But this is the entire problem. If the patterns are initiated by some material thing (i.e. impulse from natural environment, then thought as a response), then neither you nor I have any reason to trust our reasoning, because they are merely the result of naturalistic causation and are not independent. If the naturalistic environment causes me to arrive at an abstract conclusion (like the ones we are discussing now), then what faith can I have in that conclusion? I have no ability to believe my thoughts are true unless I trust the causal pattern perfectly. But I have no reason to trust the causal pattern unless I can first independently decide it is a good pattern.
But you and I both must assume that our abstract thoughts or reasonings can stand on their own two feet (i.e. they are objective). Because if they are merely the result of causation, then we can never have a conversation about anything, and we might as well never have discussions such as these.
So here we are: We both assume reason is valid (or at least, I assume it is and I assume you assume it is). Naturalism has difficulty finding an outside force that allows abstract thoughts to be objective, because, if naturalism is true, there can be no force outside the universe that is independent of it and thus not the result of a string of causations or material interrelations or some sort. Our thoughts are merely the movements of electrons and atoms, began by some other material force with no particular purpose at all. But if I can, of sheer will, independently force these electrons to behave in such a way as to form a mental picture, then I have just done something that is outside of nature itself. Of course, I'm sure you'll agree we have both been guilty of poor reasoning in our lives, but at least with this model we can trust the art of reasoning itself.
What force, according to naturalism, could do such a thing and still be independent of causality so that you or I could trust reasoning to be rational and not merely be the result of causality?
It could be that the random movements of subatomic particles manifest themselves as the thoughts I think, but if that is it, if I have no control over these particles, then I can have no faith in my thoughts. It could be that biological needs or outside environmental stimulus initiates my thoughts, but again I cannot trust my conclusions until I can trust that they are arrived at independent of the cause itself.
But if, as Christianity and other theistic thought systems suppose, man is partly supernatural, or has some supernatural component, than he may be able to, of mere will, force particles in certain instances to form certain mental pictures, and he thus has the choice to think one way or another, which means that he doesn't come as close to violating his initial assumption of independent thought.
Now, we could both agree that just because some outside force stimulated the thought doesn't imply that said thought is incorrect. This is true. But if all thoughts are merely the result of some material thing, and have no independence from the material world, then we cannot know beforehand or afterward whether we can trust the stimulating forces to create proper conclusions.
It is still possible that I have the ability to direct matter in a supernatural way, but I am myself a slave to an outside force and have no free will. But neither you nor I want to consider ourselves deterministic slaves, because if we have no free will, we are still at the same problem as before: We have no reason to trust reason and must therefore end this conversation here and now. Instead, we must assume from the outset that we have free will and our reasoning is itself free from outside coercion.
Again, theism can allow for some supernatural process that allows me to spontaneously, and of my own free will, force electrons in my brain to move in certain ways so as to form mental pictures, and it can allow that I have the free will to do so. I have not been shown that naturalism can do the same.
Now let us move to consciousness. How come, if all there is to me is matter and energy, I realize that I exist, and I can ponder not only my existence, but how my experiences influence that existence? I am no different, really, from a tree or a desk, or my computer, when it all comes down to it. Sure, I am more complex than those things, but I am still just a large meat popsicle.
One could argue that somehow it has to do with the size of the brain, but there are computers that are much faster than I at doing certain things, and are in a lot of ways more powerful, but they don't think about the fact that they exist. They don't consider their own emotional needs. They may be programmed to learn, but they don't stop and think, "What do I mean by learning (we have entire fields of thought on this subject)? What is it in my core that allows me to improve my computing processes? What is it about the constructs of the universe that allow me to even have these considerations?"
I am very interested in hearing a naturalistic response to these questions.
Good post. To distill it down: "Why should I trust the evolutionist's mental atoms over my own mental atoms?"
Unlike a desk which was created by an intelligent designer, a tree is a living thing that replicates though the biological process of evolution. The tree can independently decide to move its leaves to face the sun and grow thicker branches on the side where the sun shines daily. It can even shed it's leaves to save it's energy before the cold winter arrives and grow them back in the spring.
But if all thoughts are merely the result of some material thing, and have no independence from the material world, then we cannot know beforehand or afterward whether we can trust the stimulating forces to create proper conclusions.
Those who make improper conclusions are less likely to live long enough to mate leaving the ones who make proper conclusions to breed the next generation and that's a process that's been going on for a very long time. It's called natural selection and you can read Darwin for more information on how that works.
And postulating a supernatural substance wherein this pattern (i.e. your mind) is instantiated solves your problem exactly how?
But you and I both must assume that our abstract thoughts or reasonings can stand on their own two feet (i.e. they are objective). Because if they are merely the result of causation, then we can never have a conversation about anything, and we might as well never have discussions such as these.
Sorry, but the one doesn't follow from the other. And also, what are thoughts the result of if they are processes in a supernatural realm instead of the natural one?
So here we are: We both assume reason is valid (or at least, I assume it is and I assume you assume it is).
I assume my reasoning abilities lead (in many instances) to valid conclusions because there is that constant feedback from reality as PatrickHenry already noted. And this is independent of whether my mind is the result of matter in motion or supermatter in motion.
Naturalism has difficulty finding an outside force that allows abstract thoughts to be objective, because, if naturalism is true, there can be no force outside the universe that is independent of it and thus not the result of a string of causations or material interrelations or some sort.
Yes, and? You say this as if it is a bad thing.
And why does there have to be some ominous outside force at all? Also, what does it change if this force exists but is the result of a string of causations of supermaterial interrelations?
Our thoughts are merely the movements of electrons and atoms, began by some other material force with no particular purpose at all.
As I said in my previous post, we are patterns in motion so from an information theoretical point of view it's completely irrelevant what kind of "substance" it exists in.
But if I can, of sheer will, independently force these electrons to behave in such a way as to form a mental picture, then I have just done something that is outside of nature itself.
How so? If you are the result of the interaction of these electrons then you didn't. On the other hand if the pattern which makes up your mind resides in some supernatural realm what led to the change in this pattern so you did 'A' instead of 'B'?
Of course, I'm sure you'll agree we have both been guilty of poor reasoning in our lives, but at least with this model we can trust the art of reasoning itself.
Poor reasoning? Yes of course I had enough of that in my life but again I don't see how your model resolves anything instead of introducing new problems.
What force, according to naturalism, could do such a thing and still be independent of causality so that you or I could trust reasoning to be rational and not merely be the result of causality?
What's your problem with causality and why does causality preclude rational thinking?
May I also inform you that this billard-ball or clockwork universe is long dead.
But if, as Christianity and other theistic thought systems suppose, man is partly supernatural, or has some supernatural component, than he may be able to, of mere will, force particles in certain instances to form certain mental pictures, and he thus has the choice to think one way or another, which means that he doesn't come as close to violating his initial assumption of independent thought.
And this "mere will" is the result of some supernatural processes which are the result of...
You see, you not only run into the same problems as with a completely naturalistic model but you introduce new ones: the interaction of the supernatural with the natural.
I hope you are aware of the fact that this ominous force you postulate has to interact in a much stronger fashion with the matter of your brain than the neutrinos that are constantly bombarding us from all directions. And as you may also know we have the capability to detect neutrinos but so far there is no trace of this ominous force which influences our brains in such a massive way.
Now, we could both agree that just because some outside force stimulated the thought doesn't imply that said thought is incorrect. This is true. But if all thoughts are merely the result of some material thing, and have no independence from the material world, then we cannot know beforehand or afterward whether we can trust the stimulating forces to create proper conclusions.
You keep asserting this but you show no reason why an independence from the material world makes our reasoning abilities any more reliable. What kind of mechanisms are at work in the supernatural world that make it superior to the natural world?
It is still possible that I have the ability to direct matter in a supernatural way, but I am myself a slave to an outside force and have no free will. But neither you nor I want to consider ourselves deterministic slaves, because if we have no free will, we are still at the same problem as before: We have no reason to trust reason and must therefore end this conversation here and now. Instead, we must assume from the outset that we have free will and our reasoning is itself free from outside coercion.
OK, first off, what is free will? How can YOU tell whether you have it or not? And what makes your will any freer if it is supernatural?
And again, the notion that our natural universe is deterministic was discarded a long time ago (at least 100 years or more if I'm not mistaken).
Again, theism can allow for some supernatural process that allows me to spontaneously, and of my own free will, force electrons in my brain to move in certain ways so as to form mental pictures, and it can allow that I have the free will to do so. I have not been shown that naturalism can do the same.
But what are these supernatural processes? And what's even more important how do they allow you (and again what is YOU if not the sum of these processes?) to force electrons in your brain to move in certain ways?
Methinks you want to solve a riddle with a greater conundrum.
Now let us move to consciousness. How come, if all there is to me is matter and energy, I realize that I exist, and I can ponder not only my existence, but how my experiences influence that existence? I am no different, really, from a tree or a desk, or my computer, when it all comes down to it. Sure, I am more complex than those things, but I am still just a large meat popsicle.
Well, of course you are different from all those things. As I already said numerous times before, it's the pattern that matters and not the substance it is instantiated in. In other words, a table in the supernatural realm is still a table and a NAND logic circuit will have the same output whether it is supernatural or natural.
One could argue that somehow it has to do with the size of the brain, but there are computers that are much faster than I at doing certain things, and are in a lot of ways more powerful, but they don't think about the fact that they exist. They don't consider their own emotional needs. They may be programmed to learn, but they don't stop and think, "What do I mean by learning (we have entire fields of thought on this subject)? What is it in my core that allows me to improve my computing processes? What is it about the constructs of the universe that allow me to even have these considerations?"
Now speed isn't really important in this aspect. What is important however, is that your brain is still more complex than the most advanced computer. So, whether future generations of computers will be able to do what you mentioned in your last paragraph, I cannot say but I think it's a bit premature to declare that they never will.
If you want to have more authoritative answers to your questions I suggest you contact FReeper "tortoise" who is a lot more knowledgeable wrt information theory than I.