Are there random events, and if so can random events produce a repeatable pattern? That was the question in my mind while showering after a nice run in our neighborhood.
For example, if some brick size stones were to fall off a cliff for 5 days without stop, all from the same spot at the top of the cliff, they would form a pattern when finally stopping their fall. It is true, of course, that we could not predict the exact spot where any one of the stones would stop moving. A year later, let’s assume the geological scenario were the same as a year earlier, and the same number of stones would fall from the same spot. The same pattern would happen again once all the stones had come to rest even though no “mind” was actively involved. – a random event, a repeated pattern, no mind-directed activity being involved, but the same conditions pertaining in both events.
Those of the naturalistic determinism bent will say that the repeatable events in nature do not require a mind, and they would use what I described in the previous paragraph as an example. They say that no mind is needed to have what naturalistic determinism has produced in our space time world. As long as they phrase it the way the previous sentence is written, there is very little argument. But, a big but, that is not the end of the story, and that is the problem.
What the naturalistic determinism folk can’t explain, and this is critical, is the existence of the describer of the event, the one who analyzes the event, the subject who talks about the objective event, the one who stands apart from the event and can reflect on it. For that subject to exist, it has to be categorically different from the objective event upon which it reflects. It has to not be a part of the event, but be just as real as was the event upon which it reflects.
A chair cannot reflect on a chair. Humans can reflect on both a chair as well as on humans!! They can do that because they are both part of the “chair reality” as well as the “beyond the chair reality.” This is where naturalistic determinism fails. It can’t explain its own existence, because it takes something beyond naturalistic determinism to reflect on naturalistic determinism, to posit naturalistic determinism, to define naturalistic determinism. Naturalistic determinism is incapable of producing anything that can reflect on naturalistic events!! This all takes me back to René Descartes who understood that there was no way to escape the existence of the soul, the “thing” that can think about all else that is thinkable.
By that time, I had finished the shower and begun reflecting on how nice the warm water had felt!!!