Critical assessment of Dawkins, Dennett, Lewis, Wolbert, Harris, and Westinger (3)

Critical assessment of Dawkins, Dennett, Lewis, Wolbert, Harris, and Westinger (3) This series is from the first supplement of the book (There is a God: How the World's Most Powerful Atheist Changed His Thoughts?) For more see the book. Thought. Other than consciousness, we have the phenomenon of thought, the phenomenon of understanding. With every use of language, there is a purely non-physical pattern of existence. It is the basis of thinking and communication and the skill to use language, a miraculous ability. It is the ability to observe differences and similarities, to observe redness and generalizations; or what philosophers call concepts and postulates and the like. It is an extraordinary, but simply mindless, naturalistic thing. You are also able to think of things that are lacking in physical existence and physical properties, such as the idea of freedom or the activity of angels. That ability to think is inherently beyond inanimate matter. If anyone disagrees with any of this, they need to stop thinking in order to achieve internal consistency. Every time they use language, they perfectly embody the widespread role of meaning, concepts, intentions, and reason in our lives. It is incomprehensible that thinking has a physical counterpart (no member is responsible for understanding), even though the input data from your family has, of course, created some of the raw materials used in thinking. You'll think about different places you're likely to go, you'll think about the people you want to invite, you'll think about the things you want to bring, you'll think about the car you're going to use, and the like. The basic issue here is that your brain itself, in the strict sense of the word, doesn't understand. You understand. Your brain enables you to understand, not because your thoughts are shaped in your brain, or because you "stimulate" certain neurons to work. Let's take for example the process of realizing that poverty eradication is a good thing, that it's an integral process, that it's both an intrinsically physical part of the process, and a material part of the execution (vocabulars and neurons). A lot of misconceptions about the nature of thought arise from misconceptions about computers. But let’s say we are dealing with a supercomputer like the blue gene, which performs about two hundred trillion calculations per second. The first error is to assume that the blue gene is a “thing” like bacteria or a bee. In the case of bacteria or a bee we are dealing with an active entity, an event and action center where it is an organically created whole, a living organism. Secondly, that bundle of parts doesn't realize what it does, when a transaction takes place. Performing computations in supercomputers and permutations in mainframe computers in response to inputs and instructions is simply a matter of the interplay between electrical impulses and circuits and transistors. Similarly, the same computations or permutations that are done by a human involve the operation of a brain mechanism, but are done by a central entity; perception, which is aware of what is done. Computer output has semantic "meaning" (for example, tomorrow's weather news or your bank account), but as much as that bundle of bits called a computer is concerned, there are binary numbers - zero and one - that guide the activities a certain mechanism. To say that the computer "understands and understands" what it is doing is equally logical, with saying that the power conduction wire can reflect on the dilemma of freedom of administration and algebra, or that chemicals in a test tube can solve a principle. Self Paradoxically, the most important omission of contemporary atheists is the same as the most important one they have given; that is, their own. The absolute material/supermaterial truth we know from experience and experience is the experimenter himself, i.e.; "Ourselves." Once we acknowledge the fact that there is a perspective of the speaker's formula, "me," "me," "myself," and the like, we encounter the greatest and greatest conundrums of joy. I exist. Contrary to Descartes’ statement, “I am here, therefore I think, realize, intend, mean, and react,” what is “I”? Where did it come from? How did it become? To the extent that “yourself” is not a material thing, it is also not something above material. It is a body, a body with a soul. “You” does not exist in a particular cell or in any part of your body. Your body cells continue to change and “you” remains unchanged. If you study neurons, none of them have the characteristics to qualify as “me.” Of course, your body is an integral part of being you, but it is “your body” because it is so formed by the self. To be human is to be spiritual. In one of the famous passages of Treatise of Human Nature, Hume declares that "when I delve deeper into what I call 'self'...I can never find it without perceptual perception, and I can never notice anything other than perceptual perception."14 Hume here denies the existence of the self simply by arguing that (in the sense of "me") it is not the perception of "self" but what unites it to the various perceptual experiences. In fact, from all the facts we have, the self is the most obvious and indisputable fact, and at the same time the most fatal to the physicist. It should be made clear that self-denial cannot be claimed without falling into contradiction. There is a famous response of a professor to the question "How do I know that I exist?" The professor replied "Who is asking?". The self is what we are, not what we have. It is the "I" from which emerges the perspective of the speaker's formula. We cannot analyze the self, because it is not an observable state. Hence, the most fundamental truth that we are all aware of is the human self, and self-understanding will inevitably shape visions on all questions of the origin of things, and will give the truth as a whole an integrated logical dimension. We realize that self-description is impossible, let alone interpreted in the language of physics and chemistry. Science does not explore the self, but the self explores the science. We realize that there is no coherent view of the history of existence, if it cannot provide an explanation for the existence of the self. A superphysical origin. So, how did life, consciousness, thought, and self appear? The temporal history of the universe shows a sudden emergence of these phenomena. Life appeared shortly after the frozen age of the Earth, consciousness revealed itself in mysterious circumstances during the Cambrian explosion, and language appeared in the "symbolic type" without any evolutionary prelude. The phenomena we are looking at are between the processing systems of symbols and codes and the objects of intent in one way, and the subjective perception and the human being on the other. In each case, we are not talking about vitality or duality, but about integration, about an integral whole. It's about a wholeness that blends what's physical with what's mental. Although neo-atheists have failed to grasp the nature or source of life, consciousness, thought, and self, the answer to the question of a superphysical origin seems obvious; a supraphysical entity can arise only from a supraphysical origin or source. Life, consciousness, mind, and self necessarily come from a conscious, thinking, living origin or source. Since we are the centers of consciousness, feeling and thought where we are able to learn, love, resolve and execute, I don’t see the logic that those axes resulted from something lacking in itself for all those activities. Although simple physical processes have the potential to create extremely complex physical phenomena, we are not concerned with the relationship between the simple and the complex, we are asking here about the origin of the "axes"; simply it is not possible to imagine any physical field or matrix capable of producing active entities that think and act. Since non-living matter is unable to produce concepts and perceptions, so, on the level of our life experience, we tend to think that the world of thinking conscious living beings was created for a necessity by a living source; a mind. 14. David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, edited and with an introduction by Ernest C. Mossner (Hammondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1985), 300. - Roy Abraham Fargis. — Source: Brahin Center website - Published 2018-06-06 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/philosophy/تقييم-نقدي-لدوكينز-ودينيت-ولويس-وولبرت-وهاريس-وستنجر-3