"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:FWijh.51378$qO4.18147@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...

"someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1166912926.704586.43500@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...

Would anyone from alt.philosophy, preferably with a background in
philosophy, or from talk.origins care to defend an atheist perspective
that we are a biological mechanism that follows the laws of physics?

If so could we do this in a one response, one question format, where
the questions of each party are seperated by a dotted line, from the
questions of the other party, so that no one can seek to distract from
that they have given no answer by simply asking multiple questions in
return. They can obviously make any statement (possibly referring to
other section) and ask what the other party thinks about it in their
own section (though only one question allowed per post).

Is there perhaps a philosopher from alt.philosophy, or someone with a
background in the natural sciences from talk.origins, who would care to
defend the position given? After all, it does seem an important
philosophical topic, and it would be enlightening for myself, and
possibly other readers to see the philosophical perspectives that have
been put forward (and a contempory philosophers view), and quite
important from an evolutionist perspective, and topical given the
recent and possibly ongoing controvesy about teaching a purely
evolutionary perspective with regards to explaining us, with no
problems with the perspective allowed to be highlighted in the
classroom by the teacher (I believe that was the rough scenario, but am
not up on the details).

If so, they are invited to put forward the first question. For example
it may be a defense, and then a question about what is wrong with the
defence, though obviously what it is would be your choice.

(I would only respond to one person at a time, otherwise there is the
possibility of simply being bombarded with posts).

Sure. I'll play. I am an engineer with considerable self-taught
background in molecular biology and physics and a smattering of
knowlege of philosophy and artificial intelligence. Not much on
cognitive philosophy though - the subject gives me indigestion.

I'll begin by clarifying the position I intend to defend, and then
sketch my case. I claim that (1) a Creator God, if He exists, has been
passive since the big bang and has allowed nature to take its course
since then by the ordinary laws of physics. (2) That there is no
'spiritual stuff' active in the universe and not reducible to the
currently known laws of Newtonian and quantum physics - in particular
that no such spiritual stuff is needed to explain the human psyche.
(3) While naturalistic abiogenesis is not part of your challenge as
stated, I am willing to defend it as well. (4) That while some aspects
of the origin of life and the operation of the human psyche are not
understood
at the present time, that the evidence leads us to the conclusion that
these things will be understood eventually - perhaps within this century.

Now the sketch of the case: All of observable nature seems to behave
in accordance with the laws of physics, and most phenomena have been
explained nicely by reference to those laws. There are only three
main things that still seem somewhat mysterious: (a) the cause of the
big bang itself (outside the scope of this debate), (b) the origin of
life on Earth, and (c) the human psyche. In particular, one thing that
was once thought mysterious - the way living things work - is now very
well understood in terms of physical causation. Therefore, since life
can sustain itself without any Divine or other spiritual causation, it
seems very odd to invoke Divine causation in its origin, however
mysterious
the origin now seems.

That leaves the human psyche. But there is good evidence that the human
psyche is intimately tied up with human biology, and overwhelming evidence
that human biology and psyche are connected in an evolutionary continuum
to the slightly less amazing biologies and psyches of our fellow animals.
Invoking God (or spiritual substances) in explanation of the human psyche
would seem to require that this intervention (or those spiritual
substances)
was involved in much simpler animals - mice, and nematode worms, and even
bacteria. But we already understand the psyche of the bacterium and we
are well on the way to understanding the psyche of the worm. Mouse and
man
are more problematical, but I strongly doubt that there is anything
essentially new here.

Your move.

I had the impertinence to 'cut' in line.

'Therefore, since life can sustain itself without any Divine or other
spiritual causation, it seems very odd to invoke Divine causation in its
origin, however mysterious the origin now seems.'

That one's a 'keeper'.

Greywolf

"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:FWijh.51378$qO4.18147@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...

"someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1166912926.704586.43500@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...

Would anyone from alt.philosophy, preferably with a background in
philosophy, or from talk.origins care to defend an atheist perspective
that we are a biological mechanism that follows the laws of physics?

If so could we do this in a one response, one question format, where
the questions of each party are seperated by a dotted line, from the
questions of the other party, so that no one can seek to distract from
that they have given no answer by simply asking multiple questions in
return. They can obviously make any statement (possibly referring to
other section) and ask what the other party thinks about it in their
own section (though only one question allowed per post).

Is there perhaps a philosopher from alt.philosophy, or someone with a
background in the natural sciences from talk.origins, who would care to
defend the position given? After all, it does seem an important
philosophical topic, and it would be enlightening for myself, and
possibly other readers to see the philosophical perspectives that have
been put forward (and a contempory philosophers view), and quite
important from an evolutionist perspective, and topical given the
recent and possibly ongoing controvesy about teaching a purely
evolutionary perspective with regards to explaining us, with no
problems with the perspective allowed to be highlighted in the
classroom by the teacher (I believe that was the rough scenario, but am
not up on the details).

If so, they are invited to put forward the first question. For example
it may be a defense, and then a question about what is wrong with the
defence, though obviously what it is would be your choice.

(I would only respond to one person at a time, otherwise there is the
possibility of simply being bombarded with posts).

Sure. I'll play. I am an engineer with considerable self-taught
background in molecular biology and physics and a smattering of
knowlege of philosophy and artificial intelligence. Not much on
cognitive philosophy though - the subject gives me indigestion.

I'll begin by clarifying the position I intend to defend, and then
sketch my case. I claim that (1) a Creator God, if He exists, has been
passive since the big bang and has allowed nature to take its course
since then by the ordinary laws of physics. (2) That there is no
'spiritual stuff' active in the universe and not reducible to the
currently known laws of Newtonian and quantum physics - in particular
that no such spiritual stuff is needed to explain the human psyche.
(3) While naturalistic abiogenesis is not part of your challenge as
stated, I am willing to defend it as well. (4) That while some aspects
of the origin of life and the operation of the human psyche are not
understood
at the present time, that the evidence leads us to the conclusion that
these things will be understood eventually - perhaps within this century.

Now the sketch of the case: All of observable nature seems to behave
in accordance with the laws of physics, and most phenomena have been
explained nicely by reference to those laws. There are only three
main things that still seem somewhat mysterious: (a) the cause of the
big bang itself (outside the scope of this debate), (b) the origin of
life on Earth, and (c) the human psyche. In particular, one thing that
was once thought mysterious - the way living things work - is now very
well understood in terms of physical causation. Therefore, since life
can sustain itself without any Divine or other spiritual causation, it
seems very odd to invoke Divine causation in its origin, however
mysterious
the origin now seems.

That leaves the human psyche. But there is good evidence that the human
psyche is intimately tied up with human biology, and overwhelming evidence
that human biology and psyche are connected in an evolutionary continuum
to the slightly less amazing biologies and psyches of our fellow animals.
Invoking God (or spiritual substances) in explanation of the human psyche
would seem to require that this intervention (or those spiritual
substances)
was involved in much simpler animals - mice, and nematode worms, and even
bacteria. But we already understand the psyche of the bacterium and we
are well on the way to understanding the psyche of the worm. Mouse and
man
are more problematical, but I strongly doubt that there is anything
essentially new here.

Your move.

I had the impertinence to 'cut' in line.

'Therefore, since life can sustain itself without any Divine or other
spiritual causation, it seems very odd to invoke Divine causation in its
origin, however mysterious the origin now seems.'

That one's a 'keeper'.

Greywolf

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:

"someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1166912926.704586.43500@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...

Would anyone from alt.philosophy, preferably with a background in
philosophy, or from talk.origins care to defend an atheist perspective
that we are a biological mechanism that follows the laws of physics?

If so could we do this in a one response, one question format, where
the questions of each party are seperated by a dotted line, from the
questions of the other party, so that no one can seek to distract from
that they have given no answer by simply asking multiple questions in
return. They can obviously make any statement (possibly referring to
other section) and ask what the other party thinks about it in their
own section (though only one question allowed per post).

Is there perhaps a philosopher from alt.philosophy, or someone with a
background in the natural sciences from talk.origins, who would care to
defend the position given? After all, it does seem an important
philosophical topic, and it would be enlightening for myself, and
possibly other readers to see the philosophical perspectives that have
been put forward (and a contempory philosophers view), and quite
important from an evolutionist perspective, and topical given the
recent and possibly ongoing controvesy about teaching a purely
evolutionary perspective with regards to explaining us, with no
problems with the perspective allowed to be highlighted in the
classroom by the teacher (I believe that was the rough scenario, but am
not up on the details).

If so, they are invited to put forward the first question. For example
it may be a defense, and then a question about what is wrong with the
defence, though obviously what it is would be your choice.

(I would only respond to one person at a time, otherwise there is the
possibility of simply being bombarded with posts).

Sure. I'll play. I am an engineer with considerable self-taught
background in molecular biology and physics and a smattering of
knowlege of philosophy and artificial intelligence. Not much on
cognitive philosophy though - the subject gives me indigestion.

I'll begin by clarifying the position I intend to defend, and then
sketch my case. I claim that (1) a Creator God, if He exists, has been
passive since the big bang and has allowed nature to take its course
since then by the ordinary laws of physics. (2) That there is no
'spiritual stuff' active in the universe and not reducible to the
currently known laws of Newtonian and quantum physics - in particular
that no such spiritual stuff is needed to explain the human psyche.
(3) While naturalistic abiogenesis is not part of your challenge as
stated, I am willing to defend it as well. (4) That while some aspects
of the origin of life and the operation of the human psyche are not understood
at the present time, that the evidence leads us to the conclusion that
these things will be understood eventually - perhaps within this century.

Now the sketch of the case: All of observable nature seems to behave
in accordance with the laws of physics, and most phenomena have been
explained nicely by reference to those laws. There are only three
main things that still seem somewhat mysterious: (a) the cause of the
big bang itself (outside the scope of this debate), (b) the origin of
life on Earth, and (c) the human psyche. In particular, one thing that
was once thought mysterious - the way living things work - is now very
well understood in terms of physical causation. Therefore, since life
can sustain itself without any Divine or other spiritual causation, it
seems very odd to invoke Divine causation in its origin, however mysterious
the origin now seems.

That leaves the human psyche. But there is good evidence that the human
psyche is intimately tied up with human biology, and overwhelming evidence
that human biology and psyche are connected in an evolutionary continuum
to the slightly less amazing biologies and psyches of our fellow animals.
Invoking God (or spiritual substances) in explanation of the human psyche
would seem to require that this intervention (or those spiritual substances)
was involved in much simpler animals - mice, and nematode worms, and even
bacteria. But we already understand the psyche of the bacterium and we
are well on the way to understanding the psyche of the worm. Mouse and man
are more problematical, but I strongly doubt that there is anything
essentially new here.

Your move.

Thanks for your well thought out opening.

The problem with it, is that if we were indeed a biological mechanism
under the laws of physics, then our whole conscious experience that we
have influence over the behaviour of the mechanism, would have have to
be an illusion (I presume you understand why, if not we can go through
it). The problem with that, is that for the illusion to have been
maintained, there would have had to of been a correlation between what
was preferable to our conscious experience (including the experience of
'will), and what was beneficial to the machine, in terms of what
behaviour it was actually going to attempt to do.

Take for example the conscious experiences of pleasure and pain. There
seems to be an obvious correlation between what may have evolved as
beneficial to the biological mechanism, and what was consciously
preferable. Had the conscious experience of something undesirable to
the biological mechanism been the conscious experience of pleasure, and
the conscious experience of something desirable to the biological
mechanism been the conscious experience of pain, then it is hard to see
how the illusion that the consciousness influenced the mechanism would
have been maintained.

Obviously if the consciousness were just some incidental happening,
when a structure of the type built by the evolutionary process was
formed, and it had no influence over the biological mechanism (which
must be true if the behaviour of the biological mechanism can be
explained purely in terms of the biological mechanism and it's
environment given the laws of physics, i.e. without any reference to
the conscious experiences), then it can't have any evolutionary
advantage.

If it had no evolutionary advantage, there would be no advantage to any
correlation between what was consciously preferable, and what was
beneficical to the biological mechanism. Whatever physical activity
causes the experience of pleasure for example, was not happening
because of the experience it caused, as the resultant experience would
be irrelevant to the build. There must have been a functional reason
for the way it was built, with no regard to any, if any, conscious
experience. Just to be clear, there was nothing matching a pleasurable
conscious experience to what was beneficial to the biological
mechanism. In each case, it would have just been coincidental that the
conscious preference was suitable to the overall function of the
chemical activity going on, within the relevant section.

For us to believe that our conscious experience is an illusion, and
doesn't influence the way the human that we experience being behaves,
i.e. disbelieve our own experience, presumably there would have to be a
suggestion to how this illusion could have possibly been created, by
something which would have been blind (only guided by what is an
evolutionary advantage) to whatever consciousness it was creating (if
any), and yet do such a convincing job. So much so that we would find
it hard to live our lives not believing we were driving the biological
mechanism, rather than being an incidental passanger. It would really
have to have been an amazing coincidence that the various physical
activities that were responsible for the various conscious experiences,
all just happened to coincidently produce an appropriate conscious
experience, such that the correlation between conscious preferability
and biological mechanism behaviour was maintained.

(For clarity could you just post your next response/statement/question
directly below, and then answer my question in the next section, rather
than breaking up my response, so in a few posts time it is unreadable.
I will do the same with yours).


----------------------------------------------------- Below: Question
section of someone3, Answer section of Perplexed in Peoria

Can you suggest a reason it would have been more likely for us to have
experienced pleasure where it is a biological preference rather than
what we currently experience as pain (please note, I am not talking
about labelling here, I am talking about our current conscious
experiences of pleasure and pain) from your perspective, where our
behaviour is explainable in terms of the biological mechanism, it's
environment, and the laws of physics, and therefore consciousness
experiences cannot influence our behaviour or evolutionary development?

Can you suggest a reason it would have been more likely for us to have
experienced pleasure where it is a biological preference rather than
what we currently experience as pain (please note, I am not talking
about labelling here, I am talking about our current conscious
experiences of pleasure and pain) from your perspective, where our
behaviour is explainable in terms of the biological mechanism, it's
environment, and the laws of physics, and therefore consciousness
experiences cannot influence our behaviour or evolutionary development?

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:

"someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1166912926.704586.43500@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...

Would anyone from alt.philosophy, preferably with a background in
philosophy, or from talk.origins care to defend an atheist perspective
that we are a biological mechanism that follows the laws of physics?

If so could we do this in a one response, one question format, where
the questions of each party are seperated by a dotted line, from the
questions of the other party, so that no one can seek to distract from
that they have given no answer by simply asking multiple questions in
return. They can obviously make any statement (possibly referring to
other section) and ask what the other party thinks about it in their
own section (though only one question allowed per post).

Is there perhaps a philosopher from alt.philosophy, or someone with a
background in the natural sciences from talk.origins, who would care to
defend the position given? After all, it does seem an important
philosophical topic, and it would be enlightening for myself, and
possibly other readers to see the philosophical perspectives that have
been put forward (and a contempory philosophers view), and quite
important from an evolutionist perspective, and topical given the
recent and possibly ongoing controvesy about teaching a purely
evolutionary perspective with regards to explaining us, with no
problems with the perspective allowed to be highlighted in the
classroom by the teacher (I believe that was the rough scenario, but am
not up on the details).

If so, they are invited to put forward the first question. For example
it may be a defense, and then a question about what is wrong with the
defence, though obviously what it is would be your choice.

(I would only respond to one person at a time, otherwise there is the
possibility of simply being bombarded with posts).

Sure. I'll play. I am an engineer with considerable self-taught
background in molecular biology and physics and a smattering of
knowlege of philosophy and artificial intelligence. Not much on
cognitive philosophy though - the subject gives me indigestion.

I'll begin by clarifying the position I intend to defend, and then
sketch my case. I claim that (1) a Creator God, if He exists, has been
passive since the big bang and has allowed nature to take its course
since then by the ordinary laws of physics. (2) That there is no
'spiritual stuff' active in the universe and not reducible to the
currently known laws of Newtonian and quantum physics - in particular
that no such spiritual stuff is needed to explain the human psyche.
(3) While naturalistic abiogenesis is not part of your challenge as
stated, I am willing to defend it as well. (4) That while some aspects
of the origin of life and the operation of the human psyche are not understood
at the present time, that the evidence leads us to the conclusion that
these things will be understood eventually - perhaps within this century.

Now the sketch of the case: All of observable nature seems to behave
in accordance with the laws of physics, and most phenomena have been
explained nicely by reference to those laws. There are only three
main things that still seem somewhat mysterious: (a) the cause of the
big bang itself (outside the scope of this debate), (b) the origin of
life on Earth, and (c) the human psyche. In particular, one thing that
was once thought mysterious - the way living things work - is now very
well understood in terms of physical causation. Therefore, since life
can sustain itself without any Divine or other spiritual causation, it
seems very odd to invoke Divine causation in its origin, however mysterious
the origin now seems.

That leaves the human psyche. But there is good evidence that the human
psyche is intimately tied up with human biology, and overwhelming evidence
that human biology and psyche are connected in an evolutionary continuum
to the slightly less amazing biologies and psyches of our fellow animals.
Invoking God (or spiritual substances) in explanation of the human psyche
would seem to require that this intervention (or those spiritual substances)
was involved in much simpler animals - mice, and nematode worms, and even
bacteria. But we already understand the psyche of the bacterium and we
are well on the way to understanding the psyche of the worm. Mouse and man
are more problematical, but I strongly doubt that there is anything
essentially new here.

Your move.

Thanks for your well thought out opening.

The problem with it, is that if we were indeed a biological mechanism
under the laws of physics, then our whole conscious experience that we
have influence over the behaviour of the mechanism, would have have to
be an illusion (I presume you understand why, if not we can go through
it). The problem with that, is that for the illusion to have been
maintained, there would have had to of been a correlation between what
was preferable to our conscious experience (including the experience of
'will), and what was beneficial to the machine, in terms of what
behaviour it was actually going to attempt to do.

Take for example the conscious experiences of pleasure and pain. There
seems to be an obvious correlation between what may have evolved as
beneficial to the biological mechanism, and what was consciously
preferable. Had the conscious experience of something undesirable to
the biological mechanism been the conscious experience of pleasure, and
the conscious experience of something desirable to the biological
mechanism been the conscious experience of pain, then it is hard to see
how the illusion that the consciousness influenced the mechanism would
have been maintained.

Obviously if the consciousness were just some incidental happening,
when a structure of the type built by the evolutionary process was
formed, and it had no influence over the biological mechanism (which
must be true if the behaviour of the biological mechanism can be
explained purely in terms of the biological mechanism and it's
environment given the laws of physics, i.e. without any reference to
the conscious experiences), then it can't have any evolutionary
advantage.

If it had no evolutionary advantage, there would be no advantage to any
correlation between what was consciously preferable, and what was
beneficical to the biological mechanism. Whatever physical activity
causes the experience of pleasure for example, was not happening
because of the experience it caused, as the resultant experience would
be irrelevant to the build. There must have been a functional reason
for the way it was built, with no regard to any, if any, conscious
experience. Just to be clear, there was nothing matching a pleasurable
conscious experience to what was beneficial to the biological
mechanism. In each case, it would have just been coincidental that the
conscious preference was suitable to the overall function of the
chemical activity going on, within the relevant section.

For us to believe that our conscious experience is an illusion, and
doesn't influence the way the human that we experience being behaves,
i.e. disbelieve our own experience, presumably there would have to be a
suggestion to how this illusion could have possibly been created, by
something which would have been blind (only guided by what is an
evolutionary advantage) to whatever consciousness it was creating (if
any), and yet do such a convincing job. So much so that we would find
it hard to live our lives not believing we were driving the biological
mechanism, rather than being an incidental passanger. It would really
have to have been an amazing coincidence that the various physical
activities that were responsible for the various conscious experiences,
all just happened to coincidently produce an appropriate conscious
experience, such that the correlation between conscious preferability
and biological mechanism behaviour was maintained.

(For clarity could you just post your next response/statement/question
directly below, and then answer my question in the next section, rather
than breaking up my response, so in a few posts time it is unreadable.
I will do the same with yours).

----------------------------------------------------- Below: Question
section of someone3, Answer section of Perplexed in Peoria

Can you suggest a reason it would have been more likely for us to have
experienced pleasure where it is a biological preference rather than
what we currently experience as pain (please note, I am not talking
about labelling here, I am talking about our current conscious
experiences of pleasure and pain) from your perspective, where our
behaviour is explainable in terms of the biological mechanism, it's
environment, and the laws of physics, and therefore consciousness
experiences cannot influence our behaviour or evolutionary development?

... our whole conscious experience that we
have influence over the behaviour of the mechanism, would have have to
be an illusion (I presume you understand why, if not we can go through
it).