Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Darwinian Enigma: Defending The Preposterous After Having Been Informed

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Michael Behe and I had the same reaction after reading Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Our reaction was, “Why haven’t we heard any of this stuff before?”

The answer is simple. All criticisms of Darwinian orthodoxy were successfully branded by Darwinists as the mindless fantasies of religious fanatics whose purpose was to destroy “science.”

But let us ask, Who are those who have engaged in mindless fantasies concerning origins?

In the information age, the notion that random errors can produce highly sophisticated biological information, information-processing machinery, and the associated error-detection-and-repair mechanisms and algorithms, is so preposterous that I conclude that Darwinists have either lost their minds, are pathetically uninformed, or have chosen to deny evidence, rationality, and the discoveries of modern science in order pursue a thoroughly irrational commitment to materialistic philosophy.

In an attempt to defend the clearly preposterous, Darwinists have become the preeminent enemies of science concerning origins.

Comments
Petrushka, those are readily explained by the disruption of the mind-brain interface, as gpuccio pointed out to you earlier. Whereas on the other hand you have no way possible of explaining the many anomalies I listed using your materialistic framework (even IF I were to grant you the HUGE concession that materialism is a true description for the foundation of reality, which it is not (Zeilinger 2011)):
A neurosurgeon confronts the non-material nature of consciousness - December 2011 Excerpted quote: To me one thing that has emerged from my experience and from very rigorous analysis of that experience over several years, talking it over with others that I respect in neuroscience, and really trying to come up with an answer, is that consciousness outside of the brain is a fact. It’s an established fact. And of course, that was a hard place for me to get, coming from being a card-toting reductive materialist over decades. It was very difficult to get to knowing that consciousness, that there’s a soul of us that is not dependent on the brain. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/he-said-it-a-neurosurgeon-confronts-the-non-material-nature-of-consciousness/ Neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander’s Near-Death Experience Defies Medical Model of Consciousness - audio interview http://www.skeptiko.com/upload/skeptiko-154-eben-alexander.mp3
Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to the 'particle level', to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:
‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011 Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm
The seemingly counter-intuitive conclusion that consciousness is to be treated as a separate entity when dealing with quantum mechanics, and thus with the foundation of the universe, has some very strong clout behind it.
Quantum mind–body problem Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, and Eugene Wigner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries:
Eugene Wigner Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm
i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine. etc. etc. bornagain77
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
I rephrase and add question marks if you need them. I’m still waiting for a cogent explanation for memory blocking drugs, or an explanation why brain injuries can block formation of permanent memories, but leave the person able to function pretty well in the present.Petrushka
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
GCUGreyArea: Thank you for the clarification. Indeed, I do believe that concsciousness can exist without the body, but that belief is based on completely different things, and I never bring it in the discussion about ID. ID has nothing to say about that. In discussing theories about consciousness, I only ask that it be considered as an empirical principle and studied as such, and that the theories that try to explain it in terms of an objective configuration of matter be considered for what they are: unsupported theories that do not explain anything.gpuccio
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
GCUGreyArea: I appreciate the suggestion. I will certainly try to be more specific in the future.gpuccio
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
Nothing. I did not object to either of those positions. I realize you may not have meant what I initially read. I read your comment to mean that consciousness and the body could be seen as distinct, non-contingent entities, which implies that each can exist independently. The claim it implied was that consciousness can exist without the body, but I see I must have misread, my apologies!GCUGreyArea
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Yes, many scientists think that consciousness may be rooted in physical matter, and are investigating it to test that hypothesis. I don't know that there is a general theory, indeed theory would be the wrong word from a scientific perspective because although many scientists might believe that consciousness is rooted in matter, they have very different ideas about where this root may lie - each of these ideas could constitute a theory in that regard. Rather that continuing to erroneously refer to the idea of consciousness being the product of the physical brain as 'strong AI', perhaps you could just refer to it as the 'material consciousness hypothesis'? - this would be more accurate, but there may be an even better term already in use.GCUGreyArea
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
GCUGreyArea: If strong AI is only about "making machines that have cognitive capabilities comparable to humans", then it has all my appreciation. Let's say then that I am speaking only of the theory that assumes that consciousness is a byproduct of the activity of the brain, be it because of its software structure or of its material composition. You will not deny that such a position is widely spread, both among AI researchers and theorists and among neurobiologists. Please, consider all that I have said exclusively targeted to that position. That was what I meant, that is what I mean. If that is not your position, I am happy for you.gpuccio
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
You seem to believe it is clear cut, I would argue that the claim “Human beings are conscious beings in connection with material bodies.” is one that has not been verified. Wrong. It is a simple fact, empirically determined. Please, read carefully what I wrote: a) "Human beings are conscious beings". This is a simple fact, experienced by each of us in his own consciousness. The extension to other human beings is indeed an inference by analogy, but it is usually accepted by almost everybody. Have you problems with that? Are you a solipsist? b) The subjective experiences in consciousness are certainly in connection with the human material body, which is itself one of the material objects perceived by consciousness. I really cannot see what you object to. What has never been verified, instead, is the strong AI theory, according to which consciousness is a byproduct of the activities of the brain. But in my stetements here I have neither affirmed nor denied it. I have obviously my specific view, many times expressed here, but I would never deny that the issue is controversial.gpuccio
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Petrushka: I’m still waiting for a cogent explanation for memory blocking drugs, or an explanation why brain injuries can block formation of permanent memories, but leave the person able to function pretty well in the present. The interface through which consciousness expresses itself in the human state is altered. That's all.gpuccio
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
You never even asked a question, you just stated your dogmatic materialistic opinion. And in your evasive response to the consistent, and impressive, line of evidence presented to you for a 'living soul' of man, you further highlighted your severe prejudice in these matters to consider anything other than your 'preferred' atheistic answer!!!.,,, Frankly, it is a clear and pathetic display of dogmatism on your part!!bornagain77
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
You wrote a lot of words, but no response to my questions.Petrushka
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Another denialfest. Immaterial relationships being instantited into material objects has been empirically verified. It is an observed reality independent of human involvement. When it comes to providing an answer as to how an immaterial quality becomes instantiated into a material object, it is consciousness that surfaces as the only causally-adequate observation. For ideological reasons, you may wish to explain human consciousness in a purely material framework, but that does not explain how the immaterial relationships (which make life possible) came to be established on an early earth with no humans around. Yet they were so established, and life (including human life) depended upon them.Upright BiPed
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
The following gives a further indication of a 'non local' quantum solution to the 'memory' dilemma;
Bridging the Gap - October 2011 Excerpt: Like a bridge that spans a river to connect two major metropolises, the corpus callosum is the main conduit for information flowing between the left and right hemispheres of our brains. Now, neuroscientists at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have found that people who are born without that link—a condition called agenesis of the corpus callosum, or AgCC—still show remarkably normal communication across the gap between the two halves of their brains. http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13465
This following studies add weight to the 'transcendence of mind';
Study suggests precognition may be possible - November 2010 Excerpt: A Cornell University scientist has demonstrated that psi anomalies, more commonly known as precognition, premonitions or extra-sensory perception (ESP), really do exist at a statistically significant level. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-precognition.html Mind-Brain Interaction and Science Fiction (Quantum connection) - Jeffrey Schwartz & Michael Egnor - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2008-12-01T17_28_39-08_00 In The Wonder Of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, Eccles and Robinson discussed the research of three groups of scientists (Robert Porter and Cobie Brinkman, Nils Lassen and Per Roland, and Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deeke), all of whom produced startling and undeniable evidence that a "mental intention" preceded an actual neuronal firing - thereby establishing that the mind is not the same thing as the brain, but is a separate entity altogether. http://books.google.com/books?id=J9pON9yB8HkC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28 “As I remarked earlier, this may present an “insuperable” difficulty for some scientists of materialists bent, but the fact remains, and is demonstrated by research, that non-material mind acts on material brain.” Eccles Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior? -Roy F. Baumeister, E. J. Masicampo, and Kathleen D. Vohs - 2010 Excerpt: The evidence for conscious causation of behavior is profound, extensive, adaptive, multifaceted, and empirically strong. http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/165663.pdf "Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder." Heinrich Heine - in the year 1834
This following experiment is really interesting:
Scientific Evidence That Mind Effects Matter - Random Number Generators - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4198007
I once asked a evolutionist, after showing him the preceding experiment, "Since you ultimately believe that the 'god of random chance' produced everything we see around us, what in the world is my mind doing pushing your god around?" Here a Darwinian Psychologist has a moment of honesty facing the 'hard problem' that consciousness presents to the materialistic/atheistic framework;
Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science's "Hardest Problem" Excerpt: 'But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can't even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don't even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.' David Barash - Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/post_33052491.html
Here is another article, and audio, that are both far more nuanced in the discerning of 'transcendent mind' from material brain, than the somewhat 'brute empirical evidence' I've listed thus far:
The Mind and Materialist Superstition - Six "conditions of mind" that are irreconcilable with materialism: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super.html Is the Brain Just an Illusion? - Anika Smith interviews Denyse O'Leary - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-10-21T15_48_33-07_00 Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
bornagain77
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
further notes: The following is on par with Pam Reynolds Near Death Experience. In the following video, Dr. Lloyd Rudy, a pioneer of cardiac surgery, tells stories of two patients who came back to life after being declared dead, and what they told him.
Famous Cardiac Surgeon Recounts Two Amazing Stories of Near Death Experiences in Surgery while under his care http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1oDuvQR08 The Scientific Evidence for Near Death Experiences - Dr Jeffery Long - Melvin Morse M.D. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4454627 Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience (NDE) - Pim von Lommel - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599/ Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This 'anomaly' is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/
Also of 'spiritual interest' is the fact that many responses of the mind are found to defy time and space:
Quantum Consciousness - Time Flies Backwards? - Stuart Hameroff MD Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual....). In Radin and Bierman's early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html Quantum Coherence and Consciousness – Scientific Proof of ‘Mind’ – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6266865/
Particular quote of note from preceding video;
“Wolf Singer Director of the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research (Frankfurt) has found evidence of simultaneous oscillations in separate areas of the cortex, accurately synchronized in phase as well as frequency. He suggests that the oscillations are synchronized from some common source, but the actual source has never been located.” James J. Hurtak, Ph.D. Brain ‘entanglement’ could explain memories - January 2010 Excerpt: In both cases, the researchers noticed that the voltage of the electrical signal in groups of neurons separated by up to 10 millimetres sometimes rose and fell with exactly the same rhythm. These patterns of activity, dubbed “coherence potentials”, often started in one set of neurons, only to be mimicked or “cloned” by others milliseconds later. They were also much more complicated than the simple phase-locked oscillations and always matched each other in amplitude as well as in frequency. (Perfect clones) “The precision with which these new sites pick up on the activity of the initiating group is quite astounding – they are perfect clones,” says Plen https://uncommondescent.com/mind/mind-quantum-mechanics-provides-clues-to-human-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-399098
Moreover, 'memories' have never been located to a 'material' basis:
A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs (Near Death Experiences) – Pim van Lommel Excerpt: For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories (information) inside the brain, so far without success.,,,,So we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness. And as soon as the function of brain has been lost, like in clinical death or in brain death, with iso-electricity on the EEG, memories and consciousness do still exist, but the reception ability is lost. People can experience their consciousness outside their body, with the possibility of perception out and above their body, with identity, and with heightened awareness, attention, well-structured thought processes, memories and emotions. And they also can experience their consciousness in a dimension where past, present and future exist at the same moment, without time and space, and can be experienced as soon as attention has been directed to it (life review and preview), and even sometimes they come in contact with the “fields of consciousness” of deceased relatives. And later they can experience their conscious return into their body. http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm
And though it is not possible to localize memories (information) inside the brain, it is interesting to note how extremely complex the brain is in its ability to manipulate rudimentary information:
Boggle Your Brain - November 2010 Excerpt: One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201011.htm#20101119a
bornagain77
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
So no, I see no scientific controversy, because I see no scientific evidence for a disembodied mind, and a great deal of evidence against. Hyper skeptical atheistic materialism at its most dogmatic, defiant, stance??? notes: This following video is very good, and easy to understand, for pointing out some of the unanswerable dilemmas that quantum mechanics presents to the atheistic philosophy of reductive materialism:
Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579/
This following experiment extended Wheeler's delayed choice double slit experiment, which I referenced earlier, to highlight the centrality of 'information' in the Double Slit Experiment and refutes any 'detector centered' arguments for why the wave collapses:
(Double Slit) A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser - updated 2007 Excerpt: Upon accessing the information gathered by the Coincidence Circuit, we the observer are shocked to learn that the pattern shown by the positions registered at D0 (Detector Zero) at Time 2 depends entirely on the information gathered later at Time 4 and available to us at the conclusion of the experiment. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm
i.e. This experiment clearly shows that the ‘material’ detector is secondary in the experiment and that a conscious observer, being able to know the information of which path a photon takes with local certainty, is primary to the wave collapsing to a particle in the experiment. It is also very interesting to note that some materialists seem to have a very hard time grasping the simple point of these extended double slit experiments, but to try to put it more clearly; To explain an event which defies time and space, as the quantum erasure experiment clearly does, you cannot appeal to any material entity in the experiment like the detector, or any other 3D physical part of the experiment, which is itself constrained by the limits of time and space. To give an adequate explanation for defying time and space one is forced to appeal to a transcendent entity which is itself not confined by time or space. But then again I guess I can see why forcing someone, who claims to be a atheistic materialist, to appeal to a non-material transcendent entity, to give an adequate explanation for such a ‘spooky’ event, would invoke such utter confusion on their part. Yet to try to put it in even more ‘shocking’ terms for the atheists, the ‘shocking’ conclusion of the experiment is that a transcendent Mind, with a capital M, must precede the collapse of quantum waves to 3-Dimensional particles. Moreover, it is impossible for a human mind to ever ‘emerge’ from any 3-D material basis which is dependent on a preceding conscious cause for its own collapse to a 3D state in the first place. This is more than a slight problem for the atheistic-evolutionary materialist who insists that our minds simply ‘emerged’, or evolved, from a conglomeration of 3D matter. In the following article Professor Henry puts it more clearly than I can:
The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf
Astrophysicist John Gribbin comments on the Renninger experiment here:
Solving the quantum mysteries - John Gribbin Excerpt: From a 50:50 probability of the flash occurring either on the hemisphere or on the outer sphere, the quantum wave function has collapsed into a 100 per cent certainty that the flash will occur on the outer sphere. But this has happened without the observer actually "observing" anything at all! It is purely a result of a change in the observer's knowledge about what is going on in the experiment. http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/quantum.htm#Solving
i.e. The detector is completely removed as to being the primary cause of quantum wave collapse in the experiment. As Richard Conn Henry clearly implied previously, in the experiment it is found that 'The physical environment' IS NOT sufficient within itself to 'create reality', i.e. 'The physical environment' IS NOT sufficient to explain quantum wave collapse to a 'uncertain' 3D particle.
Why, who makes much of a miracle? As to me, I know of nothing else but miracles, Whether I walk the streets of Manhattan, Or dart my sight over the roofs of houses toward the sky,,, Walt Whitman - Miracles
That the mind of a individual observer would play such an integral, yet not complete ‘closed loop’ role, in instantaneous quantum wave collapse to uncertain 3-D particles, gives us clear evidence that our mind is a unique entity. A unique entity with a superior quality of existence when compared to the uncertain 3D particles of the material universe. This is clear evidence for the existence of the ‘higher dimensional mind’ of man that supersedes any material basis that the mind has been purported to emerge from by materialists. I would also like to point out that the ‘effect’, of universal quantum wave collapse to each ‘central 3D observer’ in the universe (Wheeler; Delayed Choice, Wigner; Quantum Symmetries), gives us clear evidence of the extremely special importance that the ’cause’ of the ‘Infinite Mind of God’ places on each of our own individual souls/minds.
Psalm 139:17-18 How precious concerning me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake, I am still with you.
These following studies and videos confirm this 'superior quality' of existence for our souls/minds:
Alvin Plantinga and the Modal Argument (for the existence of the soul) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOTn_wRwDE0 Miracle Of Mind-Brain Recovery Following Hemispherectomies - Dr. Ben Carson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994585/ Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics' Lives: Excerpt: "We are awed by the apparent retention of memory and by the retention of the child's personality and sense of humor,'' Dr. Eileen P. G. Vining; In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study: "Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications." http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/19/science/removing-half-of-brain-improves-young-epileptics-lives.html
‘Surprisingly’ (a word that turns up far to often in materialistic papers), at the molecular level, the cells of the brain are found to be extremely ‘plastic’ to changes in ‘activity in the brain’ which is, or course, completely contrary to the reductive materialistic view of the mind ‘emerging’ from the material brain;
DNA Dynamism - PaV - October 2011 Excerpt: “It was mind-boggling to see that so many methylation sites — thousands of sites — had changed in status as a result of brain activity,” Song says. “We used to think that the brain’s epigenetic DNA methylation landscape was as stable as mountains and more recently realized that maybe it was a bit more subject to change, perhaps like trees occasionally bent in a storm. But now we show it is most of all like a river that reacts to storms of activity by moving and changing fast.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/dna-dynamism/
Further notes on the transcendence of 'mind':
The Day I Died - Part 4 of 6 - The Extremely 'Monitored' Near Death Experience of Pam Reynolds - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045560
bornagain77
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Human beings are conscious beings in connection with material bodies.
On what basis is this claim made?
You wil at least admit, I hope, that the true nature of human beings is a controversial issue.
You seem to believe it is clear cut, I would argue that the claim "Human beings are conscious beings in connection with material bodies." is one that has not been verified.GCUGreyArea
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
I haven't seen any compelling evidence of a disembodied mind. I'm still waiting for a cogent explanation for memory blocking drugs, or an explanation why brain injuries can block formation of permanent memories, but leave the person able to function pretty well in the present. So no, I see no scientific controversy, because I see no scientific evidence for a disembodied mind, and a great deal of evidence against.Petrushka
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Strong AI does not postulate the things you seem to think it does and it is not a theory about consciousness. There is no consensus amongst AI researchers that consciousness is required for strong AI. Strong AI is about making machines that have cognitive capabilities comparable to humans, from that there are many interesting and hotly debated questions, including questions about the nature of consciousness, but strong AI is an exploratory field of study rather than a theory. I am an AI researcher and I know that some in the field do postulate that consciousness can be generated synthetically. Others in the field disagree and those that do agree on the principle may not agree in the details - for example some would argue that patterns of activity are what is required and therefore generating these patterns by means of computer software (a simulated neural network for example) may suffice. Others would argue that there may be some physical mechanism that is required, in other words a computer simulation is not enough, you need to create the right kind of physical hardware. There are others that argue that consciousness is not required, and more that argue that it cannot be synthesised. To say that strong AI is built on a lie is to misunderstand what is being explored. 'They', in the sense of all strong AI researchers, are not proposing anything about consciousness. some of them are but others disagree. What is being investigated by strong AI is the possibility of creating synthetic general purpose intelligences, and what that entails. Personally, I am happily sitting on the fence as far as consciousness goes.GCUGreyArea
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Petrushka: Human bodies are certainly material objects. Whose origin is the object of our discussion here, like for all other biological beings. Human beings are conscious beings in connection with material bodies. The body is observed by human consciousness, like all other material objects, while the concious "I" intuitively perceives its existence. You wil at least admit, I hope, that the true nature of human beings is a controversial issue.gpuccio
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Petrushka, though gradual evolution is not falsified in the strictest sense, the materialistic, atheistic, neo-Darwinian version of gradual evolution is falsified in the strictest sense, i.e. it is IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
bornagain77
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
Petrushka, and exactly what evidence do you have that material objects are to be considered 'material' in the first place? Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:
‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011 Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm
bornagain77
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
I don't know. Where do Behe or Dembski or Axe say "Darwinian" evolution is impossible? I haven't said design is impossible in principle, just impossible with any known or proposed technology. the basic problem is that chemistry is faster and more accurate than simulations of chemistry. So if you are going to design, evolution is the fastest and best way. ID could use a theory of design and a worked out example.Petrushka
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
Observed material objects are not conscious.
Human beings are not material objects? Your evidence for this is what?Petrushka
December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
UB and above: Than you :)gpuccio
December 4, 2011
December
12
Dec
4
04
2011
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
Thanks again Gpuccio. A very clear and accurate exposition of the issue. I enjoyed reading it.above
December 3, 2011
December
12
Dec
3
03
2011
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
beautifulUpright BiPed
December 3, 2011
December
12
Dec
3
03
2011
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT
Petrushka: Where does it say: "impossible"?gpuccio
December 3, 2011
December
12
Dec
3
03
2011
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
above: After all, it's simple enough: a) Consciousness is an observed empirical phenomenon (we can observe it in ourselves, even if in others it is an inference by analogy). b) Observed material objects are not conscious. c) Strong AI postulates that some kind of configuration of material objects can generate consciousness. In particular, some kind of software strucure. d) That would be a reasonable hypothesis, if there were at least one empirical fact in support of that. But there is not. The proposed software configurations (parallel computing, loops, or anything else that may become trendy) are wll known, and in no way they have ever generated anything like consciousness. e) Moreover, there is absolutely no theoretical foundation to the idea that making those structures more complex will change anything. A softwrae structure is a computing algorithm. An algorithm computing 2+2 is not in any way qualitatively different from windows 7. They do essentially the same thing: computing by rearranging bits in some physical state. f) In principle, as it is the software structure that counts, and not the hardware, the results of the computing are independent from the hardware. Therefore, if a PC could become conscious, the execution of the same computation by an abacus, however slow, should generate consciousness just the same. g) The formal principles we observe in conscious events (subjectivity, the reference of multiple modifications to a single perceptor, the fundamental intuitions of pain and pleasure, of good and evil, and of true and false) are in no way explained formally by configurations of objects. Indeed, those formal principles cannot even be defined without referring to consciousbess itself. IOWs, there is no way that objective configuration can formally explain subjective experiences. h) Therefore, strong AI is both logically and empirically unsupported (exactly like neo darwinism)- i) Why then is it considered a fundamental scientific theory? The answer is simple, and is always the same: a priori commitment to materialstic reductionism. l) The resoning goes as follows: 1)Humans are conscious (correct!) 2)They have a body and brain (correct!) 3)Their consciousness is a byproduct of their brain activity (wrong: that is only a dogmatic assumption for those who have chosen naterialistic reductionism as their worldview; and the point here is that in this reasoning it is taken as truth, not as an hypothesis; indeed, only if this single step is true does the reasoning make sense). 4) As the brain is a special configuration of material objects, that configuration can be replicated as a softwrae configuration (correct!). 5) Therefore, some specific software configuration must be able to generate consciousness (correct only if 3) is true). IOWs, the whole theory is supported by only one thing: assuming as truth a specific worldview. As there is no logical or empirical support for the theory, its only support is faith in a specific religion (materialistic reductionism). Therefore, it is only a form of religion-science. Not science at all. m) A final point. Most of the so called "arguments" of strong AI are not arguments for strong AI at all. To see that better, we should recur to the traditional splitting of the problem of consciousness in two aspects: 1) The hard problem of consciousness: the problem of explaining how and why we have qualitative phenomenal experiences (from Wikipedia). IOWs, the problem of expalining why subjective experiences exist. 2) The easy problems of consciousness: explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, etc. Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. (from Wikipedia). That distinction is clearly made by philosopher David Chalmers, but it should be obvious to everybody. Wikipedia goes on: "That is, their proposed solutions (of the easy problems), regardless of how complex or poorly understood they may be, can be entirely consistent with the modern materialistic conception of natural phenomena. Chalmers claims that the problem of experience is distinct from this set, and he argues that the problem of experience will "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained"" That's exactly the point. All "arguments" in strong AI are attempts at solving the easy problems of consciousness. IOWs, they are simulating the solutions to the computing mechanisms of the brain. That is fine. That is interesting and possible. The brain certainly computes, and we can certainly simulate how it computes. It is not easy, but it is certainly possible. But in no way that solves the hard problem of consciousness. Strong AI is therefore based on a double lie: - Its basic reasonig, the only logical support to the theory, assumes as truth a specific faith. - As it is wholly unsupported at the empirical level, it can only produce arguments for the solution of the east problems of consciousness, and pretend that they are arguments for the solution of the hard problem of consciousness.gpuccio
December 3, 2011
December
12
Dec
3
03
2011
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
Thanks Gpuccio. Do you mind elaborating a little bit on strong AI and the fundamental problems that it faces, which inherently make it a lie?above
December 2, 2011
December
12
Dec
2
02
2011
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
above: It depends on what we intend for "evolution". In reality, the neo darwinian model, the "modern synthesis", is just a scientific theory. As such, it needs not any a priori or methaphysical assumption. Indeed, true science is empirical, and cannot depend on a priori commitments, neither religious nor non religious. The problem is that neo darwinism is a scientific theory that does not work. That's where a priori commitments come in. Indeed, the only reason why intelligent people may be driven to defend a theory that does not work, an explanation that does not explain anything, is because of a priori commitments. The only reason why neo darwinism is so tenaciously defended by most, is because of an a priori commitment to: a) materialist reductionism b) scientism The same is true for the other big lie, strong AI. All of that has nothing to do with true science. True science is empirical, and it always looks for the best empirical explanation. For biological information, the best empirical explanation, indeed the only explanation available, is design. No a priori assumption is needed for that. Except for the general, fundamental assumptions that are necessary for any congnition at all. On the other hand, it is always true that our personal views of reality will always influence our scientific work. There is nothing wrong in that. It cannot be different from that. But an influence is completely different from an a priori commitment. One can be influenced by his world views (indeed, nobody can avoid that), and still be honest in his empirical reasoning, and avoid dogmatism, of any kind.gpuccio
December 2, 2011
December
12
Dec
2
02
2011
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply