Eric Hernandez, Is there reason to believe in God?

Eric Hernandez, Is there reason to believe in God?
Articles
28



alright it looks like we're live so Eric thanks for coming on I really appreciate you taking the time to have a conversation with me just jump right in I'm an atheist by which I mean I don't believe there are any reasons to believe in the God could you tell me some of the reasons you do believe for belief in the God didn't like to tell you my position on those reasons and like to hear your thoughts on my position yeah thanks for having me on well a few things I'd say is is a just first make a differentiation between reasons perhaps one comes to believe or reasons that should justify reasons to believe in God I think reasons that would justify belief in God would be things like the argument from contingency the kalam the moral argument argument from evil and then there are also arguments that I would use against atheism which I would take to be the belief that God does not exist and that'd be like the evolutionary argument against nationalism that haven't planica came up with closely tied to the argument from reason the existence of consciousness free will thus the existence of the soul and the resurrection and in for our discussion I mean we can we can take it anywhere you want but knowing that you've done some of these with other people I my my interest were going to be particularly more in arguments like I said against atheism which I would take as a belief that there is no God and then focusing on things like consciousness freewill in the soul okay we can definitely do that just to be a little more clear by what I mean is that if for belief in God to be reasonable there has to be a reason that justifies in God so if there is no reason that justifies belief in God then belief in God is unreasonable so if you believe there is a reason to believe in God like free will for example my position is that free will is logically impossible kind of like a square circle so I don't know what freewill could possibly be do you do you believe that God can God cannot do logically impossible things right he can't create a round square or two plus our universe for two plus two equals five would you agree to that yes and I can't help but ask because you say you don't believe in free well if you really came to believe no I do not freely come to mind that I was determined to believe that why should I believe what you're determined to believe why would my determining make it more or less true right like if I'm determined to believe that two plus two equals four the fact that I'm determined to believe it doesn't make it any more or less true right but it gives you no justification for believing it's true no the fact that I'm determined to believe it makes it independent from my justification justification doesn't come from the fact that I'm determined to believe it right several things but it undercuts your justification no it has two separate things unrelated in every way yeah no I'm agreeing that they're unrelated but I'm saying the fact that you're determined to believe something undercuts your reason for believing it rather undercuts the irrationality for bloomin no that's incorrect the rationality to believe something is independent of whether or not you're determined to believe something right but the fact that you're determined to believe it undercuts the rationality of it it would be like like for example it said I get a magic 8-ball and I ask whether or not it's gonna rain and it says yes my reason for believing it's gonna rain based on the 8-ball is undercut by the fact that it's just a mechanism designed for entertainment not at conveying truth so if that's what your brain is and does and its determines your believe certain things then your brain would be like a glorified magic 8-ball well no that's demonstrable false so like if I say it I believe two plus two equals or I'm determined to believe that two plus two equals four because when I take two objects and two other objects and put them together I get four objects I am determined to believe that but because of the reason that I add these together I get four so actually no it's not because that's not the reason you believe what you believe because you're determined and then you're determined to believe you believe it for those reasons which is something you're equally determined to believe right you're determined to believe it because of the reasons so the reasons exist independent of the determination oh you're you know I don't get it I agree it doesn't make sense that there's no free will so how do you know that you're that you're determined to believe it for those reasons how do you know that it's those reasons that cause you to believe it because if you're determined its factors prior to yourself and beyond your control that you're determined to believe it irrelevant of what the determination of irrelevant of what you're determined to think those reasons are for what what where do I lose you so I am my determinist so I believe there is no free will everything is determined but it's determined by reasons so if you're going it's not just arbitrary it's not random there's like reason I believe certain things the reason I am determined to believe certain things is because those things are justified by reasons and those reasons compel me because of how my brain works to believe that determined thing so I don't have an option I can't stop believing that two plus two equals four because that is determined by the reasons I use to get to that conclusion so all things I believe they are determined because of the reasons that I believe them so okay right and I'm asking how do you know that you're determined for those reasons because good I mean good not let's just hypothetically here you said how do i how do I determine I'm determined for those reasons like in other words how would you know that it is for those reasons like those are the reasons those reasons are what determined you to believe that as opposed to something else because you could believe 2 plus 2 equals 4 because grapefruits you know tastes a certain way that would be a reason that you're determined to believe 2 plus 2 equals 4 but how do you know it's that specific reason that led you to that belief oh you're right we could be in the matrix for being deluded by de cartes demon or something he's just causing my brain to feel these now but I have F aesthetic justification in the fact that two plus two equals four which causes me to believe this you're determined to believe you have epistemic justification determined to believe yes right so you're just pushing back the goalposts no because it's the same thing we could be deluded by Descartes demon but I don't have any justification to believe that so it's irrelevant to the question well I didn't bring a big heart Stephen it's the same thing there could be another reason that I believe two plus two equals or there could be another reason I'm determined to believe two plus two equals four other than the fact of the epistemic justification that I can do the math but the fact that I can do the math means I have epistemic justification in that reason may be diluted by the dicker Steven absolutely but we have no reason to believe that that is an unsupported conclusion so I mean I can't be absolutely certain about anything we could be there could be other reasons there but those are the reasons we have no reason to believe them they have no justification okay yeah and that's not my point what I'm saying is you're determined to believe something irrelevant to the reasons that you're determined to believe you're determined to believe that for so in other words chemicals firing in your brain determine you to believe something and then another set of chemicals perhaps firing your brain that lead you to be determined to believe that it is those reasons that you're actually determined to believe it but if determinism is true and if you're just something physical perhaps or however you want to hash that out then it's something prior to you that cause you to believe that so yes some just neurons firing that's correct and the reasons are reflection of the neurons firing so the neurons firing reflect the reasons which are cause me to determine the resulting belief which is also neurons firing so it's like what and I'm sorry I cut you off I think there's no sorry if we have a row of dominoes and you say these neurons are the first five dominoes and they'd come through the reasons and then that knocks over the sixth Domino which is the belief yes this the sixth belief is determined by the first five dominoes yes right Domino was not the reasons that you gave the first Domino was something physical all the neurons are physical those would be the reasons how the neurons interact in your brain that's all physical okay but earlier you mentioned nothing about neurons you mentioned about when you get two things and two things that equals four that has nothing new with neurons that has everything that's how your brain processes the information is through the interactions with the neurons well I would disagree that your brain processes anything in the sense that if you're talking about that your consciousness is in your brain but that's an entirely different topic I don't know if you're understanding my point that okay claiming that you have reason to believe something in spite of being determined that you believe it is something you are equally determined to believe in and of itself so you're just pushing back the goalposts and pointing to something else that you're determined to believe and claiming that's actually the reason for it when I'm saying no the reason for that is not the reasons you gave it's simply because your brain was a byproduct of something that led it to believe that assuming in your words that it's your brain that process and believes these things right you're confusing about physics in the epistemology I'm not making a metaphysical yes you are in fact you're making the same mistake that the Alvin Plantinga did in his argument his evolutionary argument against nationalism he confuses methodological and metaphysical naturalism he mistakes these two things it's an error it was brought up I think by Michael ruse in his response but you're confusing these two categories my category is purely what I have epistemic justification to believe there could be more underlying stuff that I don't have access to in the metaphysics but I don't have access to that so I can't make any judgments or beliefs based on that information I can only make judgments belief based I want to have epistemic justification to make beliefs about okay let me put it this way because I think we're talking about each other I don't think you know what I'm saying whatever your justification is is something you're equally determined to believe is a justification even if that justification is great grapefruits tastes sweet or sour that's still a justification that you determined to believe for a certain conclusion rather that's what you yes did you believe your conclusion leads to it could be based on anything because you're just determined to believe it this it could be it is logically possible that I am determined by de cartes demon interfering with my mind but there is no epistemic justification for that oh I understand exactly what you're saying I just don't think you've researched the philosophy behind this issue enough you just don't understand what we're talking about yeah I'd say the same about you so let me try it this way if someone's determined to believe something because they're determined to move the basepart demon that determines them to believe it would they be justified if someone believed it because they were determined to believe it by de cartes demon yeah no why is that different from yours because I'm not determined to believe it by Descartes Stephen I'm to travel either by the reasons right no look oh I have justification for some beliefs and another let physical claims are making are completely irrelevant to the topic this is solved in philosophy for a long time there's no issue here this isn't even a serious contingent and most philosophers I know right okay that's fine I know you believe that but let's let me get to this so you you concede that you're determined to believe X for these reasons now another person could be determined to believe X for a different set of reasons both the ill are both determined so we're so it's it's equal I mean there's equal determination going on can you keep confusing you just don't have done that not understanding the basic philosophy here the difference between epistemology and metaphysics I'm not that you're determined to believe something is an ontological claim and it's the way it is but the way it is is not the same as how we know things that those are two four categories of things okay how we know things the justification is independent of the ontology of the fact that we're determined to believe it okay so you think I don't understand it I think you'd understand it so how about instead of accusing each other not understanding something just ask me and then maybe we can get you know get on the same page here let's try it this way give me a rephrase what my argument is what do you think my argument is what do you think I'm trying to say and I'm not exactly sure because you seem to be saying that like how the fact how we're determined seems to make a belief less justified not really how we're determined but the fact that we are determined to undercuts the validity of occasion firmly right and that's provably false like I can be determined to believe that two plus two equals four that does not have anything to do whether or not of whether two plus two equals four is a justified belief right I agree and it's irrelevant to the fact of whether or not the beliefs are true those independently yes and that's an ontological claiming just made I agree with that but we're talking cosmology now that was I'm sorry that wasn't aesthetically we have to justify independent lives so so I mean like you keep trying to trying to get me to explain how the ontology of how I get to the belief is relevant to whether or not you should believe it whether or not you were justified correct say that one more time you're trying to say how I'm determined cuz the first question you asked was I'm determined to believe that some belief I people sued us for and the thing you asked was then why should I believe you right I was right my first question was why should I believe something that you're determined to believe right so I'm determined to believe two plus two equals four why should you believe me so the fact that I'm determined to believe two plus two plus four is ontology why you should believe me is epistemology a justification for the two plus two equals four is independent of whether or not I'm determined to believe it the fact I'm determined is a different question entirely okay might the exact phrase and my question was why should I believe something you're determined to believe not just why should I believe you there's a difference there so we are talking about it okay so so I'm determined is just irrelevant to the question the reasons why you should believe it are the justifications independent of whether or not I'm determined you should two plus two equals four because we can demonstrate two plus two plus four take two objects take two objects that's why you should believe it well you shouldn't believe it because I'm determined the fact I'm determined is irrelevant to the question okay no I yeah I don't see I don't see where your question is going here I can see that so you're determined to believe something let's say I'm not determined to believe that okay what's the difference between us well there's only two possibilities you're determined or you have what's random those are no let's concede undetermined and you're determined you're determined to believe X I'm determined to believe why what's the difference the things determining this to be determined right so our our justification for it is both determine what makes one more or less you know the fact that we're determined is the justification you have to buy the justification I'm saying given the fact that we are determined where does our justification come from if not more determined beliefs which just pushes back the bow polls again you keep conflating the two the fact that we're determined is irrelevant from justification determination has nothing to do with justification that's a different topic let me ask you this okay so you're saying the fact that you're determined to believe something has no bearing or weight on whether or not we can justify something or have reasons to justify or have undercutting reasons to not be justified right I would phrase it and say the justification for a belief is independent of whether or not you come to that belief by some determined process okay did you justification for who because when we talk about justification I'm talking about persons I'm talking about logical justification okay right so there's so whether or not something is true is independent of how we justify it I agree there that right that's ontology but the fact that you are no no that's epistemology no the fact that something's just fighting to the fact that son is true or false independent of us is epistemology yes epistemology is the study of knowledge and how to justify knowledge what is let me clarify it this way then whether or not something is true is independent of whether or not someone has knowledge of it yes okay then okay there's no we're not talking so in that sense I can care less about beliefs in knowledge so true or false even if no one knows it yes okay good that's independent of us now what I'm saying is the fact that you are determined I would say undercuts any rationality just like the magic 8-ball kind of thing if we're both determined to believe something what reasons could you give if not more beliefs that are equally determined and you're just pushing back the goupil's because determined to believe something is ontology and whether or not I believe is justified as a piston laws they're two separate categories of things like I could be determined to believe two plus two plus four but that's irrelevant to whether or not there are justifications to believe two plus two equals four I think we're being a dead determined horse here so let me let me let me start to ask you some questions here so any decision you make there are two options either you're making the decision for reasons in which case is determined by the reasons or you're making it for no reason in which case it's random there's nothing you can add to this to get out of that dichotomy which means every decision possible is either determined or random what can you add to that to get free will okay well hold on I want to clarify something you're asking what do you mean by determined by the reasons how is something determined by the reasons are you saying the reasons are literally the thing that calls yes so it's kind of like you can imagine a bunch of roads or electrical signals in the brain where if you get enough of an electrical signal in one direction it causes you to choose that option or whatever so all of your reasons are essentially things that cause the electrical signal to go in that direction right so so it so all your beliefs you came to after having some deterministic reason so you don't you know wake up and believe something without having reasons everything you believe you have deterministic reasons for possibly I mean it's definitely no not necessarily there are some beliefs even have without reasons right so but those reasons are usually are other things in your brain like if I shock you in the correct place you're gonna have other beliefs that just pop in your head and foul to me other extent reasons huh so could you shock me and determine that I believe two plus two equals four and then even shock me with the determining reasons for which I believe that but yet those reasons let's say you're outside the box and you know those are invalid reasons yet in my mind you would to believe something and would determine that the reasons you gave me were justifiable right that's exempt next example I first used was we could be being deluded by Descartes Stephen but the fact the reasons that you think you have for believing it are independent and whether or not there actually are reasons to believe it yeah there's there's like you said there's truth independent of our beliefs yeah so the fact that we have beliefs is irrelevant to whether or not it's actually truly a justified belief two separate questions your subjective reasons we're subjective beliefs don't make it any more or less justified the question of whether that is justified is an objective question independent of your subjective reasons no independent of your whether or not your subjectively determined okay I might hit this horse one more time with this question that I've already asked so you're determined to believe two plus two equals four for the reasons you gave let's say I'm believe it I'm determined to believe two plus two equals four because of de cartes demon what's the difference in our justification determinism has nothing to do with justification determined does not mean justification those are separate categories so the justification there is irrelevant to whether not we determine our justification have to be other reasons other things independent of our determination okay yeah but I'm not well know nothing could be independent of our determination if determinism is true the fact that we're determined is not itself a justification you would have to have other things which would be the justification I'm not saying your determination is justification I'm saying you're determined to believe whatever justification you think is your justification you're determined to believe something and then like get back to it if you shock me you can determine both my beliefs and you can determine what I think are valid justification for those beliefs well the difference in you in my validation or justification for what I believe if even my justifications are something you caused me to believe remember there's a difference between an objective truth that's true independent of what we believe and a summary yes you are you exactly what you don't I don't think you realize it so our subjective truth of what we think is a justification like if I if I'm cause to believe it because day cars demon or someone shocks me in my brain that is independent of whether or not the claim to believe us for has objective justification it can still have objective justification guard list of whether or not undetermined I in determined is irrelevant to the question of whether or not two plus two equals four is justified mm-hmm I know I'm gonna agree with you can have independent justification but how I guess what I'm asking is but how can you gain access to that if you are determined to believe something how can you gain access to that justification you wouldn't be the fact that you're determined wouldn't prevent you from getting that close to that justification so like I could be determined to believe something but that something could still be true so the fact that I'm determined doesn't mean it's not justified or doesn't mean I can't be justified because you could be determined to believe the justified things whether you run it so being determined doesn't make you unjustified no I'm saying it undercuts your reason for having a justification right and I'm saying that's false because being determined doesn't make anything you believe unjustified or justified because you can be determined to believe justified things just like you can be determined to believe unjustified things there's a term doesn't have any bearing on whether or not your beliefs are justified let me put it this way let's go back to the magic 8-ball same questions over and over again I think try to push it from my way can you answer my question well can you make is either determined by reasons or done for no reason in which case it's random those are the only two possibilities it's a deductive deductive dichotomy you got two options it's determined for reasons or it's done for no reason that's random what can you possibly add to that to get free will and if you can't then freewill is logically impossible no I would say I choose to believe something based on reasons and the evidence I have before me right so that's determined by the reasons they determine because I have a choice here where's the choice because if you if you just choose to believe something and that's determined by the reasons then there was not a choice of determined sucks so okay well let's let me first define perhaps what I mean by Liberty but free will I mean libertarian free well and by that I simply mean that I'm the first mover of my will or actions okay I don't know if that if if you want to rephrase your question knowing that I'd same thing so every occasion for reasons in which case is determined by the reasons and you have no choice it's determined or it's done for no reason in which case you have no choice because it's random and by Riesz okay but i determined by the readings do you mean causally determined like a domino yes yes okay now I don't I'm caused by the reasons no okay how did you get out of that dichotomy my thing is a false dichotomy not a or not egg kind of thing and it's well that I choose to based on the reasons I have I make a conscious decision to I'm not forced to in the sense that chemicals on my brain forced me to believe something now there are some beliefs that come upon me that I haven't that I ain't choose to believe but yeah there are some things that I do choose to believe based on the evidence so everything you said fits into that dichotomy into the determined parts okay well I get full options each things you're gonna choose from and you have like ten different reasons to pick between these various options and you choose some reasons and you choose to ignore other reasons well if you choose a reason there has to be reasons you chose that reason or there can be no reason you chose that reason because it's it is a a or not a kind of a thing it's either there are reasons or there are not reasons hmm yeah so if there are reasons it's determined by the reason if there are not reasons than it is by definition random so if you the decision is either done for reasons or no reason and then the choosing of the reasons is either done for reasons or no reason no matter how far you go down this rabbit hole you're gonna get the same dichotomy hundred percent of the time there are reasons that determine it or it is random and there because there are no reasons okay so you said a lot there but a kerkoff Arrancar did you not already consider earlier that you can believe things without reasons or having any prior justification or reasons for well you can believe things because of the reason of your neurological things firing in a certain way that would constitute a reason neurological firings are reasons they would be yeah the reason you believe something is because something shocked you in the brain that caused you to believe it that could be a reason but but neurological firings are reasons no it's an awkward way of phrasing it but essentially that gets the same point which is everything you do is either determined by reasons everything you believe every decision you make is either determined by reasons or two determined by no reasons and which case them is random now if you want to extend that to a physical description of reality and go with neurons and biological stuff in the brain and yes you would consider those to be reasons because you could be make a decision based off of neurological stuff happening in your brain if you want to include that end of the analogy well I think well yearly even said everything's neurons weren't talking about beliefs so I guess on your view you have to include that and you and you would have to say that reasons are just chemical firings in the brain so you're asking me if I believe things because simply because chemicals fire in my brain no well I mixed in the analogy I used of saying there are either reasons or no reasons that applies to everything including the supernatural non-physical if there is a soul kind of thing it applies to that as well so I'm using a more general analogy to applies to all possible realms of reality which makes the deductive rather than just limited to the physical neurological stuff we know about so as well as using the more general one so I'm happy with saying I choose to believe things without being determined to on my own libertarian free will based on reasons okay but that didn't answer the question you're still stuck in the dichotomy which proves that's logically impossible either you determine it is determined by the reasons or it you have no reason in which case it's random those are the only possibilities how do you get out of that so you're saying if so if I have a libertarian free will you would say my option would have to be what I'd had to make what which one of those two which I already thinks of wants dichotomy well I think libertarian freewill is like a square around square it's not possible you cannot have libertarian free will its non-existent thing why because it's logically impossible everything you do is either done for reasons in which case is determined or it's done for no reasons in which case it's random if it's determined you didn't have a choice so there's no libertarian free will oh come you didn't have a choice you don't know what return in free will there is no possibility of libertarian frivolity that was more of a yes or no but even though you're determined to believe that and you could not have believed it otherwise I disagree define what what is libertarian free will I would say it's the ability to make a choice independent of like coercion or something like that I'm asking you well what your view is I think that what's the definition I'm just trying to because I think it's impossible so right but I mean you have but you have to know what it is that you think is impossible before you can cause them an impossible right right so I think it's the ability to make a decision independent of any kind of coercion that I don't know what the actual word is but it's some kind of force okay how do you define well I already told you but it's a little disappointing that you can't define it but you're telling me it's impossible right because I've actually I've looked up the definition before you I'm gonna look it up again I mean no no I want to know what you believe not what you can look up on Google right and I've already say it's the ability to Asian independent of being forced to make the decision if you are forced to make the decision it is not free it is not a choice you are determined so you do not have libertarian free will if you are forced to make the decision independent of some free choice thing and how do you know that we're forced to make hard decisions because it's logically impossible for you not to be the only two options are either you're determined you are forced or have not determined because it is there's no reason there in which case it's written the only possibility you keep making that assertion but that's not an argument you're just making assertions here why can I not be the first mover of my will because it's not logically possible so if you can show that this is not you can show that there's a way out that's great but if you can't it's a dichotomy like if I say it's a P or not P you could say well no no there's another option you have to actually show the other option here because I've demonstrated P or not P either you do things for reasons in which case is determined or you do not do things for reasons in which case it's random by definition that's what random means not done for reasons those are the only options that is a deductive dichotomy and as P or not P logically it makes perfect sense here you have to actually show that this is a false dichotomy in some sense okay so every time I ask why I can't have a libertarian freedom you say because it's impossible and then you go over your dichotomy right then okay that doesn't show it's not possible for me to be the first mover of my will or actions in other words so what if I said I choose to believe stuff freely libertarian li freely based on reasons would you be okay with that well that would just be a compatibilism so just be determinism no why why must you assume the Turman ism other than the fact that you're determined to believe that but why must you sue determinism because there isn't another logical possibility you can't insert something to get out of that dichotomy like it's like if I say a square has four sides and a circle does not have four sides then you can't have a round square okay just because just because like what to believe in a round Square that you use your libertarians or even around square doesn't make it any more possible it's still impossible just because you use an illustration with your assertion doesn't make it an argument so it is in fact an argument it's a very common argument let's be pretty much every philosopher rejects free will is any kind of gravy really that's news to me yes 75 percent of philosophers naturalist if case you didn't know why I don't know if 75% but of course truth is little papers on paper survey 75% okay yeah great so any the Primmer to believe that to back to the the whole free will think so everything I believe in do I'm forced to do and you're saying I it's logically impossible for me to freely choose to believe something without being forced to right okay well I guess we agree to disagree there because I I don't think you've bared the burden to prove that and I don't know how you could prove that everything is determined well I mean are you dissatisfied with the logical proof that a square cannot be round I mean cuz that's all I did satisfied I use the exact same proof that's watts per squares so if you don't if you reject that I mean yeah no I'm just satisfied with the fact that you keep making an assertion and then using an analogy as if an analogy with an assertion is an argument that's what I'm deciding right just like how philosophers prove that squares can't be round yes it's the exact same argument with the exact same structure exact philosophical ground you there so yeah you I don't I don't know what you why are you keep saying it's an assertion and it's not an argument it's literally the okay hair chromatic philosophical argument okay you're saying it's impossible like this that's an assertion with an illustration I'm saying it's impossible because it's contradictory yes right that's right that's what the analogy aims to show yes just like a round square is the same thing I don't see there's a difference between these two things yeah you're making it okay if I say libertarian free will exist and you say why because it's impossible for not to exist how I say well it's just like a squared circle libertarian free will exist because it's impossible for it not to exist just like a squared circle everybody believes that 75% of my facebook friends think so and there you go right you'd have to actually have some kind of philosophical argument to understand why it would be necessary to exist like the argument I gave right there well everything you do is done for reasons or it's done for no reasons before it's either determined or it's random and libertarian free will is not determined or not random by definition so you can't have libertarian free will because every decision you make is either determined to random okay so on your view I so I claim I believe stuff because I have reasons that I freely choose to investigate and come to a conclusion and you call that determinism right because all of your reasons are determined you are determined to believe those reasons you determined not to believe those reasons so you don't get a choice okay well yeah I I guess we can move on here because I it this is a second dead horse we beat let's talk about consciousness so you don't think consciousness is immaterial right no I think the best evidence we have is that it's material it could be a material I can't prove it but oh we have evidence for that same way we have evidence for everything Bob by making future testable predictions if the if the consciousness is produced by the brain then we can predict that if we damage the brain in some way we can affect consciousness and we can damage the brain consciousness there for which reason belief that consciousness produced by material processes okay so so far you've said conscious would you spare the brain which could be still dualism that be property dualism so it doesn't prove what you're saying Greg Martin let me let me finish because you've made two points and then you said that yeah you can have brain damage and stuff like that and that can alter you know mental states or memory that would show that there's a correlation or a cause effect relation there but that want to show that it is physical as matter that's not an example of identity so the very few things you gave me neither one of those two things prove consciousness would be physical correct that's true of all science all of science can't prove causation all science can't prove anything with absolute me evidence I'm not doing let's turn to you want to be evidence for consciousness being physical no because we can say the same thing about the whole world could have been created five minutes ago which could explain everything so therefore we don't have evidence to believe that the world revolves around the Sun because well no we don't have any evidence of that since the world is created five minutes ago the fact that we have all of this this stuff on our references that seems to indicate that well that's not actually evidence that the world revolves around Sun because the world could have been created five minutes ago in fact their alternative hypotheses doesn't actually mean that it's not evidence of the one that makes the testable predictions that's that's funny because you try to you do the very same thing that you're saying I'm doing when it comes to God but let's set that aside I asked you for evidence and you gave me those two things and then you said well no it's not evidence for it is it evidence for it or not that that consciousness is physical yes it's evidence for it but it's not proof okay so let's call it if so I would I'm saying it's not evidence for it okay is the fact that we can make measurements of the light curving around the Sun evidence that Earth revolves around the Sun I could care less we're talking about consciousness here well that's a it it's the standard of evidence that every scientific claim meets okay so so and then so now you're also now throwing this in there you're assuming that the question of consciousness is a scientific question why well no I'm saying that the evidence evidence is the fact that we can use some preconceived hypothesis to make predictions about things we did not know and if we can do that and confirm them that is evidence that the hypothesis is correct that's true of all science that's what science does yeah make a preconceived hypothesis that consciousness is material and with that hypothesis we can make predictions about if we damage the brain in this way we can see these kinds of effects on consciousness which we see okay which is therefore evidence of the hypothesis exactly like saying the Earth revolves around the Sun every every science about this works that way okay no not necessarily and your I guess your answer to my question was yes you do think it's a scientific question that was not sort of so I'm not sure what you mean when you say it's not a scientific question I'm asking you so you think this is a scientific question I'm not sure what you mean by scientific question well I didn't say you said it you said that that's that's how we do things through science and you started talking about science and and sorry right so science is a way to determine things that exist in reality that are not simply a part of your imagination so we have to use some kind of methodology to differentiate between some imaginary thing and whether or not this thing actually exists in the world the way we do that is we make future testable predictions yeah we can we can scientifically approach the supernatural if you can show future testable predictions supernatural that can be assessed by science too so I don't see there's like a scientific question okay you're making like five points in a sentence so we've got to go one at a time here scientific investigation for Supernatural I think it's absurd and February fallacy but we'll set that aside there's something else you said that I forgot and I have to die I don't write us that fast so are you familiar with empirical equivalent theories yes the problem or the determination okay explain empirically equivalent theories for me there are multiple ways to explain any set of empirical data you know no that's no that's not what empirical equivalent theories is so there's three positions when it comes to philosophy of mind you have physical strict physicalism and you have a type of dualism it's property dualism then you have substance dualism everything you said all the empirical data you can give could equally fit on all these three and there is no amount of data that you or I would disagree with that would prove one position over the other that's right which is exactly what I said there are multiple different offices that can explain all of the empirical data no three theories about the mind which are physicalism dualism and idealism so but yes that is the problem under determination there are many different there are infinitely many ways to explain any set of data that's true there are infinitely many ways to explain all of the empirical scientific data that we have of everything we can say the entire world is created five minutes ago or six minutes ago or seven minutes ago that doesn't mean we don't have evidence of the things that we can see around it's like we can show we have evidence that the earth goes around the Sun that's fine it meets the standard of what qualifies as empirical scientific evidence does it prove it no could there be other ways to explain it yes there could be infinitely many other ways to explain it but that's the best conclusion we have because we have a hypothesis that makes future predictions that are confirmed which is the same with consciousness okay so again you're saying a lot and I need to start writing more so why do okay let me let me go the go about it this way because every time I ask questions don't you'd like make five more points the fact that you can change stuff in my brain or it can have bring down but you know effect my mental state why do you think I mean it did you use it as an example as if that would somehow just prove that consciousness is immaterial or do you think that something that only fits on your perspective because I've heard you say before if it counts for one everything that accounts for nothing right so there are always infinitely many ways to explain anything so you can actually explain all of the data with dualism over idealism or physicalism they can all explain off the data but to have one explanation that is more supportive than the other what you have to do is you have to take the explanation and make future predictions say no that that because if it explains all the data with all those three positions then all those three positions can make future predictions and they can all be the same that's empirically equivalent no yes so so all of the past and present data can be explained by infinitely many theories like for example I can say we saw a cup fall over that could be explained by magical leprechauns or fairies or something but I didn't in order to say that that was a justified belief I would have to take that hypothesis say if it was fairies then I predict this other thing which will also be discovered to be true which we don't know yet and if I can discover that is true that I have a reason to believe it was the varies because we can predict more stuff in the future that we don't know yet okay and if you can do that that is a good reason to believe in fairies okay let's let's we can do that with the physical one we can't do it with the dualism of the idealism okay let's set the fair's aside because I think what you said last is where I want to get to give me a future test to predict prediction you can make that would fit the position that consciousness is physical that I could not make given that I believe consciousness is a material we'll be able to make consciousness with artificial intelligence and computers and how would you know that they're conscious well we do the same way we know that I know you're conscious I just do it based off inductive analysis I can't prove you're conscious Oh sufficient reason to believe you're conscious are you familiar John Starla's Chinese room experiment right that's a metaphysical question which is irrelevant I can still believe that you're conscious even though I don't know it for sure this is all metaphysical we've been talking about a physical for the past five minutes mmm sword know we've been talking epistemology like well science says nothing about metaphysics we're talking about scientific how the brain function physical that's all histology first of all okay first of all yes this is metaphysics and that would that might be true if your position is correct but remember I don't think consciously I would I know consciousness is not physical so it's not a scientific question John sorrows' back to John saw a Chinese room experiment we know that he argues that base mimicking behavior of consciousness does not show something's conscious right and that's also applies to supernatural to the supernatural also can't solve that in there let's take the consciousness so what is consciousness what would you say consciousness because I don't even know how you would determine whether or not AI is conscious why just say it's conscious experience I guess right but that would be the a at the robot having that experience how would you know that then I wanted the exact same way I determined you have conscious they can do everything you can do I'm going to say as couches so what about some robots now or Emma do you think computers are conscious if I know why not because they don't have the ability to learn and process and react in the same way as human those ok so so why can like a lower form of conscious then why can't that be a lower form of conscious it could be I don't know ok so what then why I say it's not because I don't have any reason to believe it is like I'd have to actually be justified in the conclusion it is kind of a consciousness and where would you draw the line when it comes to a I like quiet you know the in China and other places are making these weird-looking robots they look pretty human and they can you can have some sort of a conversation with them how do you know that's is is that conscious I don't know maybe you think it is no I'd say that they need to be able to do pretty much everything humans can do for the most part ok so an infant would what an infant be conscious possibly possibly you don't know if an infant if an AI could do what an infant would I consider it cautious possibly possibly not know my infants or infants conscious actually I assume so yes ok but they can't do everything you and I can do right right so my aware I would draw the line is we're now I'm going to say a computer is conscious when it can do what we assume or what we label is what most humans can do an adult human can do that's what I'm going to label it conscious okay but you but only for robots not humans right right I have a higher standard for robots because we don't have a biological system that can show that they lead into the others across certain amount of years say that again we don't have a biological system we know kids grow into parents and we know parents are conscious so we can assume the kids are probably conscious too probably but we don't have that for computers so I'm gonna say my standard for what a computer would have to do before I would call it conscious would be as much as an adult human would be why would you start children are probably conscious well it depends on what consciousness is like we don't actually know what consciousness is I do know you don't I've been published a paper in the academic journal you solve both problems in every field of philosophy and biology and neurology know you can ascertain you do you don't know anything and you can assert that don't write I can yeah so that would he said she said right I know you are but what am I so what about the people who have done I mean working this and why can't I know what consciousness is I'm a little offended why can't you know what conscious like no one knows what consciousness is no one no one really it's one of the biggest unsolved problems in all of everything about the universe we don't know so the one that we solve this you will be like world famous in a matter of days like this is a pretty big issue please publish a paper enlighten the rest of us what is consciousness please well there's lots of books out there I can give you I can't even buy them for if you like by who tom accepted by the world like if you could actually consciousness what's through a scientific level like Einstein demonstrated with general relativity you would be world famous in a matter of days right okay so the very thing that we know the most about our mental lives which is consciousness you say we know nothing about yes the fact that we know about our conscious experience doesn't mean we know what conscious experience is really you know yes the fact that we experience it doesn't mean we know what it is we experience colors before we knew what colors were before we know what optical illusions were the fact that we experience something doesn't mean we know about it so consciousness is not an experience consciousness is an experience okay all right well then I guess we know better know right and we experience colors too before we actually knew what colors were how photons flew into the eyes and how the ice process information fact experience it doesn't mean we know anything about it um so colors are photons yes colors are photons processed by the retina in the eye process to the brain yes so you need an eye to see color yes or you need a brain that gives you the signals that precede color yes would you say you need to like to see color and photons does he color or the electrical signals a brain that produced color yes so if you a closure if you close your eyes and I ask you to see elephant would you see it being elephant no I can imagine imagine it would you say you'd have an experience of a pink elephant in your mind I would imagine what I wouldn't see one well see in the sense that you have that sensation be a mental state right right that's because your visual cortex what it does is it mimics the sensations given to you when you see something it mimics photons yes that's exactly how your brain waves it mimics the image when you with mimics Photon that's incredible it mimics the sensation in the brain produced by the photons interacting with your eyes oh so now the sensations in my brain yes it's always been in your brain really so could I crack your no I wouldn't never do this I'm a Christian right slight joke there I wouldn't ever crack open your brain but if I were let's say a surgeon an open or your brain I'd see that pink elephant in there not exactly like they have done experiments with cats where they are baboons we we don't have that level of quality in the brain once we do yes the answer is yes we will be able to find the pink elephant in the brain we know for a fact that we can show a certain picture of a pattern – it was either a baboon or a cat put radiometric dye in the brain kill the cat cut open the brain and put the brain up against a piece of paper to read the menu radiometric data and we find the image of the picture that they looked at on the paper so yes we can find the physical image of what you're looking at or imagining in the brain yes in the brain that's on the paper in the brain yes and so you said on the paper which one is it so we take the brain we stick the brain on the paper mm-hmm so the the residue in the brain gets on the paper so it's in the pits in the brain and then it becomes on the paper because you put the paper on the brain so it's in the brain okay so so if I get a CD and I break it well like notes and like the notes see like fall out of it or songs all out of it no it is music inside the CD no ones and zeros other side the CD okay right so the brain though but that does have the music in there right for many things yes the brain physically process processes the information yes it sounds like special James no for some things like physical shapes the brain literally creates the physical shapes yes and if I yield but my brain and put it against a piece of paper some physical shapes will pop out and some songs about physical shapes yes you're not gonna find Sawyer's that way why not if you can cuz it's a different medium you couldn't I don't know what kind of shape like there sounds not not physical shape so you wouldn't be able to see a shape but maybe it's like if there was a way to like read audio from the brain and then you could produce a song from hearing someone think about it how like a CD huh sort of but see these in ones and zeros right so neuron firing up way to translate the ones and zeros into the song I like that I like that user word translate so but you're when it comes the brain it's not in there and that bad boys into that pink elephant it's boom mi Brassica shapes yes physical shapes are actually processed in the visual cortex yes the physical shape is there they're not translated they're there they're like how big is that elephant that would be my brain cuz I'm impressed that you think a pink I look like it in my brain right because that's what happens in the brain that's how the brain processes information we can do the experiment we there are published papers on this where they cut open the brain have it have an image in there we've seen that happen we can prove this and scientifically we've got this down okay yeah I I'm shocked okay we're on AI because I think the points been made I heard someone once say I don't even need to respond to that I just need to make sure the audience understood what you're saying and that's efficient for me so if you write corrects fine with me okay so alright let me give you an argument on what you think and you probably if you've seen in my videos you probably have heard this me use this this illustration or argument which you can find at youtube / c / erin and is a short shameless plug so i would claim that consciousness is not physical because the properties of the mind are not shared by the property of the brain and vice versa and I'm assuming you're familiar with saliva and slob identity yep okay so well let me let me just go to I'm given that you're familiar with it for the listeners who may not be familiar with according to aliveness law of identity if two things are the same thing then they share are the same properties if they don't then they're not the same thing so let's take a mental state like a belief a belief can be true or false and that belief can be correspondent and correlated with neurons firing in my brain but the neurons themselves are not true or false but my belief is true or false my brain can wait three pounds but my beliefs don't weigh three pounds my the sensation of a red or a pink elephant which is in my mind that can versus an actual pickle over my brain my brain can be seven inches long but the thought of a pink elephant which is in my mind is not seven inches long there are a lot more we can go through we can talk about qualia aboutness of miss AI cricket the word escapes me but you get where I'm going here so what would you do with that that the properties of the mine are not shared with the properties of the brain composition division fallacy like I could say the properties of an ocean are out the same of the properties of hydrogen and oxygen molecules the properties of the Sun are not the same as the property properties of the hydrogen that makes up the Sun the fact that the collection of things has different properties from the individual parts of the thing doesn't mean that they can't be made up of the individual things okay but that's not so okay because you would agree that a drop of water is wet and the oceans wet yes I don't think a drop of water can yeah yes see a drop of water can be wet but a single molecule of water probably wouldn't be wet okay let's think what I'm saying a drop of water can be wet and the ocean can be wet right right because are the same thing they're water you share the same properties I'm saying in principle there is no sharable property between the mind and brain right I can I can just refute your point there by saying a single molecule of water isn't wet but its water molecule of water we're talking about drop of water those two things or not really your argument was there you saying they're the same thing therefore they have the same properties but a molecule of water is still the same thing but it doesn't have those properties so that water is your points so waters not wet and what do you think you of water is not wet no what do you mean by single molecules not wet each – I was not wet it's not wet okay yeah nice to substitute I heard eighth graders arguing about whether or not waters wet but let's get I don't want to go on a tangent about the other thing I really don't my thoughts can be true or false no part of my brains true or false you think that's a what fallacy composition division like or the the truth or falsity of the claims is something that's independent of your brain so the fact that your beliefs are true or false has nothing to do with your brain it's kind of like that what right guys think MIT so that means that your mind and brain at the same thing know the beliefs that you have in your head whether or not they're true has nothing to do with your brain or your mind at all completely irrelevant so remember remember earlier in our discussion you said you have a belief and you're determined to believe it the fact that you're determined to believe it is independent from whether on it's true or whether on it's justified it's the same thing so the fact that your brain is determined to believe something or believe something that is true is independent of the truth the truth of it is something that's outside of your brain so there's no contradiction there okay so I don't believe your brain thinks first of all I don't think your thoughts and your consciousness is in your brain so that wouldn't apply to I'm saying but the fact that the mind and brain don't show are they any properties of the mind and brain share what do you mean like they they do stuff vision no okay so it will experience all these experience consciousness yeah so they're so mental state there are ways that flaws so assuming you've read the books and you said you know so many percentage of people they reject this and then the world believes this for that so I'm assuming you have a an answer the question how do you identify a mental thing how do I identify two mental states the same way identify a brain state okay so our mental states the same thing as brain states by my definition yes okay right then they should share the same properties no again the same thing that composition division fallacy I don't know it's not on this made of hydrogen sorry does more properties than hydrogen that's not you know you're not following here a Mentos if a mental state is and by is you mean literally the same thing as then we're using two different phrases or names or terms to talk about the same thing if I'd say Tom jump or the guy I'm talking to right now online I'm using two different titles record to talk about the same person so whatever's true of Tom jump is gonna be true of the guy I'm talking to online because they're the same person if your name that mental states and ranked Italy the same thing then they're going to share the same properties it says mental states are some brain states not all brain states our mental states some things our brains do you don't have any mental conception of all what else so there is some part of your brain states that are mental states just like there are some parts of like hydrogen that share the same properties with Sun but they're not all the same you're but you okay now you're doing that fallacy of the composition thing there okay let's okay up your mind what is a thought I have no idea I just think thoughts are the things we're experiencing physically what's a thought because it's physical I'm sorry I've no idea what you don't know what I thought is something in the brain as far as I know I don't know what is so would you write that full solution to neurology and how consciousness works okay what's its there's another neurology rather okay anyways so a thought to you would have to be some type of a brain state right neurons firing yes yeah okay so when you have thought X your brain does something right yes and those are the same thing yes okay and they should share the same properties just like I'm junk no come on man you're killing me here it's like a computer computer has ones and zeros everything or in computer is a set of ones and zeros but when you look at the screen you don't see ones and zeros this is so right because they're not the same thing look what they're they're all ones and zeros that's it but the ones and zeros and the image on my screen is not the same thing okay could you explain that to me what do you mean ones and zeros are not the same okay so the grooves on earth we are not the same thing as the music itself correct the grooves on the city are the the way the thing is reading it creates the music no it is so well this is the same thing as consciousness so the way that you experience consciousness is because of your brain is doing all the ones and zeros in the background creating this idea of the spare of consciousness like the screen on your computer now I don't know exactly what you mean by the same here cuz I see those as all the same processing go back to the CD thing the grooves in the CD is that the same thing as the music is it literally the music no okay right so weird really so far I'm saying the same thing with the brain of the mind and I think you would agree here because and I'm not sure if you've even as as boldly as you claimed we don't know what consciousness is and you talk about consciousness and philosophy of mind I don't I'm not even sure if you know what your position is because I would say you're you're some type of a property dualist because earlier you said that the brain that consciousness is something produced by the brain which already entail that they're not the same thing was just the way we talked about it I would say that there it is a brain state it's something in the brain so but I'm definitely not a property dualist cuz dualism is completely incoherent because of the problem of the interaction problem yeah that doesn't make any coherent we can get to that if you want let's let's one thing at a time here so so just to clarify my position is is that conscious experience is like to scream on your computer you got a bunch of ones and zeros which we can correlate to the neurons interacting which create a screen on the computer so even though they aren't literally the exact same in every conceivable way the screen on the computer is a result of the ones and zeros okay I'm fine with saying that but that but you'd have to concede there that they're not the same thing right if you want to say it in that same respect yes but I'm still saying their material so there's the same material sense okay sure okay so they're both material but they're not the same thing that's that's fine I'm happy to grant that if you don't if you want to mean the same thing in that literally way yes okay yeah again coming from someone who was so confident that we didn't know anything about consciousness and all this little you know saying go get a Nobel Prize and prove this or that you just really you'd have to know what identity means I mean it's it's a strict metaphysical term which is what we've been talking about metaphysics for the past 30 minutes or so oh so that's what identity means the same thing as right and the problem of identity is a big problem with philosophy that we can't solve for anything so I can talk more about epistemic identity and what we can demonstrate scientifically there are things in the brain but if we're talking philosophy of mind then you should know how I'm using identity and especially the way you laid it out and then I even said Leibniz law of identity so I mean I would just I would just recommend not to be coming up so strong if you're not familiar with the area or the field I'm fairly familiar with the area identity doesn't have to do anything do you think problem of mind oh yes the problem of identity and the law of identity which is more broad topic so no live knit slob identity right difference there's philosophy of mind 101 stuff okay so hey because you give me two different answers but and maybe we should move on here but so consciousness is not literally the same thing as the brain but your result of the brain okay right so then it is not the exact same because there's other things the brain does which are not conscious hey sorry answers yes that it's you agree with me that it's not the same thing you think it's just still something physical right it is a process of the brain explained that it is a result of interactions in the brain but there are all kinds of other interactions in the brain that do not presume presume or result result in consciousness so if I get a guitar and I you know play a note which is the result of pressing certain strings and plucking certain strings would it follow that the note C is the same thing as me plucking strings well note C is the vibration of the sound wave produced by the vibration of the mm guitar strings I disagree about your answers no so okay we got that so it's not so that's what I'm saying there so I think so I'm almost even kind of helping you formulate those as a result of the process of the strings Wiggly right so it's not the same thing as present process of result of the strip's results the process I think is a process of the break I understand that so then you do you would you consider yourself a functionalist I don't know I don't have a strict position are consciousness because I don't know what it is well that's what it sounds like you know what it is but you know it's physical the best evidence we have indicates its physical we have no reason to believe aliens now feel like we're going back in a circle whatever this is the ability to make future testable predictions that are confirmed idealism cannot do that and has never done that dualism cannot do that as done that physicalism can do that so we have physicalism we don't have it anything else okay but you can see didn't you can see it earlier that there empirically equivalent again there are always empirical equivalencies for everything we can explain everything with empirically equivalent theories for literally all scientific data for everything it does not mean is what I'm saying without being ad hoc I'm like okay so it is that the most supported ones are the ones we have scientific data for which is the ability to make testable predictions there are still always going to be infinitely many empirically equivalent alternatives is the problem under determination applies to everything we don't have a way to prove one is absolutely correct all we have is the ability to make future testable predictions which gives us reason to believe this one is better than the other so so give me I'm gonna try this again then give me the give me the evidence that consciousness is physical future testable predictions we can damage the brain it'll cause effects on consciousness and and that and I can't explain that you can always explain any set of data with empirically equivalent data that does not is not evidence how is that evidence for that's which is funny because when it comes to God you say the complete opposite against theists which i think is disingenuous at this point if all of the evidence works equally as well for all of the alternatives then none of it's actually evidence okay good we can make testable predictions before we know them and get them right is only true under physicalism it is true for that the dualism is not true for ideal so it only works for physical is all the evidence you can give any empirical evidence can give can work for all three positions right in the past or in the present but not in the future the only one that can make future tests simple predictions is physical in which physicalism now has more evidence because it has one thing the others don't which is that usually conscience that hopefully can do more than infants which i think is even a it mean that criteria itself is its it's pretty wild that's just a criteria I made up what would satisfy me that's nothing to do with the science well I'm glad to hear that but I think it's a wildly made-up ad hoc arbitrary whatever you want to call it I don't even what you want to call it so the evidence that consciousness is physical is that you think AI will be conscious although you can't know whether or not it's conscious how do you know let me listen to try this maybe we can start to shift a little bit how do you know when you're in pain the sensation of what I have the sensation of pain right and is that is that something you know by means of the physical no ah but we agree on something ok right because I would say that pain which is a qualia which is a conscious thing qualia is no physical to see experience of a mental state the qualitative texture if you will of them into state right so not physical would you agree with that then why'd say it's not a physical means in the scientific sense but we can then look in the brain and see that there is an electrical signal and say yup that person's in pain because they have the physical sensation of pain so we can't learn enough pain by looking at the physical we don't do that because it would be tedious we can just experience pain so we don't actually look at the physical speken isms in the brain to know we're in pain we just feel pain we're here so let me let me let me rephrase what you said how I would put it and you tell me what you think about it come on here would you think so when I have a experience of pain it's in my mind which is not in my brain and there's a correlating kind of like the guitar the CD thing there is a correlation of a brain state but looking at my brain state doesn't necessarily tell me what mental state I'm in but there is a correlation between the two right just like there's a correlation and everything in science what's equally supported is also hey when you again I don't know what you meant by the last part but I want to focus on Earth when you say right you agree with me right as in that pain is in the mind which is not in the brain no pain is in the brain and we look at the brain to gain the correlation between the two sensations we can't prove it metaphysically but that's just how science works these sensations what what two sensations we can look in the brain to find the sensations so we can see the sensations are occurring by looking at what's in the brain like we can see pain is occurring because of the sensations that go through your body sensations in the brain yeah I'm still not getting that signals okay right so that wouldn't be the sensation though an electrical signal would not be a sensation of pain yeah the electrical signals are what result in the sensation of pain sure I wouldn't wear that way but okay right so there's a correlation so when you look at in other words what and here's what I'm also getting that you don't have to look at anything in your brain to know about what mental state you're in right okay and I'm arguing this because when it's not physical so you couldn't describe pain by any physical neurological mechanisms would you agree with that no everything's we don't understand it enough to be able to translate things in the brain to conscious experience with how to go between those two what do you mean by understand it what's the it you're referring to the consciousness part we don't know how to go from physical stuff in the brain to quality experience yet look it's a club but okay okay I'll call you I don't think it's like you see the example where you say are the bumps on the CD the same as the song like yes if you find a way to translate one of the other than yes the bumps on the CD are the same as the song it's just a different language same thing is with the brain it's like the stuff in the brain that's the mental neurological stuff is the same as the stuff you're seeing we just don't know how to translate those yet okay no the CD the grooves in the city are not the same thing as the songs I mean I don't know I'm gonna lost for words that you'd even say that they're causing a thick relationship but a cause-effect relationship does not establish identity and by identity again means that literally the same thing as Erick Hernandez is identical to Kindle Hernandez's husband that's my wife that is identity but showing it cause effect relationship or even a dependence relationship is not identity right I'm not saying literally the same in every conceivable way I want user identity that says all right well that's what identity is so so then I would say just change your use of words because we're talking philosophy your stick with the definitions that philosophers actually use no so so I say I say the song is the same I mean it's the same general thing but there's not the exact same way we are the same species we are not the exact same so when the song is the general same thing it is just a different expression of the same language or different expression of the same ideas in a different language where did you say earlier about the philosophers definitions I'm gonna stick with philosophers definitions I'm not gonna go that's what I'm doing you you couldn't even define identity to me earlier and then you were unfamiliar with it that I'm talking about the Philosopher's of using no you're not reject pretty much everything you've said seven materialists four percent are our duelists like you it's a joke physician you don't even know what I was saying but yet you know that most I don't really understand your position and they're using different definitions than what I'm familiar with okay so pain try one more time it's pain physical yes or no yes pain as a result of the physical processes in the mind yes you're an ass as the result is it yes result of physical processes in the mind okay what do you in the mind but by mind you mean brain brain yes okay so if I use them it's I have it okay no understandable that's it's kind of our main right um so huh I don't want to go from here I don't know is there anything you want to ask me because I'm at I think I I think the points kind of make themselves here at this at this point well you said you heard a solution to the interaction problem no I didn't say that well I necessarily had a solution I said that doesn't disprove there's there's no soul well I said it made dualism incoherent why you said it did not make dualism a coherent something right why why would it make it incoherent because there's absolutely no way to assess that this other entity or other aspect of reality you say exists there's no reason to believe it isn't an imaginary thing any different from any of the infinitely many other imaginary things that we can experience ocean currents make something incoherent right because if you can't get it to interact with the things that our brain then saying that there are actually things our brain is ridiculous like well like so my question ignorant make something incoherent yes if you're asserting something as an explanation okay no way to explain is the explanation with innocent coherent actually a rabbit can cause the universe like what are you um Nishant no so you have ignorant like I do right yes are you incoherent no okay but that doesn't in any way address the issue so again if you assert something as a solution but it can't work as a solution based on the thing he provided that makes it an incoherent statement positions incoherent let's say I give my so my son's one and he for the most part mean he he he can grab my phone and my wife's phone and he can kind of you know he knows how to swipe here and there so he has some type of understanding at least that when I do this this works but he perhaps cannot explain the interactions and the mechanisms behind the electrical signals within the phone does it mean that his understandings are coherent or doesn't mean that he's wrong or doesn't meant that there is no phone or what would you well if he asserted a solution and said he could explain that and he doesn't understand the things and yes his explanation is incoherent solution to what so like if he says I can explain how this is happening or why this function is occurring in the cell phone but you just admitted he doesn't know what's causing there doesn't know how the interaction happens then yes his position is incoherent because he just said he can explain something which he already admitted he can't explain well he can't even talk side being impressive even went that far but that's my point here is that you're saying that you could explain something but you don't know how to explain it because you can't explain you say so you think the definition of a soul includes an explanation of the interaction of the mind and body or the soul and body right if you believe that there is a mind-body dualism that the dualism with mind in some way interacts with the brain how it interacts with the brain well then you're saying you can't explain something but it's still it's unknown something so so no no okay so because there's an ignorant or lack of knowledge because we don't know something or let's even like let's use me aside for my son I don't know how this phone works I mean it's I appreciate it it's a little bit too expensive but you know whatever I don't know how it works but I use it am I wrong in believing that the phone works you'd only be incoherent if you claimed you knew it worked but you couldn't show it how it worked okay I know it works the incoherences you're claiming to know or claiming to say that there is a mind body there is a dualism but then you're claiming to know you don't you can't show how they interact you're claiming the interact you can't show how they interact that's the clearance the problem is your position okay so in order to believe that the soul exists and it's not physical I have to I have to necessarily show how they interact and if I don't then I throw the baby out with the bathwater right if you don't have any reason to believe that exists and can do believe the existing can do anything you literally think people believe in the soul because they know how it interacts with the body like that's you think that's why people believe in the soul because that's I've never anyone argue for the soul and saying they believe this old because they know how it interacts that's right all right they believe in ridiculous things for no reason so if you can give a good reason to believe in the soul that's great but as far as no there isn't any and the one that would tail them that would be to show how the skull interacts with the body no no because again I cannot show you how this phone works but I believe it does so I can I we can go through argues for the soul if you'd like but just even if I could not explain how it interacts it doesn't mean I'm incoherent or I can't believe that this will exist so there are two separate things two separate questions one Oracle question yeah there's an epistemic question do you demonstrate the phone works you can't if you have good reason to believe a soul exists even if you don't know how it works that's fine but as far as I can tell you good okay so I I can believe the soul I can believe in the soul and have reasons and justifications for even if I don't know how to interact with the body they're correct right I'm saying that that would be the reason that you would need to justify belief in the soul ease you have to have the interaction yes sorry because there are no good reasons to believe in a soul that would be the good reason to believe in the soul what the assumption that there are no good reasons to believe in the soul then it all boils down to the interaction I would say actually you'd have to first know whether or not there is a solar could be a soul before you can even tap with a question of interaction you could approach it that way so if you have other reasons to believe in the soul that would be good too but as far as I know there are no reasons to believe in the soul so we've no solutions the interaction problem then you have nothing okay but it's under the Year assumption which you've admitted you have limited knowledge that there are no reasons or maybe the assumption that there I have no reasons I don't know I don't know we haven't even gotten there yet but you're acting as if I can't explain interaction then I have nothing because you assume there are no good reasons to believe in the soul so again it's like you're confusing epistemology and metaphysics here like if I say Santa doesn't exist that doesn't mean I can prove Santa doesn't exist anywhere ever no matter what there's just no good epistemic justification to believe Santa exists okay yeah I'm curious what reasons have you heard for the existence of the soul quite a few I don't really remember them because I never really took them seriously really Tom yes because I can think of a lot of go through all my videos I've I've come up they've come up with quite a number of times like I just not very impressive to me like give me an example of one well okay so here's again the disappointing thing if you were to ask me what I don't believe in when it comes to anything like an a belief an atheist might hold or something like that I can give you the arguments for why someone would believe you've been a long time because that's part of in my mind it's part of the justification for you not to even be able to name an argument for the soul it's irrelevant eyerly that does nothing to help your position I haven't remembered them doesn't help you at all is what yeah seriously because they're not relevant yes this is not meant to help me I'm just pointing out the fact that it's it's maybe a slap on the wrist we call it I don't know take total you're just wasting time because that doesn't irrelevant to my position isn't relevant your division your position it doesn't help me in any way it doesn't help you anyway there's nothing you're saying right now that is relevant to the arguments it helps for for these instance of us all I think it helps the listeners the fact that if you can't even think of one yet you're so adamant that there is none it's just shows them that you don't know what you're talking about give me an argument the existence of a soul I'll show you why it's wrong who doesn't know what they're talking about you because you usually that hominem you don't remember what the argument for the soul is I don't need to remember them and ad hominem says that you're wrong because of this I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying it's it's it's it's it's just a point okay yeah you're disappointing is the same as wrong give me an example of an argument I'll show you why it's wrong all right so let's do hmm what about identity through change and do you believe that we remain the same throughout heart replacement and change we define ourselves as a certain category of things that make up the physical body and the physical body changes but that category we define as ourselves does not change so theseus is ship we defined it as theseus's ship even if we change all the parts because he owns the ship okay I don't know if that answered my question do you remain the same person from one moment to the next yes or no legally by the definition of person yes I remain the same person well legally the definition of physical matter no I do not remain the same person okay so in the strict sense of identity that's another technical metaphysical term you are not the same person for a moment to the next No so I've been talking to how many different people in the past hour that we've been talking in our place right because the problem of identity can't be solved in a field ever how many people how many Tom's have I've been talking to in the past hour and a half some of the PAR irrelevant to anything I've said at this point we define a person legally as the physical parts that make them up so the legal definition you've been talking to one I don't matter physics is nonsense so it's not relevant to the topic I don't care about the legal because being a part your Wow metaphysical has no evidence it's completely made-up nonsense yeah you had more assertions supported by all the biggest problems in philosophy of science and every field of human knowledge yeah which you can't even give me any arguments for but setting that aside so how do you define a person you forget the legal aspect because if there was no law you'd still have to be able to find a person right I just defined them based off of physical things that make up a human being okay so would you say personhood is a degreed property maybe maybe not I'm asking you yeah I don't know it's just a person no human being no it's just a human being you're not familiar you familiar with degree property that I want to assume that you yes yes but it's again it's the problem of identity which for anything in the problem for anything this is not the metaphysical questions aren't relevant here this always we define a person as the matter that makes up the person Tom you asked you asked me to give you some reasons so I'm first trying to see where we're both at so I can find what where I want to go with it can you tell me what a non-degree property is or I can just say it it's up to you okay because I'm honest because it's not gonna lie I'm a little suspicious of whether or not you understand what degree property is because so I want to make sure we're on the same page here I just it's some properties are degreed some properties are non degree so a degree property would be something that can come in percentages or degrees you can vary it can fluctuate so for example loudness is a property that can go up or down hardness or textures a property that can fluctuate but contrast that with a non degree property like the property of being even the number two is even and the number six is even but the number six is not more even than the number two so would you say personhood is a degreed or non degree property I don't know okay that's don't know now earlier though you said that we define personhood as the say it against and about the physical as a human being is just the physical body that makes them up that's so a person or you say human being person human being is just the physical body that makes them up okay if you were to chop off my arms and legs would I be half of a person no as far as I go huh so apparently it's all of you to cut up your brain into parts you could be partial to a person okay so Denny what dandy Walker syndrome is something that's a real thing where some people are born with like only 10% of a brain are they only 10% people no but I'd say if I cut your corpus callosum in half you're two people well done okay so you're not 10% okay so then it seems to me that you would have to concede then that personhood is not a degree property maybe maybe not well based on the answer you just gave me you'd have to say no because because damage to the brain could mean that there's parts of persons and maybe not you'd have to have a better understanding of what really makes someone a person and that we have a discrete definition of what that means yet okay no I'm saying if a person born with 10% of a brain is not 10% of a person and if cutting my arms and leg off legs off don't make me 50% of a person then it follows that personhood is none degreed and then it would also follow from that that personhood must cannot be grounded in just the physical parts of the body that you said that makes a person so a person can't just be something physical no it's kind of like the species problem in biology like you can say well is this one of these species or one of these species well we don't know it's not it's not a hard line distinction between there even though it is still a gradient person what makes a person the person is a gradient we just don't know where exactly the line is like for example if you're born without a brain you're not a person because you don't have a brain you have no consciousness you have no interaction you can't live so you're not a person at what point do you go from like 10 percent of a brain 5 percent where does that line draw I have no idea it's still a spectrum and then whether or not we call it a hard distinction between the person or not person isn't really a solve pressing we have to know more about the brain before you can answer that ok so you said there's a gradient so that means you assume personhood is a degree property it could be either way I don't know cuz you're giving me two different answers here the questions I asked you give me an answer that would lead to this I don't answer this because that's purely based on neurology once we understand everything about the brain we can give you a concrete answer and say yes personhood is when you have this much level of consciousness which we qualify as a person like I don't know what the answer to that is but what's your question how does this lead into an argument for the soul well I was I was getting there but then you switched your answer up on me when I said I don't know and then I said it could be this or it could be this all right no I'm in part turn to help you come to a conclusion here because I want to know what you believe because the answers you gave me come to a conclusion I'm sorry you're not qualified to help me come to a conclusion on this ok I'm sorry I'm doing my best here would you how does this lead to an argument to the soul well because a person who is not a great property then you can't base being a person on the physical chemistry and makeup that is what you are and then it has all of that I'm sorry how so I can just say personhood is a certain level of function of the brain and once you have this certain level of function then you're a person if you don't have this certain level function you're not a person therefore it is a physical property ok no there wouldn't be that would just mean that this it's a threshold property first that were you once you reach a certain level then boom you're conscious no so then which and it's fair enough I'll grant that you say you don't know but is it fair to say that you at least would you would think that if there was some way to determine personhood it would be based on functioning yes okay so if I lose functioning and my less of a person at some point yes if you die you're not a person anymore no I said less of a person unless zero is less than more zero is always less okay but if I am a person and I lose functioning and my less of a person right I would say this goes back to the neurology questions what do we define as a person how much function qualifies as a person where does the threshold the heart it easy to spectrum that's all a neurology question I can grant it for the sake of the argument it's a personhood is a discrete either yes or no question and say that can still all be explained by the physical you don't need any supernatural for that at all well so now I don't think it can be just a person hit I would say it's a metaphysical question not a physical question because if personhood is not agreed which I think you you would agree for the sake of argument but okay I will that for the sake of argument but I don't take a stance on it could be a person had not a degree property that you cannot ground your personhood or anything physical which means mean a person is not necessarily until two are tied to something physical then you would have to ground in something transcendent beyond the body that's not physical namely the soul no I can ground it in the physical process of the martens it has a certain range of activity well then it's personhood if you have less than that range of activity it's not a person so a person in a coma is not a person no I said a certain range of activity I don't know what that range of activity is hey all I can still ground that in physical processes so an arbitrary range of activity and and one thing we didn't get into earlier is now that I remember about going to the pain thing and we can we can wrap it up soon if you'd like are you familiar with inverted qualia no ok so it's another way of showing that brain states and mental states are not the same thing so let's say when I have a sensation of pain you look in my you look in my brain you see these brain firings and then let's say you take a sip of lemonade and you get a sensation of bitterness and when I look in your brain you have a certain firing for all I know it could be the case that when you have a certain brain state you don't feel what I feel when I have a brain state because here's it here's a better example perhaps right when you see his red I can see his blue and it wouldn't be able to tell the difference for the most pure perfect right so I think that would pose a huge problem to your AI thing well how you would ever be able to tell that what mental state someone's in simply by looking at the brain and I would argue that is because the mind is not the same thing as a brain I just say we don't have absolute knowledge of anything I can't show that you're conscious but I still use the same criteria to establish an AI as conscious in the same way I establish your conscious so we can to determine with some level of certainty that certain cars we'll see are the same in some respect like who can show that the eye works and has three types of colors that it can interpret a reed and of those colors we can show colors that are of the same kind of retina or red by the same part of the right now we can put them right next to each other to see if you have certain kinds of damage to your eye which cause you unable to see certain kinds of colors so we can determine that you do see the same label of what we label is the color since they are the same frequency of light so we still have a high degree of certainty that this is the color you're seeking and this is what you see when you see the color can we prove it no but we don't need to we can't prove anything in science it's relevant to the question how does that make it a higher degree of certainty because you're poignant things that are physical but so consciousness is something that's first-person introspective awareness is first-person private access you have no access to my mental life would you agree with that yes okay but if consciousness is physical would it not be the case that you should be able to have access to my mental life if consciousness was physical no how would that work because any because anything physical about me you have access to as a third party yes or no uh no like what like I can't like analyze every cell of molecule in your body like no sure you could in principle you could you can get a microscope and you know technology can improve you could in principle have access to every physical aspect about me right it's the same thing with like a CD you have to have the translation has to be the same language as the CD to get the same information so even if I add the CD with all of the ones and zeros on it unless I knew how to read that CD in order to produce the correct song that I would not have access to the stuff on the CD even though I had access to everything on the CD because the CD the songs and the CD are not the same thing right that's great song it's still physical it's still a physical thing on the song you just have to have the right way to read it so until we have a way to read it no I will not have access to what you're experiencing oh it's tight it is possible that I can do that maybe in the future okay okay so the answer seemed to be that in principle yes you can have access to anything physical about me but you've conceded or I don't know if you have well let me not say that let me let me be fair here well you did say that you have no access to my conscious life right right I can't in any way see what you're seeing okay and that would would that not demonstrate that the physical and the mind are the same thing no I mean like you said we could me might be able to have that in the future if we discover everything about the brain like to have what in the future be able to reproduce conscious experience or see what other people see and how would we do it how would we when I say see what do you mean by see what other people see because in other words if I'm in pain or let's say I'm thinking I have let's just say I have a thought right you see a wheel firing on my brain you can study my brain do you know what I'm thinking no that would be like looking at the CD and seeing the bumps on the CD like we had if we'd also have to have the translation process of how it goes from the CD to the song okay so both of those then yes I could potentially experience your what are your experiencing we got up to my brain somehow right so as a third party observer you have access to everything physical about me but you do not have access to my mental life you own the only way you could how would you have access to my mental and how can you know anything about me mentally well if we got the technological ability where we could dissect every part of the brain and reproduce everything it's doing then we could also have not only the CD but also the language the CD is using the translated into conscious experience so we could replicate your conscious experience into someone else's brain but again how would you know that's my conscious experience okay everybody oh yeah I'm sorry we can't know anything with absolute certainty but we can still know it with any the the whole degree of certainty that science uses to know anything yeah and I don't even necessarily talk about certainty here but in other words my main point here is for the sake of time here is that you have access to all the physical but not to the mental and the only way you can have access to my mental life is if I reveal it to you because consciousness is not physical all my brain is in principle you can have access to every physical thing about me but you can never have any access to anything mental about me right and I'm saying that that could be false we could actually reproduce your conscious experience a reproduce experience and replicated on other people's experience so they could actually experience everything you experience but Tom would would you not already have to know what my conscious experience was in order to replicate it no we'd only have to know the language like we don't have to know the song on the CD to play the CD and know the song we just have to know how to read it how to read the CD and we put the CD and they can play the song without us ever knowing what the song is I I think I think I see what you're saying but I think you're missing what I'm saying here in other words you could replicate the brain state but you don't know what mental state I'm in you don't know what thought I'm thinking just by looking at my brain activity so you could replicate that brain state in someone else but you have no idea of what they're thinking is the same thing I'm thinking right we don't have absolute certainty but we still have a high degree of certainty I would say you have nothing at all when it comes to what I'm thinking there is no way you can look at my brain and know what I'm thinking there's no way at all absolutely uh you would hold the burden of proof on that one to show that we will never be able to discover means to do that in pretty I mean I'm open to even hypotheticals I'll give you whatever you want I'll give you any technology you want that you can invent in your mind that you could think could possibly even exist give me a way to show that looking at my brain my neurons firing will tell you what I'm thinking well it's the exact same way a computer works we can look at the ones and zeros and create a screen or whatever is happening on the screen even though they're two separate kinds of things we can look at the brain which is a bunch of ones and zeros firing essentially and then produce a different kind of a thing we just have to find the right language to do it okay but the thing is we're talking about replicating my consciousness or my kind of experience right now I'm asking you don't know what my conscious experiences are by looking at my brain so replicate whatever is going on my brain and showed on the screen is to assume that what's on the screen was what I was experiencing right right okay but how would you know what I was experiencing what's like if I have a camera and it records things and we then play them recording on a TV screen we have to assume that what's on the TV screen is what the camera was recording by talking about a degree of certainty that that's the case even though we can't prove it again we've talked about inverted qualia already and we're talking about conscious means here let me let me let me put it this way when because see I was kind of I mean I wasn't necessarily baiting you but usually what people say to this as I say well you know or they'll even ask the question if I think although ever be a time where we can look at the brain and know what a person's thinking or anything like that I said well if if that ever did happen because to an extent we can do something like that like we know that when someone's asleep and there's rapid eye movement are you feeling what that means yeah the saw they're dreaming right there in that REM sleep right so they're dreaming you know how we got that information how we got the information that people are in rapid I move in and sleep yeah yeah they're dreaming by watching the rapid I move in during sleep yeah but eg measurements of the brainwave exhibit like I didn't tell us that they were dreaming necessarily they wouldn't or even what so what we they basically did is and such again for the sake of time is they pretty much woke the person up and said what's going on I'm dreaming okay let's try it again take a nap they stand there with a clipboard and of course I'm over simplifying so they would basically look at the brain states ask the person what's going on and then write it down so eventually they would kind of have start to get at least a beginning of some kind of a mapping but the point is they could not map that without asking the person because consciousness first is a first-person private access kind of thing that is not third-party accessible the only way if possible we could ever get to that it would have to be by looking at the brain states and then asking the person what was going on because consciousness is not physical everything that you have access to the third party river is anything physical but you have no access to the mental because that is not physical well actually we could actually verify that because we could make a prediction and say if what we're seeing in the brain state is you experiencing this we will predict that you will say you're experiencing this like we say you're imagining elephant and say are you imagining elephant you say yes and say well oh yeah we can predict from the brain stage what you're experiencing only because we had had the mapping in the first place that I already explained well no we can say that we have a prediction we have a model of how the brain works we look at the brain stage we make a prediction about what the person is experiencing and then ask them what they are experiencing in fact we've done this test where we've had models of rain States where you save can we predict what a person is going to choose option A or option B and they've predicted it with 80 percent success that they can see what you're going to prick like seven seconds before you pick it and they can do that just by looking at your brain States know between any of the information is all a posteriori it's after the fact it's after looking at it and after in risky and after asking you don't just look cuz you already conceded you can't just look at my brain to know what I'm thinking well Bray as a foster we were a priority is just things that we know purely by thinking about them a posture is everything else everything about the external world after the fact that's not what it means after the fact or it's after the fact of looking at the brain States and asking the person what was going on you can't nobody and anything anybody believes that that you can just look at the brain state because to know how the brain works I don't even know what you mean by that I mean we know that neurons connect and fire and their synapses but what does that have to do with knowing how the mind works a neurosurgeon can know more about my brain than I do but he cannot know more about my mental life than I do because we have tests where we can actually say well the scientists the neurologists look at your brain with an fMRI and make predictions about what you're going to do seven seconds before you do it so they do know in these various limited cases more about your brain than you do and right experience than you do okay but how did they come to that it's like it's like saying because these are all crazy tomorrow they said we have a pattern enough this pattern will lead to this action how do they know that by doing past experiments good right and they had to ask the person like yes past experiments that lead to inductive conclusions about future conclusions yes you're missing it they had to look at the brain state and then ask the person what was going on so they can map that out okay so when you're in brain state X you are thinking of puppies let's say okay now I want you to think of unicorns okay that's brain state why so that way the next time they came to somebody and they they shocked them to have brain state X they're gonna say we're gonna predict you're gonna think about puppies but that was an officer er in fact they came to because of the previous experiment which could have only been done by the person revealing what they were thinking or feeling because again consciousness is a first-person private access kind of thing and everything physical is third-party accessible and that's one of the many reasons to show that consciousness is not physical right that's how we would verify it but that doesn't mean it's that doesn't lead the conclusion it's not physical and if we can say we look at a brain state and we make this conclusion of these brain States about what you're feeling and then we verify that that's correct by asking you personally that that shows that it is actually a brain state like yeah we can look at brain states and make predictions about what you're thinking without you even knowing it like so the fact that we verify that through means of asking doesn't lend any credence to your conclusion okay so just well we'll leave it at that I want to ask you a serious question that way and if you don't mind we can wrap it up in those like a third thing I said their time I said that what has kept you or what keeps you from becoming a Christian and this is I'm studying the philosophical suicide and you know like that problem sufferings one can you elaborate on that well I was a Christian until sometime in late high school oh the Muslim yeah so then I lost faith because none of my prayers were ever answered and that really had nothing to do with any other philosophical arguments or stuff I didn't get into that until years later but now after having researched all of the philosophical arguments the reason I don't believe in Christianity mostly is the problem of suffering the idea of an all good God that created this world it's just logically impossible along with the fact there are no good arguments for the existence of God give me no reasons to believe there is one but mostly the biggest ones the problem is suffering it just makes it pretty impossible for God to exist okay if you don't mind I'd like to a get some people's opinions on what the best book is on that metal I like to if you don't mind I'd love to buy for your Senate you can tell what you think you don't have to be in here you can just message me about it um so every time I do things like this for debates or discussions I always of course prepare and pray but I also pray for the people I'm going to be talking with and the people listening and I say it to say I asked because I've been I've been praying for you you know of course I and you know for what it's worth I want to see you in heaven I'd love to see you back with you and Jesus being you know tight and legit so I appreciate your honesty transparency in that and if you don't mind because I saw Anna Michael I got this from Michael Brown I saw that you allowed him to pray afterwards would you mind if I did y'all go ahead all right father we thank you just for this day in time that you given us for allowing me to be able to talk with Tom I pray that you would speak to him Holy Spirit and the ones listening that you would open the eyes and hearts Lord and whatever strongholds are hardened hearts that they may have or fill or that you would send your spirit and just soften those hearts Lord and trade those hearts of stones for hearts of flesh I pray for Tom and and the issues he's working through and with mentally and spiritually Lord that you would a as you see fit Lord come to him show him Lord instruct him and guide him Lord and all his seeking and seeking wisdom Lord and that he would seek you or even even in times of whatever whatever however you see fit that he would in some way at least turn his face back to you father we thank you I cannot thank you for his life from where he's doing I thank you for this opportunity you've given us in your name we pray amen for for some reason I expect you to say man when you did that but music sore throats oh no I'm sorry about that but hey thanks for the conversation I did enjoy it hopefully I wasn't rude or anything like that if I was forgive me pray for me but now I enjoy it yeah thanks for coming on I really appreciate it I was probably a little rude I apologize if I was rude as well cuz I'm a little got cold so I'm a little irritable so yeah hey it's okay you're determined by the cold man to do that but no III enjoy and you know it's kind of the nature of these things but but I love that I've seen what you do and I appreciate the the respect and the dialogue and yeah it's it's always good and of course for the listeners you know there's people who are on the fence on these things and stuff like that so I enjoy having these discussions yeah me too well well thanks again even though I've said that twice or three times but anything else or the last thing you want to ask me about or anything like that actually there is some more stuff I would like to talk about but I think we should say that for another another good another conversation yeah an hour and 40 minutes so yeah which was cool and it honestly it flew by fast to me cuz there's a lot of other stuff I mean we barely scratched the surface of course but I think it was enough for a good start and yeah oh yeah I wanted to hear your solution to the interact okay well really quick so one I don't think there's a problem because it's just one of those basic or what they call it would be called a primitive action it's one of the things that happens because if to ask how that happens it's like asking how does a cause be well if a just directly and immediately causes B there's no problem but if you say well a causes B by way of C then Y all you have to do is ask well how does a interact with C and how to see in a record B in other words then you can leads an influence so I think the simplest solution given the arguments for the existence of the soul which means you know just just grant me this if I have good reasons to believe in the soul and arguments to believe in the soul because when I argue for the soul out I argue two points consciousness is not physical and then I argue that consciousness is possessed by something namely a person's like I possess consciousness so what is the I that indexical word then I argue that I am NOT identical to my brain and body I'm more than a brain and body and then I argue soul so given those arguments that I use if that's the case then on to logically speaking the soul exists and the question of how it interacts with the body is a separate question independent of the ontological existence of the soul that's more of an epistemic question and with that I find what saying I don't know but I'm also fine what saying was just a immediate basic action a primitive action that just it's a directly interacts with B and there's no intermediate intervening mechanisms that it uses to do that I'm not quite sure I follow like if I asked you how does a plane fly and you said well a plane is made of metal but let us really tell me anything about how it flies because even if you say that it's a basic primitive action that's a primitive is just the property of the thing it doesn't explain any mechanistic way it interacts with the physical world that's a solution to the problem so if I said a plane flies by you know it has to be an aerodynamic shape and there has to be wind and okay but how does that happen in other words you can always keep asking house right but at some point you drop all right you have to show that there's some interaction phase right like to show a plane flies it interacts with the air and the air lifts it off the ground so you have to show that there's some interaction between this this thing and the physical world so the question is even if I grant that like consciousness or whatever is or the interactions itself a primitive or a properly basic kind of thing how does that get to the physical world yeah well I'd again if we grant for the sake of argument in time that conscious is not physical and that we have souls then it's then whether or not I can show how it interacts with the body I don't know but every time I think every time I move every time with my fingers and arms that's my soul interacting with my body so how I'd say that the easiest solution the simplest thing would be that it's just an immediate direct action maybe like a magnet to metal or something I don't know but again I'm fine with saying I don't know and I'm fine with saying it's one of those immediate basic actions I don't see how saying it's a media basic action solves the problem because like this goes into Agrippa stroma it's either well because it says it's not a problem you know otherwise you lead to the inference because think take anything anything you know metal and metal and a magnet how does this happen by way of this okay well how does that happen by way that's what at some point you're gonna reach a point to where you don't like if I ask you how did you get here well I came to my car how'd you how'd you come in your car well I turn on the engine how'd you turn on the engine I put the key in the ignition how'd you put the key in the ignition like that well how did you know it so it's one of those I said that's why it's called a basic action so well I mean I agree with you but when I asked like how does a plane fly and you say well it lifts up it interacts with the air causes it to lift up like I'm satisfied with that I wouldn't need to ask like keep asking why at that point but you need to apply some kind of interaction between the two to actually solve the interaction problem so I don't I don't see how saying it's a properly basic thing actually solves a problem like I don't think that would get past every interaction have an intermediate interaction no no I wouldn't grant I would say that we can just let's just grant that it's like a first mover kind of an interaction okay you still have to say how does that first mover interaction interact with the physical world like yeah and that's fair and you know you could say okay so you have a name for it but that's not an explanation and I'd be I'd be okay with you know if you accuse me of that but I'd go back to maybe we'll know in the future maybe this for that I don't know but I again in other words I'm satisfied with that obviously you're not satisfied with it which is fine but given the more important ontological question of whether or not this exists I say once that's answered everything else is kind of a secondary issue or question yeah I grant that if you could actually show that the soul does exist and there was a second area of existing kind of ontological stuff then that would be sufficient for me I know yeah well thanks man thanks for coming on I really appreciate it really enjoyed our conversation I hope to talk with you again sometimes yeah likewise Thanks later

TJump how can you reason to any conclusion if you cannot justify your own reasoning. You cant reason to any conclusion, its just the laws of physics and chemistry forcing you to say things. How do you get truth from that? You cant.

The supernatural has already been tested successfully by the CIA. and is also used by people across the world everyday.
We have a lot of evidence for the supernatural

TJump: a single molecule of H2O is not wet. It's the same thing as water but it does not have the same properties
Hernandez: When i used to substitute, i heard 8th graders argue about whether water is wet.

…..?

Hernandez: You're asserting a dichotomy without proving it
TJump : So then give me a third option.
Hernandez: You're asserting a dichotomy without proving it

What do you think, guys? A fair characterization of the free will debate here?

I find when discussing the idea that belief is a choice , as Mr Hernandez says, it's often useful to ask them to demonstrate it.
eg> Choose , right now that in fact you do believe that Santa Claus is real.
If one can choose to do that, then they are right and their belief is not unavoidably determined by the reasons.
If one cannot (and i have not yet encountered someone who can) then belief is determined by reasons and not a matter of what one chooses.

I wonder if Eric came to his belief through dishonest word games and someone slipping around questions. He seems to believe that he can change other's minds by confusing the point and condescendingly proving his ignorance of science. Every word he speaks is dripping with his patronizing nonsense and then when he is challenged on a point he slips around it and throws up some word flak to try and confuse things. He is by far the most aggravating apologist to listen to due to the combination of stupidity, superiority and dishonesty. He has no interest in finding truth, only in trying to win an argument.

TJump, this was a classic case of an 'endless regressor' apologist. Your IL was only interested in exploring YOUR worldview and avoided at all cost any interrogation of his worldview. His endless regressive questions of "why, how, do you know what…etc." are designed to put you at a dead end. The presup' strategy is to stay on the offense till we answer "I don't know".

Once a Presuppositional apologist (at least his was a presup' questioning style like Bahnsen) gets an honest IL like to eventually admi incredulity. Than the bailout claim of "if you don't know than how can you make make a decision on its truthfulness" is used to poision the well foe your world view.

Like a Sy Tens "if you could be wrong about aboout everything you know than you know nothong and why should I listen to you".

Tom you don't have to answer every question, because no matter much you know, no matter how correct your information is (and you know A LOT) at some point a skilled interrogation will explore your beliefs and knowledge claims till you can answer any more questions. Esoecially a gish galloper like this Apologist.

Either way amazing job. I would have snapped at the 10min mark lol…

Random or determined is a false dichotomy. It's determined or indeterminate (not determined). It's random or not random.

The false dichotomy causes the incorrect conclusion that if it's not determined then it must be random.

Sigh. Pretty sure most apologists don't understand compatibilism. Not just that they don't think its true but they do not understand it at all. Thats why they spend so much time on these bizarre arguments claiming knowledge and freewill are incompatible with determinism.

If the neuronal patterns are the cause of your belief that 2+2=4 and the content of those patterns are not the cause of your belief that 2+2=4 – the content is merely a reflection of the patterns – then the content of your belief has no causal link to your belief that 2+2=4. Since the neuronal patterns hold the causal power, the reflections of what those patterns are could be anything since they are causally inert. Which means, the patterns leading up to the final neuronal pattern that holds the content 2+2=4 could contain any content such as "cheeseburgers are tasty" and it wouldn't make any difference to your belief that 2+2=4.

IF you say that the neuronal pattern and the content of that pattern are necessarily linked, then it really isn't the neuronal pattern that causes you to believe that 2+2=4. In fact, it would be the content, itself that causes you to believe 2+2=4. But that would mean that the causal connection is found in the meaning or content of the beliefs and NOT the material patterns in the brain.

This discussion is the perfect example of how religion screws a perfectly rational brain.

You need to chuck out most of science because he wants to keep his favourite ancient fairy tale along with dualism, free will and the supernatural. And evidence isn't evidence when it discredits my metaphysics. "I know consciousness is not physical" but doesn't explain how.

If our actions are not determined by reasons or previous actions and events then they must be random. Therefore if determinism is not true and we do have free will then our actions can only be random. So either we don't have free will and are actions are determined or we do have free will and our actions are random. Proponents of free will have never been able to adequately address this point.

1:38:00 “thank you god for giving me this time on air to be dishonest in favor of the atrocious things that you do in your book. You know that it is important to lead people to you so that you wont burn them for eternity for not loving you enough. Even if I have to lie to do it. Thank you so much for ruling my life so that you won’t burn me for doing natural thing you created me to desire. Amen.”

I love to give Christians a couple of hypotheticals to test their belief in prayer.

1. If you only had one choice would you take your cancer ridden loved ones to the hospital or would you pray for them.

2. In a remote area without cell phone service you come across a crashed bus full of screaming and dying children. They are on their way home from a extremist christian summer camp that doesn't believe in doctor's intervention or advanced life support. Leaders on the scene ask you to get down on your knees and just pray and not go for help. What do you do? Do you stay and pray or do you for help?

Paused at 1:36:50
EH: "Going to ask you a serious question"

My prediction…. he is going to ask TJ about God or Christianity and his reasons to not believe.

(Edited) Bingo: How ever was I able to predict what Eric's mind was about to do.

Right now you can have someone in a CAT scan being exposed to different experiences and stimuli and have a third party see, by your brain activity what generally the scanee is experiencing.

So yes we can have access to some aspects of your mental life right now. FFS

28 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *