by Coded Logic 58 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Cofty once again I am not sure what you are arguing. As I said before a flood can demolish a house just as a human can. This neither proves that a flood has a mind nor that a human acts without one.
Are you arguing that ants have thoughts or are you arguing that humans do not? Or if neither then what is your point?
I'm disagreeing with your comment...
"if you never had the thought in the first place then none of the actions or material reconfigurations could follow"
Aha Cofty I think my words misled. When I wrote:
Essentially a human thinks "I will knock that house down" or "I will build a house". I do not think an ant or a flood is capable of anything comparable.
You may have taken that to mean:
Essentially a human thinks "I will knock that house down" or "I will build a house". I do not think an ant or a flood is capable of doing anything comparable.
What I meant to say was:
Essentially a human thinks "I will knock that house down" or "I will build a house". I do not think an ant or a flood is capable of thinking anything comparable.
I'm disagreeing with your comment...
"if you never had the thought in the first place then none of the actions or material reconfigurations could follow"
Which was a reply to the comment:
No they don't. I can sit around all day and think "I will build a wigwam here" but if I don't get my material arse in gear and do the work I will be sleeping under the stars.
What you'd need to show is that your action to build a wigwam is not a result of the thought "I will build a wigwam". Pointing out that other natural processes do not require thoughts does not show that this one doesn't. Just because an ant can build something without thinking about it doesn't prove that a human builds without thinking about it. If that's the point you're making. It seems a strange point to argue, but otherwise I don't know what is your point.
Common sense suggests that the ant/puffer fish/wasp is compelled to build their structures by "instinct" hardwired into their genomes, whereas humans are free to decide to build a wigwam or not.
I'm not convinced.
That we are at the stage where problems with the prevailing materialist view are becoming more apparent, but that a viable alternative has yet to emerge.
I have already addressed that because as I indicated: "Holism or emergent properties are useful in describing new things in simple rule based ways even if we don't understand the underlying levels below this new thing. HOWEVER reductionism fills in the gaps and shows that there exists a continuum in this universe"
An example: Suppose you're a scientist and you're working in a less studied segment in the radio wave spectrum. Something doesn't quite add up in your experiments and you're getting higher energy outputs than the existing mathematical models predict.
Now there are two ways you can go about this (assuming you've re-checked and then re-re-checked the results to eliminate the possibility of experimental error):
1. You can use reductionism to try and understand exactly whats going on OR
2. You can explore this new discovery and try and figure out how the rules work (Holism).
Number one is much slower than number two but gives the most satisfactory explanation.
Pursuing option number two means you don't care about the full explanation because you're assuming there is one, and you're more interested in what the new rules for this discovery are. As you discover the new rules you start asking questions like: What can one do with this new discovery? Could this lead to a whole new field of inquiry?
Both methods are important in science. One is more methodical, the other is more exploratory. Both have elements of the other. Either is valid, it purely depends on who you are and which one is your preference. You might even try and do both at the same time.
I'm not convinced.
Not convinced about what? I am not sure I understand.
I don't know how I would explain the difference between what goes on in the mind of a wasp and a wigwam builder.
I would like to understand it.
I read "Consciousness Explained" by Dan Dennett. Hmmmm?
