On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
>> So you do believe that somewhere in the trajectory of the carbon >> atom as it makes its way into the book it will move contrary to any >> physical laws. If this happens in cells all the time it should be >> easily observable. Does the fact that nothing like this has ever >> been observed count for anything? > > I do observe books. Say now I am reading Thomas Metzinger "Being no One". I > would say that the book does exist and even that Thomas Metzinger has > written it. Does this fact count for anything? These facts have no bearing on the question of whether a transcendent influence affects the atoms that go to make up the book. If such phenomena occur and are common in biological systems, then we should see empirical evidence in our experiments; but we never have. We have never observed flying pigs despite observing many pigs, and although that does not prove flying pigs don't exist, it is significant evidence against them. >>> In this series there is a clear statement that there are questions >>> that we cannot solve, for example if the Universe is eternal or >>> not. You rely on cause and at the same time on Big Bang. But then >>> Big Bang seems to have no cause. Or do you know one in this case? >> >> That is a question that presents some mystery and cosmologists argue >> about. But very few biochemists would claim that miraculous chemical >> reactions occur inside neurons. > > Okay, so we already have a precedent with the cause logic. Yet, if once it > would be possible to live without a cause, then why it has happened only > once? > > If to speak about a human being in general (this concerns cosmologists and > biochemists in particular), then Thomas Metzinger discusses in his book > "autoepistemic closure": > > '"Autoepistemic closure" is an epistemological, and not (at least not > primarily) a phenomenological concept. It refers to an "inbuilt blind spot", > a structurally anchored deficit in the capacity to gain knowledge about > oneself.' > > This could explain the behavior of biochemists as well as cosmologists. The > brain just does not allow us to understand what the real universe looks > like. It is *possible* that an immaterial soul exists and we just haven't discovered it but we should not believe whatever takes our fancy on the grounds that there is no proof against it, viz. the flying pig example. Incidentally, I haven't read the Metzinger book but I don't think he entertains any notion of a soul. Even the likes of John Searle and Roger Penrose, who don't believe computers can think, do not postulate the existence of souls. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.