This New Argument for God is Insanely Strong
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- Dr. Brian Cutter and Dr. Dustin Crummett have developed a new argument for the existence of God from something they call "psychophyiscal harmony." Watch the video to find out what this new argument is all about.
"Psychophysical Harmony: A New Argument for Theism" PDF: philarchive.or...
3 Months FREE at Hallow: www.hallow.com...
--------------------------- FREE STUFF ---------------------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CC...
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on TH-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/c...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchris...
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
Recording/Interview Software: bit.ly/3E3CGsI
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchrist...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
I'm an atheist, and I think that this argument for god moves me very significantly, increasing my credence by a factor of 10 or more. Crummett is brilliant.
@@AwesomeWrench That's true but it's because it's a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.
@@AwesomeWrench
In what way are you a participant?
I genuinely hope you're serious and that this IS a good argument.
As a layman with basically no respect or familiarity with philosophy I have almost nothing to draw from this except I guess intelligent design of our cognition.
@@AwesomeWrench
You’ve made two comments which are e completely out of step with the scientific community. Your assessment of how this argument relates is bad.
The argument is relevant to scientific understandings of psychology and neuroscience, both of which appeal to philosophy regularly.
And I guarantee you cannot make an argument that a philosophical argument like this is meaningless without engaging in philosophy. If I’m right about that, your position is not only out of step with secular science, but it’s self refuting.
@@AwesomeWrench I'm assuming that sense you assert philosophical reasoning is meaningless then you are a following relativistic logic, if so, why argue with people at all?
Overall, very impressive showing by Dustin here. This is a very intriguing argument and he really seems to have done his homework in the philosophy of mind.
Specifically searched for physicalism and relativist debates and ended up here and this is great
Dr Crummett finally gets a chance to talk at 6:36
Clutch
This argument doesn't really hold any water from a naturalistic or evolutionary framework. First off, the argument assumes mind-body dualism, which most modern biologists and neuroscientists reject. Second, there are sound evolutionary explanations for why we, for example, have a conscious experience of "pain" when something harms our body - the conscious experience imprints a memory in our brain and we tend to avoid that stimulus in the future, and the opposite being true for pleasure. This maximizes our chances (as biological creatures) of survival and reproduction, so it's plainly obvious why this would be true evolutionarily.
Always go back to evolution somehow haha. One trick pony.
Spoiler alert: a lot of „this is conceivable, therefore it’s possible“ without providing evidence for the claims. I really wonder how this is actually getting published...
@@vinnyrac "scientist" doesn't mean "atheist". "Philosopher" doesn't mean "stupid".
If you need 68 minutes of boring-af tedious set-up, then it's neither strong nor coherent.
I find this statement to be boring and neither strong nor coherent.
Care to demonstrate the incoherence?
I don't find the arguments presented here persuasive. They seem to offer a solution to something I don't even think is a problem in the first place. There's no need to account for the harmony between physical and mental states if one understands mental states to represent a description of the functional states instantiated by physical systems. For instance, one need not marvel at the incredible correspondence between typing on a keyboard and the appearance of text on the screen - the association is physically mediated. Just the same, our mental states are the output of physical systems. The only mysteries to resolve here are the mundane (but still fascinating) questions of empirical facts about human psychology. And fields such as psychology, neuroscience, chemistry, and physics are all we need to account for consciousness.
I don’t even have to watch the video to know the argument isn’t valid. It’s impossible using logic that based in our universe to prove something outside our universe where our logic might not apply. We are assuming circumstances in our universe also apply outside it.
We can make no inference, absolutely none, to anything outside our universe. Anyone suggesting they can is mistaken. Any argument suggesting insight outside our universe is flawed before the first premise.
In order for you to believe its even possible for something outside our universe is governed by different laws you need evidence to show it. If you have no evidence, you have no reason to believe it. That leaves one actual possibility, that anything outside this universe would be governed by the same laws.
you can not conflate a non potential with a potential possibility.
@@souzajustin19d I am not making a clamor that an attribute does or does not exist. I am making the claim that attributes outside our universe are unknowable.
@@AWalkOnDirt But we do know, with only two choices and one being not possible that leaves us with the answer.
@@souzajustin19d nope, prove any attribute outside our universe and explain how you established it.
@@AWalkOnDirt we have never seen the natural laws operate any differently in this universe. Since they are so consistent, it's reasonable to believe that any other universe works the same. Occam's razor.
It’s odd to me that y’all focused exclusively on dualist cases considering the majority of philosophers of mind and the vast majority of atheists are monists… It’s weird to advertise this as a great argument for God and then not address how it holds for the position that the vast majority of atheists hold.
Like, ok, this is a decent argument for why dualists should be theists, but dualists are usually theists already. I’ve never even heard of an atheistic dualist. I’m sure they exist, but they are definitely the minority.
So who is this meant to convince?
@Chase B: Let's continue our conversation here with fewer messages to load each time:
You lied in saying you're not making a guess because you're not merely making a guess but propagating it here.
You're GUESSING there is a natural explanation for our universe even though you don't have one and thousands of scientists far more learned than you have worked for over a century to find a "non-God" explanation of the universe and have failed.
We're BOTH guessing, but I'm guessing rationally given the risk/reward structure.
@@20july1944 That's not true at all. I am not guessing what caused the big bang, I'm just asserting my doubt that your random shot-in-the-dark guess is correct. "God did it" isn't even an explanation. You might as well be saying, "I don't know... it was magic!". That has the same explanatory power. Nobody has any idea what happened before the big bang. Intellectually honest people admit this and then just say, "let's keep trying to figure it out." You, on the other hand, are saying, "well y'all haven't figured it out in the short amount of time y'all have been trying, so my random guess must be correct!". That is not intellectually honest or helpful to the endeavor.
To your second point, it sounds like you are getting at Pascal's Wager. Which is bad. It might work if there was just one possible religion on offer, but that's not the case.
@@Blate1 I disagree that we don't have any idea what happened before the big bang.
As a uniformitarian, I believe that both causality and thermodynamics and other aspects of physics are more fundamental and preceded/transcend the big bang.
Do you disagree?
@@Blate1 Also, I reiterate my question:
"Do we have any chance of post-mortem welfare?"
@@20july1944 we don't know. it's entirely possible that the laws of physics predate the big bang -- maybe there is a multiverse our our local big bang/universe is just one of countless in a bubbling froth on universes. or maybe the big bang was the true beginning of all things. We have no idea.
Who knew that two theist philosophers would come up with a convoluted way to argue for theism? Do they have good, credible evidence for the existence of a "God"? Philosophical arguments are NOT evidence in this context; they are stories.
There were many assumptions made as to what is possible, based on conceivability.
I don't think that what's merely conceivable is a good enough guide to what's actually possible in the first place (reality seems much more constrained).
As for the argument against necessity of the natural laws, paraphrasing: "isn't it lucky that those laws, that allow for psychophysical harmony and life, are necessary", one could ask the same about God: "isn't it lucky, that there was necessarily a God who wanted to create things, including living, rational beings?".
Such questioning is not a good argument against the necessity. If something is necessary, then luck had nothing to do with it and the fact it seems arbitrary to us, or that we seem to be able to imagine alternatives has no bearing on it.
The problem is ideal conceivability. So, while maybe you can conceive of fermat's last theorem being false, if you knew its proof, a world in which it seems possible would no longer be conceivable to you -- it would stop seeming like something that could obtain. He relies on epiphenomenalism because it illustrates the problem most clearly.
@@deliberationunderidealcond5105
I've edited out that epiphenomenlism part soon after posting, yeah.
As for "ideal conceivability", the issue is you don't know how it would look like exactly in all the aspects that still seem arbitrary, so it doesn't really move us closer to answers.
You could conceive of options A, B, C... Z - yet it could turn out that all of them but L are impossible (hopefully it wasn't Ł which you didn't even conceive of).
I mean, it could even be the case that the number and the length of each hair on Cameron's head is necessary (because of determinism). In which case our ability to conceive of him with different hair or lack thereof at given points in time is nothing more than imagination.
In other words, we don't know if we live in the world where our ability to imagine alternatives about things that seem arbitrary to us has any bearing on what's in fact possible in it.
And if you relay in your argument on false 'possibilities' we have an issue.
Ciekawe panie Wojciechu
51:40 Presumably a naturalist would just say, you are concieving but that doesn't mean it's metaphysically possible here.
I mean people have all kinds of seeming about metaphysics and I don't think we are that reliable.
It seems to me that this is very much an argument that, if you are a mind/body dualist, you should therefore be a theist, or at least think that theism is more likely. And there’s some logic to this; I suspect that monism is more likely, and would think that dualist worldviews that can’t explain this coincidence would have a serious explanadum in their worldview that needs some explanation.
I would wonder if emergentist and supervenience dualisms would avoid this problem? I haven’t read enough about it but it seems, if mental and physical states are closely linked, that harmony seems more likely. I didn’t see anything in the paper about it.
What I don’t see is why God makes the probabilities any better. It initially seems intuitive for the theist to say that God would want to set the psychophysical laws thus and so, but that’s not at all obvious. Why, for instance, would a benevolent God want severe pain to correlate with intense suffering instead of, say, an alarm system warning the subject of some problem? By saying that psychophysical harmony is an obvious good, I think you wind up accidentally validating all of the unpleasant and awful psychological phenomena that sentient beings experience. So this doesn’t seem at all intuitive or obvious to me, and I think you need to take suffering quite seriously when making such an argument. It risks wandering directly into problem of suffering/evil territory.
On the face of it I do think it’s a pretty interesting argument; as an atheist I do think that atheists should lean toward monistic rather than dualistic understandings of consciousness. But I would have that significant worry about the goodness of harmony in this case, and whether it goes too far in blessing all psychological states as good.
The argument should go through even under physicalist. I recommend reading the paper
@@RadicOmega and Wayne
I have begun to read the paper and will continue it in pieces. Early on, it is mentioned that consciousness is an odd phenomenon for a universe to have unless it is oriented towards value. I saw a reference to the atheist Thomas Nagel, who apparently believes there is some teleological mechanisms to the universe now (I wonder if that reference is to his book Mind And Cosmos).
I consider myself an agnostic atheist and have wondered about the phenomenon of consciousness at the metaphysical level. But on the physical level, it seems completely tied to physical constitutions and events. I have no idea by what mechanism or principle something distinct from the physical yet quite thoroughly entwined with it operates or would come about*. I will read the paper more and see where it goes. It is already a great deal more interesting than most arguments for God I've seen.
* some things, like the extreme "mind over matter" instances (a Buddhist monk sitting serenely while burning to death, for example) give me pause, but that is about it.
@@wet-read I’m glad you find this argument interesting. I think it’s very powerful
@@wet-read I’m glad you find this argument interesting. I think it’s very powerful
Keep in mind that some theists aren't even substance dualists. And it seems like this argument relies on some sort of substance dualism. Edward Feser is a theist that would actually take issue with this view of matter's relationship with the mental.
I can safely say that at 24 minutes in… I still have no idea what you are talking about. But hey…. Sounds Great!!
It wouldn't be surprising to find harmony between phenomenal states and physical states if the former just are the latter. The connection between the two is one of identity.
Identity Physicalism is definitely false
That might still be implausible. Why is this physical state identical to this phenomenal state. Ik we don’t normally ask why x is identical to y but that’s because x and y are understood a priori to be identical. U have a posteriori identity like H2O equals water but I think god could have with made it such that water could have had a different chemical structure. It obviously wouldn’t be the same chemical thing but u would have the same experience of this water as u do the water in our world so you’d still call that water. Given this I think the identity thesis is implausible.
their argument assumes explicitly dualism is thing regard.
@@fr.hughmackenzie5900 later on in the paper they say that that assumption is can be bypassed. Plus that physicalist theory has low prior probability cos why is pain specifically these physical states and pleasure another. It’s conceptually possible thag it could’ve been different and that gives prima facie evidence that it is indeed possible
@@murtazashafiq6807 fair point about the paper highlighting Russellian Monism - which makes a quasi-dualist difference between experiential quiddity and physical structure. Problem with all this is they make no distinction between free human behaviour and deterministic non-human behaviour. With regard to the later I'd agree with guy at top of this thread.
Cameron, you are right this argument for God is insane. I have wasted an hour of my life I will never get back listening to the obvious. I had to check that it was not April 1st.
I'm sad to agree with you.
Elaborate on your opinion
It's god of the gaps. Here's something we don't understand, so let's say it was God. Calling it a strong argument is overstating it. Calling it insanely strong is overstating it insanely.
@@philb4462 I don't like this argument except as a variant of intelligent design so I agree there's nothing unusual about it.
How do you explain our universe, or do you think it is a brute fact?
@@20july1944 I don't have an explanation for the universe. How could I possibly have one? The amount of knowledge required would be extraordinary. I leave that to the people with brains the size of a planet and have spent years working on that kind of thing.
Didnt understand until Cameron made the car and driver analogy. Thank you.
Try reading the paper 🙃 it is *not* written by people who excel at clear communication.
I still don’t understand even after the car example. Why is this evidence so strong.
@@eugene3484 it is not strong at all. The second paragraph of the first page claims "since God has a reason..." as if that's just 🤷♂️ a factual statement that needs zero backing up. It's wild.
@@mikeambs I don’t care about all that. What are they telling me. What about this evidence are they claiming is strong. What is so called strong evidence they are telling us. I don’t want your opinion
@@eugene3484 cool 👏 good luck with waiting for them to clarify.
insanely strong = insanely convoluted and bad
Rationality Rules doing a debunking video in 1..2..3! Hahaha. Good stuff Cameron.
You can't debunk an argument without first understanding it.
Purple light goes off around 22:00 : such a pity !
Wasn’t fully charged.
Does anyone have a one or two sentence explanation? I'm lost in the sea of surrounding details.
Thanks🌞
Hehe same here...
The mind often correctly interprets reality, and we behave often behave rationally, therefore there is a god. It’s complete nonsense. All of that is completely answered by evolution. It is very very silly that they are reaching this low looking for evidence.
@@truthseeker7867 how does evolution discount this argument. It's completely compatible with evolution? Just curious
@@ShalemAhava I’m saying that evolution accounts for the harmony between a brain observing reality and acting in accordance with reality. This argument seems to think that is some sort of miracle.
@@truthseeker7867 No, that is not it and stops desperately short of what he just explained. You're missing the significance of this, because you're in denial. I've seen you on youtube before stalking these types of videos leaving arrogant, ridiculous, angry comments about the idea of the God who you don't believe in. Stop wasting time. You have 80 years and then you're dead. Why would you choose to spend time on the internet debating people who believe in something that you don't even believe exists. I don't sit on youtube talking to people who believe the planets are talking to them, because I know that's nonsense and I wouldn't waste my time on it. I know people in my own family who have experienced God talking to them, directly to their soul clear as day, and they remember the words he said 50 years later in their lives. They have told me that they knew it was God more than they knew that they were themselves. That is how sure they are that it was God speaking to them. God is REAL. You are WRONG about reality. Wake up before it's too late man.
I think the way to describe the problem is to say that if we have different color, but the same meaning, then our colors are categorically identical, yet by value they're different.
I'm not sure if I get it. Do you assume that there is no connection between the mind and the physical world? If you do, then I think that assumption is wrong.
I don't know any atheists that believe in dualism, so I suppose this is a fair argument against naturalistic dualism. The one bone I'd like to pick is in the analogy is if there were no causal connection between the physical and (dual) mental state, then there would be a person driving (the physical person), but there would be a deaf blind sleeping person in the trunk being the dualistic mental state. The person driving would just be the physical state of the brain.
The other problem is that if you're just making up a reason, a naturalist would conclude there's a natural reason.
@@goldenalt3166 "The other problem is that if you're just making up a reason, a naturalist would conclude there's a natural reason." Yeah, that is what it means to be a naturalist. I gotta say we have a lot more evidence of natural things than supernatural things. Maybe that's why they are naturalists?
So if "naturalists" aren't dualists, do they actually think that if two different living entities that have the exact same molecular structures, then they'd have the same thoughts, desires etc, at the exact same time?
I think most naturalists aren't dualists because then they couldn't be naturalists.
@@godfreydebouillon8807 No, they'd need to be in identical circumstances for that to be possible and even then, a naturalist might not be a determinist.
@@goldenalt3166 Ah, efficient causes having their effects, so a configuration of matter, and form and efficient cause determine what is thought and felt. That goes down a whole different series of arguments, and St Aquinas would love to go down that road.
However, let's say you have a complete molecular copy of me, and you put the two of us in identical cages next to each other, our whole lives, feed us the same cricket pellets and vegetable juice, make us run on the identical large hamster wheels once a day, ensure the light, relative humidity, temperature is all the same, and on a large television in front of us, naturescapes and classical music are played all day.
The atheist assertion seems to be (and many atheists stomp their feet and insist that somehow they know this), that the two of us have the exact same thoughts and feelings 100% of the time.
Until they can supply good reasons as to how they know that must be true, except merely asserting that it must be, because "clearly" atheist naturalism is true and the physical realm is all that exists, then I'll need to relegate their entire line of reasoning on this Question Begging. It's circular reasoning.
Do you have any good reasons to believe that two molecular clumps with the same stimulus must have the same thoughts and feelings, other than appealing to naturalism?
but wait... we personally know whether our conscious state matches our "output" per say but if it didn't, how would anyone else know?
After watching this Baloney Sandwich, my mental states are unconscious and happy i dont have to hear either of them. If I get a degree from AST in god, can I make up stuff too? The only thing that supports Christianity is saying you believe JC is your savoir and he died for your sins. Psycho Babble Theories as many as you can think of, your god needs to start explaining his worship demands using extortion as a motivator. Ghosts, gods and goblins don't exist, get over it.
Life that came from non-life doesn't exist. Get over it.
@@smidlee7747 good one Smedley, only problem is science can show you how life began, you got squat but your faith. No facts, just faith, as all religions are based on. Faith only. I have faith you will be smitted tonight at 11:11 pm. But we all know both you and I will be ok in the morning. I've tried my best to get her angry at me, always a no-show. He's a coward and a bully. When it uses extortion to obtain praise, it deserves none, because I don't expect praise, why would a god demand it?
Carmen, Bernardo Kastrup makes a much stronger argument for God. It isn't for a self-conscious God, but you need to have him on. His agreements and problems with today's argument would be fascinating and very digestible to your audience. Plus, he'll be happy to talk to you!
Kastrup ain’t a theist tho
@@murtazashafiq6807 Does theism entail interventionsim and God having particular self-conscious intellectual traits? My understanding is that if you believe that all of existence came from one conscious being, you'd be a theist...
@@rooruffneck yeh same here. Ig I just don’t understand his view well enough to know what he believes
@@murtazashafiq6807
He argues for God as the one subjective Being and source of all reality.
@@rooruffneck but He doesn’t actually claim that he believes in god even if by our definition it would seem that he does
Me before listening to this video: why do Christians continue to fish for better arguments for god? Wasn’t the last “strong” argument good enough to do the job? Look forward to being convinced. Stay tuned.
Andrew, do you know enough physics to discuss God's existence using only science and logic? I'd enjoy that.
@@20july1944 I don't and I'm probably going to Christian hell because of it.
@andrewmaldonado71 is not for that,it would happen if we reject Jesus and his Gospel,I just see atheists that hate to have accountance for their sins,even if they discocer it is truth,they wont follow him,because they defy God to do what they want thinking they know better , there will never be a good enough argument for someone that really doesnt want to know God and he loves us too much to force us into heaven,people want heaven without God,but they want a sinful heaven so they can eternally do whatever earthly desires comes to their mind
There is no way to deny God after you already experience Him,when someone prays for something in his will and then it happens eventually,sometimes inmediately,supernatural healings,miracles,the voice of the Holy Spirit,etc
But you can eventually fall from grace if we consciously deny Him,that happens when someone really doesnt love God but questions him,as if they know better pfft, because people dont understand that they are the problem,that they are sinners and the wages of sin is death,thats why we need Jesus since he paid the price for us out of love and resurrected beating dead for us, only by putting our trust in him and his work of salvation is how we can be made righteous before God
Is God's bringing a physical world into existence not an instance of mental-physical causation?
If so, does that not mean there must be psycho-physical laws before God can begin creating? Laws of the form, for instance, "If God wills 'x'-physical effect, then 'x'-physical effect comes to be"?
(I suppose you might think the causation isn't psycho-physical but psycho-nomic. If that's so the problem still rears its head: There must be laws that connect mental willings to nomic effects, which only seem to be contingently harmonious too.)
If you think so, that would mean the laws were not fine-tuned by God. Rather, such laws must already be in place for God to fine-tune things.
I suppose a reply might be that the set of psycho-physical laws God cannot create is smaller than the total set of psycho-physical laws, and that while the atheist has no explanation of any of the laws' obtaining, the theist at least can explain the non-basic psycho-physical laws.
Okay, this is from the paper itself:
"dualism (roughly, the view that the phenomenal and physical domains are
ontologically distinct and co-fundamental) and the causal completeness of the physical (roughly,
the view that every physical event involved in human behavior and brain functioning has a
sufficient causal explanation in terms of prior physical events)"
I'm a theist and I don't even believe in this sort of dualism. This sort of Cartesian dualism is already controversial. I really would suggest getting Edward Feser on to discuss this as he would even take issue with this premise I would assume, despite being a theist himself.
“While these assumptions are convenient for an initial presentation of the argument, we show in §3 that they are ultimately inessential: the argument still works if we accept (or we are open to) alternative views about consciousness, such as dualist interactionism, physicalism, idealism, or Russellian monism” - also in the paper right after your quote…
@@ApodicticScott Yeah but I don't think it works on the hylemorphic dualist view. The view that Feser, Nagel, and Oderberg take
I keep watching interviews with Dustin hoping that he would tackle the revenge problem. He hasn't as of yet.
What is the revenge problem?
@@celestialknight2339 we can just ask the same kind of questions about God.
His mental states matches up with the information. His intention matches up with the result.
And so on.
@@Oskar1000 Check his interview with Emerson! He does deal with it
@@Oskar1000 they also *might* deal with it in the paper
@@RadicOmega I've read the paper. Didn't think they tackled it in a good way.
I'm reminded of a Simpsons when Krusty is forced to have some incoherent East European cartoon because Itchy and Scratchy are on strike or something.
The incoherent cartoon ends and the camera switches back to Krusty, who is in shock as his cigarette falls from his slack lips.
*_"WHAT ... was ... THAT?"_*
My uh and um limit has been reached for the day within the first 10 minutes. I will try again tomorrow.
I appreciate efforts to devise new arguments for God, but I do not see a very strong argument here. The argument turns heavily on the notion that there is a particular problem, or difficulty, that theism is well-equipped to resolve compared to secular views, and that, consequently, this raises the probability of theism.
But this all turns on whether there is such a problem in the first place. We should not forget that much of academic philosophy begins with some purported problem or phenomena in need of resolving, and that, so long as we accept the legitimacy of the problem, one solution may be better than another…but, and this is the key problem: not all problems posed in philosophy are real problems. A problem that purportedly highlights some explanatory gap, or deep difficulty in need of some theory or explanation to account for it, may not be capable of resolution because it is a pseudoproblem. That is, there is no genuine problem to resolve, and the appearance of the problem is a result of some conceptual or linguistic mistake.
I believe this is exactly one of those cases. Crummett does not directly deal with precisely the alternative views in philosophy of mind that could adequately dispense with these problems in the first place. Unfortunately, we’re not given much in the way of a critique or justification for rejecting these views. At 11:32 Crummett says:
“the problem is is going to depend on your philosophy of mind and so we have to go through like kind of different views but uh we argue that basically on all the leading views and philosophy of Mind except one that we think is super implausible”
Crummett is likely alluding to views that reject the hard problem of consciousness, such as illusionism, a view that Dennett and Frankish defend. I’m not sure, and a quick look at their paper didn’t make it clear. But such views are likely at least in the ballpark. Such views reject the hard problem of consciousness and maintain that phenomenal consciousness, as it is popularly conceived in academic philosophy, does not exist. This is not to say that “consciousness,” understood in the way illusionists conceive of it, does not exist. Rather, it is the view that consciousness isn’t what many people mistakenly think that it is.
More generally, many of the ways things seem to be to philosophers may not actually be the way that they seem. And yet philosophers will often take how things seem as a starting point, and strive to vindicate, or account or, why things are the way they seem. Often, they are overly dismissive of the possibility that things simply are not the way they seem, and that their intuitions or seemings about what the world is like are simply wrong. When this occurs, many thought experiments may be fundamentally misguided, and philosophers may think certain things are conceivable or intelligible even when they are not.
Crummett alludes to this around the 27 minute mark. At 26:43 he states:
“You can actually see that you know the things that I said were conceivable earlier…you know, zombies and your mental states being switched around…you might say ‘No that’s all literally inconceivable, I have no idea what you’re talking about about,” and that view would resolve the problem but that view we say I mean that’s just not true.”
I disagree. I think these views are true, and that color inversion and p-zombies are literally inconceivable. The people who think they are conceiving of them are conceptually confused, and mistakenly think things are conceivable that aren’t. I believe Dennett and others have done a compelling job arguing that much of what we think we’re able to conceive we aren’t, and that much of how we take the world to be, with respect to the nature of conscious experience, is mistaken. In works like Consciousness Explained, Dennett goes to great lengths to show that we are consistently and radically mistaken about our inferences about what’s available to conscious experience. For instance, many people mistakenly think their entire field of view is full of richly detailed visual data. It’s not. Most of our visual field is a blurry mess, but if asked to introspect on how things seem, people don’t tend to report that it seems that way. This is just one of countless examples. People are extraordinarily bad at drawing accurate inferences about what the world is like on the basis of their intuitions and seemings when it comes to certain kinds of judgments. The nature of consciousness is among them, and I think Dennett, Frankish, and others make not only a good case for this, but an overwhelming case.
Note that in both cases an entire perspective on the nature of consciousness and mental states is passed over and declared wrong, without much more than a mere reference to it. This is unfortunate, because I’d like to see what Crummett has to say for why such views are mistaken.
Finally, the fact that most philosophers reject such views is not great evidence against the plausibility of such views. There are many reasons why, but I will just make a more general point about the matter: if Dennett and others were correct, many of the most pressing philosophical problems would turn out to be pseudoproblems, leaving philosophers without much work to do. Precisely those people who take a more scientific approach to consciousness will tend to go into other fields than philosophy, such as cognitive neuroscience. Philosophy, as a result, may self-select for precisely those people whose views about the nature of the mind aren’t aligned with or informed by the best available empirical science. Indeed, this is a more general problem for philosophy; philosophers are often not as familiar with the relevant empirical research than they ought to be. Not only that, philosophers often express a hostile or oppositional view towards the potential for science to resolve or at least inform many of the issues they work on. As a result, the fact that most philosophers of mind reject views like functionalism, physicalism, illusionism, and so on is more an indication of shortcomings in the methods of contemporary analytic philosophy than an indication that there’s something wrong with these views.
I have yet to see any good criticisms of Dennett and others, or of illusionist views more generally. The main criticism seems to be incredulity and appeals to the very intuitions that Dennett and others maintain aren’t as informative as proponents of these views think that they are; as such, much of the opposition strikes me as blatantly question-begging and barely an objection. 99% of the objections I’ve seen to such views amount to dismissive declarations that these views are “absurd,” often accompanied, if any attempt at reconstructing illusionists views are provided at all, with misunderstandings of such views.
I would encourage others here to look into views like Dennett’s, Frankish’s. Personally, I don’t think these views go far enough. I endorse meta-illusionism and qualia quietism. I don’t merely deny there’s a hard problem of consciousness, I deny that it even seems like there’s one to ordinary people. On the contrary, I think the appearance of a hard problem is largely one generated by engagement in academic philosophy. People should look more into works like Wittgenstein and the developments that followed. Such work highlights more foundational problems in analytic philosophy. In particular, I’d check out Horwich’s book, “Wittgenstein’s Metaphilosophy.”
Do you know any science, or are you just a philosopher?
I'm 22 minutes in and I'm going to keep listening, but so far what I have heard is "Here's something we don't have an explanation for so I'm going to say the god did it," which makes it fairly standard god of the gaps stuff. There's nothing convincing to many about God of the gaps. I am waiting to see if it becomes any more than that.
Phil, do you know enough physics to discuss God's existence using only science and logic? I'd enjoy that.
@@20july1944 I am a layman when it comes to physics.
@@philb4462 OK.
Are you aware that a star consumes a few million tons of matter every second and transforms it into energy via fusion?
That's why stars are hot/bright and don't last forever.
@@20july1944 That sounds about right but I'd have to check to be sure.
Edit.
I just looked it up. It doesn't look like it "consumes" matter. When the density and heat reaches a certain point, hydrogen goes through nuclear fusion and forms helium. It's not really consumption as much as changing the atomic structure of its contents. That's how the explanations look to me.
This process gives off heat and light.
@@20july1944 Why are you asking me about stars?
This argument is a footnote to the EAAN.
Easy enough to believe in the possibility or even the probability of the existence of an indifferent creator God...but much more word salad is needed to prove the existence of the "benevolent loving" Christian version of God, especially given the horrendous suffering of all species throughout the millennia. Blind "faith" is still needed to make the leap.
Your word salads seem to have more than a dollop of spam in them.
If you believe we probably have an Indifferent Creator God, that's a start!
Given there is a Creator God Who may be indifferent, do you want a positive subordinate relationship with Him IF He's not indifferent after all?
Please think and give a truthful answer.
okay read some of the argument, it all hinges on unproven assertions about dualisem, so - once again, its not really new, just more words added to a soup of things to make it seem like something "new". Yawn. BIG OLD Appeal to ignroance.
My physical perceptions are consistent with the physical reality around me. Therefore, it must be all part of God's plan. Okay dude.
That's such a riitarded summarization of such a complex argument.
Says more about YOU than the argument lmao
@@metro2197 Riitatded? I guess you got me there.
@@jeffbedrick8296
Lmao!!
@@AwesomeWrench I would explain it as an overreaching, convoluted, and utterly unpersuasive bit of sophomoric mental masturbation that may be impressive only to those whose gullibility and emotional immaturity compel them to rely on an imaginary friend as their only way of understanding the world.
You're missing the key premise: there is no reason this is true without God.
A few things I wanted to comment :
First of all, great content Cameron ! Thank you ! Please, more of that type of content !
Second : I haven't read the paper. Maybe I will find time in the near future.
Third, the argument only addresses dualists... I would be interested to see which proportion of philosophers of mind who defend dualism are also atheists, or naturalists. Because I don't think dualism is backed by anything other than philosophical arguments ? Meaning I don't think any finding in the fields of neuroscience, psychology, or artificial intelligence points towards dualism ? I am not sure though, I would be curious to learn about such, if there are any.
Fourth, as far as I remember, epiphenomenalism doesn't mean there are no causal relations between the mental and the physical ? It just means there is no "downward causation". The physical can cause the mental sure, but the mental doesn't cause anything in the physical.
So if we take the example of the driver in the car depicted in the video, it would mean that the car is really a self-driving car, or an autonomous car, so there would indeed be a connection between the steering wheel and the wheels, but it would be an "upward" causation (from the car, to the driver, from the physical, to the mental). The driver, in this case, would only be "along for the ride", no input he would try to give to the steering wheel could have any effect, like a "non overridable" autonomous car, the driver would just be an "epiphenomenon" of the autonomous car.
On that view of epiphenomenalist dualism, harmony would indeed be explained by whatever "upward causation" exists between the physical and the mental.
On that view of epiphenomenalist dualism, whether of not your phenomenological experience is "pure white noise" (or "random static") or not changes nothing. Which might bring in arguments for the evolutionary eviction of phenomenology altogether (philosophical zombies and all that jazz), but on that view of epiphenomenalist dualism, arguably there wouldn't be any possibility for having "pure white noise" phenomenological experience (except is one is in a coma or smthg), which might point towards the rejection of dualism altogether instead.
Fifth, I think Joiemoie's question and Dustin's answer was very interesting, because if almost feels like there is some sort of realist presupposition lurking in the shadow. At 56:10 he says : _"things like the cylindricality of the mug, that's clearly not dependent on our behavioral responses."_
That is not _"clear"_ to me at all. The normativity of our behavior could very well be the product of the same thing that produces the normativity in the way we categorize things (semantic). If that is the case, then harmony would not be surprising.
Moreover, if one practices a lot doing some task, one's brain structures adapt to become "better" at doing that task. If that task is semantical, then we could very well have a behavior (practicing the task), which would determine our semantic, which would be a counter-example to the claim I quoted above, the semantic and the behavior would be intertwined.
If one is not a realist regarding semantic, then semantic can very well be nothing else than the product of behavior. After all, this is the claim defended by postmodernists : words are tools of power, they are the result of social power struggles.
At 57:50 it almost feels like Dustin sees the issue as he says the following : _" it SEEMS that we can tell that those things are good or bad just in virtue of experiencing them"_ (emphasis is mine)... Is that a public _"good or bad"_ or is that a private _"good or bad"_ ?
I hope I get the chance to read the paper.
This argument should go through even if physicalism is true. I recommend reading the paper or watching Emerson’s Video with Dustin on this
@@RadicOmega I think he says the opposite in the video ? He preempts the entire delivery of the argument at 12:05 by saying : _"Your conscious states are not just physical states"_
Which is the opposite of physicalism, he specifically starts by rejecting the idealist and physicalists positions (which are the monistic positions) to affirm dualism.
Are you not confusing with the physical causal closure ? Which could be accepted in some versions of epiphenomenalist dualism ?
What kind of god depends on humans to try to demonstrate that it exists? A powerful god that cares about humans would make itself unequivocally obvious to all humans throughout all of history. No god has ever done so. Therefore, such a god does not exist. Theists are left to defend a god who either can't demonstrate its own existence or that doesn't wish to do so.
This stuff would make a couple of good episodes for Rick & Morty
Another convoluted addition to the argument-from-we-have-lots-of-arguments for god.
LOL
That's what a typical average internet atheist such as yourself would say, sanjeev...
Quit being desperate and give up hitchenism...
Bro even Joe Schmid counts psychophysical harmony as one of the strongest arguments for God’s existence.
Do you ever respond to people who respond to you?
I don't think I've ever seen you do so.
@@20july1944
Dude's one of the r slash atheism cowards
@@calebp6114 The effectiveness in reality and its understanding, results from a supernatural act of God.
God adds that supernatural act because he created a reality that needs that supernatural act, because in this way he solves his own limitation of not being able to create a reality that does not need a supernatural basis but he can create the solution to his limitation. LOL
To be honest this whole thing just seems like armchair philosophy without any real basis behind it unless you presume metaphysical dualism.
It's certainly convincing if you already accept dualism, but I don't accept dualism, so it seems entirely baseless.
I'm agnostic, not an atheist.
He addresses this right at the beginning. Only on the least plausible alternative is the problem being solved not present.
This argument literally and explicitly doesn’t depend on dualism
@@RadicOmega he claimed that, but he never gave a single example of how his argument would hold under a monist worldview
@@Blate1 I would recommend reading the paper or watching his interview with Emerson on this subject
@@RadicOmega I read the paper, and his arguments weren't convincing at all regarding physicalism. There was no evidence provided at all for any of the claims made, just baseless assertion.
Additionally, the organization of the paper itself is awful, with multiple instances of repeated phrases in the place of phrases which were clearly meant to be different. The whole paper more or less just seemed like pseudo-intellectual masturbation, to me.
New argument for god? Not interested, present evidence for god, not arguments.
Arguments are evidence.
@@Dhorpatan Nope, they are argiuents. That's why they are called arguments for god instead of being called evidence for god.
@@cnault3244 Your belief is so absurd to me. If arguments aren't evidence, then what is, other than physical evidence. Which would mean you are promoting scientism.
@@Dhorpatan "Your belief is so absurd to me. If arguments aren't evidence"
They aren't.
"then what is, other than physical evidence. Which would mean you are promoting scientism."
Wrong. Before we knew the science for what caused magnetism, we could demonstrate magnetism existed.
What is your demonstration for the existence of god?
@@cnault3244
*"we could demonstrate magnetism existed."*
How so?
Not only is dualism extremely controversial, it also undercuts the fine-tuning argument. If you're familiar with the paper "Electrons in Love" by Sinhababu, you'll know where I'm going. If mental reality is its own distinct "substance" that God arbitrarily chose to "load into" or "match" to physical bodies like ours, then God could have simply chose to load mental substances into any arrangements of matter whatsoever, like electrons. That's a significant tradeoff in the larger debate which should be noted.
Also it would help if an attempt was made to formalize this argument. The paper has no formal argument
The problems with idealism died along with idealism.
A rational god would have created an ideal plane that had a causal relationship with the physical plane.
There is no reason to suppose the existence of an ideal plane. :)
Psychophysical harmony is a concept that presupposes the existence of an ideal plane (unfoundedly), that said plane has no connection with the physical plane (unfoundedly) and that God corrects this lack of connection with a supernatural act that actualizes the difference between the two planes (ridiculously from the point of view of an omnipotent and perfect god). God works in mysterious ways.
The word "insanely" is well used here.
I mean...It seems to me like people who have near death experience experience something close to an ideal plane of existence.
Immaterial minds are not an unreasonable thing to believe in. If you accept them, then this argument functions.
@@123duelist no, they're probably just hallucinating or in delerium, regardless of whether or not any given religion is true.
This is because NDEs are different depending on cultural and geographic distribution, similar to how people's religious persuasions are different depending on those same factors.
@@beastvg123 What drugs were they given to hallucinate? When a person had an NDE and they had told the doctors about the shoe on top of the roof and the doctor corroborated this, was this also just delirium and/or hallucination?
@@123duelist When it comes to the ideal plane, one refers to a substance other than the substance that makes up reality (the physical plane). The mental phenomena that occur in the brain remain part of physical reality even when the individual has some of its functions suspended.
This is one of the stronger arguments
Are you a dualist of mind?
@@Blate1 I personally am, but this argument does not require dualism to go through
@@RadicOmega he claimed that, but then never actually explained how this argument would hold under a monist worldview… which the vast majority of atheists hold. Do you know how it would hold under monism?
@@Blate1 So if we assume monism, then we just want to say that mental states are identical to, are supervenient on, caused by, etc physical states. So we can just say that mental states are physical states. This argument does not fail to go through when we add the stipulation that mental states are also physical states. If it’s epistemically possible that the mental sensation of pleasure could correspond with something which requires an adverse response (getting your arm slashed off for example) it’s doesn’t suddenly become not epistemically possible by adding the stipulation that it is a “physical mental state.” It is just puzzling: why could not the physical states which make pleasure correspond with reactions which warrant flight or fight? The argument gets off the ground by noticing that mental phenomena are in some sense analytically distinct from 3rd person brain states. The only physicalism which rejects this (and thus, the only physicalism where this argument actually would NOT work) is a priori physicalism. And a priori physicalism is *DEFINITELY* false. If there is a single physicalist philosopher out there who is still an a priori physicalist, I have never heard of them. It is pretty much universally seen as untenable. Let me know if this makes sense to you
@@RadicOmega If we assume that mental states are physical states, then natural selection perfectly explains correspondence. If a being got an intense feeling of pleasure when they were freezing to death, they would have no motivation to seek warmth, and then they would die and not pass on those genes. It doesn’t matter that non-correspondence is epistemically possible in this case, because natural selection explains why those epistemically possible cases wouldn’t actually show up (at least for long) in practice
His premises for the arguments are completely flawed from the beginning..
Isn't this just a variation on Descartes' argument from Part VI of Meditations on First Philosophy?
Descartes said :
1) I have an inclination to believe my senses,
2) God imbued me with this tendency,
3) God is not a deceiver,
Therefore
4) I can trust my senses
This seems the same, except the conclusion 4) and premise 2) are switched.
How PITIFUL must christianity be when you constantly need ever more elaborate, GIBBERISH arguments because everything else has FAILED so SPECTACULARLY?
I do not understand, so it must be wrong.....horrible argument my friend.
@@souzajustin19d Was THAT my argument or a total strawman of my post?
Yours is a horrible, and phenomenally childish argument my friend.
@@nickjones5435 That was your argument, you do not understand content. That is why you refer to it as gibberish.
@@souzajustin19d Errr no kiddy. I didnt make an argument at all. What i did was ask a question. As denoted by the question mark.
Please answer it.
@@nickjones5435 you did not ask a question, you made a statement. Inserting a question mark does not nessarilly make everything a question.
I am a Xtian because of the "Psychophysical Harmony" argument
- Said NO. Xtian. EVER.
LOL
*Descartes looms in the background*
And?
Go figure that a brand new argument isn't a historical staple for conversion. God you are dense
Maybe not yet anyway. This argument seriously makes me reconsider theism. That's still a long long ways from Christianity however.
Not sure if this works if you're an Aristotelian hylemorphic dualist like Edward Feser and to some extent Thomas Nagel. Need to finish the video first and think on it.
Would be neat to have Feser on to discuss this. I've learned so much from his philosophy of mind work!
Maybe email Robert koons or Alexander Pruss about it
“Why do our conscious states enjoy stimuli rewarded by our brains, & hate stimuli which is punished?” Is that the question? The materialist answer is, “Because if a person’s conscious states enjoyed & sought after stimuli caused by noxious events, they’d be eliminated from the gene pool.”
To that, this argument would respond (as I understand it), “No, because the conscious state cannot affect the physical body to act on its behalf.”
I now ask, “Why not? Would not the same mechanism that informs my consciousness of the stimuli, also inform my body of my wills?”
Reply: “Well, what kind mechanism could it possibly be that breaches the physical/mental gap? It can’t be physical or it wouldn’t touch the mental, & it can’t be purely mental or it wouldn’t affect the physical.”
To solve this, we either need 1) a 3rd state which can communicate with both, or 2) we have to accept that mental states are merely physical calculations in highly complex feedback loops (materialism), or 3) that the physical is actually a construct of some cosmic mind (Quantum Idealism).
Did I miss something? What new thing did this argument bring to the table? Something like:
1) Consciousness likes psychophysical harmony
2) If there is a conscious creator, its consciousness would like what consciousness likes.
3) Therefore a conscious creator would like to create some psychophysically harmonious creatures.
… 4) Therefore God?
Right? It's like he's arguing that "It's so unlikely that we'd prefer the things that we enjoy just because they benefit us. Therefore there must be a god." :/
I just see on the comments atheists that hate to have accountance for their sins,even if they discover it is truth,they wont follow him,it is a heart issue,because they defy God to do what they want thinking they know better , there will never be a good enough argument for someone that really doesnt want to know God and he loves us too much to force us into heaven,people want heaven without God,but they want a sinful heaven so they can eternally do whatever earthly desires comes to their mind
There is no way to deny God after you already experience Him,when someone prays for something in his will and then it happens eventually,sometimes inmediately,supernatural healings,miracles,the voice of the Holy Spirit,etc
But you can eventually fall from grace if we consciously deny Him,that happens when someone really doesnt love God but questions him,as if they know better pfft, because people dont understand that they are the problem,that they are sinners and the wages of sin is death,thats why we need Jesus since he paid the price for us out of love and resurrected beating dead for us, only by putting our trust in him and his work of salvation is how we can be made righteous before God
Thanks Cameron
What are dualist views on the state of being dead?
The problem of evil only applies to conscious beings, so theism either needs to eradicate evil and have eternal life (conscious beings), or the dead aren't conscious.
Isn’t it funny that it’s not clear that God exist you’re still arguing about it you’re still making arguments and siding philosophy to attempt to prove your point which you haven’t done arguments are not evidence
Your argument is that harmony of physical and mental proves God but you didn't look into disharmony??
Not every argument will persuade every person. This argument does very little for me.
by new you mean old.
This argument did not personally appeal to my personal conviction, which means it is not strong but unfathomably weak, actually. So there.
It's not an argument for the Christian god is it. Just a "god".
That is correct, same line of philosophical argument that Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas have done through history. Not proving the Christian God, but proving a God exist.
i thought most epiphenomenalists thought that consciousness arose from matter but that the it couldn't in turn affect matter and didn't really have much of a purpose. the concordance makes sense then.
If it has no effect, then how's that different from not existing at all?
@@goldenalt3166 just imagine it like a movie. you experience it and watch it unfold but you can't affect it. life would be like a movie where consciousness is along for the ride but doesn't affect it.
@@cripplingautism5785 and?
@@goldenalt3166 that is different from not existing at all. not sure what the confusion is. are you asking WHY it exists?
@@cripplingautism5785 In what way is it different?
Interesting discussion.
Why limit your observations to human experience?
Ask yourself, ‘What are the common denominator physical attributes to every living creature or plant on the planet?’
What is the difference of physical attributes between living organisms and non living natural objects?
Could consciousness be the resulting effect from the fusion of certain sub- atomic structures that we are yet to identify?
Why assume a reductive materialism?
@@StephenPaulKing Lol… Answering questions with a question; really?
Given the evidence that other, less advanced mammals are capable of expressing emotion and working together as a sustainable community, why do philosophers and theologians exclude them from our understanding of consciousness?
Chimpanzees have even been seen to show reverence toward certain sites in their territories.
To forget that there is a larger story of life outside of what is written in Genesis is religiously and evolutionary shortsighted… a bit like how we thought the world was flat; then the earth was the centre of the universe; then our galaxy was the universe; and so on. Now we finally know to keep questioning.
You should have stoped the title of the video after the first 28 letters, would have been more honest.
"You'd be dumbfounded" by the situation in the driver analogy if you assume the driver turns the steering wheel before the wheels turn. But naturalism assumes the opposite. The car is determined to turn the wheels and the car causally determines the driver to turn the steering wheel, and the driver has the illusion that he is turning the steering wheel before car wheels turn instead of after. And if it is the case that the car produces the epiphenomenon of the driver, we would exactly expect for the driver's actions to match the behavior of the car. So the argument fails. And I'm a theist and substance dualist. But this argument simply doesnt work.
I would strongly encourage your dr friend to look at Richard Bennett a ex catholic.
It seems like Dr. Crummett spends a lot of time arguing against epiphenomenal dualism.
Isn't that pretty much the least popular philosophy of mind? Most professional philosophers are Materialist or Idealist. Dualism is more popular among theologians and laypeople (though most don't really articulate it, as they are not philosophers), but few actually believe in epiphenomenal dualism. Most Dualists believe in some kind of free will. Epiphenomenal dualism only really pairs well with hyper-Calvinism.
Me in a video about God: *A*
A random dude: *AND I TOOK THAT PERSONALLY LET'S ARGUE ABOUT GOD'S EXISTENCE NOW.*
14:13 I'm having a visual experience where a cat mysteriously appears🔮
The hard problem ONLY exists for dualists. If any dualist can please explain ANYTHING independent of Mind (of course they must do this without a mind) I will immediately know they are God.
I think when you say dualist you actually mean materialist?
love chrisTIan philosophers. so clever with words…..never realising that you need actual evidence not clever sophistry
Has this argument been used in any debates yet, any counter points?
Do you understand it?
@@eugene3484 do you?
@@mugsofmirth8101 nope
How is this an argument for the existence of God over, say, panpsychism?
Dualism is literally impossible.
How would you know this?
@@smidlee7747 no brain = no mind.
Show that there can be a mind without a brain(biological or mechanical), otherwise dualism is nonsense.
Is this argument (psychophysical harmony) somewhat like Leibniz pre-established harmony ?
It’s hard to respect Crummet after seeing his views on abortion
psychophysical harmony is something evolution would do. If ya can’t run in an intended direction you were eaten.
Bro are you doing lore? 💀
Somewhat false advertising to say "insanely strong". Strong would be something that has no other explanation. I would like to see this argument analysed by someone from 'the other side' of these guys belief, I guess as it was only posted 4 days ago, then it will be soon. Evidence for God that is neither metaphysical nor philosophical is still awaited for real evidence of any God.
"Irrefutable" means no other explanation. "Strong" just means it will be difficult to explain any other way
@@cget Yes you are correct. Bad wording on my part! I still think that "strong" is incorrect however.
Strong is subjective. Evidence is just evidence, wither it convinces you or not does not mean its incorrect. You can be totally convinced the earth is flat and no amount of reasoning or evidence could persuade you. This is does not make your own belief the earth is flat correct. So being convinced is irrelevant, evidence is just evidence.
@@souzajustin19d You are talking about delusion. There is no reasoning with a delusional individual, that does not mean that the evidence isn't good or bad. You can have good and even irrefutable evidence for some things that will still not convince a deluded individual. Philosophical and logical argument are often more subjective. Scientific method is less so.
I think this is a strong, and I have pondered it a lot especially because Emerson Green gives it credence. Epiphenomalist dualism, however, is of course not the only naturalistic theory of consciousness.
It seems that, on panpsychism, the harmony could explained through evolution by natural selection. Once we reject epiphenominalism (as one should do because it is insane) it seems that physical structures may evolve to correspond to appropriate phenomenal states so that the phenomenal states in turn result in appropriate physical actions (touch fire, nerve tells consciousness this hurts, because of hurt you move hand).
All of this makes sense if the base stuff is one thing having both an internal what is is like and an external what it looks like (panpsychism).
th-cam.com/video/_rRVl9YYpes/w-d-xo.html
May I recommend?
Not sure how the panpsychism/natural selection combo removes the need for explanation. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but it seems as though certain actions may be selected for survival, but the brain still causes the mind to experience pain.
@@_wade_morgan The pain causes you to take your hand out of the fire which is good for survival. If your DNA was wired so fire caused you pleasure, you would be less likely to produce offspring.
I am rejecting a physicalist or epiphenominalism mindset and instead accepting what seems obvious, our phenomenonal conscious states relate to what actions we take (because those conscious states are exactly the same as the physical states - - just one state viewed two different ways) .
Sometimes what I write here makes sense to me. Sometimes it doesn't. Trying to wrap my head around this. I can definitely see that my explanation above still may still have an unexplained gap.
I think this really is the best argument for theism. Very strong. I should probably read the paper.
I agree that the most plausible way out of this for the naturalism is panspyshcism, but that’s a hefty ontological price to pay, and theism is arguably much more modest than panyschism
@@RadicOmega I was pretty convinced of panpsychism before this. Shrug. I think it has less ontological baggage than physicalism or dualism. (Idealism is perhaps more modest.)
But a run of the mill atheist would probably find panpsychism a tough pill to swallow if the only purpose in adopting it is to avoid this problem.
If this argument knocks any atheists off physicalism that would be terrific. I find physicalism to be about the least probable thing imaginable. (Because look, I can imagine! Hah.)
“He was despised and rejected- a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care. Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God, a punishment for his own sins! But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed. All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the sins of us all. He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants, that his life was cut short in midstream. But he was struck down for the rebellion of my people. He had done no wrong and had never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man’s grave. But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him and cause him grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have many descendants. He will enjoy a long life, and the Lord’s good plan will prosper in his hands. When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish, he will be satisfied. And because of his experience, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins. I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among the rebels. He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels.”
Isaiah 53:3-12 NLT
This was written around 700 years before Jesus came into the earth, yet it describes His life perfectly.
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
God loves you so much and showed that by sending His Son to die for us so that we may inherit eternal life. We deserve hell but He gave us heaven through faith in Jesus. He took the punishment we deserved and by putting our faith in Him we can be saved. The Key To Eternal Life:
th-cam.com/video/uZdv-TtiMkg/w-d-xo.html
For evidence for Christianity and answered questions, check out
th-cam.com/users/drcraigvideos
and th-cam.com/users/CrossExamined
because if Jesus really rose from the dead it is the most important fact ever!
There is no evidence your religion is true. In fact, there is no evidence any religion, past or present, was or is true. All religions have been and still are based on FAITH. Well, except for Kingdom of Moneytree.
Opinions and Statements of Fact tend to get mixed up alot.
You can not state opinions as statements of fact.
You have no facts to support your religion as being true. All religions claim they have evidence to claim their religion is true. But non have facts, only faith to believe. Your post is just a big Baloney Sandwich.
Can someone explain me in a short Version what exactly is the Argument for God ? 😊
Thank U ♥️
I'm not finding this convincing at all. It seems like this argument rests on two big premises:
1. Consciousness can't arise from a purely material world.
2. Evolution can't select for neural cognition patterns that induce positive reinforcement (like feeling good, pleased, content) for actions that benefit survival.
I expect 99.9% of atheists have evaluated all of the available evidence we've gleaned from reality, and concluded that it's most rational to reject both of these premises. The first premise is based on a composition/division fallacy and an argument from ignorance fallacy. The entire argument for dualism is those two fallacies. The second premise is just scientific ignorance. Heck, the first premise is scientific ignorance, since we're learning more and more about the naturalistic processes of consciousness every day.
I agree that if someone believes consciousness is created by supernatural magic, then that will tend to help them accept theism. If Dr. Crummett's argument is anything more than this, I suggest he really try to pare down his explanation into a clearer presentation. As is, it's very opaque.
Weird, you sound like you know some science.
What basic cosmogony do you hold, e.g. big bang or cyclical in some way?
I want to chat with you but unfortunately YT is simply awful at alerting me to responses and that's not your fault -- so I apologize in advance if we don't hook up for a bit after you respond.
@@20july1944 There are a lot of theories, and none of them currently have enough supporting evidence to warrant belief. In short, I don’t know how the universe came to be.
No one, including theists, have offered a demonstrable explanation. So, I don’t believe a god did it, just like I don’t particularly believe in the bouncing universe model or the multiverse.
@@weirdwilliam8500 The bouncing universe is impossible, right? There's no replenishment mechanism for matter in nature, right?
@@20july1944 I don’t think it’s been proven impossible. Even if we didn’t know of any mechanism for natural replenishment of matter, we also haven’t observed magic spirits creating matter with words. It is logically possible that some unknown natural mechanism exists outside our local space time, that can reconvert energy into matter.
Given every hypothetical explanation that has eventually been confirmed was a natural explanation, without exception, simple induction suggests the explanation for our local universe is also likely to be natural.
@@weirdwilliam8500 Really? Do you build your cosmogony on what merely isn't logically impossible, e.g. *_"some unknown natural mechanism exists outside our local space time, that can reconvert energy into matter."?_*
That's pretty weak.
My "God" model is likewise possible and it has the bonus that God is sentient IF He exists and that would explain the functional complexlity of living things.
I guess we're just at an impasse between competing beliefs that are both "logically possible"?
I thought a man who is a master of Minecraft could do better than that!
You should get Bernardo Kastrup on to talk philosophy of mind
I am an ID proponent and I don't see how this isn't simply an example of ID.
yes.. as is fine-tuning which category they acknowledge this argument falls into.
@@fr.hughmackenzie5900 I'm not trying to undermine it but I don't see anything insanely strong about it -- it's a brick in the wall of evidence.
@@20july1944 yes if the ID approach works then that's ali it is ... maybe a stronger brick because psychophysical harmony is more basic than the flagellum or the eye. But they stand or fall together.
Idk why should we be suprised harmony obtained? You know how many beings died for evolution to be where it is today/ when humans got around? A lot of bad batches. Most things dies off from their mutations. The ones that did had the best advantage for their environment to survive till reproduction.
It doesn't seem that odd to assume those alternative forms of conciousness might have actually occurred on some level during the evolution of consciousness. Its just if it did beings with those mutations died off before passing on their genes. If you felt pleasure when having your cells destroyed or aversion when taking in nutrients you'd probably die off fast.
Perhaps im not getting the argument but hey.
Also I'm curious what he means my similar forms of conciousness may be more likely? Such as lacking an inner monologue? Because many people do lack inner monologues and also have aphantasia.
Evolution sounded good a hundred years ago when everyone was totally ignorant of a living cell. But we are no longer ignorant and have learned even the simplest known living cell is NOT simple at all. The gap between molecules to the simplest known bacteria is larger than the gap between this bacteria to man.
Exactly the same when scientist first studied the fly's brain they thought because it has less brain cells it would be more simple compared to a human brain. They were wrong , there is nothing simple about a fly's brain as it's brain cells does multitasking unlike the human brain.
40:20 really good distinction
I don’t see how dualism is remotely plausible.
I don’t see how it is not plausible
@@muhammedshanushan3931 physical reality is the illusion, a spirit is the foundation of the universe.
Watching the fist half again cuz I'm not sure i grasped what was trying to be said.
What's absent from the paper or the talk is any kind of concrete characterization of what consciousness is (e.g., speculations on necessary conditions for it) or how it evolves (e.g., what consciousness is for). So in the absence of even such vague speculations, which is just something that would allow one to think through why the qualia are the way they are, how can one cast judgment on the likelihood of practical affordance for such qualia (which I'm guessing is what he means by "harmony"), and/or why can't such affordances just be computationally derivable from just some (undiscussed) property of consciousness? Consequently, I'm not be able to grasp any force to this argument. It also doesn't help that epiphenomenalism and dualism are introduced as something initially important but then become just red herrings to the force of the argument.
It seemed like he was saying, "Isn't it a suspicious coincidence that our minds work fairly well and that we prefer things that are beneficial for us?" I mean...no? That's just basic evolution.
@@weirdwilliam8500 The best I can do as a non-professional philosopher in a youtube comment:
Consider a standard speculation for an architecture for consciousness based on some basic biological science. The brain implements a world model (e.g., all the Hubel and Weisel and other stuff), where parts of the brain just have the job of tracking changes in the outside environment through the body's senses projecting into the brain. Call that part of the consciousness architecture M, for model. Another part of the brain (call it Q) "perceives" the CORRELATION of M to the outside world -- as qualia. This architecture is a "brains in vats" view; however, the key assumption is that the outside world is not faked (I don't know where brains-in-vats got their bad reputation for epistemology). Essentially, brains can only ever "perceive" their own neural functioning. So, given this view, where does luck or arbitrariness ever enter? I mean, whatever qualia are, they MUST obey a correlation to the real-world, indirectly through its relationship to M (at least under ordinary circumstances-- e.g., not tripping on LSD or dreaming). So that's where my comment about a "lack of force" for characterizing Q as just some lucky coincidence comes from (i.e., it doesn't at all seem similar to the "cosmological constants" one). The real-world constrains both Q and M. BTW, M's grounding in the real world is more zombie-like or devoid of any meaning; whereas Q's further elaboration of M (or its grounding in M, if you like) contains the "meaning". There may be a dualism there, but it's totally within-brain. And yes, evolution is the explanation for why Q gets hooked up "well" to behavior.
Doesn’t idealism solve this too?
Why hasn't he interviewed Bernardo Kastrup yet?
There are true statements that necessarily follow from information-less voids. Given that there is quite literally nothing to reference outside, those statements must be self-referential. That means inside of that self-referential complex there are at least two perfect mirror copies of information. That is the keystone of the mind. For instance you may think you're looking at a screen right now, but you're really looking at the image of the screen your mind made for you. What does all of this mean? It means information is necessarily self-conscious. Can't get any simpler than that...
Your scenario does not involve two copies of the same information. Information is the representation of a real circumstance. This representation occurs in the brain of a living entity. It is the entity that uses the representations to guide its agency. In a self-conscious entity, there are representations (meta-representations) that include it and its representations. A chair. the concept "chair" and the concept "I am thinking of a chair" are totally different things.
Information cannot be self-aware.
It can. And it is. They might make up different words, like electron, or photon to describe the behavior. But at the end of the day, it's all light, which is really just electromagnetism which is really just energy which is inseparable from information. The real problem is the mind does something called belief. The truth is the people who can't see God don't believe in God. The people who do believe in God, see God. Belief is connected to free will and free will is connected to place-states in dimensional space. (there's way, way more than three dimensions and the mind takes advantage of that.) What you think literally changes where you are, and God isn't going to sit Himself or his own consciousness where his existence is doubted. For the same reason you wouldn't throw yourself off a cliff or jump into traffic.
@@lincolnuland5443
You lost me at "Belief is connected..."
I still need to watch the whole video. I saw it right when it debuted and was in real time, but decided to listen later when I could play it at a faster speed.
@@lincolnuland5443 FYI, what you just posted here is scientifically called "Scientific Woo" :)
@@ivanvnucko3056 Maybe to you. I blame english.
If a god manifests in reality, it would likely be observable and demonstrable. Sadly, we pretzel our reasoning with hollow claims, desperate to prop up superstition. C'est la vie.
Even the Greeks understood the difference between God and a god. A god had a beginning and often met their end. A god is closer to man than the God. The Greeks understood it's impossible to know God unless He wanted to reveal Himself.
@@AwesomeWrench Yet atheist today doesn't know basic theology. As Michael Ruses said the new atheist almost makes him ashamed to be called an atheist.
@@AwesomeWrench As CS Lewis wrote "Pride is the anti-God state of mind." No one is more delusional than a modern day atheist thinking all their ancestors were a butch of idiots.
Tricked by our own early dream and need of solace we grew self deceived, our making soon our maker did we deem, and what we had imagined, we believed. The Epistemology of Poetry. A more elegant dish of word salad.
Ok... so this hour long talk could have been boiled down to Cameron's steering wheel analogy... and *that* is the best argument for God he's seen in a long time? Wild...
The "insanely strong" endorsement of this argument is insanely laughable. The self-evident, default god hypothesis always begs the question, and this is yet another attempt to reverse engineer it into viability.
With Christianity it make no difference if someone accepts the Creator or not. (Jesus will tell many "I never knew you"). This is more about is atheism really true. Is it true man has no Creator and can man really explain away his own existence?
God does not explain the existence of man.
God does not need anything, why did God create man?
By what procedure did God create life or man?
Saying god doesn't explain anything.
Trying (unsuccessfully) to justify the existence of God is not something related to atheism.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd Atheist creator made no history ,no evidence at all. The resurrection of Jesus Christ did impact history.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd Every scientist agrees the simplest known life to man is too complex for it to bring itself into existence
Thus both atheist and theist believe the ultimate source of all life MUST be simple, that is not made up with a lot of parts. The problem with atheism is even their best case still requires too many parts , still too complex. Theist for thousands of years before modern biology have claim the Creator is simple , that's is not made up of parts.
Life requires matter/being, energy and information/code. God is infinite Absolute Being who power come from Himself , Holy Spirit who created the universe by His Word whom also comes from Himself, the Word was made flesh and dwell among us, Jesus Christ.
The Trinity of Life is a shadow of the Trinity of God.
@@smidlee7747 Life evolves. That science does not fully understand something, now, does not mean that it is incomprehensible.
No one claims that life brought itself into existence. The argument is that life evolved from complex chemical molecules.
No. Atheists do not believe that life must have evolved from simple forms. Atheists just don't think that God exists. Atheists do not claim anything about the origin of life because they are atheists. One thing is not related to the other.
Organisms :) will necessarily be complex but that does not prevent them from turning out to be the evolution of (complex) chemical components.
How do you know that God exists, that he is infinite, that he has absolute power, that the Holy Spirit created the universe, etc.?
God does not need anything, why did God create man?