29 Apr 2016 at 1:43AM
127	You are right that to verify the theories of the origin of life would require some kind of experiment to reproduce the process. And such experiments are ongoing. It's a difficult challenge because the initial conditions on earth that gave rise to life are unknown (they are far more complex than the "warm little pond" Darwin imagined. And it's not single process, it's a very complex chain of events and each part of that chain has to be unravelled. But there has been a lot of progress, and you can read about it here... http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/origin-of-life-dawn-of-living.html
128	You also question the assumption regarding "inert chemicals" which become organised into something more complex, which itself becomes more complex, and so on and so on for billions of years. That does appear to be the best explanation for the evidence. You can read more in the link above, and also here... http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/origin-of-life-inevitable-fluke-or-both.html
129	The question of robots and consciousness/awareness is an interesting one. I don't agree with your label of "programmed robots" because our brains are constantly reprogramming, every second, and we are not manufactured. Also, I think it's reasonable to assume that as robots (or rather computers which act as their brain) become more sophisticated they will develop consciousness. The basic principle of how the brain (or a computer) can give rise to consciousness is that it is an emergent property. See 1.4.4 here http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/rgfsmcl-025.html But of course the discovery of the detail of how that happens is very much in its infancy, very much the newest of all the sciences.
130	By the way, I thought the paper from Chalmers was very good, albeit 20 years old.
131	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
132	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 29 Apr 2016 at 3:21AM
133	Unless you can provide convincing evidence rather than a hypothesis, I would prefer a less biased source that does not begin with the presumption that life began through the processes that you preconceive it to have been the case, thanks all the same!	Oh dear. Confusing the terms again. The hypothesis explains the evidence.
134	The scientific explanation is interesting, but again purely speculative. It may contain bits of truth, especially once some forms of life develop, but if one again begins with a presumption of life forming through non-intelligent, non-guided interaction involving inert chemicals, the whole concept may be a house of cards.	It seems fair to me to begin with the simplest assumptions. Why assume the existence of a hyper intelligence or whatever, if such a thing is not required?
135	I realize that as computers become more sophisticated they will develop consciousness is a matter of faith for you, since it is certainly a matter that has not been demonstrated.	Faith? It’s just a reasonable assumption given the evidence of the growing sophistication of computers. But it might not be true. We will have to wait and see.
136	I looked at 1.4.4 in http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/rgfsmcl-025.html and all that was offered was a counter-hypothesis, not "evidence."	A “counter hypothesis?” It’s a hypothesis. And a hypothesis is not evidence. It explains evidence. Why is that such a hard concept for the apologist to grasp?
137	Everything I have been saying is correct: all you are offering is speculation regarding another hypothetical viewpoint!	Actually most of what he’s been saying is wrong or unintelligible, but of course it’s theoretical. Explanations based on hyper intelligent whatnots are also theoretical.
138	I don't see anything proffered that counters points made by Chalmers and certainly nothing that resolves the "hard problem" of consciousness.	Well, there have been some significant developments since he gave his famous lecture and coined the concept of “the hard problem of consciousness” – but I think the apologist missed the point where Chalmers says… “Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does."
139	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
140	Posted by JimC  on 29 Apr 2016 at 6:40AM
141	You are right that to verify the theories of the origin of life would require some kind of experiment to reproduce the process. And such experiments are ongoing. It's a difficult challenge because the initial conditions on earth that gave rise to life are unknown (they are far more complex than the "warm little pond" Darwin imagined). And it's not a single process, it's a very complex chain of events and each part of that chain has to be unravelled. But there has been a lot of progress, and you can read about it here... http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/origin-of-life-dawn-of-living.html and also I've added a new one here... http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-history-of-life-genesis-revisited.html	It occurs to me that this conversation started from a discussion of the first point of six points. We’re still on the first point. LOL
142	Just to clarify definitions... evidence is factual information (e.g. a fossil), and a hypothesis explains the evidence.
143	The question of robots and consciousness/awareness is an interesting one. I don't agree with your label of "programmed robots" because our brains are constantly reprogramming, every second, and we are not manufactured. Also, I think it's reasonable to assume that as robots (or rather computers which act as their brain) become more sophisticated they will develop consciousness. BTW It's bizarre that you consider my assumption to be a matter of faith. It's just speculation that could be wrong.
144	The basic principle of how the brain (or a computer) can give rise to consciousness is that it is an emergent property. See 1.4.4 here http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/rgfsmcl-025.html for an explanation but also see the excellent paper from Chalmers http://consc.net/papers/facing.html although beware it is 20 years old which is a long time in neuroscience! Note the distinction between the "easy" and "hard" problems of consciousness which I explained here over two years ago. For a reminder, see 1.1.1 here http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/rgfsmcl-025.html
145	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
146	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 29 Apr 2016 at 7:32AM
147	I don't need your definition of a hypothesis, Jim. I could just as readily posit that fossils are the evidence and that God guided the creation of all of them as a hypothesis, and we would be back to square one.	Well it’s not my definition, but some progress here. Yes fossils are evidence and yes God’s guided creation or whatever, is a hypothesis. So that’s good!
148	Of course there is research proceeding along certain lines, and of course such research will always yield data--but again, what doers that "prove" or even "demonstrate"? Whatever evidence that is ultimately offered will be evidence limited to the parameters and purview of the research itself, inviting circular reasoning. Evidence from multiple purviews and perspectives need to be considered to provide evidence with a stronger basis of credibility.	Oh no! It’s not evidence that’s offered – it’s explanations that are offered! Evidence and explanation mixed up again.  I thought he’d got it. Arrgh!
149	You're the one referring to humanity in robotic terms, Jim, not me. When you state that something not demonstrated to be the case is "reasonable to be assumed" to be the case, you are making a faith statement, purely and simply, whether you refer to it as "speculation that could be wrong" or not.	Except I didn’t. And yet another new topic thrown into the mix – this time it’s faith. I don’t know if this lack of focus is a deliberate attempt to avoid the topic or just a lack of discipline. Either way it does make it difficult to have a sensible conversation. Anyway, saying it’s reasonable to assume something is not a “faith statement.” It’s the exact opposite.  It’s being clear that a statement is an assumption and therefore not necessarily true.
150	I'm not going to do your legwork for you, Jim--state your points as they relate to this discussion clearly and directly and stop using numbers in links which allow you to claim "that's not what I mean" when confronted with specifics!	What? I’m just linking back to what’s already been posted by the Apologist!  I think it’s me that’s doing the legwork here! LOL
151	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
152	Posted by JimC  on 29 Apr 2016 at 8:08AM
153	You begin promisingly - Fossils are indeed evidence, and the hypothesis that God created life is one explanation of that evidence. The next step is verification. How can we verify that hypothesis so it becomes a theory? But then you disappoint me by referring to evidence as being limited or coming from "multiple purviews". It's the hypotheses that are limited or come from "multiple purviews" - not the evidence. A fossil is evidence because it's a fact.
154	I think what you're saying is that if I "reasonably assume something to be true" and you disagree with my opinion, then I'm using faith. But if you agree with my opinion, I'm not. Is that right? Do you really think speculation requires faith? That seems a very odd definition of faith to me.
155	I don't know what you mean about legwork - I've done all the legwork, and published it. You seem to forget most of what I tell you, so linking to what I've told you over the years saves a lot of time and long repetitive posts. If you find something specific in my explanation which is not clear, we can discuss that specific point. BTW one of the links was provided by you. Did you forget?
156	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
157	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 30 Apr 2016 at 1:19AM
158	The problem of course is, once again, the limited information that can be gleaned through "verification" processes. If you confine research to what can be "verified" through a field of study with its own limited scope, you will only get results which fall within that limited scope.	OMG… He’s launched yet another new topic. His posts are like a virus, spreading exponentially until an entire population is infected and dies. “Limited information”? Surely if something is verified that’s very useful information. What does he mean?
159	If one then states that one has "proven" that "a" causes "b" because "b" has been observed to result from "a", you are only making a simple observation which may or may not provide an insight that can be generalized. The observation tells us nothing about what inherent properties in "a" caused "b" to happen--only that a certain event was observed to have happened	Er… who would ever make assumptions like that? And why refer to “proof”? The thread has degenerated into misstatements about science which I have to correct. So… one might predict that “a” will cause “b” because of reason “c” and then verify that prediction. But one would also devise experiments to test other causes. Gravity is a good example. Newton found an explanation “c” which described “a” and “b” but Einstein’s explanation (let’s call it “d”) was better.
160	So even if science were to make a spectacular breakthrough (doubtful, but for the sake of argument let's go with it) that "life" was observed to have emerged from something considered to be non-living, what does that really tell us?	Well, it tells us that the theory has been verified. But as with any theory, it could be wrong and a better one might come along in the future.
161	Perhaps the "non-living" matter had indeed been imbued with a primitive life force that became observable as "life" as we experience "life", even though the life force was there all along, but in a form that we were unable to recognize. So--long and short of the matter--that'as why I suggest studying such matters from multiple purviews and perspectives to try to ascertain the extent and depth of what may have been observed to have taken place.	Maybe, but again it’s not helpful to invent an explanation based on a concept such as “primitive life force” when that concept itself has no explanation. How can anyone study a made up concept that’s not even defined?
162	You are either deliberately misrepresenting the matter or are genuinely unable to recognize what is taking place! What I think of your opinion versus what you think of your opinion is an entirely different issue. You are relying on faith for anything that you place trust or confidence in on any level if the matter has not been proven--beyond the possibility of doubt--to be true. You--who make unsupported statements all the time that you ask us to believe in "on the basis of your word"--ought to understand that, surely!	And off we go in yet another direction – the definition of the word “faith”. The apologist likes to equivocate the two different meanings. My level of confidence in an explanation is based on the quality of the explanation. No faith required!
163	When I provide links I generally also quote directly from them, referring to the link as my source. I'm tired of playing your game of you only referring us to a link in your blog as an "explanation," then if we respond to such you deny that what we understand from your blog represents your position, the "free will" discussion being a good example of such. Your blogs are full of vague and contradictory assertions and unsupported statements, as I pointed out in deconstructing a couple a while back. I still have snapshots of them if you'd like me to refresh your memory! So again: for purposes of discussion here state directly and candidly what your position is on the matter under discussion--copy and paste directly from your blog if you find that convenient--just provide a concrete statement of what you mean and what you are asserting and are willing to defend! Thanks for understanding	Oh dear. I seem to have touched a raw nerve. Seems he doesn’t like following links to read previously posted material, he’d rather have thousands of words pasted into the db, multiple times.
164	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
165	Posted by JimC  on 30 Apr 2016 at 8:24AM
166	I don't like the word "proven" because I don't think there is such a thing as absolute proof, outside of mathematics. As I've explained 756 times previously, the world is modelled by theories which explain evidence. I don't know why you can't grasp this concept. Your example that one has "proven" that "a" causes "b" because "b" has been observed to result from "a" and so on is an utterly ridiculous example you've invented in order to refute. Try giving a real life example instead of making stuff up! Then you introduce the concept of a "primitive life force" as a means to explain the transition of inert chemicals to living organisms. That's a very ancient idea actually, but let's say you've created this hypothesis so the next step is to test it, in this case, to discover the "primitive life force". Where would you start? Your argument about faith again relies on the false equivocation between the different, contradictory definitions of the word. I refer you to our previous conversation (four years ago this very week!) http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/faith-facts.html I don't know why you need snapshots of the blog given that the blog exists. But if it ever disappears you might be able to provide me with a useful backup so I will bear that in mind. I'm sorry you think it's full of vague and contradictory assertions, but if you can't give an example then I can't clarify. I think the free will FAQ is particularly useful because it specifically addresses approximately 50 questions on free will that you have asked. So again, if you have a specific point you wish to discuss, let me know.
167	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
168	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 3 May 2016 at 1:26AM
169	I'm not the one confused by the concept of proof, Jim. I am indeed asserting that there is no "proof" in anything beyond a shadow of a doubt (outside of mathematics or such artificial construct). You are still not able to come to grips that, given that to be the case, "faith" fills in the gap in anything and everything we believe to be true--or even conditionally true, or probable, or whatever.  There IS no "proof" to be found even in scientific experimental results--you of all people should certainly understand that!	So we’re agreed on something!
170	A simple observation might be anything observed	Ya don’t say!
171	For example, a drop of water emerging from a faucet. A chemical specialist would give us information and analysis from a chemical perspective. A physicist would give us perspective on the physics involved. A contractor could give us perspective on the procurement of materials and method of construction employed. A plumber might see the matter as a leak and suggest ways of preventing it. An irrigation specialist might provide insights on water-saving irrigation techniques. There are all sorts of ways to view and understand what is going on, what might be going on, how what is going on might be utilized and improved, etc. etc. Each approach provides a depth of understanding and, in some cases, purpose and potential--all derived from various ways of considering a specific observation.	Fascinating.   What exactly is the point of any of this?
172	I wouldn't have a clue how to test the concept of a primitive life force since I have no expertise in the field. Presumably it would be difficult to test for given the limits of our current verification processes and their limited parameters.	Perhaps I should speak to the plumber. He might know.
173	Nice way of trying to duck out of answering my challenge, Jim--reference a lengthy self-composed blog to obfuscate rather than clarify the issue! You yourself admit that there is no "proof" other than in abstract constructs like mathematics, yet you still pretend that what science offers requires no investment of faith in the matter. That is patently ridiculous since nothing is "proven" beyond a shadow of a doubt, and even the conditional acceptance of scientific proof means placing a certain degree of confidence into that which has supposedly been "verified" through its methodology. And, of course, there is much more in life that we accept simply by having been taught such-and-such. Very little of what we tend to accept as truth has been directly "proven" to us, and even that which has been "proven" cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt--hence "faith" makes up the difference even in matters we conditionally accept. You can't wiggle out of this one, Jim!	No idea what this is supposed to mean – again it seems to be confusing the two main meanings of faith. Bizarrely, even though he agrees with me that we should not accept anything as “proven” – he goes on and on about things not being “proven”. It’s difficult to respond to this kind of flatulence when there’s no specific examples or anything tangible. I wonder if he ever reads this stuff before he posts it?
174	General reference to a blog of your own composing does not provide answers to specific questions as they occur. You claim that you composed the blog to address matters that have been brought up before--very well, then copy and paste what you believe to be the relevant sections as they come up in conversations. Then we will have something concrete to further address in ongoing discussions!	Actually, the blog does contain answers – answers I’ve provided here which it would be a waste of space to endlessly repeat. The blog provides an easy way to cross-refer. (Technically, it’s not a blog!) Oh well. I wonder if I can somehow get this discussion back on track, or maybe make it relevant to religion? Let’s see…
175	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
176	Posted by JimC  on 3 May 2016 at 8:32AM
177	I think we both agree on lots of things here - correct me if I'm wrong. We agree that: There is no such things as proof in anything beyond a shadow of a doubt outside of mathematics (or pure logic, which can itself be considered a branch of mathematics); that scientific experimental results don't provide proof, they provide confirmation of a prediction thereby validating a theory. The theory could of course be superseded or replaced by a better theory in the future. Science doesn't prove things beyond a shadow of a doubt. Believing something is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt requires faith. Believing that a hypothesis is a valid explanation without it being validated requires faith. OK so far? Hopefully this now enables you to appreciate the difference between your world view which relies on faith (Jesus is alive!) versus my world view (Jesus might be alive, but it seems unlikely given the lack of evidence and lack of validation). As far as I can tell, Christian and Islamist apologists are saying their messages are truth rather than hypotheses. Agreed? You introduced the concept of a "primitive life force" as a means to explain the transition of inert chemicals to living organisms - but you say you have no clue on how to start testing the idea. Does that mean the idea is unfalsifiable? You also said you had no "expertise in the field". Which field would "primitive life force" be a part of?
178	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
179	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 7 May 2016 at 1:10AM
180	We agree except for your assertion regarding scientific "validation," where "faith" is also an operative factor. "Faith" is an expression of confidence that a certain matter has validity. Therefore, even in the case of your assertion that "scientific experimental results don't provide proof, they provide confirmation of a prediction thereby validating a theory," faith is still operative on two levels: first, a degree of confidence that the experiment did indeed "provide confirmation of a prediction" and secondly, in doing so, "validated the hypothesis" the experimenter had in mind. Even conditional acceptance of either of these two postulates constitutes an act of faith.	Yeah but the word “faith” has two meanings, which are contradictory. And I thought we’d agreed that there’s no such thing as proof – but he still won’t stop using the word! And why does anyone need faith to see the factual outcome of an experiment? Bizarre
181	There IS evidence for Jesus being active and operative in the world, but it is evidence beyond what can be ascertained through the scientific process, and it is science's limited purview and the limited scope of its verification processes that limits its ability to offer relevant evidence on the matter.	I wasn’t asking for scientific evidence for Jesus - it’s a ridiculous idea to ask for such evidence. Supernatural concepts such as the risen Jesus are unfalsifiable and science is not applicable. Why can’t he grasp the concept of unfalsifiablity?
182	When such is the case, other means of providing evidence are pursued--and as soon as we can get beyond your extreme reluctance to acknowledge the substantial role that "faith" plays in anyone's perspective--including yours--perhaps we can finally have a meaningful discussion on the matter!	Well, I’d love to know what those other means are – but I suspect I will be disappointed because he doesn’t want to tell me. What a teaser!
183	Christian and Islamist apologists are saying their messages are truth rather than hypotheses, but "truth"--or at least a high degree of confidence in the "truth" of a matter--can be reached apart from the constricted methodology that your use of the term "hypotheses" suggests.	How?
184	I'm suggesting that Primitive Life Force is an avenue of exploration that ought to be considered.	Cool. How?
185	"Scientific materialism" seem to have reached a dead end on the matter.	Ohhh! We almost got back on topic! Except of course, what he means is that science has reached a dead end. And that’s not true – there’s a lot of research going on.
186	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
187	Posted by JimC  on 7 May 2016 at 11:45AM
188	Faith is not a factor of "validation". A theory makes predictions which can be tested. The test validates the prediction - or invalidates it. The belief the theory is true before it's validated requires faith. The belief that a theory which is validated today will never be invalidated in the future also requires faith. Remember that a theory is the best current explanation of evidence. You then refer to a different meaning of faith which is "confidence" as if it's the same thing. But it's not. These two meanings are contranyms and you are fallaciously equivocating them. You say there is evidence that Jesus is alive but you can't provide any. So "Jesus is alive" is a hypothesis that has yet to be validated. From my perspective, Jesus might be alive, but it seems unlikely given the lack of evidence and lack of validation. If you believe the hypothesis is true then you are using faith and indeed your religion (and Islam) necessarily require faith. I'm not saying your faith is a bad thing - that's just how it is. I don't understand your reference to "methodology". A hypothesis is a proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. I'm not advocating a methodology and I don't know of a methodology to validate the Jesus hypothesis. Is there one? If so can you explain it? You introduced the concept of a "primitive life force" as a means to explain the transition of inert chemicals to living organisms - but you say you have no clue on how to start testing the idea. Does that mean the idea is unfalsifiable? You also said you had no "expertise in the field". Which field would "primitive life force" be a part of? If we were to consider it as an avenue of exploration, what is the first step in that exploration?
189	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
190	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 10 May 2016 at 1:43AM
191	When you state that "the test validates the prediction or invalidates it" you demonstrate faith that only one of those two possibilities will be the result.	Eh? I suppose a third option is an inconclusive result, but that’s the same as not being validated. What are the other possibilities?
192	The belief that a theory is true before it's validated requires faith but that is irrelevant to the point.	No it isn’t! That’s one of the definitions of faith!
193	You confuse absolute faith with what it really is: a degree of confidence that a certain result is to be achieved (otherwise, why go to the time/trouble to set up an experiment if you didn't think the experiment would yield meaningful results?).	That’s the other definition of faith!
194	When you state that "a theory is the best current explanation of evidence" you are also demonstrating faith that what you claimed was true.	Again confusing the definitions of faith. This is the level of confidence definition. <sigh>
195	If I have faith that a bridge will not collapse under me, if I have faith that my partner won't betray me, if I have faith that my business plan will succeed, etc. etc. I am expressing a degree of confidence that such is the case--not certainty, but a degree of confidence. You are quite an intelligent fellow--I'm surprised how little you know of this basic facet of your own language! I hope this helps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith	Yes – that’s one of the definitions of faith, a degree of confidence based on evidence
196	In the context of Jesus being alive, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what faith is and how it operates in your life, so of course you are confused about what constitutes "evidence" as well. As long as you continue to misunderstand this fundamental matter I don't see how this conversation can progress.	No misunderstanding on my part. That’s the other definition of faith.  And we only have to review the previous posts in this thread to see who is confused about what evidence means!
197	You ask if there’s a methodology to validate the Jesus hypothesis. The methodology I am referring to is basically scientific procedure--involving an experiment which one observes and draws conclusions from--as the only form of "evidence" that you are referring to. There are other forms of evidence to refer to as well.	Scientific procedure to validate the existence of Jesus? That’s impossible. I was hoping for a non-scientific methodology.
198	A primitive life force is not necessarily unfalsifiable --perhaps there is some form of testing that one might devise which might yield relevant results--but bear in mind that a "primitive life force" contained within apparently inert material is only one hypothesis and I'm not necessarily advocating that particular approach. Quantum theory suggests that observation affects physical reality, which is another avenue to explore in understanding mind/matter interaction, and as previously stated perhaps all matter is illusory and pure hyper-intelligence encompassing everything is the ultimate form of "reality."	This is gibberish – isn’t it?
199	In any case the mind/matter dualism of the scientific naturalist philosophy that you seem to subscribe to is almost certainly false.	Er… mind/matter dualism is a religious concept. And I see no evidence for it.
200	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
201	Posted by JimC  on 10 May 2016 at 9:06AM
202	A test can validate or invalidate a prediction. You appear to be saying there are other possible outcomes. What are they? You then go on to equivocate the different, contradictory meanings of faith. Again. I've explained this before but if you refer to the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article you provided it is explained there. Faith can mean (a) degree of confidence based on evidence or it can mean (b) believing something is true in the absence of evidence. Confidence that a prediction is validated because it was tested is (a). Believing a hypothesis is true when it hasn't been tested is (b). Similarly, your confidence that a bridge is safe to cross is (a) assuming it's a bridge which you have evidence to suggest is safe to cross. If it was a dilapidated rope bridge across the Amazon which you had never seen anyone use then you'd (hopefully) have a small amount of faith type (a). If you crossed it believing you'd be safe then you'd have a lot of faith type (b). You say there is evidence that Jesus is alive but you can't provide any. Perhaps our definitions of evidence are different. My definition is that evidence is factual. What's yours? So "Jesus is alive" is a hypothesis that has yet to be validated. From my perspective, Jesus might be alive, but it seems unlikely given the lack of evidence and lack of validation. If you believe the hypothesis is true then you are using faith and indeed your religion (and Islam) necessarily require faith. I'm not saying your faith is a bad thing - that's just how it is. Thanks for clarifying that your reference to "methodology" was a reference to the scientific method. Let me clarify I'm not advocating applying the scientific method to anything beyond science! It only works for ideas that are falsifiable. However you seem confused about what evidence is. The scientific method is not evidence as you suggest - it is used to explain evidence. Remember that evidence is factual and hypotheses and theories are explanations of those facts. I think your latest statement means that the primitive life force hypothesis is unfalsifiable - correct? Your reference to mind/matter dualism is puzzling. Science suggests the opposite - the mind is an emergent property of matter.
203	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
204	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 13 May 2016 at 12:26AM
205	The results of a test can be ambiguous/inconclusive. In fact, I can't think of a single test result that isn't to some degree, if one is expecting to validate/invalidate a general hypothesis via a specific test. Again, the level of confidence one places in whether a test result "validates" or "invalidates" a hypothesis is also a matter of faith.	Yes indeed – results can be inconclusive – in which case the theory has not been validated. Again – note the “level of confidence” definition of faith. Ho hum!
206	You're were still pretending that the level of confidence one places in anything--for any reason, whether it is believed to be "validated" by "evidence" or not--is not a matter of "faith" when it clearly is--I'm glad you're finally admitting at least that it is a matter of faith after all!	Arrgh!! Different definitions of faith! Stop mixing them up!
207	Do you believe that Lao Tzu existed? That Buddha existed? That Socrates existed?	I don’t know if they existed. Perhaps they didn’t. I’m not really bothered.
208	I could go on and name any figure that is not currently alive and you would have no more proof either, so stop playing games! You believe historical figures existed--furthermore you believe certain historical accounts are accurate (you give us "your version" of such quite frequently!)--all based on written records compiled by others! You have faith that they are true because you, for one reason or another, place confidence in the reliability of whatever sources provided such information to you--and the same is true for us all.	Playing games? I’ve never made an argument that any of these people existed. I certainly don’t rely on faith. For all I know they are all fictional characters.  What is he talking about?  Is he suggesting the existence of Jesus is as doubtful as Socrates? I’d agree with that.
209	You are still referring only to one type of evidence. The existence (or not) of a primitive life force may (or may not) be falsifiable currently, but there is still other evidence that suggests such may be the case. Again, what is clear is that your philosophical presumption of scientific materialism constituting the basis for "reality" has failed to account for such and the "life force" hypothesis seems a better fit for explaining such.	What evidence? How can the “life force” hypothesis be a “better fit” when we don’t know what a “life force” is?
210	In what sense is the mind an emergent property of matter? Do you--or do you not--believe that matter is "unconscious", and that the workings of the universe are governed by "unconscious" laws? That the universe came into being through "unconscious" forces?	I don’t see how matter can be unconscious, because you have to be conscious before you can be unconscious. I don’t see how matter (or laws or forces) can be conscious or unconscious. And what makes him think the universe is governed by “laws”?  Is this intelligent design rearing its ugly head? Yet another new topic?!
211	Re: A Critique Of Scientific Materialism
212	Posted by JimC  on 13 May 2016 at 9:43AM
213	It is true that a test result can be inconclusive but in that case the prediction is not validated. The level of confidence can be calculated and faith (type b) is not required. Faith (type b) would be required to assume a hypothesis was true given an inconclusive test. Hopefully this helps to explain the contradictory meanings of the word faith and why you should not equivocate them. I'm not sure if Lao Tzu or Buddha existed. I'm willing to accept their existence is unlikely if the evidence of their existence is weak. So what? You refer to evidence for a life force - but what is this evidence? You then say life force is a hypothesis - how can that hypothesis be validated? Where do we start? What should our approach be? If it can't be validated today, what do we need in the future in order for it to be validated? Your final questions make no sense to me. What's the difference between an unconscious law and a law? What's the difference between unconscious matter and matter? What's the difference an unconscious force and a force? Why is unconsciousness an appropriate prefix for those nouns? All I can say is that according to the evidence, consciousness is an emergent property just like wetness, saltiness and so on - see 1.4.4 here http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/rgfsmcl-025.html As for laws, they are man made and that includes the laws of physics which enable us to describe nature in a mathematical way.
214	A Critique of Scientific Materialism (taken to the top)
215	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 3 Jun 2016 at 3:02AM
216	You're dodging and misdirecting again. "Faith" is the acceptance of anything that has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt--pure and simple. You of course do not wish to acknowledge this reality and hence pretend that it is otherwise, but it is not. You accept things on faith--I accept things on faith--we all accept things on faith. We all doubt, but that is irrelevant to the fact that we accept things that are unproven on faith, and because we do so doubt is a necessary and rational byproduct--for all of us, whatever our perspective.	Now he’s making up his own definitions. <yawn>
217	You have no proof that any historical figure existed apart from your faith in whatever written source or whomever told you of such. I seriously doubt that you have applied such rigorous standards to all that you have "learned" about everything! In reality, we all begin by assessing the credibility of a certain source by one criterion or another, and then pretty much accept everything that source offers unless/until we have good reason to further test such.	It’s true I have no such proof. There are very few facts in history. A historian’s conclusions are based on probability.  Not faith.
218	You say there is no testimony to Jesus's miracles but rather you are prejudiced against the sources that testify to Jesus's existence, whether that source be Scripture or secular (even hostile) references, because of your personal prejudice. Note that even contemporary opponents of Jesus didn't claim that he didn't exist--they just argued against His claims. Assertions that He didn't exist are modern assertions based on blind prejudice that ignore this compelling evidence.	I prefer sources that are based on academic research. I don’t think that’s prejudice! In any case – I didn’t suggest Jesus does not exist. Where did that come from?
219	My conclusions regarding Jesus begin with a more realistic assessment of evidence than you have proffered because (1) there is overwhelming eyewitness evidence in Scripture that He existed and (2) as noted, even contemporary opponents of Jesus never made the claim that He wasn't "real"--they just disputed His claims. When you make the ridiculous assertion that "there is no testimony to Jesus's existence" you are only exposing the blind irrationality that your own prejudice compels you to assert on the matter.	Eyewitness evidence in the Bible?  Nope! But I see now why the Jesus existence thing came up. I said there’s no testimony to Jesus’ existence and that’s true. But that doesn’t mean He didn’t exist. He might have existed.
220	Christians have the necessity of the faith element in our perspective as I've explained multiple times: we cannot genuinely act in love when there is absolute certainty of our being rewarded for doing so. Since God is love and He would have us act in love as well, there has to be the leeway of uncertainty in order for us to genuinely act selflessly and internalize the value of doing so. Now, however, that's not to say that there isn't overwhelming evidence that would lead us to subscribe to Jesus's perspective. So: once you understand that all humans are called to draw conclusions based on limited information and no absolute proof, you will never understand the basis of either your worldview or mine!	Hang on… necessity of faith? Make your mind up!
221	I posit that in order for intelligence to exist in any form there must be a basis for such.	Well… I guess that’s a truism. In order for ANYTHING to exist there must be a basis for such.
222	The other option--your perspective--that intelligence arises from matter without any intelligent component and furthermore that our extremely unlikely (from your perspective) universe created itself through unintelligent processes makes next to no sense. Can you rationally argue otherwise?	Properties can arise from components without that property existing in the components. I thought that was obvious. But the apologist seems oblivious.
223	When you say you don’t understand the terms I use such as "unconscious law"; "unconscious matter" ; “unconscious force” you resort to irrelevant semantic arguments again to dodge the issue. Note my points above. Basically it's because I've considered all alternatives and my conclusions make more sense. Let's question those matters from another approach (yours): why would you assume that "matter"--an artificial construct and concept itself which does not conform to quantum theory regarding the nature of such--not have a "conscious" component? Why would you assume that "matter"--again an artificial construct and concept itself which does not conform to quantum theory regarding the nature of such--would arrange itself and somehow form our universe in which "consciousness" and "intelligence" exists without "consciousness" and "intelligence" playing a part in such?	I don’t understand those terms because they make no sense. What’s the difference between unconscious matter and matter?  And where did he get the idea that matter was an artificial construct? Matter is a concept that does not conform to quantum theory?  WTF?!
224	Again of course I refer to our extremely unlikely universe if only "unconscious" and "unintelligent" laws of nature (as science would define such) exist. Again, it is your perspective that is found lacking in addressing these considerations	Oh boy. Another new topic. This is the “avalanche” technique. Try and suffocate an argument by burying it in tons of new topics. <sigh>
225	You say you see no evidence that inert matter is conscious. Of course you "see no evidence"--your blind prejudice compels such a perspective. What if you were to respond rationally to the points above?	Actually, I really don’t see any evidence. Perhaps the apologist can provide it.
226	Re: A Critique of Scientific Materialism (taken to the top)
227	Posted by JimC   on 3 Jun 2016 at 8:14AM
228	Let's see if we can put some structure around your latest multi-topic smorgasbord: The Definition of Faith Your assertion that there is only one meaning of “faith” is puzzling given the multiple meanings in the dictionary, which you provided in a previous conversation… http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/faith-facts.html Note that “proving beyond a shadow of a doubt” (definition #2) is not possible in my opinion, except in pure mathematics or pure logic. The main difference between your worldview and mine is that yours is based on faith - it has to be based on faith because your religion demands it. My worldview is based on doubt. I use evidence as a basis for having certain level of confidence (definition #1). Consider for example, how you accept everything in the Bible. Or imagine a Church billboard that says "Jesus Might Be Alive - or He might not!" and then ponder on why such a billboard does not exist. Then you might begin to understand the difference between your worldview and mine. The nature of historical evidence The existence of historical figures is not "substantiated by faith in written testimony that they existed" to use your tortured phraseology. I hope you were not told that by a history teacher! There are several types of evidence used by historians and archaeologists – let me know if you need a list. The existence of anything, or anyone, is substantiated by evidence. That is what substantiated means. Contrary to your assertion I don't just accept the existence of historical figures, I look at the quality of the evidence, and then only if I care whether they existed or not. Testimony versus hearsay There is no testimony to Jesus's existence as you assert and certainly no testimony to the resurrection or other miracles – what you refer to as “eye witness evidence” in the bible is hearsay (at best) within anonymously written gospels. But so what? I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist. I'm quite happy to accept that Jesus may have existed. Many academics, especially Bart Ehrman, have done an excellent job of theorising what sort of person the historical Jesus might have been. (Sources available on request). If someone claims Jesus definitely did not exist then they have the burden of proof and I don't see how they can prove such a thing. Contrast my worldview to your conviction that Jesus not only existed, but is still alive! You can now see the difference in my assessment of likelihood based on evidence, and your faith based position. Intelligence We both agree that in order for intelligence to exist in any form there must be a basis for such. I would suggest that's a truism which can be applied to anything. The evidence we have is that the basis for intelligence is biology, where intelligence is an emergent property i.e. a property that which a system has (e.g. a brain), but which the individual components do not have. See 1.4.4 here… http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/rgfsmcl-025.html for more examples. You seem to be asserting that intelligence cannot exist without intelligence playing a part in in its existence. This is the fallacy of division: assuming that if something is true for the whole, it must also be true for some or all of its components. Consciousness Perhaps inert matter does have a “conscious component” as you suggest but (a) I have no idea what that means and (b) I see no evidence of such a thing. How could we investigate that possibility? What would be the first step? Or is it just speculation? The probability of existence of our universe I don't know how you have determined the existence of our universe is unlikely given that no one knows how it came into existence. Perhaps it is unlikely, perhaps it was inevitable. Who knows? How did intelligence evolve? The evidence we have shows that intelligence appears at the end of a very long process where our universe begins as a singularity which begat components of matter, which begat atoms and molecules, which begat stars and planets, which begat biological organisms, which begat intelligence. The laws of physics The laws of physics do not “govern the universe” as you suggest - they are man made - they enable us to describe nature in a mathematical way. Your religion requires the universe to be governed, guided and controlled, but I see no evidence to support that idea.
229	Re: : A Critique of Scientific Materialism (taken to the top)
230	Posted by A Christian Apologist   on 6 Jun 2016 at 12:04AM
231	By "put some structure"--which of course I already did--you mean "reinterpret" and "redirect" to favor your "interpretation", of course!	No – just trying to dig through the avalanche and rescue the victims!
232	The Definition of Faith
233	Same old, same old--let's recap my previous deconstruction of such: "Faith"--in its universal application--is placing a degree of confidence in something that is unproven.	That’s one definition. Except I thought we’d agree to stop using the words “proven” or “proof”.
234	When I place a degree of faith in the existence of God, and you place a degree of faith in the non-existence of God, we are both acting in faith.	I don’t place faith in the non-existence of God. I doubt that God exists, given the poor quality of the evidence.
235	Doubt is irrelevant--we all have doubts. Still, we both believe that evidence points in the direction of our respective conclusions	Doubt is not irrelevant to me – it’s fundamental!
236	Now cut the pretense and enter into an honest give-and-take discussion, comparing evidence and reasoning, from this point forward--thanks!	Ranting!!
237	The nature of historical evidence You say the existence of historical figures is not "substantiated by faith in written testimony that they existed".  Of course it is. How else did you learn of historical figures of the distant (and sometimes not so distant) past and come to accept their existence except through the process of successive generations of testimony based ultimately on historical written records?	I think he’s confused stuff that’s written with “written testimony”. He doesn’t seem to know what “testimony” is. Which is disappointing.
238	I doubt that you have independently investigated the historical evidence for any of the historical figures you were taught in your studies.	That’s true, because I don’t really care if they existed or not. If I did, I would.
239	But for the sake of argument, let's say you did. At what point is the "historical evidence" for their existence NOT ultimately based on testimony, directly or indirectly? Even "contemporary" evidence to the time of their existence is basically hearsay: so-and-so claiming such-and-such regarding another so-and-so.	It’s not based on testimony because it’s based on a whole range of evidence.
240	At that point, there is certainly no historical figure receiving more direct and indirect testimony as to His existence than Jesus, and likewise His life and works!	In fact there is no testimony. And what’s “indirect testimony”? LOL
241	Testimony versus hearsay
242	There are far more references to the existence and works of Jesus than any other contemporary historical figure.	That’s factually incorrect. Where did he get that idea?
243	Furthermore, there is the testimony of those who have relied on the accuracy of His revealed truth since. And furthermore--and most importantly--there is the experience of all of us who have taken Jesus at His word and have discovered the truth of His revelation active in our own lives!	I assume this is an oblique reference to personal experiences and visions and so on.
	Contrast not only your actual faith-based worldview--whose basis you go to extreme lengths to avoid acknowledging and defending, and understandably so--with not only the actual rational basis for my worldview, but with the fact that the revelation of Jesus has been verified and substantiated in my experience--and, had you been open to it, it would have been in your experience as well.	But my worldview isn’t faith based. Where did he get that idea from? However – it is interesting to note that the revelation of Jesus has been “verified and substantiated” in his experience. I wonder how?
244	Intelligence
245	Let's examine your own undefended assumptions:	LOL
246	You claim that the basis for intelligence is "biology," as if that were a separate reality unto itself. "Biology" refers to a human categorization based on a humanly-constructed "scientific" discipline.	Oh dear… he’s got the wrong end of the stick. When I said “biology” I didn’t mean the scientific discipline of biology. I meant living things, like animals and plants.
247	You claim that since the human discipline of "biology" is a reality unto itself, even though it is merely a human construct based on a human construct, that it is defined within artificial parameter with a limited purview--that is to say, a part of that artificial construct.	Except I wasn’t referring to the human discipline of biology.
248	You compound your error by claiming that "intelligence" is an "emergent property" of all of those artificial constructs	I said intelligence is an emergent property of matter. What on earth is he on about?
249	You would have us believe--based on the human discipline of science, whose purview is incapable of addressing such--that there is no "intelligent component" to the "matter" that constitutes "reality.	Well, there’s no necessity for matter to have an “intelligent component”. Whatever that means.  But I suppose it could have.
250	This is the fallacy of appealing to a human construct with a limited purview that is incapable of addressing or even adequately defining the issue at hand.	Except I wasn’t appealing to a human construct. If only there was some way to stop him – he’s out of control!
251	In summation, Jim provides "evidence" whose basis is dependent on unsupportable assumptions.	No I don’t. And why is he referring to me in the 3rd person? Perhaps, in his imagination, I am on trial at the Spanish Inquisition.
252	Science as a discipline--even though it has multiple invaluable practical applications--is ill suited for addressing any consideration of "intelligence" permeating in any way what, through its limited purview, it defines as "material."	Except science is doing a pretty good job of unravelling what intelligence is and how it works. (Perhaps he means “consciousness” which is a different thing of course).
253	Furthermore, in defining anything "material" as "non-intelligent", one subscribes to a dualistic philosophy whose basis has been exposed by Rupert Sheldrake and others. It rests on an assumption that anything "material" is non-intelligent.	Dualistic philosophy? Let’s add dualism to the list of things the apologist doesn’t understand.
254	Such is part of the quasi-religious belief that such is the case. That quasi-religious belief has been exposed as "Scientism," which Jim claims not to subscribe to--yet he is arguing precisely from that perspective.	Let’s add “scientism” to the list of things the apologist doesn’t understand. (Or is he trolling?)
255	Consciousness
256	For starters, the fact that "science," as in "Scientism"--that is to say, those who subscribe to the dualistic philosophical perspective exposed by Sheldrake that you and others subscribe to--have failed to provide rational evidence for your perspective, in spite of the overwhelming support that discipline has received and the countless hours of research on the part of multiple brilliant minds which have approached the issue from that perspective. Neither you nor anyone else from such a perspective have been able to present a rational case for your position on the matter. Time for a new approach?	Well, if he believes that science and scientism are the same thing then no wonder he’s ranting. What’s this about “countless hours”? Perhaps he’s trying to suggest that science has had enough time to crack consciousness. Twenty years. Time’s up!
257	The probability of existence of our universe
258	Ah--there again you're moving the goalposts! Let's take another look at your fallacy: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving_the_Goalposts	Eh?
259	So on the one hand, we've seen how you subscribe to "Scientism," your ultimate faith-based point of reference for your perspective on the nature of "reality."	In fact I’ve explained many time that scientism was debunked by Karl Popper. But the apologist won’t listen!
260	Now you are resorting to special pleading, claiming that everything that we understand from "science"--that is to say, the summation of its claims regarding the way the universe operates within "laws" of its own defining--are to be disregarded when they no longer make sense in supporting your perspective!	Who said the laws of science are to be disregarded? What on earth is he talking about?
	We've been over this before innumerable times, but for the sake of new readers unfamiliar with your tactics: https://powertochange.com/itv/spirituality/new-evidence-unlikely-place/	Is it me, or has he lost the plot?
261	How did intelligence evolve?
262	You have a low sampling rate for your conclusion--specifically, a single instance in the entire universe--our planet!	True.
263	You furthermore assert without support that the components of matter that led to our existence were of a certain nature--that is to say, without an "intelligent" component. You only reference "intelligence" as you believe it emerged on our planet	I’m just referring to the evidence.
264	You furthermore assert that "intelligence" arose from "non-intelligent" components in spite of "science's" inability to account for or substantiate such. Are you sensing a pattern here which exposes your unsupported prejudices on the matter?	Why does he put “non-intelligent” in quote marks as if he is quoting me? I said intelligence is an emergent property of matter. And it’s quite easy to account for it – the phenomenon of emergent properties is well known.
265	The laws of physics
266	Your "religion" likewise compels you to interpret "science" and its artificial constructs in a way that is either beyond its purview and/or is not rationally supported by its artificial constructs. Get outside of the box in your thinking and reasoning, Jim!!	That statement doesn’t seem to relate to what I actually said. And what’s this about my religion? (Note to self: Buy the apologist a dictionary for Christmas).
267	Re: A Critique of Scientific Materialism (taken to the top)
268	Posted by JimC   on 6 Jun 2016 at 8:21AM
269	The Definition of Faith Your latest example neatly illustrates the different meanings of faith. You believe God is real and Jesus is alive and this belief requires faith. I find those hypotheses to be unlikely given the lacking evidence so my level of confidence is much lower than yours. I can't believe a hypothesis is true when it has not been validated. The nature of historical evidence The existence of historical figures is not "substantiated by faith in written testimony that they existed" to use your tortured phraseology. There are several types of evidence used by historians and archaeologists obviously including written records but also artefacts. There are also formal methods for assessing them e.g… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method The existence of anything, or anyone, is substantiated by evidence. That is what substantiated means. Contrary to your assertion I don't just accept the existence of historical figures, I look at the quality of the evidence, and then only if I care whether they existed or not. Testimony versus hearsay Check the definitions to see the important difference in these two concepts and note how they apply in a court of law. There is no testimony to Jesus's existence as you assert and certainly no testimony to the resurrection or other miracles – what you refer to as “eye witness evidence” in the bible is hearsay (at best) within anonymously written gospels. But so what? I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist. I'm quite happy to accept that Jesus may have existed. Many academics, especially Bart Ehrman, have done an excellent job of theorising what sort of person the historical Jesus might have been. (Sources available on request). If someone claims Jesus definitely did not exist then they have the burden of proof and I don't see how they can prove such a thing. Contrast my worldview to your conviction that Jesus not only existed, but is still alive! You can now see the difference in my assessment of likelihood based on evidence, and your faith based credulous position. Intelligence Your rant is based on a misunderstanding my reference to “biology”. I should have explained that I didn’t mean the scientific discipline of biology, I meant biology in the sense of the physical evidence of biological organisms. So to repeat... The evidence we have is that the basis for intelligence is biology (I.e. biological organisms), where intelligence is an emergent property i.e. a property that which a system has (e.g. a brain), but which the individual components do not have. See 1.4.4 here… http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/rgfsmcl-025.html for more examples. You seem to be asserting that intelligence cannot exist without intelligence playing a part in in its existence. This is the fallacy of division: assuming that if something is true for the whole, it must also be true for some or all of its components. Consciousness Perhaps inert matter does have a “conscious component” as you suggest but (a) I have no idea what that means and (b) I see no evidence of such a thing. You didn't answer the questions so let's try again… How could we investigate that possibility? What would be the first step? Or is it just speculation? The probability of existence of our universe I don't know how you have determined the existence of our universe is unlikely given that no one knows how it came into existence. Perhaps it is unlikely, perhaps it was inevitable. Who knows? I'd be interested to know how likely you think it is. The next generation of particle accelerators may give us further clues by enabling us to create universes, but not for 100 years at least I suspect. How did intelligence evolve? It's true that we have yet to discover life (and hence intelligence) on other planets and solar systems. I think it's reasonable to assume it exists, but we have to remain agnostic until we find it I think. The laws of physics The laws of physics do not “govern the universe” as you suggest - the laws are man made - they enable us to describe nature in a mathematical way. Your religion requires the universe to be governed, guided and controlled, but I see no evidence to support that idea.