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
StephenB: Information is an arrangement of matter. An arrangement cannot be material.
I fully agree with the latter. However I'm not sure that information *is* an arrangement of matter. If the exact same information can be stored in several media - distinct arrangements of matter - does it not follow that information is something other than a specific arrangement of matter? And if we state that distinct arrangements of matter *are* the same information, what are we saying? It is one thing to say that information is usually presented (or expressed or even symbolized) in an arrangement of matter, it something else to say that information *is* an arrangement of matter.Box
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
I don't see information as vital in this thought experiment. The difference between the recently deceased person and the living twin is not one of information.rhampton7
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
#77 Barry Arrington, I know. It's equally nonsensical as saying a particle has the properties of a wave, or vice versa.Piotr
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
Piotr, modern information theory was formulated in the 1940's long after Quantum theory prevailed. And, in by far and away most cases, the level of matter at which information is stored in arrangements, is in fact well above that where such is material. The prong heights in a Yale lock type key are informational, and the prong height pattern of mRNA in a ribosome works in much the same key-lock fit fashion to control protein synthesis. The sequence of coded punched holes in a paper tape and the prong height coded sequence in the same mRNA in the ribosome are both sequential storage tapes. SB is right. KF PS: and the 1/2 life of an electron is? (as opposed to a muon)kairosfocus
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
but it would be equally legitimate to treat mass as information.
No it would not. To say that mass is information is literally nonsensical on the order of saying green is square. Let us say the mass of particle X is 1. That the mass of particle X is 1 is a property of particle X. The mass itself is not information. The fact that the mass of particle X is 1 (and not 2 or 3 or any other value) is information. Information is, fundamentally, the elimination of possibilities.Barry Arrington
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
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? You seem to identify it with mass/energy, but it would be equally legitimate to treat mass as information. The mass of the electron, for example, is what distinguishes it from the muon and the tauon (their charges and spins are the same). Ditto for the sign of electric charge (the only difference between the electron and the positron), ditto for the orientation of the spin, etc. Today, the proton is not even regarded as an elementary particle but as a pretty complex dynamic system consisting of three valence quarks surrounded by a cloud of virtual gluons and virtual quark-antiquark pairs. Just a tiny proportion of its mass is accounted for by the masses of the valence quarks; the rest is -- yes -- an emergent effect of the gluon field. Where's the "matter" of the proton? Why should we regard it as indestructible?Piotr
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
piotr
I have a problem with vague terems like “matter” and “material” (not to mention “materialist”).
I am addressing the claims of commentators like Mark Frank (and just about every other critic on this site), who characterize themselves as materialists and who know what they mean when they use that word. They think information can be reduced to matter. I am persuaded that I have refuted their claim. Accordingly, I have stated that information is an arrangement of matter. Arrangements are non material. You say that information is a pattern. Very well, information is a pattern.----of what? If the word matter is too "vague" or has no meaning for you, then feel free to plug in your own word.StephenB
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
StephenB, I have a problem with vague terems like "matter" and "material" (not to mention "materialist"). Matter can't be destroyed, you say? Is it another way of saying that mass-energy is conserved? Then why paraphrase a conservation law if the original formulation is more precise? Ah, but mass and energy are properties, not objects. Linear momentum is also conserved ("can't be destroyed"): does it mean that momentum is material? Is electric charge (also conserved) material? If two protons collide in the LHC and disintegrate into a shower of miscellaneous particles, their energy and momentum are conserved, but aren't the protons themselves "destroyed"? Are protons material?Piotr
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
piotr
Glad to note you agree that information doesn’t exist without something that can be arranged into a pattern (in space/time). That excludes disembodied information as something that could be encoded or transmitted.
Whatever the necessary conditions for its coding or transmission may be, information is still non-material? We know this both through logic and empirical science: Logic: Information is an arrangement of matter. An arrangement cannot be material. Science: Information can be destroyed. Matter cannot be destroyed. Therefore, information cannot be material.StephenB
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
Information is an arrangement of matter. Arrangements are not material. Glad to note you agree that information doesn't exist without something that can be arranged into a pattern (in space/time). That excludes disembodied information as something that could be encoded or transmitted.Piotr
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
ppolish, The obvious difference between a corpse and a living person narrows the focus of the question to its essential because only one variable changes. What is the difference in our moral duty to life versus non-life? In addition, this framing of the question still touches the issue of objective morality. Looking at human cultures over history, there are many differing answers. So, what is the objectively correct moral duty owed to a recently deceased person, and why?rhampton7
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
piotr
Information always has a physical representation and can only be transmitted using a physical medium. To say that it isn’t material is like claiming that two electrons can’t be material because in order to distinguish them from one or three electrons you have to determine their number, and numbers are not matter or energy.
Information is an arrangement of matter. Arrangements are not material. How it is represented or transmitted is not a description of what it is.StephenB
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
Mark Frank
This assumes that there are non-material effects. If you are a materialist then clearly you don’t believe such effects exist.
I presented two examples of materialist claims of effects that occur without proportional causes. That should have been a clue that the proposed transition from matter to non-matter is not the only example. Materialism posits many such unaccounted for effects, such as the transformation from non-life to life, which would be an effect without a proportional cause. Second, it is a fact that information is non material. The arrangement (not the existence) of nucleotides exists as a non-material reality. So it is with a process, or a disposition, or an order of events or objects. In that context, then, it hardly matters that you have beliefs at odds with those facts.StephenB
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Barry Arringon: Faded Glory @ 38. A single word does not an argument make. You asked a modest question (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)?, I gave you my modest answer. I can elaborate if you wish. We observe that humans are conditioned to assign the most value to those who are closest to them. Closest family usually comes first, followed by more remote family and friends, then other people, and the more remote and/or different, the less we care. Perhaps not nice or fair, but it seems to be the way most people are wired. It goes down from there to animals, and again most people value animals that are closer to humans more than others. Whereas all of us would squat a fly, none of us would kill a dog off-hand except perhaps as an act of kindness to put is put of its misery. Nobody I ever heard of has any moral issues with weeding unwanted plants from our gardens. Valuing minerals for anything other than their usefulness, financial value or beauty is just weird. In other words, this is not a black and white issue but a gradational scale of how we feel connected and related to other living beings, and why we assign corresponding value to them. I think this may well have roots in our evolutional heritage and mankind's particular background as social animals. Therefore my answer: kinship. fGfaded_Glory
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
#59 StephenB Information is any pattern that contrasts with another pattern (and so "makes a difference"). Any binary contrast (like absence versus presence of anything is one bit of information by definition. No big deal. Information always has a physical representation and can only be transmitted using a physical medium. To say that it isn't material is like claiming that two electrons can't be material because in order to distinguish them from one or three electrons you have to determine their number, and numbers are not matter or energy.Piotr
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
People will form attachments to other people, things, ideas, symbols, notions of themselves, a distant past that inhabits their thoughts. That’s what makes life what it is for most of humanity.
And more handwaving. I thought it said "Handwaving aside."?Joe
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
Zachriel: People form attachments to non-human, or even non-organic things. Barry Arrington: Your response is not worthy of notice. Heh. Handwaving aside, it's a fact. People will form attachments to other people, things, ideas, symbols, notions of themselves, a distant past that inhabits their thoughts. That's what makes life what it is for most of humanity. Logic is all well and good, but rarefied morality has precious little currency with most people. It's passion that drives people to act.Zachriel
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Materialists cannot explain information, which is neither matter, energy or anything that emerges from their interactions. Materialism cannot explain the existence of living organisms.Joe
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
Materialistic emergence is different because it posits an effect without a proportional cause. There is nothing present in matter or in material conditions, for example, that could produce a non-material effect, such as information.
This assumes that there are non-material effects. If you are a materialist then clearly you don’t believe such effects exist. In particular, in the context of this OP, the OP assumes that there is a property of an object “repository of moral rights” which then needs to be explained. If you realise that actually morals and ethics are defined by people’s reactions to the events and objects then the problem goes away.  The system of chemicals that is our body and its context in the broader environment cause other bodies to react to it in that distinctive way we call morality.  Mark Frank
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
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)?
Human beings belong to a class of physical objects that are more than a mixture of chemicals and anything that emerges from that mixture. Meaning human beings and all other living organisms are emergent properties.Joe
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
SB @ 59. Even some atheists understand this. The reasons you describe are precisely the reasons Nagel calls emergantism "magic" in this context.Barry Arrington
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
piotr
There is nothing mystical about “emergent properties”. Of course, calling something “emergent” is not a sufficient explanation, because “emergence” is not a particular schema for generating complexity. It’s a general term for a large variety of natural mechanisms. They have been studied and described formally in terms of thermodynamics and control theory. Some emergent phenomena are relatively simple and well understood (say, honeycomb-like convection cells in oil heated in a frying-pan); others are more complex and cannot be explained in minor detail, although we have a general idea how they work and can study them using computer simulations (weather phenomena such as tornadoes belong in this class). Still others remain intractable at least for the time being (especially if they involve multiple layers of complexity and numerous feedback loops). But we know at least that complexity does arise naturally."
The phenomenon of an emergent effect is possible when a proportional cause or the proportional causal conditions that could produce it are already in place. It can happen, for example, when physical causal conditions produce another physical effect, as in a thunderstorm. (A "proportional" cause is one that is sufficient for the task.) Materialistic emergence is different because it posits an effect without a proportional cause. There is nothing present in matter or in material conditions, for example, that could produce a non-material effect, such as information. There is no logical pathway from matter to non-matter or from non-intelligence to organization. Thus, emergence in that context, is irrational because it posits an effect without a proportional cause.StephenB
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
I am gaveling the discussion of cannibalism. It has served its purpose of showing that Me Think is a nihilist. As I implied above, nihilism is an honest position even if I disagree with it. It is far better than the "cake and eat it too" materialists we get so often on these pages.Barry Arrington
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
REC @ 31
Is watery-ness an “emergent property” of the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen? Or is this what we call chemistry?
Yes, I ignored your reference to emergentism before. When it comes to the issues we are discussing here, I agree with atheist Thomas Nagel, who calls emergentism materialist “magic.” See my discussion here. But even if I grant for the sake of argument that the “emergent property” evasion somehow really is an answer that accounts for the data, you have not answered the question. As I stated in the post linked above I grant that many systems have emergent properties. But I am sure you will agree that the mere fact that a system exhibits emergent properties does not mean the system is a repository of moral rights implicating my and your moral duties. Flocks of birds; schools of fish and hurricanes exhibit emergent properties. I have no duty to refrain from murdering a flock of birds.
I’ll continue with a short answer. The difference between life and a pile of chemicals is that life is a precisely bonded arrangement of those chemicals, maintaining homeostasis, far from equilibrium.
You seem to think that because a bag of chemicals is arranged in a particular way, it all of a sudden becomes a repository of rights. You give no explanation for why this should be so. It certainly is not self-evident. So, again, your answer amounts to nothing more than an assertion. It is not an argument. AS @ 36: Your reference to MacDougall’s kooky experiment leads me to believe you are not being serious. Faded Glory @ 38. A single word does not an argument make. Piotr @ 33 You are good at writing mocking dismissive irrelevancies while ignoring the 800 pound gorilla sitting next to you on the couch. As I said to GUN, I understand. You are afraid to look. As Nietzsche said, “if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.” And that is a frightening prospect. Better to avert your eyes. Piotr @ 43
There is nothing mystical about “emergent properties”
It depends. Again, I agree with Thomas Nagel. In some contexts it is appropriate. In other contexts (especially the one we are talking about here), it is materialist “magic.” Your discussion of emergence is actually a fair summary. The issues, of course, are twofold. (1) the fact that emergence works as an explanation for hurricanes by no means implies that it works as an explanation for, say, subjective self-awareness. (2) more importantly, as I explained to REC above, it does not even begin to answer the question. Gentlemen, try to focus on the question. Here it is again.
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)?
The response “emergent properties are involved” does not address, much less answer, the question unless you can further explain why those emergent properties make a difference with respect to whether the system suddenly becomes a repository of moral rights. Surely you will agree that many systems that exhibit emergent properties are not repositories of moral rights (e.g., flocks, schools, hurricanes). It follows that “it has emergent properties” is not an explanation for why a system is the repository of moral rights. Zachriel @ 47. Your response is not worthy of notice. Go back. Think harder. Try again. KF @ 50. Indeed. There is nothing new under the sun.Barry Arrington
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
Me Think, I take it your answer to question 4 is "nothing." Now that is a straightforward, honest and even courageous answer that I think Nietzsche would have applauded. Much better than your materialist friends.Barry Arrington
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Also if evolutionism were true than humans eating other humans would be OK.Joe
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: That makes me ask why the difference between catching and roasting a fish for lunch and cannibalism. The latter might go well with some fava beans and a nice Chianti. With the former, try rice pilaf and a Sauvignon Blanc from the Adelaide Hills.Zachriel
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Me Think:
So you would eat humans?
I don't eat other land animals, so why would I eat humans?Joe
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
KF,
That makes me ask why the difference between catching and roasting a fish for lunch and cannibalism.
We have enough food without restoring to cannibalism. I am sure you have heard desperate survivors resorting to cannibalism, and it was pretty common in early centuries.Me_Think
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
MT, That makes me ask why the difference between catching and roasting a fish for lunch and cannibalism. KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply