Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
But everything that science and evolution teach us disputes this.
|
However, science has to define the system it operates in, and the scientific method, by definition, relies solely on empirical evidence. If there is anything beyond the physical, the scientific method will by definition exclude it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
The argument that animals don't feel emotions is silly - anyone who observes them for any period of time will refute the notion.
|
I don't disagree, but the question wasn't whether animals feel emotions, it's whether they consider existential questions like we do, and can we ever know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
The result is arguments such as the free will issue. Why can't neurons generate free thought?
|
I guess the question is what you consider free thought. If a neuron can generate free thought, and so Bob at 1:53 today chose chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla, could a parallel universe that mimics ours in every way allow Bob to choose vanilla instead? If so, why? What is the difference? If there is no difference, then the scientific method can't hold.
To be fair, I think religions that believe in an omniscient God have to wrestle with the same question. If God knows everything that will happen, are not all of our lives already mapped out and so we do not really have free will?