The fact that there are some recognized difficulties with materialism is evidence that it has some degree of clarity and is somewhat scientific. I do not see mind as a problem for materialism; it is now possible, and has been for some time to make machines that act mindfully. Consciousness is another matter. There is no scientific explanation for it at the present. Even if there is something extra involved for consciousness to happen, that something need not be supernatural. Religious explanations of mind and consciousness are a muddled mess and not based on evidence.
That ID movement is trying to use the fact that consciousness has not been explained, yet, by materialism, presents another problem. This might lead the materialists, who dominate in science, to throw out the baby (consciousness) out with the bath water (religious explanations of natural phenomeneon). This tendency is already there in some materialists, the tendency to deny the existence of anything that cannot be explained by their model. In fact there are two problems that exists among religionists as well as those who adhere too strongly to any worldview. The first is to deny the existence of anything that doesn’t fit the particular worldview and the second is to make an unsound explanation for the phenomenon from the cherished worldview. In the case of Fundamentalist Christianity, evolution is denied or else the fossils evidence is explained by theories such as Satan trying to trick mankind or God creating a world that has the appearance of a past. In the case of some materialists, consciousness is denied as being some sort of illusion or explained by untested incomplete theories that have huge gaps. While these gaps may eventually be filled without violating materialism, they haven’t been yet. So, consciousness remains a mystery, for now. However, the fact that consciouness cannot yet be explained by materialism is in no way positive evidence of intelligent design. It is merely evidence of a possible and in my opinion likely limit of materialism. There are other philosophical assumptions that can be made about the world that are not materialism and invoke nothing supernatural that might lead to a better scientific understanding of many phenomenon, such as consciousness, that are not yet answered by a science founded on strict materialism. The best of these foundations, in my opinion is the idea that mind exists in matter but is not the same as matter in that mind is about complex form and pattern. This approach has not yet answered the hard question of consciousness, but this approach, in conjunction with materialism, allow scientists to speak meaningfully about love, meaning, hate, fear and other things that materialism, by itself, was not able to speak about in a meaningful way. By the way, the materialist laws of nature are evidence for ID though very far from proof positive. However the sort of designer they might indicate is not at all like the God of the Fundamentalist Christians. It is also unlikely that materialists would deny the existence of these laws, which may in fact only be habits of a universe, which requires no creator god. In this thinking, these habits are ingrained in subatomic particles, which may in fact be complex enough to have simple minds. The universe is then filled with simple minds and complex minds, which arise from the interaction of simple minds. Minds need not be restricted to biological forms, any machine that uses feedback to self-correct, as evolution does, is in fact acting mindfully. An electron may use a self-correcting feedback mechanism to keep it on its proper course. Mind is everywhere and in the human mind the idea of matter is born. On Nov 10, 12:41 am, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If neruoscience and philosophy of mind cannot agree what the "mind" > is, or the question of how does consciouness arise, does that mean > there is a God? Specifically, does that mean there is the traditional > monotheistic God whose attributes are Omnipotence (all powerful), > Omniscience (all knowing), and Omnibenvolent (all loving)? Is it > "supernatural"? Something else? Or, is this just an arguement from > ignorance? > > WHAT SAYS YOU? > > stemcell > > On Nov 9, 11:13 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-decla... > > On Nov 9, 11:11 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Another > > tidbit from New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/> > > mg20026793.000-creationists-declare-war-over-the-brain.html WHAT SAYS> > > YOU?stemcellOn Nov 9, 10:45 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > wrote:> The Intelligent Design folks are attacking the mind/brain> > > issue now> that their fight over getting "equal time" in public> > > shhools has> proved futile. (Fpr a great background on this see> > > "Creationism's> Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intellignet Design" by Dr.> > > Barbara> Forrest. www.creationismstrojanhorse.com) In keeping to > > the> plans> outlined by the "wedge document", they are trying to> > > "overthrow> materialism". In their own words. "The Discovery> > > Institute for the> Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less> > > than the overthrow> of materialism and it's cultural legacies."> >> > > fragments.consc.net/djc/2008/10/the-problem-of-consciousness-meets->> > > intelligent-design.html> >http://fragments.consc.net/djc/2008/10/the- > > problem-of-consciousness-m...>> > > > > > - Hide quoted text -> > - > > Show quoted text -> > > WHAT SAYS YOU?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
