Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.origins
Subject: Re: personality/consciousness, naturalism/materialism
Message-ID: <678@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 15:28:26 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.678
Posted: Tue Mar 12 15:28:26 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Mar-85 01:29:55 EST
References: <1027@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 42
Xref: watmath net.religion:5974 net.origins:831

> It seems to me evolution is based upon naturalism/materialism.  That is,
> there was a time when there were no mammals so they HAD to come from the
> reptiles, there was a time when there were no reptiles, so they HAD to come
> from the fish, etc.  Personality/consciousness MUST be explainable by
> chemicals in the brain because there is NOTHING else TO explain it. [ARNDT]

That's a rather odd way of looking at it.  Naturalism/materialism REQUIRES
that personality/consciousness be explainable by natural phenomena (what's
a non-natural phenomenon?) such as chemicals, thus you seem to imply that
naturalism/materialism is somehow flawed as a result?  Is there something
that you KNOW cannot be explained through such phenomena?  Or do you
simply feel more comfortable with the notion that there MUST be something
*else* "in charge" of such things?  Is this an example of wishful...
(Whew!  Caught myself!  Almost used the word "thinking" to describe an action
taken by Ken Arndt...)  Seriously, what reason is there to believe that there
MUST be something else unless it is because you want to do so, because it
fits in with certain ingrained preconceptions?  It's ass backwards to say
"If materialism/naturalism is true, then personality/consciousness MUST be
explainable through natural phenomena, and since I don't believe that to be
so, naturalism must be wrong."  What are the real reasons for "not believing
that to be so"?  [COMMENTS?????????]

> But what are the
> foundations of the metaphysical choices here??  Remember, materialism IS a
> metaphysical choice.  With all the 'goodness' and limitations of a
> metaphysical choice.  We all HAVE to make them, the opposite of having a
> metaphysical framework is not no framework but merely an unexamined one.

The "goodness" of the choice stems from the limits it places on presumption:
of all the "choices", it is the least presumptive, it makes the fewest
assumptions in arriving at its conclusions, and thus it is going to be the
most accurate in the long term.  What is this thing that is non-materialism?
All any non-materialistic choice offers is speculation based on unwarranted
assumption.  Materialism confines itself to that which physically is, and the
notion of "that which is, but in a non-physical sense" is self-contradictory.
That which we cannot observe is just as physical as that which we can. (I
have to keep re-explaining this because someone always remarks:  "Why do you
exclude the supernatural/non-physical?"  It is simple:  By definition, they
do not exist.  If they exist, they ARE physical.  Sorry for the redundancy.)
-- 
Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.
					Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr