Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
Reply #217 –
ID theory shares with materialism the point of view that intellect, mind and consciousness are epiphenomena on brain functions and should be directly observable/measurable in some way.
If you substitute "in-directly," I'd agree about the last part. "Epiphenomenal" is an unsupportable presumption (though popular...) that mires science in mere argument.
ID theory is a rationalization, pure and simple...
Whereas your thesis is that why-questions are not allowed? I have not seen you behave in accordance with it. But this is not really your fault. Nobody can keep such an impossible commitment.
I agree that such a commitment would be impossible to keep... But my "thesis" isn't that Why questions aren't or shouldn't be allowed; only that they aren't answerable by statistics.
ence and statistics are quite possible from omniscient perspective, but they are unnecessary.
No, sir. Omniscience entails complete and direct knowledge... Science and statistics deal with mediated knowledge; the former, of reality and the latter, of our ignorance.
Let me see. You don't like free will. You find statistical chance problematic. Causation disconcerts you. You ridicule omniscience.
A-hem! I'm fine with free will! Chance (or randomness, if you prefer...) is, I think, a meaningless concept... Causation is -when it can be explained- is the surest and most satisfying sort of knowledge! I don't ridicule omniscience; I am simply unacquainted with it, except as a fantasy.
So... What?