Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Given all of that, you're right to say that "peter12 has responded because that is how the confluence of stimuli and atoms have combined." However, my non-understanding of his response is no less valid for that, so you're wrong to say that my question is meaningless: that process of stimuli and responses is every bit as inscrutable to me as it is to him.
|
I agree, and I thank you for bringing up the point. However, as reasoning creatures, we are put in an interesting situation. Rationally, we can see the implications - everything we will do has already been determined. Concepts of morality and justice cannot have the same weight (or maybe, same definition?) as in a non-deterministic universe. Does not the materialist have to then live slightly irrationally, shut off that part of their reasoning, in order to function in society? I'm not trying to argue against a materialist worldview, but not prescribing to that worldview myself, I'm genuinely interested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
To the extent that they don't, in my view in light of what we know about the universe, it's just a matter of difference in the construction of their brains. We're all animals, we just happen to be built in such a way that our cognitive function is capable of more. We've got better hardware.
|
The whole point of this line of reasoning was to consider peter12's assertion that existential questions were a human problem. From this, it sounds like you agree. CHL and peter12 agreeing in this thread - that has to count for something!
