Bursting the God Pacebo?

[Neo-Scholastic]

…my intuition tells me there's a natural explanation for it, and yours says it's magic.

Intuition also tells you that you have free will, moral agency, an enduring personal identity, and meaningful values. If your philosophical stance goes against these then it comes at a very high cost. But I think you would agree that our intuitions may not reflect reality as it actually is.

I'm glad you recognize that there's an interaction problem, but I'm confused as to why you then went from a seemingly sincere admittance to having insufficient evidence to your claim to asserting a solution by means of "source of intentionality".

You must have a hypothesis before it can be tested for evidence. The testable hypothesis is that some quantum process could serve as a means to support a dualist position. That’s the science end of the stick. What remains falls under metaphysics. The same is true for cosmology. Physical science can take you very close to the beginning, but cannot explain why there is something and not nothing.

…as soon as you begin using physical terms, your whole concept falls apart.

… the same is true in reverse. Once you start to use teleological terms to explain physical concepts ontological naturalism falls apart. That is the point of my other current thread.

Even on a quantum level, it is matter that is being talked about.

Agreed.

Waves, energy, matter, these are all physical terms.

Agreed.

Describe to me this source of pure "intentionality", what are some of it's properties?

What I called the source of pure intentionality is similar to Plotinus’s “Soul of All.” It’s properties include: qualitative awareness, the ability to apply meaning, and the capacity to manifest choices.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I have a few problems with what you said, but I don't have the time to respond appropriately. I assure you that I will.

[The Reality Salesman01]

…my intuition tells me there's a natural explanation for it, and yours says it's magic.

Intuition also tells you that you have free will, moral agency, an enduring personal identity, and meaningful values. If your philosophical stance goes against these then it comes at a very high cost.

Not necessarily. It's all a matter of perspective, and whether or not they are willing to revise their position if shown good reason to do so. I think "free will", as it is normally defined, is an incredibly ambiguous concept that is not compatible with my experience of consciousness. And with morality, values that are meaningful, and whether or not my personality is enduring...these are all purely subjective things that I enjoy having philosophical discussions about, and cost me nothing to revise should good reason arise to do so. I'm not sure what you mean.

But I think you would agree that our intuitions may not reflect reality as it actually is.

Agreed. And Free Will is a prime example of that. So, we agree that intuition alone is not a reliable process for determining truth, then what is? How does one build immunity to being deceived by intuition alone? If my intuition tells me there's a natural explanation, and evidence supports natural explanations and not magic, now my intuition is congruent with the evidence, and is a more reliable reflection of reality. No?

You must have a hypothesis before it can be tested for evidence. The testable hypothesis is that some quantum process could serve as a means to support a dualist position. That’s the science end of the stick.

Not so fast...A quantum process "could" is a testable hypothesis? Why did you couch this statement with the word "could"? Using that as the standard for what qualifies as a testable hypothesis, you might as well say anything you want, and sit around hoping there will be a quantum explanation showing it's possible-"A quantum process could show that I can grow a third testicle." Now, how do we falsify that hypothesis? This word "could" makes me think you are maintaining that your hypothesis is valid until proven false, but what evidence would you accept that is in fact false? If there is no evidence that you would ever accept, then you can't really say it could ever be anything falsifiable, and it is not testable, if it's not falsifiable. Is it?

What remains falls under metaphysics. The same is true for cosmology. Physical science can take you very close to the beginning, but cannot explain why there is something and not nothing.

What exactly IS nothing? What makes you think that nothing is the starting point? Do you have any examples of a "nothing state"? If not, how do you know that this is even a coherent question to ask? If all we have is stuff, why are you assuming there is not stuff? Because it's an opposite that you think is inherent to the understanding of what something means? What if it's the wrong question? What if the question isn't something or nothing, but finite or infinite? We have about as much data to support an infinity as we do an absolute nothingness, zero is about as abstract as infinity. How do you know you're asking the right question, and on what grounds do you think it's intellectually coherent? Not all words used to describe concepts necessarily have an inherent opposite, wouldn't you agree?

What I called the source of pure intentionality is similar to Plotinus’s “Soul of All.” It’s properties include: qualitative awareness, the ability to apply meaning, and the capacity to manifest choices.

You said you recognized that dualism has an interaction problem, you tried to reconcile that by saying there's a quantum understanding for how having the capacity for manifesting choices (one example from your pure intentionality) is made manifest in a material mind. This seems incomplete at best. And this is your hypothesis? That one could? Your burden, should you go on promoting your dualist position, is not to insist that one could...but does one at all? You are defending a hypothetical position (dualism) which has zero evidence. Not only do you not have evidence, but you have crippling objections that need a resolution, and your attempt to resolve this interaction problem is yet another hypothetical explanation that also has zero evidence. To top it off you are calling this explanation a hypothesis even though it's not at all testable or falsifiable because it's an open ended guess that contains the word "could"...and what I don't understand is why you think that this is a good reason to dispute my allegation that some people are oblivious to their ignorance regarding things that they hold as true, such as this, that are founded on insufficient inquiry and bad evidence. I admit to not knowing certain things, and express the value in being aware of where my knowledge ends, and you call me conceited? Surely, I've misunderstood, and you can better explain how the position that you hold is something more than what I've understood it to be. Surely if you took offense to my allegation you must be able to establish validity in your claim with something more than what "could" be true regarding something you believe IS true...

[The Reality Salesman01]

Chad? Where'd you go?

[Tripwire]

I cannot speak for them, but I would rather know the truth and be miserable than be happy with a lie.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

[The Reality Salesman01]

Shut up! I fat fingered that! Lol