Darwin Denied #9 | Mind and Cosmos

[@Yesica1993]

OH! I was looking up this book because I was interested in reading it, and this came up in the search. I didn't even know NSA had their own channel! Look how much good content I have missed. I'm never going to be able to get off this internet, am I? ;)

[@johnnybagofdoughnuts4193]

Where’s part 10?

[@tex959]

I enjoyed the video.. Full disclosure, I'm an agnostic. I honestly don't know if there is a higher power or not. I agree, our intuition certainly points to some self aware 'state of being' or consciousness which would be difficult to explain under naturism. Although, I'm not sure if that is simply a deficiency of human knowledge rather than an impossibility. However, what is this intuition worth which allows for self awareness? Is this 'awareness of self' a spiritual rather than material identity and do other animals have it? I don't know the answer but haven't heard an argument against the possibility of consciousness being an 'emergent' property of chemical reactions in the brain. We know in Chemistry that emergent properties are not typically the sum of their parts, but rather something other than the sum of their parts. And this 'other than the sum...' does not need to have mass in order for science to identify the energy needed and the heat released by humans when processing thoughts. Around 33:00 someone makes the point that, even a thought that sends a signal to hands to move, is a metaphysical because a spirit is needed, or something to that effect if I understood? If that is true, then do all animals including insects have a soul? If humans are the only animal with a soul, what distinguishes this soul from the abilities of say a dog or elephant or some other creature? I also agree that AI is nowhere near the complexity, nor do I think it will ever be, in relation to human consciousness. I don't think a program, no matter how complex, could experience fear, jealousy or anger. Sure, they can be programed to mimic human emotions, but that would be completely different. If this is even possible, I would disagree with the experts when they say 100 yrs from now.. If it's possible, I would guess thousands but still doubt it's possible. Can some degree of reliable cognitive faculties vs non functioning cognitive faculties, aid in survival? If the answer is "yes," and I believe we have good reasons to believe cognitive faculties can aid survival. Then, evolution will select for varying degrees of reliable cognitive faculties, combined with many other survival variables within a complex social and natural environment. An example of a genetic predisposition of semi-reliable cognitive functions would be the ability of humans and other animals to interpret the intention of humans by their facial expressions. Many psychologists would say that this is an ability, which is primarily inherited, and further developed. Babies seem to have this ability but develop further and some humans have a difficult time developing this ability at all. If naturalism were true, this ability would, not only aid in survival, it would also demonstrate an evolutionary advantage for cognitive function. I also believe that the statement, "If naturalism were true, we couldn't know anything," to be self defeating. Or, put another way, this statement would be internally inconsistent. The statement "we couldn't know anything," is, itself, a knowledge claim. If we accept the statement, "If naturalism were true, we couldn't know anything," then, under naturalism, the best we could say is that we couldn't know if we couldn't know anything because we couldn't make any knowledge claims one way or another. And this seems to be closer to the truth when we look at the distinction between epistemic certainty and psychological certainty. I think naturalism is a better explanation for moral intuitions than supernatural revelation. I have about 4 points which I haven't heard before to support that argument if anyone wants to hear them, but I've written enough at this point. Lastly, we all, or at least everyone I've read or hear, think that they/we are much more logical and more proficient at critical thinking than a large portion of the population. However, the math doesn't work out too well because we are, most likely, all chest deep in our own cognitive bias. We can see others make constant logical errors in thinking but we have a very difficult time seeing our own errors. I pretty sure that most of my thoughts and beliefs are incorrect but feel like a small portion of beliefs are necessary to aid survival and many false beliefs can also do the same, so we might expect a mix? Thoughts?

[@ZigZak]

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" - Romans 1

[@tex959]

@@ZigZak If God clearly showed himself through nature, why didn't one American Indian know about your specific God until The Europeans introduced them to Christianity?

[@christianlocklear6928]

Chris White I would say we ( American Indians) did know about the God of Scripture. Because God has revealed Himself in nature. Not that He has revealed Himself completely in nature but sufficiently. However, some of what we knew we rejected. I think we can see elements of both a knowledge of God and a rejection of Him in some people’s (tribes) (1) continual rejection, or, (2) genuine submission to God through European missions. Also I would be interested in hearing your 4 points.

[@ZigZak]

​@@tex959 There are artifacts found in the Americas of the name of the one true God (In Hebrew) and the 10 commandments! "All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God." - Psalm 98:3

[@ericley6479]

​@tex959 ooo ooo, I know, its because you don't know whay youre talkimg about. Virtually every society had its own theology, complete with their own pantheon of gods and creation stories. How in the heavens (get it) does your little brain not realize that this is what the bible meant, not that every different society with all their different languages and ideas would each name their god "Bob" and picture them as the exact same being...god damn some people.

[@dannhagstrom586]

Consider saying ID proponents are building a case for a designer of the universe, that can then be taken to another level when you want to deal with the Biblical account. I believe ID is tremendous help for people to put their foot in the pool of more proof of God.

[@vampireducks1622]

I would suggest reading and reviewing *The Case Against Reality: How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes* by *Donald Hoffman* .

[@tcorourke2007]

Off the topic of the book, your low grade smugness and condescension towards Nagel damages the conversation. You mock Nagel as if he is unaware he is "sinking his own ship", making it difficult to defend his atheism, when that's the whole point of the book. Nagel, on the other hand, treats advocates of ID with respect and points out the service they do to science. Even the title refuses to draw any hard conclusion. His intellectual honesty is off the charts, while you are just unabashedly defending the tired narrative that, because the rise of consciousness has not been or cannot be otherwise explained, a carpenter who lived 2,000 years ago was the son of god. None of this means you are "wrong", but it's a big, waving red flag.

[@amadubah8931]

Please man, please.

[@jacksonloewen392]

Hey, I know this comment was a while ago, but just wanted to respond...I felt like when they said Nagel was "sinking his own ship" it was more out of respect than mockery. They know that Nagel is smart enough to know what he's doing, and the way it came across to me they were simply expressing their respect/appreciation for the way in which Nagel shows his hand.

[@tcorourke2007]

​@@jacksonloewen392 It's pretty clear to me that the tone in which they say it is condescending. They don't call him brave or honest and they are laughing looking at each other. "These people" is not a respectful way to address anyone.