On 4/25/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:14, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that when people oppose science and religion, they tend to
forget that “Primary matter” is also a “religion”, and eventually they take a
religion for granted without knowing.
You keep saying that, but it's just smearing your philosophical opponents.
Just because Patricia Churchland or Daniel Dennett and Anil Seth think material
processes can explain consciousness doesn't mean they think matter is primary,
or even have the concept of primary matter.
What would be their alternate primitive notions?
I don't know. Why should they agree on one. Maybe they have different
ideas or consider it an unanswered question. If I explain that my car
gets energy from burning gasoline are you going to complain that I
haven't said what my primitive notion is?
They are generally referring to matter like brains and computers which are many
levels of composition above quarks, electrons, or strings.
But they believe that those electron exist primitively, or are composed of
things existing primitively.
Maybe. You believe numbers exist primitively. So what? It hasn't
helped you explain quarks and electrons.
And every one of them would instantly reject the idea of worshiping matter or
deriving moral precepts from the Standard Model.
Yes. But we discuss in the metaphysical or theological science. Denote even say
that physics has no conceptual problem, and his own theory assumed brain. Not
that brain could be a number illusion or comes from anything non material.
So "the problem" is in your imagination. You complain of fundamentalism; but
you adopt a fundamentalism of computation.
Not at all. I do not even claim that mechanism is true. Only :
1) that mechanism entails Theology of Plato and refute the theology of
Aristotle (the belief in primary matter, or the confusion between primary
matter and matter).
But it doesn't actually to that. At best it makes primary matter
otiose, and it does so at the cost of making many things exist for which
there is no evidence.
2) as mechanism entails a quantum many-histories type of reality, experimental
evidences favours mechanism (immaterialism) on materialism (for which there has
never been any evidence at all).
There is a great deal of evidence for materialism. It has succeeded as
the basis for theories that not only explain but also predict almost
everything that is explained at all. In contrast Platonism has never
successfully predicted anything. As Sean Carroll put it, "All human
progress has been made by studying the shadows on the wall."
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
