Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Modest Thought Experiment

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s a thought experiment for our materialist friends.

Suppose you have a table, and on that table you place three cylinders, one each of oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. Beside these cylinders you place a lump of carbon, a lump of calcium, and a jar of phosphorus. These chemicals make up over 98% of the human body by mass. Suppose further that you place on the table containers of each of the trace chemicals found in the human body so that at the end you have on your table all of the chemicals found in the human body in the same amount by mass and in the same proportion as those chemicals occur in the human body.

Now ask yourself some questions:

1. Do you owe any moral duty to any of the individual chemicals? I presume you will say the answer is “no.”

2. Does your answer change if instead of the individual chemicals, you consider all of them setting there on your table together? I presume the answer is still “no.”

3. Now suppose you mix all of the chemicals together? Does your answer change? I presume the answer is still “no.”

I presume by your answer to these three questions that you believe that there is nothing special about the chemicals in the human body – whether considered in isolation or in combination – that causes you to owe any moral duty to those chemicals. On materialist premises, a human being is nothing more than a somewhat sophisticated mixture of its constituent chemicals. I presume you will say that you owe moral duties to other human beings. So my final question is this:

4. What is it about the mixture of chemicals we call “human being” that makes it the repository of moral rights (i.e., the converse of the moral duty you owe it)?

201_Elements_of_the_Human_Body-01

Chart courtesy of Wikipedia.

Comments
me:
It usually ends up with Barry declaring he is obviously or self-evidently right and therefore I am wrong.
SB:
you claim that such phrases as “should not do” or “It is wrong” or “it is wrong for everyone” are not necessarily objective formulations, even though everyone knows that they are.
I should have included StephenB along with Barry. We are debating whether such phrases as “should not do” or “It is wrong” or “it is wrong for everyone” are objective. There have been many debates among philosophers about this over the centuries.Mark Frank
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Mark Frank I think we agree that the proposition that “Everyone should believe that torturing infants for pleasure is wrong,” should be perceived by all people. What is the practical difference between "should be universally perceived" (MF's position )and "self-evidently true" Either formulation is agreeable from my perspective.c hand
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Mark Frank
I have conducting this argument for about 10 years and know most of the twists and turns. It usually ends up with Barry declaring he is obviously or self-evidently right and therefore I am wrong.
Actually, what happens Mark, is this: You end up misusing the language in an attempt to have it both ways. According to your philosophy of subjectivism, nothing can be objectively wrong, or wrong, in fact; it can only be wrong "for you." That is what subjectivism means. Yet when you are confronted with the poverty of that world view, you temporarily reverse course and express your views using the common-sense terminology of objective morality, saying, "Yes, "it is 'wrong,' period," which is at variance with your subjective morality. As an evasion, you claim that such phrases as "should not do" or "It is wrong" or "it is wrong for everyone" are not necessarily objective formulations, even though everyone knows that they are. It is hard to believe that you do not know it, especially when you try to compare them with subjective terms like, "it is tasty," or "it is malodorous." That is why Barry comes on so strong. You are misusing the language to create the illusion that you accept the conclusions of objective morality even as you argue for the opposite world view.StephenB
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
#106 StephenB No. Only then does it become a meaningul message. What do you mean by "organised", by the way? Is RAPLPYBCNRQVN organised?Piotr
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
# 105 c hand
What is the PRACTICAL difference in perceiving (rightly or wrongly) as an objective self-evident truth something that “Everyone should believe”?
I am a bit confused by this question - difference between what things precisely?
How would you classify subjective beliefs that should be universally held?
I have no particular classification for such beliefs. I really wouldn't make too much of it. It just seems reasonable to suppose that if I think X is morally good then "everyone else thinking X is morally good" would itself be a morally good thing.Mark Frank
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
piotr
Anything that can occur in two or more distinct states “contains information”. It doesn’t have to be purposeful or to make sense. A purposefully written message is additionally meaningful (provided that the sender and the receiver agree how to interpret the information it carries).
So you are saying that an organized message written on a blackboard contains information only if the sender and receiver agree on how to interpret its meaning?StephenB
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Mark Frank No tricks or traps, just looking for common ground. What is the PRACTICAL difference in perceiving (rightly or wrongly) as an objective self-evident truth something that "Everyone should believe"? How would you classify subjective beliefs that should be universally held?c hand
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Everyone should believe that torturing infants for pleasure is wrong.
Not if we live in a Darwinian world.Joe
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
Piotr:
Anything that can occur in two or more distinct states “contains information”.
What information does it contain? My bet is it contains the information that makes it what it is and that has meaning and purpose.
It doesn’t have to be purposeful or to make sense.
Reference please.Joe
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
c hand
C) “Torturing infants for pleasure is wrong” is a correctly held subjectve belief that all people should hold.
Not sure what you mean by "correctly held". The word correct kind of implies it is objective. I would accept: Everyone should believe that torturing infants for pleasure is wrong. I suspect you are trying to lay some kind of trap. I wouldn't bother. I have conducting this argument for about 10 years and know most of the twists and turns. It usually ends up with Barry declaring he is obviously or self-evidently right and therefore I am wrong.Mark Frank
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Mark Frank C) “Torturing infants for pleasure is wrong” is a correctly held subjective belief that all people should hold. Do you agree?c hand
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
StephenB If you don’t think that a written message with purposefully organized characters contains information... Anything that can occur in two or more distinct states "contains information". It doesn't have to be purposeful or to make sense. A purposefully written message is additionally meaningful (provided that the sender and the receiver agree how to interpret the information it carries).Piotr
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
Barry #97 OK. So you have resorted to saying "what I believe is an obvious fact and you are liar". Curiously I am not even clear what the obvious fact is! As I tried to explain in the other thread there are two statements that are easily confused: A) Torturing infants for pleasure is wrong under all circumstances. I agree with this - I cannot conceive of a convincing counter-example. B) Everyone under all circumstances believes it is wrong to torture infants for pleasure. This is very likely false. It seems to me our disagreement is not over (A ) or (B ) but this third statement: C) "Torturing infants for pleasure is wrong" is an self-evident objective fact. I certainly disagree with this. If you think I am lying when I assert (C ) then you are presumably accusing all those philosophers who hold similar views to myself of deliberate falsehood.Mark Frank
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
On the discussion of information: Here is Dembski:
What then is information? The fundamental intuition underlying information is not, as is sometimes thought, the transmission of signals across a communication channel, but rather, the actualization of one possibility to the exclusion of others. As Fred Dretske (1981, p. 4) puts it, "Information theory identifies the amount of information associated with, or generated by, the occurrence of an event (or the realization of a state of affairs) with the reduction in uncertainty, the elimination of possibilities, represented by that event or state of affairs." To be sure, whenever signals are transmitted across a communication channel, one possibility is actualized to the exclusion of others, namely, the signal that was transmitted to the exclusion of those that weren't. But this is only a special case. Information in the first instance presupposes not some medium of communication, but contingency. Robert Stalnaker (1984, p. 85) makes this point clearly: "Content requires contingency. To learn something, to acquire information, is to rule out possibilities. To understand the information conveyed in a communication is to know what possibilities would be excluded by its truth." For there to be information, there must be a multiplicity of distinct possibilities any one of which might happen. When one of these possibilities does happen and the others are ruled out, information becomes actualized. Indeed, information in its most general sense can be defined as the actualization of one possibility to the exclusion of others (observe that this definition encompasses both syntactic and semantic information).
Barry Arrington
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Mark Frank @ 89. I would not put it as "has no further recourse." I would put it as "stating an obvious fact." When you say you believe torturing an infant for personal pleasure might be an affirmatively good thing depending on the circumstances, you are lying. I know you do not believe that. And when you start telling obvious lies to support your argument, it is no use arguing with you.Barry Arrington
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
piotr
Now you are confusing meaning with information. A message on a blackboard, if written in a language someone understands, is meaningful to the users of that language. It has little to do with information as a formal concept, except that information transfer is necessary to transmit a meaningful message.
I am afraid that you are the one who is confused. With respect to the message on the blackboard, I was referring to information only. I said nothing at all about its "meaning." I used the word meaning only in the context of your claim to the effect that you don't know what "matter" means. If you don't think that a written message with purposefully organized characters contains information, then I don't think I can carry the discussion any further. No refutation that I could muster would ever be as devastating as your own self refutation.StephenB
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
The argument that the mix of chemicals has nothing to do with morality will be smack down by atheists and materialists. Their ideological basis is that this mix can produce the mind and ergo our morality. They will argue that in one case in trillions and trillions, and especially by the "multiverse manufacturer" some mixes of chemicals are clever enough to think that mind arises without a punch by ultimate Intelligent Designer.Levan
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
Piotr:
Meaning is the role (or set of roles) of a sign in a given communicative context.
Without meaning what is information?
One and the same physical sign may be interpreted completely differently by different people in different situations.
Yes, so what?
The sign-meaning association is in principle arbitrary, so you can’t say that the meaning of a sign somehow resides in it;
I didn't say that. The meaning is obviously immaterial, Piotr.
The amount of information carried by a message is not a function of its meaning but of the total number of possible messages of the same length (no matter if they are meaningful or meaningless) that can be sen via the same medium.
So you won't get the meaning if you don't know the other possible messages of the same length? What's your point? My point is it isn't information if it doesn't have any meaning.Joe
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
Joe, Meaning is the role (or set of roles) of a sign in a given communicative context. One and the same physical sign may be interpreted completely differently by different people in different situations. The sign-meaning association is in principle arbitrary, so you can't say that the meaning of a sign somehow resides in it; it's only triggered by the sign. The amount of information carried by a message is not a function of its meaning but of the total number of possible messages of the same length (no matter if they are meaningful or meaningless) that can be sen via the same medium.Piotr
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
Just because Shannon didn't care about meaning doesn't mean information is not about meaning. Shannon didn't care about meaning because the transmitting and receiving equipment doesn't care about meaning. The equipment just needs to transmit what it is told to transmit and the receiver receives whatever is transmitted. Shannon cared about the fidelity of the transmission, reception and storage of a signal, regardless of what that signal was.Joe
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT
Now you are confusing meaning with information.
Without meaning what is the information?
A message on a blackboard, if written in a language someone understands, is meaningful to the users of that language.
Could be. So what? Information is neither matter nor energy. That is just a fact. True matter and energy are required as media for information but that is the only relationship they have. But I do disagree with Stephen B- information cannot be destroyed. The media it resides can be but that is it.Joe
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
#75 StephenB Now you are confusing meaning with information. A message on a blackboard, if written in a language someone understands, is meaningful to the users of that language. It has little to do with information as a formal concept, except that information transfer is necessary to transmit a meaningful message. If you claim that by erasing the chalk marks from the blackboard you destroy information, let me ask: how much information do you destroy? How do you measure it? If the message says F&T$v4PRLO!;NmSA*+3, or looks like this, how do you decide whether it contains some "immaterial information" or not?Piotr
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT
#84 Tim  
Of course, these “emergent qualities” explain nothing. Even being self-consciously alive, on materialism, is an arbitrary descriptor of our condition which does nothing to fundamentally cause moral right to obtain. I know Mark Frank, in particular, pushes the idea that moral rights do obtain “because we are human” out of what I can surmise is a limited “emergent” desire for our species (again, with other types and forms of “Rights” for other life forms), but the “what is it” in question number four remains: our materialist friends are faced with their only honest answer, “the ‘what is it’ is an arbitrary construct both found in and explained by itself — “human being.” And that, of course, must be both the beginning and end of the discussion.
I deliberately avoided talking about emergent qualities as I agree calling them emergent doesn’t add much. All I am saying is that as a matter of fact we respond differently to chemicals when they are arranged as a living human body and placed in a social environment. This is an obvious fact of psychology. It is clearly not dependent on the belief that there is some immaterial aspect to being human as we make similar responses to animals and even machines when they are sufficiently life-like. So really question 4 comes to the same old debate that we are having all over UD – is being “a repository of moral rights” an immaterial attribute of a human being or a function of how that human being takes part in the social activity which is morality. As you say that is the end of the discussion - in the sense that Barry has no further recourse but to say he is self-evidently right and I am lying. The thought experiment adds nothing to it.Mark Frank
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT
I would again like to draw attention to the studies that show how certain higher mammals display behaviours that for all the world look like they care about each other. Does this mean that those animals also have souls? Or does it mean that caring for one another is not proof that one has a soul? fGfaded_Glory
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT
I myself,from within an animated bag of chemicals, perceive a moral duty toward others. Living bags of chemicals have no moral duties without an "I" within. It's just you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-iQldPiH64c hand
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT
Tim,
Were it found that I have no soul I would NOT care for people deeply; look around you, goodusername, at all the life that is soul-less. Does the salmon care for the salmon next to it? Deeply?
No, I don't think salmon are capable of such feelings. If salmon were sentient, intelligent creatures endowed with empathy, then I believe they would.
What is in fact happening is that people access and are moved by their souls to care for others, deeply, even as they deny the existence of souls.
Well, if you define the soul as that part of us that moves us to care about others, than I can see why you would think we wouldn't care for each other without souls. But as the statement of mine that you quoted said, "if somehow it were discovered" that you, and others, lacked a soul, would you then stop caring for others? Obviously not. You would then merely conclude that the soul was not responsible for such feelings. But the point of my statement was that the notion of a soul is not why we care about others.goodusername
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
Tim, excellent summary. Maybe there is a materialist answer to question 4 that makes sense. I don't know what it would be. Apparently, neither do any of the materialists who post on this site.Barry Arrington
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
I applaud Barry for the early attempts to keep the thread on point, and although the voiced concern over not letting everyone see the other posts was heard, as he said, if you don't like it get your own blog. The vast majority of lame divergent posts are allowed in most threads, so just trying to get "our materialist friends" to bust out a straightforward answer to question number four this time is fine by me. Somewhere, somewhere deep in the lengths and "twinings" of the thread, our friends managed to say something, some thing, about being alive, (homeostasis and ff.) and interaction and kinship. The only "qualities" found in being "human beings" so far on materialism seems to be 1)there is an emergent quality that we call being "alive" and 2) we all seem to be in a similar boat, hence kinship, and in turn lessening levels of kinship with those with whom we have less similarity. Of course, these "emergent qualities" explain nothing. Even being self-consciously alive, on materialism, is an arbitrary descriptor of our condition which does nothing to fundamentally cause moral right to obtain. I know Mark Frank, in particular, pushes the idea that moral rights do obtain "because we are human" out of what I can surmise is a limited "emergent" desire for our species (again, with other types and forms of "Rights" for other life forms), but the "what is it" in question number four remains: our materialist friends are faced with their only honest answer, "the 'what is it' is an arbitrary construct both found in and explained by itself -- "human being." And that, of course, must be both the beginning and end of the discussion. For if we look too closely at what a human being is, on materialism, it is hard to find what separates humans from their constituent elements, even if when those elements "are really jamming," we can read the International Herald Tribune and clip our toenails. A pile of our elements can "do" things, too: be blown away in the wind, slump over in a sack, stiffen, harden, etc. That we "initiate" or even "reflect" on our actions, again on materialism, makes such interesting descriptors like "initiate" and "reflect" moot. I'll end (eventually) with this quote from goodusername:
There are many people whom I’m sure you care for deeply, and you still would even if somehow it were discovered they lacked a soul.
I am deeply troubled by this statement; I hope it is because it is nonsense. Assuming that being endowed with a soul is universal for humans (either we all have souls, or none of us do), goodusername has got it exactly backward and quite wrong. Were it found that I have no soul I would NOT care for people deeply; look around you, goodusername, at all the life that is soul-less. Does the salmon care for the salmon next to it? Deeply? What is in fact happening is that people access and are moved by their souls to care for others, deeply, even as they deny the existence of souls. It can be no other way, nor can there be any other explanation. As Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy, "We talk of wild animals but man is the only wild animal. It is man that has broken out. All other animals are tame animals; following the rugged respectability of the tribe or type" "What is it" that frees humans from the "rugged respectability" that orders tribe and type; "what is it" that gives us "should" and "ought" and "virtue"? No, it is not being human on a great continuum of life. Among numerous singularities, here is another: "Man is the only wild animal."Tim
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington:
What is it about the mixture of chemicals we call “human being” that makes it the repository of moral rights (i.e., the converse of the moral duty you owe it)?
To begin with is this that you probably did not study either: https://sites.google.com/site/theoryofid/home/TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pdf
Conclusion This theory has explained why we are a product of intelligent design that contains a trinity of emergent levels of biological intelligence, as follows: (1) Molecular Intelligence: Behavior of matter is a self-assembling behavioral cause of molecular intelligence, where RNA and DNA genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of their accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is a primary source of our instinctual behaviors, and causes molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation). (2) Cellular Intelligence: Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and cellular level social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity). (3) Multicellular Intelligence: Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and multicellular level social differentiation (i.e. occupation). The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...
Gary S. Gaulin
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
piotr
What I’m driving at is that the dualism “matter vs. information” looks artificial to me — an anachronistic distinction from the time when elementary particles were visualised as tiny billiard balls. What is matter?
Perhaps, I can make this easier with a classic example. If I use chalk to write a message on the blackboard, and if I then erase the blackboard, the information is destroyed but the chalk remains. Do you understand that the information is not, nor can be, the chalk? Under the circumstances, do you also understand that the distinction between the chalk and the information is not "artificial" or "anachronistic."StephenB
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply