Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
The video starts off by puts words in the mouth of all atheists saying they all believe we are the product of “pure chance ”.
===================================

I listened to it again and did not hear that statement being made. I did not hear an argument that ALL atheists held that view.

Wasn't he making a statement about the philosophy of Naturalism in general ? That I heard.[/b]

“...I did not hear an argument that ALL atheists held that view. ...”

it was implied.


“...Wasn't he making a statement about the philosophy of Naturalism in general ? ...”

he made a false statement about Naturalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29

“...Naturalism is a philosophy that posits a particular picture of reality, being, and existence that typically excludes the supernatural. ...”

So Naturalism says nothing about us being a product of “pure chance”. And since atheists generally don't believe in the existence of the supernatural, by using this straw man argument against Naturalism, he is implying the same straw man argument against atheists.

Do you acknowledge the fact that neither I nor most atheists we know of claim that we are a product of “pure chance”?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...I did not hear an argument that ALL atheists held that view. ...”

it was implied.


“...Wasn't he making a statement about the philosophy of Naturalism in general ? ...”

he made a false statement about Naturalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29

“...Naturalism is a philosophy that posits a particular pictu ...[text shortened]... fact that neither I nor most atheists we know of claim that we are a product of “pure chance”?

To spin off at a tangent...

Like you Andrew, I find the naturalist position to be extremely beguiling, but do you not think that there are at least a couple of problematic questions posed by quantum physics? I won't pretend to fully understand the math, but entanglement and observer effect don't easily fit into a purely naturalistic world view, do they?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
To spin off at a tangent...

Like you Andrew, I find the naturalist position to be extremely beguiling, but do you not think that there are at least a couple of problematic questions posed by quantum physics? I won't pretend to fully understand the math, but entanglement and observer effect don't easily fit into a purely naturalistic world view, do they?

“...entanglement and observer effect don't easily fit into a purely naturalistic world view, ...”

I don't see any conflict between quantum entanglement and the disbelief that there exists a supernatural. Interaction at a distance does not imply anything supernatural just as interaction by direct contact does not imply anything supernatural.

As for the “observer effect”, I assume you mean the claim that something doesn't exist unless you observe it?
If so, contrary to popular belief, this is NOT what quantum physics actually says! Quantum physics itself, including all the equations, only describe what behaviour is apparently actually observed, that is all! It says nothing about the correct philosophical interpretation of what those equations mean beyond what is observable. The claim that something doesn't exist unless you observe it is just one of the philosophical interpretations of quantum physics that I and many others have long concluded is deeply flawed at least in part because it leads to what is known as the “measurement problem”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

This philosophical problem is a flaw in that interpretation and the only known way to resolve this problem is to have a “realist” interpretation of quantum physics which says that quantum outcomes are NOT dependent on mind nor on them being “observed”.
Personally, I am a “realist”.

There is no doubt quantum physics is correct. But it is a common misconception that the Neils Bohr's interpretation of quantum physics is PART of quantum physics -it is not. Unfortunately the news media continually propagate this common misconception.

Originally posted by jaywill
Can a brain that evolved be trusted to know real truth or just know the best survival mechanism ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k&feature=related

I think the discussion of the 'random chance' bit at the start of the clip misses the important point in the body of the clip.

<paraphrasing>If our brains evolved belief systems that benefit survival rather than those that are true then how can we trust anything our brains come up with?</paraphrasing>

Answer: "We can't, not on its own".

And that is why religion/superstition fails to find any truth. It is based purely on what we believe we saw/heard/experienced.

The way we find beliefs that can be trusted is by testing those beliefs. By devising tests that are not reliant on the belief or our perceptions. Objective tests. And then running those tests. And getting other people to run those tests along with other tests that they devise. If the results of all those tests support the belief then we can be confident in putting a little trust in the belief, that it might be true. If some of those tests fail, then clearly the belief is not true and needs to be discarded or adjusted.

Hey guess what? That's the Scientific Method!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...And what keeps these atoms in perfect materialization? ...”

Not sure what you mean; there is no reason to believe that something is 'needed' to keeps these atoms existing (if that is what you mean?); they may simply just exist (as a brute fact).

“...Why do they not just spin out of control?
What is the force that keeps everything in place and an orange will appear. ...”

I guess I just cannot see this because I don't do drugs.

And what are drugs? Anything that alters your state of conciousness? Whats the first drug when you were born? Oxygen? and then what...the rest of what your are addicted to? We all have our afflictions. Its part of being human.

I would say that you haven't even begun to understand the greater, inevitable changes that will follow the advent of quantum theory.
As you say, it has not been able to be disproved and it is still in its infancy.
But the "tremors" felt around the world have undoubtedly awoken peoples imaginations when the quantum model(s) of the universe was first presented.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I am afraid your post has completely lost me.

“...it just feels solid (the pc in question) ,when you touch it, because it is vibrating at such a slow speed that you can feel it.
This slow vibrational speed matches your thinking/conciosness. ….”

what?

Science doesn't say this and, as far as I am aware, I have not heard of any religious scri ...[text shortened]... oms in their relative positions and resists my hand and fingers passing though it as I crab it.

I think frequency is being referred to. As in color and sound. All our sense at base are frequency interpretation (Fourier waveform) (see Pibram, neurophysicist) of whatever it is behind the solidity of things. That which is solid as with color, smell, sound. ultimately is a ball of high frequency (not low) energy. [E=mc^2] These things exist in the form we encounter them because of our brain. Even the 3D projection of the reality out there is done by your brain. That is not to say it doesn't have in some form a reality in base.

BTW, if a tree falls in the forest with nothing there to hear it, does it make a sound. No, it doesn't.

Originally posted by Taoman
BTW, if a tree falls in the forest with nothing there to hear it, does it make a sound. No, it doesn't.

That depends on what you mean by 'sound'. I might agree with you if you'd said 'does it make an annoying noise?'. But by common usage of the word, I would say the tree does make a sound, and those sound waves have an impact on the rest of the universe that is theoretically detectable.

If a deaf man was in the forest and detected the 'sound' / vibrations in the air via optical instruments, what would you call the phenomena he detected?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That depends on what you mean by 'sound'. I might agree with you if you'd said 'does it make an annoying noise?'. But by common usage of the word, I would say the tree does make a sound, and those sound waves have an impact on the rest of the universe that is theoretically detectable.

If a deaf man was in the forest and detected the 'sound' / vibrations in the air via optical instruments, what would you call the phenomena he detected?

The core is in that there is "nothing there to hear it". Sound as we normally use the term is a product of aural systems of brains, derived from changes in air pressure.
Air pressure changes and vibrations, yes, sound no. This simple illustration underlines how our and other forms of life experience of the world is filtered and reconstructed via mental and other sensing apparatus.

We experience it as out there, but what we are experiencing is different to what is actually the source of sensation and mental rebuild and projection. We only know that mental construction of reality (sensed phenomenon) and not the "thing in itself" (noumenon). The final nature of this noumenon appears wavelike, as in quantum related Fourier waveform. The neurophysicist Pribram made the suggestion from his research it appears as if the brain translates Fourier waveforms.
(My understanding of Fourier waveforms is almost non-existent and I am only recounting the ideas of others.)

The apparent world could be likened to the photonic aspect of light. This is an analogy. These modal similarities of the micro-macro world are at least interesting, while not stating a direct connection between the quantum level and the macro-world. However, serious studies are happening by interested scientists (Penrose and others) as to the quantum functional role at microtubule level of the brain. It would ,if correct, account for the immediacy and holistic aspect of consciousness.

Edit:typographical

Originally posted by Taoman
The core is in that there is "nothing there to hear it". Sound as we normally use the term is a product of aural systems of brains, derived from changes in air pressure.
Air pressure changes and vibrations, yes, sound no. This simple illustration underlines how our and other forms of life experience of the world is filtered and reconstructed via mental and o ...[text shortened]... rrect, account for the immediacy and holistic aspect of consciousness.

Edit:typographical

It would also imply if correct, that consciousness processes are linked and part of the greater "quantum entanglement". We would then be participating in that which we are observing.

Originally posted by Penguin
I think the discussion of the 'random chance' bit at the start of the clip misses the important point in the body of the clip.

<paraphrasing>If our brains evolved belief systems that benefit survival rather than those that are true then how can we trust anything our brains come up with?</paraphrasing>

Answer: "We can't, not on its own".
...[text shortened]... ue and needs to be discarded or adjusted.

Hey guess what? That's the Scientific Method!

=================================
And that is why religion/superstition fails to find any truth. It is based purely on what we believe we saw/heard/experienced.
================================

I do not believe that Jesus Christ "fails" to find any truth. Rather I think from one man in history, He was the source of the most moral and spiritual truth.

====================================
The way we find beliefs that can be trusted is by testing those beliefs.
==================================

I have tested the truth of sanctification and transformation by the Holy Spirit upon surrendering my life to Jesus Christ. The consistency of His growth in my personality assures me that I must be on the right track.


===============================
By devising tests that are not reliant on the belief or our perceptions. Objective tests. And then running those tests. And getting other people to run those tests along with other tests that they devise. If the results of all those tests support the belief then we can be confident in putting a little trust in the belief, that it might be true. If some of those tests fail, then clearly the belief is not true and needs to be discarded or adjusted.

Hey guess what? That's the Scientific Method!
=================================

And the Scientific Method is itself based on beliefs and a philosohy which cannot itself be verified by the Scientific Method. It must assume the truth of those foundational beliefs in order to DO science.

Bottom line, I guess, is eventually we all will simply trust something or someone.

Originally posted by Taoman
Sound as we normally use the term is a product of aural systems of brains, derived from changes in air pressure.

And that is essentially what I disputed. I do not use the word 'sound' in that sense and I am not convinced that most other people do. I am not saying it can not be used that way, I am saying it is not the most common usage and certainly not the one I would attribute to the word in the sample sentence.

This simple illustration underlines how our and other forms of life experience of the world is filtered and reconstructed via mental and other sensing apparatus.
No, the illustration just demonstrates a bait and switch trick with definitions.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...entanglement and observer effect don't easily fit into a purely naturalistic world view, ...”

I don't see any conflict between quantum entanglement and the disbelief that there exists a supernatural. Interaction at a distance does not imply anything supernatural just as interaction by direct contact does not imply anything supernatural.

As ...[text shortened]... s -it is not. Unfortunately the news media continually propagate this common misconception.

Sorry dude, I didn't really make myself very clear there did I?

Firstly let me say I'm not doubting quantum physics - it's clearly a very accurate description of the small scale stuff and undoubtedly not far short of a true representation. I'm talking about the weird stuff within it. By observer effect I'm really talking about waveform collapse - seems to require an observer, which is odd, don't you think? Combined with quantum entanglement this seems to me to reveal an aspect to the universe which is somewhat peculiar, to say the least. I'm not really suggesting that this involves the supernatural (although neither am I ruling this out). They do however suggest to me that the standard naturalistic view of the universe is lacking something rather profound.

The 'realist' position looks like it might be successful in sidestepping these issues eventually, but doesn't seem to me to have dealt with them yet. That said, I'm not a physicist, so what do I know!

Originally posted by twhitehead
And that is essentially what I disputed. I do not use the word 'sound' in that sense and I am not convinced that most other people do. I am not saying it can not be used that way, I am saying it is not the most common usage and certainly not the one I would attribute to the word in the sample sentence.

[b]This simple illustration underlines how our and ...[text shortened]... paratus.
No, the illustration just demonstrates a bait and switch trick with definitions.[/b]

But how do you know what is reality and what is "The Matrix"?

You are just being presented with a different view, I dont think its a switch trick with definitions, just a switch.

And who are you going to believe? (yourself , I hope🙂 )

Originally posted by twhitehead
And that is essentially what I disputed. I do not use the word 'sound' in that sense and I am not convinced that most other people do. I am not saying it can not be used that way, I am saying it is not the most common usage and certainly not the one I would attribute to the word in the sample sentence.

[b]This simple illustration underlines how our and ...[text shortened]... paratus.
No, the illustration just demonstrates a bait and switch trick with definitions.[/b]

Well, we must agree to differ, because I do think "sound" as usually used is something that is heard, and that if no ear is present the falling tree will make vibrations, not sound, for some nervous system/hearing apparatus is required for sound to be experienced.

"Sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Sorry dude, I didn't really make myself very clear there did I?

Firstly let me say I'm not doubting quantum physics - it's clearly a very accurate description of the small scale stuff and undoubtedly not far short of a true representation. I'm talking about the weird stuff within it. By observer effect I'm really talking about waveform collapse ...[text shortened]... o me to have dealt with them yet. That said, I'm not a physicist, so what do I know!

“...They do however suggest to me that the standard naturalistic view of the universe is lacking something rather profound. ...”

I don't understand why you would think that.