Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

I wanted to make a thread about this topic because I was curious about what some users in the Off-Topic section thought about external knowledge and whether or not they can have reliable knowledge about the world around them. I am a Pragmatist so this argument is irrelevant to the world-view I hold so I don't need to actually respond to it, but to users that believe that we can gather reliable facts about the external world through personal inquiry I think this argument can provide some food for thought concerning the nature of knowledge and truth. I will post a link to a video in the OP that will explain what the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism is and the implications this argument has.

A more detailed explanation of the argument by the creator of the argument.

Too much loaded language in the video for me. There are some parts where I find the video maker oversimplifies aspects of evolution, and overcomplicates other things in order to make the argument seem more refined.

Do you mind giving some examples of where you thought the video went wrong?

@nick_hero22: I wouldn't use the word wrong myself, then I'd be guilty of one of my own complaints with the video. its a general problem with one sided dialogue, as far as conveying ideas/criticisms.

Early in the video what does the video maker mean by certain for example? Establish beyond doubt or reason? Great confidence? Two different ideas that can be arrived at with different processes and consequences as far as meaning and as far as potential criticism. Also is philosophical evolutionary naturalism really "that the natural world is all of existence and humans came about by accident through the blind workings of matter" words like accident and blind seem loaded in this context. Accident? What was suppose to happen instead? Blind? As opposed to matter with eyes?

I read some of the posts/arguments by video maker in the commentary as well, and they use lines like "Why would the brain decided after millions of years of evolution that a cognition aimed at survival is trivial?" which makes me a bit skeptical about their knowledge and understanding of evolution. There is a lot more but I tend to be busy these days so can't really go into more detail. Interesting idea for a thread though. ^_^.

@nick_hero22: This video is one big straw man; from evolving from accident. Naturalists don't assume it's true as their premise (or at least I don't).

And how evolution is an argument against naturalism is beyond me because evolution needs naturalism to operate.

At the 2:32 mark he is wrong because we used to believe in supernatural entities in order to survive. If we knew thousands of years ago that every disaster was caused by natural events, we would understand how the environment works and how to better prepare for such things. People today still believe AIDS was caused by a supernatural deity to curse homosexuality.

I think what he was trying to say is that under naturalism that we don't have any reason to believe that the chances of having reliable cognitive faculties versus not having reliable faculties is higher. I think he was critiquing the variant of Naturalism that entails only the existence of material things. I am a naturalist but I don't believe that the only things that exist are material things. I think his usage of the words like "accident" and "blind" are valid in respect to his argument. They don't seem loaded to me because evolution is commonly described as a process that has no foresight into the kinds of traits that will arise or the kinds of beings that will possess these traits, so in a sense it is merely coincidental that we are the kinds of creatures that we are.

Thank you, and I appreciate you posting :)

Evolution is a process that uses the mechanisms of natural selection which is the process of passively filtering out traits that have a negative impact on an organism's survivability and random mutation, so when the video maker says that evolution of a certain organism is accidental what he is saying is that there is no reason why this organism has these set of traits versus another set of traits.

I think you missed his point! What he is saying is that if evolution is true then the probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable is low which undermines the claim that naturalism is true because how do you really know if naturalism is true if your cognitive faculties aren't providing you with an accurate stream of information about your environment.

@nick_hero22 said:

Maybe, have you seen some of their other videos? If they are saying that under naturalism that we don't have any reason to believe that the chances of having reliable cognitive faculties versus not having reliable faculties is higher, I find nothing disagreeable about that, its a not very controversial statement, the phrasing implies degrees and overlap. We know that our senses and cognitive faculties aren't perfect and we also know they aren't the opposite. The video maker to me seems to be making more black and white assertions, and also applying that type of thinking to the things he critiques. Like many of his wording "So everything that makes us who we are would have come together via natural selection to aid us in surviving: However that would include everything about us" doesn't account for traits and developments that are byproducts or accompany traits and developments that aid in survival. Evolution as a process having no foresight could qualify it as accidental, but I would say its loaded because if we compare it to a car crash? Well in many car accidents you have individuals who had no foresight that they would be in a vehicle collision resulting in severe injury. We would often describe situations where cars collide into each other violently or other objects, we injury or death occur as accidents. Even in situations where variables seem to increase the likelihood of an accident (drunk drivers, wet road conditions, poor visibility, poor road design) with evolution the variables generally involved are generally too complex and diverse for a random individual to point out in massive detail but that doesn't mean the process has no foresight. It depends. Then at least with car accidents, the idea is that people generally have expectations about what is the proper usage and application of cars, as vehicles to aid transport among other things, not as vehicles to injure or kill people, hence when it happens many will refer to it as an accident. The accident is an alternative consequence to a process people view as the proper, planned process. What is the alternative with evolution?

So usually when I see individuals refer to evolution as an accident or blind, there are a few primary reasons. Its rhetoric designed to appeal primarily to peoples emotions and psychology, with divine intervention and guidance being the alternative route to evolution. If evolution is to be "believed" then you and everyone you love is just an accident, a blind and random occurrence which means you, everyone you know and everything you do is meaningless and has no point. Where as alternatives usually come with ideas that there is reason and purpose to life and living. Another application is when some individuals are trying to convey an idea and acknowledge historic ideas about some peoples traditional views about humans, and the universe, ideas that various developments/processes were say… straightforward, uncomplicated, clean and orderly, those terms themselves loaded, its how various figures like Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkings, (for example) can be quote mined so often, the sincere meaning of their ideas subverted or misinterpreted disingenuously. Then also another way, is when people who may not have a good understanding of the subject only superficial grasp, after all the Big Bang is often referring to as a big explosion that created the universe when there are much superior ways to phrase the theory, more of an expansion and more to do with the birth and aftermath of the Universe as we currently know it.

So the video could have better phrasing, so above is avoided, if they are trying to say under naturalism that we don't have any reason to believe that the chances of having reliable cognitive faculties versus not having reliable faculties is higher, they could focus on ways we know our senses and perceptions can be flawed… then again if they are actually taking a more black and white stance (which I actually think they are) then they couldn't do that without acknowledging that our senses and perceptions have degrees of credibility and accuracy which can be used as a basis for beliefs or better yet knowledge which also could concede that humans brains and senses whilst not developed and shaped by evolution to be truth finding machines have developed to be able to reason, discern and distinguish which can make them relatively good at drawing conclusions that can be accurate (the fact that they can be inaccurate as well actually a good thing in the sense it helps with falsifiability) as well as navigating reality for survival reasons.

Cheers! I like the threads you make!

The problem with his argument is evolution is true, so he can what if all day but it doesn't change the fact that it is true.

If naturalism weren't true, that would mean we would have supernatural agents that affect our cognitive faculties.

This sounds like he is trying to argue from a solipsistic view of the world, how do you know that you really know about what you really know? This philosophic view is bankrupt.

@nick_hero22: I'll watch later when I get home, but I dont have high hopes. Videos from religious apologists that concern things like physics or biology always end up showing a severe lack of knowledge of those subjects. Beyond that, the logic of these arguments is usually quite poor as well.

Nothing.

Solipsism fails because at the end of the day everything we experience is consistent with a real physical world. And, if that's the case, even if it really is all a hallucination, then there's no effective difference between the two. It's a pointless philosophy. Also, any philosophy that claims that you cant know anything for sure (as you point out) contradicts itself.

1) If evolution is true then how do you know that you have reliable cognitive faculties when the chances of reliable cognitive faculties derived from evolutionary processes are low?

2) This is a non-sequitur because a system of selection could be simply built with the capacity for generating traits that have teleology from jump.

3) What he said had nothing whatsoever to do with Solipsism. What he said is along the lines of radical skepticism.

Just because we perceive something to be true doesn't make it true since perception doesn't necessarily equal reality. The reason why perception doesn't equal reality is because we know that there are many non-physical factors that can influence how people experience certain things, and in addition to that our sensory organs are not optimism for truth-seeking; but survivability.

I think what the video maker is trying to get at is that under naturalistic assumptions that we have no reason to believe that our cognitive faculties are reliable enough to conclude that naturalism is true, and not that are cognitive faculties cannot relay some accurate information. I believe that his usage of the word "accident" can be analogous to our everyday usage because what he is saying is that that the reason these set of traits exist versus the next set of traits is do to some variable that isn't actively accounted for in the process, so under that definition of the word "accident" the usages would be analogous to each other. For example, if I was out driving one night and drove over some black ice and crashed in another vehicle this would be classified as an "accident" because I wasn't consciously aware of the black ice on the road. The same would be true for evolution. Traits are created from mechanisms that unconsciously generates deviant genetic sequences that could either harm or help an organism. I don't necessarily disagree on the fact that their my be an agenda at play here with the rhetoric being used. And, thank you!!!!!!

How do you define "reliable"?

How do you know that the chances of evolution producing reliable cognitive faculties is low?

We know evolution is true because it's science. That means that the theory of evolution makes predictions that have been tested over and over to be correct, and it has not been falsified. It means that the results and papers have been peer-reviewed an incalculable number of times by now. So, it has nothing to do with one persons ability to reason or perceive, because science takes that out of the equation.

Your criticism about cognitive faculties applies to religion, because that's where people make claims based solely on personal experiences, feelings, anecdotes, and arguments that have no evidence to back them up.

Give some examples of "non-physical factors that can influence how people experience" anything. I'll even settle for one, but since you claim there are multiple ("many" even), you should be able to give at least 2 examples.

But, again, this is a red herring. How our senses evolved is irrelevant. What matters is that we can test them. So, like I said, this is why science works and religion doesnt.

"Reliable" in the sense that our cognitive faculties are providing us with a stream of information that is an actual reflection of the phenomena we experience, and a subjective interpretation i.e. color.

Because evolution is a process that is based on natural selection, and natural selection is only concerned about selection against traits that are detrimental to survivability.

No one is questioning whether or not evolution is true, but if you believe that evolution is true then it undermines the claim that metaphysical naturalism is true.

I agree that the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism is a double-edge sword for the theist, but I think that most theist would claim that their belief in God is properly basic in order to escape the implications of the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism and most theist would probably claim that their is some teleology in evolution.

---

Sociological and cultural factors can shape how you experience things. Personal bias and incredulity can also shape your experience of things.

That is crazy because if we propose a test in order to test our cognitive faculties we are already presupposing that our cognitive faculties are reliable to create a test to test them.

1) I agreed which is why I'm a pragmatist when it comes to knowledge and truth.

2) Platonism is a world-view that isn't naturalistic but avoids positing supernatural agents. Why do you automatically rule out the possibility of external agents building in teleology in the evolutionary system?

3) What? Who is saying that natural selection is false? I'm understanding the how to you get from natural selection is false to it not being useful? Colors are useful to humans but color doesn't actually exist in a objective sense.

All of those are physical factors. They are caused by either the structure of the brain (biases, thoughts), or the interactions of people with each other (sociology, culture).

Still waiting to hear just one non-physical factor that influences how people experience anything.

We dont have to assume they are completely reliable, they just have to be reliable some of the time. The thing that suggests that our cognitive faculties are sometimes reliable is that when we observe the universe, what we observe is consistent... always. It's not about "a test", it's about many tests by many people. That's why science works and why we can reasonable assume that our senses are not lying to us.

This is like measuring the size of something with a ruler. You know that it's reliable because if you (and others) do it over and over you always get similar results. If it wasnt reliable then you'd expect results that tend to disagree with each other. Same with our senses and cognition. If our senses were not accurately telling us about the universe, then we'd expect random and inconsistent results. But, we dont see that.

The only logical way that our senses could be deceiving us would be in a way that is completely indistinguishable from them not doing so. And, like I said above, there's no point in speculating about this because there'd be no way to tell.

Thoughts and ideas aren't physical things though, and thoughts have the capacity to influence physical things (humans) to achieve certain results like justice, peace, love, hope, and etc. in the same sense that natural laws can influence the behavior of matter and energy.

It is irrelevant whether or not what we see is consistent with itself because that is not the question. The question is are our senses consistent with the truth, so you are dodging the question.

You are confused right now! Something being logical consistent with itself doesn't mean that it is true though. Natural Selection at the most only needs to provide us with cognitive faculties that can understand logic since understanding logic is necessary for problem solving; and humans excel at problem solving, but the problems we are solving doesn't necessarily have to correspond to some fundamental truth.

Well I watched the first half and I'm not sure I need to watch more. The whole thing is based on a fallacious premise, namely the statement:

"So everything that makes us who we are would have come together via natural selection to aid us in surviving."

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong... and exactly the type of stuff I expected. It's amazing that people base entire philosophies on false assumptions about how the world works... but then again, not surprising when those philosophers cant be bothered to actually use scientific methods and observations.

Everything that makes up our bodies and DNA is not just there to "help us survive". That's beyond stupid. There is no "purpose" to how evolution works. Evolution operates through random changes which are then either passed on or not because of natural selective processes. Some changes or mutations help with this, some hinder it, and some have no effect. As a result, many aspects of our bodies either have no useful purpose, or are even detrimental to survival.

It gets even worse when the video tries to claim that even thoughts are only there because they "help survival"... wow. Talk about grasping at straws... or should I say, grasping at strawmen.

Oh, hey, I like comics... I guess that's because it helps me survive! See how stupid that sounds?

@nick_hero22 said:

Well the idea of what is or isn't true is a bit tricky. Does naturalism conclude that itself is true? Or is it an idea and lets take an aspect of it, the rejection of supernatural entities. Does naturalism reject supernatural entities as possible, in a false or truth fashion or does naturalism express the idea that supernatural entities aren't actually supernatural, and are only thought of or perceived as such when they are actually natural by default. Or at least assumed as such until it can be demonstrated they aren't, and depending on how one defines that may not actually be possible. Which is an idea that reaffirms itself rather than a claim or assertion of truth.

To me its a bit like asking if the theory of evolution is true… well some parts are, some parts aren't intended to be, its a theory, not an assertion. It might be a stance, position, or understanding that is inaccurate or faulty, in light of a superior theory, stance or understanding, where applicable. I am not well versed enough on philosophy/naturalism to know what it asserts as true or not. Its hard for me to tell how well the video maker's understanding of evolution is, just based on the video it seems lacking (as pointed out in my other post) and designed to support his rejection of naturalism. If their understanding of naturalism is similar then.

The thing about word selection is that it can assist it conveying meaning. Using the the term accident to convey the unforeseen or unrealized, which can be subjective and relies on a point of view or perspective, in a conversation establishing the credibility of what is true or not, after spending quite a lot of time being quite nuanced with wording and definitions, when that same term of accident also can convey the meaning of deviation from what is a or the proper function, process, is problematic. Superior ways to describe evolution, makes me question if their wording around naturalism could be better as well.

2. Why do I automatically rule out the possibility of external agents building in teleology in the evolutionary system? I don't. But my search for supernatural phenomenon leads me to believe that there is none. Especially in evolution.

3. Just disregard what I was saying, I was going off on a tangent in my head and was just thought typing. lol But back to my two questions.

If the premise of naturalism is true, what is the point of arguing it?

If naturalism is about beliefs attempting to obtain the best way to survive, wouldn't beliefs in theism or eternal life be the best belief? This is contradicting to naturalism.

And in regards in your post to Will, you stated "Thoughts and ideas aren't physical things though, and thoughts have the capacity to influence physical things (humans) to achieve certain results like justice, peace, love, hope, and etc. in the same sense that natural laws can influence the behavior of matter and energy."

Is it possible that thoughts and ideas are both matter and abstract things?

Here is video that made me raise that question, he talks about it around the 8 minute mark.

2) How do you test for teleology since you said that your search yielded no warrant for the belief in teleology?

3) The premise of naturalism is true? Naturalism isn't claiming that it is true. Naturalism is simply the belief that only physical entities exist. This is a strawman because naturalism isn't saying anything about evolution in particular because there could be other possible naturalistic mechanism that contribute to the traits we see. What the video maker is saying is that evolution by natural selection and random mutation is concerned with survivability.

4) I would say no in regards to thoughts and ideas being made of matter because if that is the case we should be able to reduce them down to specific biological components because there is no specific component in the brain where your thoughts can be directly traced to.

I posted a video from Alvin Plantinga in the OP where he gives a in-depth explanation of his argument, so this video could probably circumvent the problems with the original video since Alvin Plantinga is a professional academic philosopher.

This goes for you too @willpayton

Sorry for the late reply. CV has not been consistently giving me notifications about posts where I'm tagged.

Thoughts and ideas are indeed physical things because they are simply states of the brain. There is no such thing as a thought or idea outside the context of a physical brain. So, still, I havent seen an example of a non-physical factor that influences how people experience things.

If the question is whether our senses are consistent with the truth then the only way we have to know is by testing what those senses tell us. So, not irrelevant at all.

Yes, I agree that because a set of ideas are consistent with each other doesnt make them true. But, the point is that this is the only way we have to judge truth. If your only way to know something is true is to exclude all experience and observation and only rely on your thoughts, then sadly that's not going to help you much. There's quite a lot of crazy people to prove that thoughts alone are not a reliable way to know anything.

The video maker didnt say that Evolution is "concerned" with survivability, he said that everything we are and think is there for the purpose of survival... which is false.

This is not what the guy is arguing, it's his premise. His premise is false, so the rest of his argument is invalid.

2) Could you explain?

3) No, what is say is if evolution is true then that undermines the belief that Naturalism is true since evolution is concerned with survivability and not truth.

4) Okay

I don't agree with this because if this was true then we should be able scan someone's brain and essentially read their mind since thoughts and ideas are reproducible to certain biochemical arrangements. Then there is the fact that thinking about something can affect my brain states such as thinking about the time I spent with my grandmother when I was a child which makes me happy, but then this give rises to the chicken and the egg problem because which one came first? My thoughts influencing my brain states, or my brain states influencing my thoughts?

What you are advocating for is called Eliminative materialism.

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

Arguments against eliminativism[edit]

Intuitive reservations[edit]

The thesis of eliminativism seems to be so obviously wrong to many critics, under the claim that people know immediately and indubitably that they have minds, that argumentation seems unnecessary. This sort of intuition pumping is illustrated by asking what happens when one asks oneself honestly if one has mental states.^[34] Eliminativists object to such a rebuttal of their position by claiming that intuitions often are mistaken. Analogies from the history of science are frequently invoked to buttress this observation: it may appear obvious that the sun travels around the earth, for example, but for all its apparent obviousness this conception was proved wrong nevertheless. Similarly, it may appear obvious that apart from neural events there are also mental conditions. Nevertheless, this could equally turn out to be false.^[19]

But even if one accepts the susceptibility to error of people's intuitions, the objection can be reformulated: if the existence of mental conditions seems perfectly obvious and is central in people's conception of the world, then enormously strong arguments are needed in order to successfully deny the existence of mental conditions. Furthermore these arguments, to be consistent, need to be formulated in a way which does not pre-suppose the existence of entities like "mental states", "logical arguments", and "ideas", otherwise they are self-contradictory.^[35] Those who accept this objection say that the arguments in favor of eliminativism are far too weak to establish such a radical claim; therefore there is no reason to believe in eliminativism.^[34]

Self-refutation[edit]

Some philosophers, such as Paul Boghossian, have attempted to show that eliminativism is in some sense self-refuting, since the theory itself presupposes the existence of mental phenomena. If eliminativism is true, then the eliminativist must permit an intentionalproperty like truth, supposing that in order to assert something one must believe it. Hence, for eliminativism to be asserted as a thesis, the eliminativist must believe that it is true; if that is the case, then there are beliefs and the eliminativist claim is false.^[11][36]

Georges Rey and Michael Devitt reply to this objection by invoking deflationary semantic theories that avoid analysing predicates like "x is true" as expressing a real property. They are construed, instead, as logical devices so that asserting that a sentence is true is just a quoted way of asserting the sentence itself. To say, "'God exists' is true" is just to say, "God exists". This way, Rey and Devitt argue, insofar as dispositional replacements of "claims" and deflationary accounts of "true" are coherent, eliminativism is not self-refuting.^[37]

Qualia[edit]

Another problem for the eliminativist is the consideration that human beings undergo subjective experiences and, hence, their conscious mental states have qualia. Since qualia are generally regarded as characteristics of mental states, their existence does not seem to be compatible with eliminativism.^[38] Eliminativists, such as Daniel Dennett and Georges Rey, respond by rejecting qualia.^[39][40] This is seen to be problematic to opponents of eliminativists, since many claim that the existence of qualia seems perfectly obvious. Many philosophers consider the "elimination" of qualia implausible, if not incomprehensible. They assert that, for instance, the existence of pain is simply beyond denial.^[38]

The classic refutation of this objection comes from Daniel Dennett. Admitting that the existence of qualia seems obvious, Dennett nevertheless states that "qualia" is a theoretical term from an outdated metaphysics stemming from Cartesian intuitions. He argues that a precise analysis shows that the term is in the long run empty and full of contradictions. The eliminativist's claim with respect to qualia is that there is no unbiased evidence for such experiences when regarded as something more than propositional attitudes.^[21]Influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, Dennett and Rey have defended eliminativism about qualia, even when other portions of the mental are accepted.

Efficacy of folk psychology[edit]

Some philosophers simply argue that folk-psychology is a quite successful theory.^[10][41][42] Simulation theorists doubt that people's understanding of the mental can be explained in terms of a theory at all. Rather they argue that people's understanding of others is based on internal simulations of how they would act and respond in similar situations.^[8][9]Jerry Fodor is one of the objectors that believes in folk psychology's success as a theory, because it makes for an effective way of communication in everyday life that can be implemented with few words. Such an effectiveness could never be achieved with a complex neuroscientific terminology. ^[10]

Unjustified imperialism[edit]

Philosophers such as Mary Midgley strongly criticize all forms of reductionism—of which eliminative materialism is an extreme form—as unjustified imperialism that tries to annex one subject into another with poor evidence. She suggests that the reduction of chemistry to physics is problematic and the reduction of biology to chemistry is impossible. She points to sentences like "John was allowed home from prison at last on Sunday" suggesting that this would be impossible to reduce to physical terms since the details of the physical movement are irrelevant to the meaning which depends on complex non-physical concepts.^[43] Her stance is that "human beings are complex wholes, about which we know really very little" and that attempts to reduce this are naive, unjustified and doomed to failure. She also claims that Behaviourism proved to be a philosophical and scientific dead-end.^[43]

I'm not seeing how this is dis-analogous? How is the premise that evolution by natural selection and random mutation is only concerned with survivability false?

Evolution doesnt have purpose, or a reason, or anything like that. So saying that there is one is flat out wrong... which is the core of his premise. Yes, survivability is a "concern" in evolution because that's a mechanism in how it works, but it's not the only concern or the only mechanism. In other words, there's no reason to think that everything that evolves is there just to improve survivability. I'm not sure how this is not clear. Evolution works through random processes with a selection criteria. Random means that many different things can appear through evolution. Some are passed on because they aid survival, some die out because they hinder survival, and some have no or little impact so they might stay or go. And, some might stay or die out for different reasons. For example, a mutation might help produce more offspring but reduce survival. That mutation might overall help the species grow, but it's actually counter-productive to individual survival. We even have parts of our bodies that are actively bad for us and for survival, but they stick around. Why? Because evolution is a complex process and not as simple as this guy would think.

This is all basic evolutionary theory. These apologists need to stop coming up with arguments that deal with evolution when they have no idea of even the basics of the theory. They only embarrass themselves and only convince those who already agree with them and are ignorant of science.

Yes, evolution has no teleology but I don't think teleology is necessarily synonymous to something having purpose. The traits we have are there because they conferred some type of evolutionary advantage. The selection criteria is there to weed out traits that decrease survivability so I don't understand why you are claiming that evolution isn't only concerned with survivability when that is the only thing natural selection takes into account during the process of weeding out traits? You have a misunderstanding evolution because you are not taking into account the ecological context of a trait. In some ecological contexts trait X may confer some type of evolutionary advantage, but in a different ecological context trait X may diminish that organisms capacity to adequately adapt; so most traits are in fact neutral when looked at in isolation from their ecological contexts. Traits at one period of time can be advantageous in a certain ecological context, but when that ecological context changes then the applicability of that trait to the new environment can either help or hinder.

2) You don't need to have supernatural entities to have teleology though. Aliens could have influenced the evolutionary narrative on this planet.

3) Or become a pragmatist?

@nick_hero22: Aliens having a narration in evolution would make more sense, because putting a playground next to a sewage dump does not sound divinely inspired. lol

I'm still not understanding the term teleology in it's fullest. Examples?

Yes, I thought I was one already but perhaps not.

Just because we cant currently do something doesnt mean it's not possible. Also, just because something might not be possible doesnt mean that something else is impossible. These are basically your arguments for not believing that thoughts are states of the brain, but these arguments are wrong. The current understanding in neuroscience is that thoughts, emotions, and beliefs are all just states of the brain. This is supported by tons of evidence and peer-reviewed papers. Where is your expertise or evidence to claim otherwise?

It might well be that as technology and our understanding of the brain works, that we will be able to know what people are thinking. In fact, we can already do this to some degree. There are computer programs that can analyze brain scans to tell where you are looking to control a computer. There are scientists right now that have implanted a device in a monkey's brain to allow it to control a robotic arm:

There are scientists at Berkeley that are able to roughly tell what a subject is looking at from analyzing their brain states:

On NPR just this last week there was a story about a woman known as "SM" who doesnt feel fear because a part of the brain that relates to fear, the amygdalae, was destroyed by a disease. She not only doesnt feel fear, she has no idea what that might even feel like.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/12/16/meet-the-woman-without-fear/#.VPFcfvnF9FM

All these things are just the starting point. The amounts of evidence that show us that all thoughts, ideas, and feeling are just states of the brain is overwhelming.

There is no problem here. Brain states feed back on everything else in the brain because it's all connected. The brain is a neural network, and that's how neural networks work. The only problem here is that you're making judgements on something that you dont understand.

You might as well go into an operating room and tell the doctors that they're doing it all wrong and that you know better because you watched some YouTube video on the philosophy of medicine.

No, what I'm advocating is science, evidence, and reason. We already have a good understanding of the basic functions of the brain, although we still have a long, long way before we fully understand the intricacies. But, what's clear and incontrovertible is that the brain and its structure are responsible for all we experience, feel, think, imagine, and dream. There is ZERO evidence that anything non-physical is going on.

And... I'm still waiting for just one example of a non-physical factor that affects how people experience things. You said there are many, but so far everything you've given are purely physical examples.

What teleology means is that something has purpose because an agent had a particular motivation for making it that way.

I didnt ignore ecological context.

And... I'm not sure how many times I have to explain how Evolution works. I already explained that mutations are random and that whether mutations stick around or not is not solely dependent on whether it confers a survival advantage. If you cant understand this or simply dont want to listen... them I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to help you understand. I'm certainly not interested in trying to explain it for the hundredth time.

I dont have time to watch this. Maybe later, but I'm not sure. Please make your own arguments. If you're going to rely on hour-long videos to make your points, then there's no point in discussing this because that's not a discussion, it's just video spamming.

I already gave you evidence that thoughts are simply states of the brain. Without a brain there is no thought, there are no ideas.

If you have any evidence that thoughts are not simply mental states and tied to the physical brain... lets see it.

You posted more videos then me though, so if anyone is video spamming it is you; and this video is going to give a more in-depth explanation then what I'm capable of why reducing mental states to brain states is bad philosophy and science.

Dude, I posted 2 videos that dont even amount to 4 minutes. You dont even have to watch them because I even told you what they were about. I only put them there to support what I said. You posted an 11, 78, and now a 47 minute video. Want to tell me again how I'm the one spamming videos?

If you have a case to make then make it. I'm sure if you try you can be brief. The problem here is that you dont have a case, so you have to resort to these long videos where these people make the same crappy philosophical arguments over and over. They fail because of the same reason these philosophical arguments always fail, the excessive use of ill-defined terms, dubious logic, poor understanding of science and the natural world, and finally... a total and absolute lack of any evidence to support them.

I already gave solid evidence that:

1. We can measure and interpret brain activity that defines intent to perform actions
2. We can measure thoughts, and even experiences in the form of images
3. We know where certain emotions originate in the brain, and even how to alter or erase those emotions through physical changes to the brain

On top of that, there's a vast body of scientific work on this subject, and the scientific consensus is that brain activity and states account for emotions and thoughts. This is not, at all, controversial in science.

In reply, all you've given is your claim to lack of belief and some philosophical argument that I already demonstrate is invalid. You've failed to give any logical reasons or evidence to support your claim. And, you've failed to address the facts and evidence I've presented.

Hell I even showed that we can in effect scan someone's brain and read their minds, even with the primitive tech we now have, which by your own words we should be able to do if what I say is true. And even now you still cant concede that you're wrong.

What we have here is that you dont appear to want to either a) use reason or b) listen to the evidence or c) listen to the experts in the field.

If you have actual valid arguments or evidence then lets see them. And, lets see you refute the evidence that I gave you.

You aren't reading their minds though! The looking of the eyes is a physiological response that is triggered by brain states that are influenced by mental states, so the only thing you are doing is tracing the physiological trait back to the brain state without going all the back to mental state that triggered the brain. You never actually gave an answer to my question because if brain states and mental states can influence each other then which came first in the chronology: the brain states or the mental states? This is important because if the mental states came first when can then say that all brain states are derived from mental states. Even, if we were to show that brain states came first that doesn't mean mental states couldn't exist because we can easily make the claim that mental states are emergent features akin to laws of nature that govern matter and energy. If you reduce mental states to mere mechanistic components how does that deal with the fact that we are able to have subjective experiences of things in the case of determining the blueness or redness of an object. What about forming beliefs? If mental states don't actually exist then beliefs don't exist, so I don't understand how the belief that "My dog is hungry" can be translated into biochemistry. This isn't something I'm very knowledgeable about which is why I defer to people who know what they are talking about on the mind and body problem. I can only offer so much in this conversation.

I find it ironic how you characterize philosophical arguments, but when the philosophical arguments agree with the beliefs that you already hold to such as theism being logically unsophisticated you post plenty of video of people using philosophy to counter religious claims. Why aren't you posting videos of scientist debunking these arguments instead? I also find it ironic that you are scolding me for using a video to provide an objection to a claim when you used videos to provide objections to apologists in the other religious thread.

The scientists may not be "reading their minds" in the sense of knowing what a person is thinking, but that's understandable since we're at an early stage of this science/technology. Again, just because we cant do it now doesnt mean it's impossible. We also cant travel to another star system now, but that doesnt mean it cant be done or that other star systems are not in our physical universe.

i'm not sure why you want me to say whether "mind states" or "brain states" come first, since mental states are just brain states. It's exactly the same thing. The "mind" is just a fuzzily defined word we use to talk about our consciousness, which is a function of the brain. If i could somehow know the exact state of every particle in the brain, then I'd have a picture of all the feelings and thoughts currently being experienced by that brain. This is supported by the evidence, lots of evidence, and so far I've seen not a single argument that puts that into question.

And, I did answer the question when I said that a neural network works by each part being in some way connected to other parts, which is how the brain works. Like I said already, it all feeds back on itself. There's no contradiction here, no physical impossibility, or even any logical or philosophical problems. If you dont understand it then study neurosciences, or even just do more research on Google on the subject. There's plenty of resources if you're just willing to find it. And, BTW, I mean actual scientific resources. But, just because you dont know how a physical system works is no justification for claiming that it cant possibly work. This is a classic argument from ignorance.

When dealing with philosophical arguments I'm forced to often post other arguments of such type because:

1. I'm trying to show how the arguments are logically invalid
2. The people making the arguments dont care about evidence, only other philosophy
3. These arguments are often not scientific in nature, so science cant adequately address them

Actually I do, often. Even the videos that you just pointed out each have scientific responses to the philosophical argument they're addressing.

I didnt scold you for posting a video, I simply pointed out that it's a long video and I dont have the time to watch all these overly long videos. Also, I pointed out that you didnt actually make any arguments, you just posted the video. It would be an extremely intellectually dishonest way to argue to just keep posting long videos and then expect me to spend all my time a) watching them and b) posting equally long replies refuting every single thing in the video. Is that your intent? Because, I dont have either the time or inclination to waste time like that. If you have an argument, then make it concisely and in return I will reply concisely. This... is what I have been doing, but in return you posted multiple videos each at least 45 minutes long, not as evidence to support your argument, but in lieu of an argument.

So all I cant say is what I already said. I already showed how the argument in this thread about the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism is invalid. Then you tried to claim that perception isnt reliable because there are "many non-physical factors that can influence how people experience certain things" to which I asked for any examples. The examples you gave are all physical examples based on the operation and structure of the brain. You claimed not to believe this and I gave you evidence... and after that the only thing you have as rebuttal is your claim to not understand how the brain could work... but that's not an issue because your lack of understanding is not an argument. I dont mean that as an insult or anything, but rather an observation. I also dont understand many things, like for example I dont understand the physics inside Black Holes or even how cheese is made. But, I dont claim that because I dont understand these things that there must be some non-physical factors going on. That's nonsense.

1) I don't even believe in theory that science could read minds because if our mental states were reducible to just biochemistry in the brain then we wouldn't find subjectivity in our experiences which makes the claim that mental states are brain states false. How exactly is this biochemistry suppose to bridge the gap between molecules to mental states like "I think Jane is pretty because she has long hair"? The areas in my brain after being scanned may convey the fact that someone may be attracted to Jane but that doesn't really translate well to the statement that "I think Jane is pretty because she has long hair" because pretty has a subjective connotation.

Again, you are not answering the question. If mental states can influence brain states and brain states can influence mental states how did you come to the conclusion that the brain states came first when it could have easily been that mental states came first in the chronology. If everything is just reducible to a brain state then how exactly do you determine conscious thought from unconscious thought without the positing of mental states?

That didn't answer my question either, and I don't see how you thought it did?

2) But you believe that science is the only source of reliable knowledge so it shouldn't matter much if the argument isn't scientific because if it isn't scientific then it is worthless.....right?

3) No.....those were philosophical arguments making use of scientific evidence.

4) I made argument prior to posting the video, and after your response to me I choose to defer to the video because my knowledge was limited when it came to the mind and body problem. I did the exact same thing you did in that other religious thread when you choose to defer to video to address William Lane Craig's arguments because you didn't have sufficient knowledge about the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Intellectual dishonesty would be continuing to have a discussion with someone and you didn't really know what you were talking about.

I already answered the question but you keep insisting on using terms that are basically meaningless like "mind" and "subjectivity". That's the problem here. For examples, you ask how biochemistry can bridge the gap between molecules (a well defined physical term of something that we know exits and we can test, observe, and locate) and "mental states" which is an ill-defined term and just an abstract idea. There is no "mind" anywhere in the brain, or anywhere else in the universe. There are brains with physical processes and we call some of those processes and states things like "mind", "soul", "ego", "essence", "emotion", or "thought", but those terms are not separate things that exist in the universe, they are just human ideas for a concept that refers to other things that do exist. Trying to ask that actual physical things need to conform with abstract ideas is a fallacious argument.

Things like "subjectivity" only mean "things that are a result of complex states of the brain, and as such vary from person to person". You keep using the word as meaning "something that cant be explained". Again, your whole argument here amounts to you not understanding how the brain works or how brain states account for experience and thoughts, and you wanting to use works that dont actually describe any actual physical things... and then claiming that your confusion means that the answer is not rational. It is a rational answer and the proof is the evidence I have given plus mountains more. Maybe I'm doing a poor job of explaining it, which is very possible.

But, if you actually insist that because of things like "mind" and "subjectivity" then the brain isnt responsible for "mental" states, then feel free to prove it by properly defining what these words mean, where they can be found, how they work, and how they account for known facts. Lets see some evidence that these things actually exist and are not just abstract idea. I can already tell you that you cant do it because there is no actual think like a "mind" in the universe, just like there's no such things as a "soul" or "spirit" or any of that. If you base your whole argument on that and you cant show that those things exist, then you might as well just skip the whole argument part and just claim that whatever you want to believe is real... which is just a religion.

Science is the only reliable source of knowledge about things that actually exist in the universe. The problem is that these non-scientific arguments are not about actual knowledge, they are about abstract ideas that cant be tested against reality... they are basically fantasy. Science doesnt deal in fantasies because fantasies dont exist. But, science can indeed explain how ideas form and change in a brain, even if we cant fully do it today because of technical limitations.

So, for example, science cant tell you how Santa Claus could fly around the world in one night or how he makes his toys or where he lives or any of that. You're basically trying to claim that because science cant answer these question then there's a realm of knowledge that science cant explain. Wrong. Science can tell you about why children believe in things like Santa Claus, or how brain develop such myths and stories in the first place, or why people like to tell stories, and all that. But, since Santa Claus is just an idea like a "mind" or a "soul", then I cant just start my argument by assuming that Santa Claus exists and then mandating science to explain it.

If they make use of evidence and science then they are at least partly scientific arguments. I dont see the issue here. Even if the videos I posted were FULLY philosophical, how is that invalid? I was addressing philosophical claims, so a reply in philosophical terms is justified. And like I already said, I dont have an issue with you posting a video. I already explained it so there's no point in going over this again.

Over the past several days, I've been studying the history of the Earth through the eyes of biologists and I found a basic flaw in the concept of evolution. Is one definition of evolution the concept that organisms come from a single common ancestor over the course of billions of years? You can say the process is aided by natural selection.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. What do you mean by "organism"?

The current best thinking on this, which is abiogenesis and not evolution, is that at some point self-replicating molecules arose from the chemical "soup" on the early Earth. What made this possible was the mix of chemicals in the early watery areas of Earth combined with a source of energy... whether it's solar energy of heat from vents, or whatever. Of course we dont really understand how this really happened yet, but this is a very plausible explanation once you consider the amount of space and time that was available for this random process to take place.

So it's possible that it all started with a single self-replicating molecule, or that multiple arose at around the same time. The point is that over time there were many such molecules around each going through the processes of mutation and recombination, which results in Evolution by natural selection.

I dont see any problem there. While Abiogenesis is still being studied, Evolution has now been around for 150 years and has been tested thoroughly.

Thats the third time I have explained that to him.

Actually, I addressed this in my post proving creation through chemistry. What you're hinting at is the Miller experiment and it's a classic failure for this theory of abiogenesis; the Miller experiment is a starting point for creation scientists. I was getting at something else not the origin of life. Thanks for your response. This is the current thinking of biologists but it's not "the current best thinking". The amount of space and time would not be sufficient to produce the proteins and nucleic acids required for life; I also addressed that concept in my post. Life, as we know it on Earth, requires 20 specific amino acids and 5 specific nucleic acids, yet random chemistry can produce many different amino acids and nucleic acids. An organism can be a single cell life form or multicellular life form, up to an invertebrate life form to a vertebrate life form.

What is it about evolution that you think has been thoroughly tested? The information that I'm getting is that experiments are being devised to test evolution, but the theory is not panning out as predicted; such surprising results are what's creating a platform for creation scientists.

You did no such thing. You did not attempt to explain the chemistry of abiogenesis to me.

And you know this... how?

Also, you think that scientists havent thought about this... why?

But, feel free to publish this in a peer-reviewed journal and then come to me when that's done.

And where are you getting your information? If the answer is from Creationist websites then I'd say that's the problem. If you want to know what the current state of Evolutionary science is then go to biologists and the scientific literature. Or, you can get a degree and start doing your own research on the subject.

Evolution has been thoroughly tested in many ways. The nice thing about scientific theories (as opposed to something like pseudo-science or religion) is that theories make clear predictions that can be tested. When we look at DNA, the fossil record, anatomy, transitional forms, etc, etc, everything we find confirms the predictions of Evolution. Here's a great site detailing a lot of this stuff:

http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml

If you want to really understand Evolution and why it's correct, then go to science. If you dont, you can keep reading Creationist web sites and watching Creationist videos. It's no different from trying to learn about Astronomy and argue about it by reading Astrology. One is a science based on observation and a process for challenging and confirming data, theories, and methodology, and the other is not.