At Evolution News: “Why Life?”: A Question Atheist Scientists Never Ask

_{Eric Hedin

December 21, 2022

Atheism, Intelligent Design, The Design of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Stephen J. Iacoboni‘s article contains a profound question…

One cannot understand organisms — that is, life itself — without incorporating the concept of purpose within biology, the science of organisms. Such purpose is observable and measurable, and therefore well within the bounds of scientific inquiry.

In order to understand life, it is not sufficient to simply observe what is happening. The real question is why things are the way they are.
However, did we not just decide that animals eat because they are hungry and avoid danger to eschew harm? Yes, these are clearly purpose-driven activities, and they all have a biochemical or physiologic basis.
True enough. But the deeper question is, why are these physiologic stimuli there in the first place? Answer: to allow for life. But then… why life?

“Why life?” is the ultimate question.

If, as the atheist scientists endlessly insist, we exist merely as an accidental collocation of molecules strewn together on some small planet in the backwater of an insignificant galaxy, then again, “Why life?”

Time, Energy, and Matter

The answer, finally, comes all the way back to where we started: purpose. Time, energy, and inanimate matter carry on ceaselessly with no apparent purpose. But arising out of the inorganic are living creatures, utterly purpose-driven. There is absolutely no reason for purpose-driven life to exist within this milieu, unless purpose itself exists at the fundamental core of reality itself.

Every religion has taught this, always. It is not a new revelation, however forgotten in modern times.
Let us return to the wisdom of our elders.
Full article at Evolution News.

Humans have a tendency to want to keep living. Why? If we are an undirected, purposeless outcome of the forces of nature acting on various atoms, how could such an organism want anything?

Comments

"it appears to be important to your personal belief-system to reject emergence as nonsense" Origenes in not alone in his belief that the word 'emergent', especially when used by atheists to try to explain something away, is, for the most part, nonsense,, for instance,,,
Consciousness: What are some concise ways to convince people that consciousness is not an emergent property? Excerpt: It's pretty easy because claims of emergent consciousness are simply philosophical assumptions dressed up as science. You can poke holes in this edifice in three crucial ways, teasing apart the idea that consciousness (1) is an emergent (2) property of the brain (3). Emergent First, "emergent property" is an oft-misused term. With respect to consciousness, it is one of those hand-wavey terms people like to throw around without any substance behind it. Used appropriately it can refer to an incredibly useful scientific hypothesis. A basic definition is something like complex properties that result from the interaction of simple behaviors. When people talk about emergent consciousness, they show nothing of this sort and therefore don't answer the how of consciousness. Some crucial questions that "emergence" doesn't answer, which actual scientific emergent explanations tackle include: *How does consciousness arise from chemical interactions leading to electric impulses? *Why is there consciousness instead of something else? *How does physiology constrain and define this so-called emergent property? The crucial thing missing here is mechanism. When we talk about real emergent properties, like those of a network, for example, we can show how a specific type of network (e.g., a Small-world network) will emerge in lots of different situations, (e.g., the brain, social networks etc.) because of simple properties that connections between things have: some sort of relationship between viability and proximity. From this you get lots of local connections and a few non-local ones in certain proportions. Crucially, this makes sense in a mechanistic way where you can understand how the simple properties specifically gives rise to the larger organization and basically only this organization and you can model it -- see it happen before your eyes. The same cannot be said of consciousness and synapses. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for emergence as explanatory when worked out in sufficient detail (e.g., An Exemplar-Based Computational Model of Chain Shifts), but that has yet to be done with consciousness and it's not even close, because it is currently at square zero. Has anyone shown a model that exhibits properties of self awareness and qualitative experience from chemical properties? Again, not even close. Terrence Deacon articulates this well in Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter: Emergentism is simply playing a shell game, taking the mysticism it purports to explain, and calling it "emergence".,,, So, emergentism, in this context, is simply camouflaging the supernatural wolf in the sheep's clothing of pretend science and pretend explanation. It is merely renaming the philosophical imperative (and perhaps belief) of monism and materialism as something that sounds explanatory. - Marc Ettlinger, Research Neuroscientist, Department of Veterans Affairs http://www.quora.com/Consciousness/What-are-some-concise-ways-to-convince-people-that-consciousness-is-not-an-emergent-property/answer/Marc-Ettlinger?srid=4tp&share=1
bornagain77_{December 22, 2022
December
12
Dec
22
22
2022
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

emergence is *poof-poof*ery dressed in a cardigan, smoking a pipe
Suppose emergence was an actuality, what would that entail? So far any meaningful emergence is restricted to atomic physics. But if it did show up in biology, then what would that imply? The laws of nature are fine tuned as well as it’s constituent elements. This would mean the creator had the emergence in mind. But we don’t see it. Why? This and some other obvious questions are never answered let alone pursued.
For the curious, the SEP entry on emergent properties has a nice overview of the history of the idea and its role in contemporary debates.
But we are never given any examples. Why? We are just told to read esoteric documents. ID proposes fine tuning as an example of intelligence and readily gives hundreds of examples. ID specifies others areas of design and denotes them in detail. No lack of actual examples backed up by realistic probabilities. Amazing difference between the ideas.jerry_{December 22, 2022
December
12
Dec
22
22
2022
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

@9
emergence is *poof-poof*ery dressed in a cardigan smoking a pipe.
I don't know why, but it appears to be important to your personal belief-system to reject emergence as nonsense. But it's not. For the curious, the SEP entry on emergent properties has a nice overview of the history of the idea and its role in contemporary debates.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 22, 2022
December
12
Dec
22
22
2022
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

PM1 @
To be sure, I do think that Nagel is onto something important when he writes, in Mind and Cosmos, that the universe is somehow biased towards the emergence of teleological systems.
Somehow ... . Fermions and bosons just doing what they always do, minding their own business, and yet ***somehow*** every once in a while, they team up to be "biased towards the emergence of teleological systems." Surely, Nagel will come up with a plausible explanation for this infrequent "bias", other than intelligent design. Perhaps his next book will tell us more.Origenes_{December 22, 2022
December
12
Dec
22
22
2022
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

"the universe is somehow biased towards the emergence" PM1, This stuff is great to hold forth about over drinks, but in all seriousness, scientifically, no one knows what the universe is, somehow = I Don't Know, and we all do know that emergence is *poof-poof*ery dressed in a cardigan, smoking a pipe. Andrewasauber_{December 22, 2022
December
12
Dec
22
22
2022
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

e. Time, energy, and inanimate matter carry on ceaselessly with no apparent purpose. But arising out of the inorganic are living creatures, utterly purpose-driven. There is absolutely no reason for purpose-driven life to exist within this milieu, unless purpose itself exists at the fundamental core of reality itself.
I am uncertain as to Iacoboni's reasoning here. Yes, we do need an explanation as for how organisms as natural purposes arose from non-purposive processes. But why must that explanation itself be teleological? To be sure, I do think that Nagel is onto something important when he writes, in Mind and Cosmos, that the universe is somehow biased towards the emergence of teleological systems. And I do think that general systems theory shows that we should revive what Aristotelians call "formal causation" (Alicia Juarrero has written a very good book on this, with a follow-up scheduled for publication in a few months.) I'm unsure if a tendency or bias towards complexity and the emergence of teleology is itself teleological. But I think that's what Iacoboni needs to demonstrate.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 22, 2022
December
12
Dec
22
22
2022
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Science deals with how.
No, it does that but it also deals with what exists. So what exists is probably just as important as how it operates. Examining both are at a minimum necessary. So the above remark is incredibly naive.
You would think that those claiming to understand science would understand this fundamental aspect of science.
More naivety. ID is science+ So ID integrates what science discovers with logic. The universe shouts purpose and this must be interpreted. The interesting thing is that there exist entities that can consider this additional question of why. Or purpose. Why do these entities exist? So “why” must be an essential part of any enquiry. And why do entities that can speculate on the “why” exist? If this goes beyond normal science, so be it. But that is ID or science+. ID is a more complete form of enquiry than science. jerry_{December 22, 2022
December
12
Dec
22
22
2022
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

And in the following article, Stephen Talbott challenges Darwinists to, “pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness, (i.e. teleology)”
The ‘Mental Cell’: Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm
This working biologist agrees with both of Noble and Talbott’s assessments and states, “in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.”
Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails – Ann Gauger – June 2011 Excerpt: I’m a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them. Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn’t troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it’s high time we moved on. – Matthew http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161
And as the following 2020 article pointed out, “teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological.”
Metaphor and Meaning in the Teleological Language of Biology Annie L. Crawford – August 2020 Abstract: Excerpt: However, most discussions regarding the legitimacy of teleological language in biology fail to consider the nature of language itself. Since conceptual language is intrinsically metaphorical, teleological language can be dismissed as decorative if and only if it can be replaced with alternative metaphors without loss of essential meaning. I conclude that, since teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological. https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/biologists-cant-stop-using-purpose-driven-language-because-life-really-is-designed/
And whereas it is found that "“teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power", the type of words that can be readily jettisoned from research papers, without explanatory loss, are the 'narrative gloss' words of Darwinian evolution itself. As the late Philip Skell pointed out, “In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core.”
“In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.” – Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005
And as Evolutionary biologist Robert Reid stated, “Indeed the language of neo-Darwinism is so careless that the words ‘divine plan’ can be substituted for ‘selection pressure’ in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of argument.”
Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection Has Left a Legacy of Confusion over Biological Adaptation Brian Miller – September 20, 2021 Excerpt: Evolutionary biologist Robert Reid stated: “Indeed the language of neo-Darwinism is so careless that the words ‘divine plan’ can be substituted for ‘selection pressure’ in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of argument.” Robert Reid, Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment, PP. 37-38 (2009) To fully comprehend the critique, one simply needs to imagine attempting to craft an evolutionary barometer that measures the selection pressure driving one organism to transform into something different (e.g., fish into an amphibian). The fact that no such instrument could be constructed highlights the fictitious nature of such mystical forces. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/darwins-theory-of-natural-selection-has-left-a-legacy-of-confusion-over-biological-adaptation/
And as Ann Gauger noted, “the icing (the narrative gloss of evolutionary language) sits atop and separate from the cake (the actual experimental data)”
Rewriting Biology Without Spin By Ann Gauger – Jan. 12, 2014 Excerpt: It’s a funny thing—scientific papers often have evolutionary language layered on top of the data like icing on a cake. In most papers, the icing (evolutionary language) sits atop and separate from the cake (the actual experimental data). Even in papers where the evolutionary language is mixed in with the data like chocolate and vanilla in a marble cake, I can still tell one from the other. I have noticed that this dichotomy creates a kind of double vision. I know what the data underlying evolutionary arguments are. By setting aside the premise that evolution is true, I can read what’s on the page and at the same time see how that paper would read if neutral, fact-based language were substituted for evolutionary language. Let me give you an example.,,, http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/107965814309/rewriting-biology-without-spin
Thus in conclusion, teleological, i.e. designed based, language is found to be absolutely essential for doing biological research, whereas ‘evolutionary language’ is found to be a superficial ‘narrative gloss’ that can be, somewhat easily, stripped away from the research papers without negatively effecting the actual science in the papers. In summary, the very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing, and/or describing, their actual biological research falsifies Darwinian evolution and proves that all scientific explanations are not 'bottom-up' as is falsely presupposed within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution. In short, Sir Giles is utterly wrong in his claim that science only deals with 'how' questions and does not deal with 'why', i.e. purpose oriented, questions. Moreover, it is biology itself, via its crucial dependence on teleological, i.e. purpose oriented, explanations, that most convincingly falsifies Sir Giles claim.
Matthew 12:37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Of supplemental note to the fact that the very words that Darwinists are forced to use when they are doing their biological research falsifies Darwinian evolution, it is also (very) interesting to note that, according to atheist professor of philosophy Alex Rosenberg (Duke University), who worked out the implications of atheistic naturalism, if atheistic naturalism were actually true, then it turns out that “no sentence has any meaning.”
2.) The argument from meaning 1. If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning. 2. Premise (1) has meaning. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. – Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ i.e. Dr. Craig’s succinct, and devastating, refutation of atheist Professor Alex Rosenberg’s (Duke University) book “The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions”
:) Not to try to tell atheists how to run their lives, (as if that were even possible), but since your naturalistic worldview renders not only your life, but also your very words, completely meaningless, perhaps it is time for you to seriously look around and try to find some new, and 'not completely insane', worldview? Might I suggest Christian Theism as a rational alternative to the complete insanity, and epic failures, that are inherent in your present Atheistic materialism?
Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.,,,
bornagain77_{December 22, 2022
December
12
Dec
22
22
2022
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

As to: "“Why life?”,,, The answer, finally, comes all the way back to where we started: purpose. Time, energy, and inanimate matter carry on ceaselessly with no apparent purpose. But arising out of the inorganic are living creatures, utterly purpose-driven. There is absolutely no reason for purpose-driven life to exist within this milieu, unless purpose itself exists at the fundamental core of reality itself. To which Sir Giles responded, "Science deals with how, not why. You would think that those claiming to understand science would understand this fundamental aspect of science." So Sir Giles thinks science can safely ignore any and all 'why' questions that seek the teleological purpose, and/or the goal oriented reason. for why something exists and/or for why life exists And he also holds that anyone who argues otherwise does not really understand science? Hmmm, Really???? Well first off, I guess, according to Sir Giles, Aristotle does not understand science since he held, out of his four causes, that 'why' causes were the most important causes to understand, i.e. "we think we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its why, that is to say, its cause",,, and that "(Aristotle's) defense of final causes shows that there are aspects of nature that cannot be explained by efficient and material causes alone. Final causes, he claims, are the best explanation for these aspects of nature.",,, and that, "Final" causation is often referred to as "teleology,",, "end, goal, (purpose)."
Airtotle's four causes,, For Aristotle, science = causal knowledge Thus knowledge of what causes are is essential for every science we think we have knowledge of a thing only when we have grasped its cause (APost. 71 b 9-11. Cf. APost. 94 a 20) we think we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its why, that is to say, its cause (Phys. 194 b 17-20) Aristotle's "causes" are often better thought of as "explanations" or "reasons." Take any single thing, then ask yourself four questions: What is it made of? What made it/what action/what trigger led to its creation/coming to be/happening/becoming what it is? What is it: shape, structure, arrangement? What makes it one sort of thing rather than another? What holds it together? What about the way it is put together makes it work? What is it for? What end is it likely to serve? What goal is it likely to reach? Those four questions correspond to Aristotle's four causes: Material cause: "that out of which" it is made. Efficient Cause: the source of the objects principle of change or stability. Formal Cause: the essence of the object. Final Cause: the end/goal of the object, or what the object is good for. A note about final causes: they always presuppose the formal cause: in order to explain the goal/purpose/end, you must use the formal cause. Each of those four questions leads to a different sort of explanation of the thing. The material cause: “that out of which”, e.g., the bronze of a statue, the letters of a syllable. The formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue, the arrangement of a syllable, the functional structure of a machine or an organism. The efficient cause: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the artisan, the art of bronze-casting the statue, the man who gives advice, the father of the child. The final cause: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, e.g., health is the end of the following things: walking, losing weight, purging, drugs, and surgical tools.,,, ABOUT FINAL CAUSES Physics II 8 is Aristotle's general defense of final causes. He needs to defend them because, he claims, his predecessors believed only in efficient and material causes. His defence of final causes shows that there are aspects of nature that cannot be explained by efficient and material causes alone. Final causes, he claims, are the best explanation for these aspects of nature. Aristotle holds, for example, that certain teeth have certain shapes because of what they are for. Those of carnivores are designed to tear and rip. Those of herbivores are designed to crush (cf. Physics 198b24-27). "Final" causation is often referred to as "teleology," which derives from Greek ????? "end, goal." Teleology is often thought of as requiring an agent separate from the thing that has a final cause. For instance, if an oak tree has a final cause, must there not be something apart from the oak tree that uses the oak tree for some goal or end? The ultimate result of many teleological views is that there must be a God who designs the world: if things have a purpose, whose purpose? If things have a design that makes them FOR certain goals, there must be a designer.,,, https://www.uvm.edu/~jbailly/courses/Aristotle/notes/AristotleCausesNotes.html
Sir Giles may try to object that, "Hey, modern science has moved far beyond Aristotle's antiquated notions of four levels of causation and thus we can safely ignore Aristotles four causes." To that objection, first I would respond that, far from Aristotle being irrelevant to modern science, it can be forcefully argued that Aristotle anticipated the 'collapse of the wave function', i.e. "reduction of potency to act", 2200 to 2300 years before quantum mechanics even came along.
Stephen Hawking: "Philosophy Is Dead" - Michael Egnor - August 3, 2015 Excerpt: The metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas is far and away the most successful framework on which to understand modern science, especially quantum mechanics. Heisenberg knew this (Link on site). Aristotle 2,300 years ago described the basics of collapse of the quantum waveform (reduction of potency to act),,, Real scientists have a meaningful understanding of natural philosophy as it relates to their work. No atheist scientist in the public spotlight today would pass a freshman philosophy class. Think Dawkins. Think Krauss. Think Myers. Think Moran. Think Novella. Think Coyne. Think Hawking. Our 21st-century scientific priesthood -- mostly atheists and materialists to the extent that their metaphysics is coherent enough to be described -- is dominated by half-educated technicians with publicists.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/stephen_hawking_3098261.html "In the experiments about atomic events we have to do with things and facts, with phenomena that are just as real as any phenomena in daily life. But atoms and the elementary particles themselves are not as real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts … The probability wave … mean[s] tendency for something. It’s a quantitative version of the old concept of potentia from Aristotle’s philosophy. It introduces something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy. London: Allen and Unwin. (1958), p. 41 What Is Matter? The Aristotelian Perspective - Michael Egnor - July 21, 2017 Excerpt: Heisenberg, almost alone among the great physicists of the quantum revolution, understood that the Aristotelian concept of potency and act was beautifully confirmed by quantum theory and evidence.,,, Heisenberg wrote: ,,,The probability wave of Bohr, Kramers, Slater… was a quantitative version of the old concept of “potentia” in Aristotelian philosophy. It introduced something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality…The probability function combines objective and subjective elements,,, Thus, the existence of potential quantum states described by Schrodinger’s equation (which is a probability function) are the potency (the “matter”) of the system, and the collapse of the quantum waveform is the reduction of potency to act. To an Aristotelian (like Heisenberg), quantum mechanics isn’t strange at all. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/what-is-matter-the-aristotelian-perspective/ Jerry Coyne Hasn’t Got A Prayer - He Understands Neither Natural Theology Nor Natural Science - Michael Egnor - March 15, 2020 Excerpt: Evidence for the existence of God, as provided by Aquinas, actually consists of the same logical and evidentiary process as science itself, only with much stronger logic and more abundant evidence than any other scientific theory. 1) Change exists in nature (evidence) 2) Change is the actuation of potentiality, and an essential chain of actuations cannot go to infinite regress. A fully actual Prime Mover is necessary (logic) 3) That Prime Mover is what all men call God (conclusion) – Michael Egnor https://mindmatters.ai/2020/03/jerry-coyne-hasnt-got-a-prayer/
To state the obvious, Aristotle's anticipation of wave function collapse is rather stunning proof that Aristotle may have far more to say about modern science than our modern prejudices may be inclined to grant to the ancient sage of Greece. Secondly, I would argue that, contrary to what Sir Giles, and much of modern day science, believe, it is simply impossible to 'scientifically' explain things solely be reference to 'bottom-up' material causes. In short, the fatal flaw in Sir Giles reasoning, and in the reasoning of much of modern day science, is that he and modern science, (since he and modern science are both wedded to the framework of reductive materialism), think that all things can be explained solely by reference to the 'bottom-up' material cause and that 'top-down' final causes can be safely ignored. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. For instance, as George Ellis noted, without 'top-down' causation, Einstein, without 'free-will' is some meaningful sense', then Einstein himself "could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options."
Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will - July 27, 2014 Excerpt: And free will?: Horgan: Einstein, in the following quote, seemed to doubt free will: “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” Do you believe in free will? Ellis: Yes. Einstein is perpetuating the belief that all causation is bottom up. This simply is not the case, as I can demonstrate with many examples from sociology, neuroscience, physiology, epigenetics, engineering, and physics. Furthermore if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options. I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-george-ellis-on-the-importance-of-philosophy-and-free-will/
To state the obvious, Ellis's quip, "indeed it does not seem to make any sense", is an understatement. To deny that Einstein himself was responsible for discovering relativity, and instead claim that the laws of physics somehow discovered themselves in nothing short of insanity. As Ellis went on to further explain, without reference to 'top-down' causation, and I might add 'intelligent' causation, then computers and computer programs are both left without an adequate causal explanation for how they came into existence.
Recognising Top-Down Causation - George Ellis Excerpt: Causation: The nature of causation is highly contested territory, and I will take a pragmatic view: Definition 1: Causal Effect If making a change in a quantity X results in a reliable demonstrable change in a quantity Y in a given context, then X has a causal effect on Y. Example: I press the key labelled “A” on my computer keyboard; the letter “A” appears on my computer screen.,,, Definition 2: Existence If Y is a physical entity made up of ordinary matter, and X is some kind of entity that has a demonstrable causal effect on Y as per Definition 1, then we must acknowledge that X also exists (even if it is not made up of such matter). This is clearly a sensible and testable criterion; in the example above, it leads to the conclusion that both the data and the relevant software exist. If we do not adopt this definition, we will have instances of uncaused changes in the world; I presume we wish to avoid that situation.,,, Excerpt: page 5: A: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts.,,, The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2275.pdf
Contrary to what Sir Giles, and much of modern day science, holds, it is simply impossible to 'scientifically' explain things solely by reference to 'bottom-up' material causes. The computer sitting right in front of Sir Giles is evidence, in and of itself, that 'top-down', intelligent, causation, even teleological causation, is very much a legitimate scientific explanation. Moreover, molecular biology itself betrays Darwinian materialists. It is simply impossible to describe the complexities of molecular biology without resorting to teleological, i.e. goal and/or purpose oriented, explanations. Which is to say, it is impossible for molecular biologists to do their research without resorting to goal oriented explanations for 'why' a molecule may do what it does, instead of just trying to explain 'how' biological molecules may do what they do. In short, the very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. The renowned J.B.S. Haldane himself admitted as much, “Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.”
“Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.” - J. B. S. Haldane
As Denis Noble, Emeritus Professor of the University of Oxford, states, “it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language”.
“the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.” – Denis Noble – Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford. http://www.thebestschools.org/dialogues/evolution-denis-noble-interview/
bornagain77_{December 22, 2022
December
12
Dec
22
22
2022
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

Given that fermions and bosons are all that exist, why do they form organisms? And if organisms are, in fact, nothing over and beyond fermions and bosons, then it must be the case that they only appear to be 'organisms' to us. That we see wholes where, in fact, there are none. That is to say, in reality, there are no organisms at all, there are just fermions and bosons that are working in concert to create the appearance of there being organisms. So, here is the question of the OP again: why do fermions and bosons do that? Why (the appearance of) 'organisms', why 'life'? Given that fermions and bosons are all that exist, one would expect to see, in a purposeless world, only those conglomerations to exist that represent the most likely outcomes of interactions. The question is: does that description fit organisms?Origenes_{December 22, 2022
December
12
Dec
22
22
2022
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT}

Science deals with how, not why. You would think that those claiming to understand science would understand this fundamental aspect of science.Sir Giles_{December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

Absolutely shameless anthropomorphism……chuckdarwin_{December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

This post is so full of misconceptions fueled by tribal stereotypes. This epitomizes why meaningful discussion is impossible. Yikes!Viola Lee_{December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Time, Energy, and Matter

Leave a Reply