Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Mind Matters News: Why free will is philosophically and scientifically sound

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Michael Egnor asks: Is Joe Blow really anti-intellectual? - Uncommon Descent
Michael Egnor

As Michael Egnor points out in a recent podcast, it has been nearly a century since determinism was toppled in physics:

Michael Egnor: … But even irrespective of the theories, it’s a fact, and I should point out not merely a theoretical construct, but an experimental fact that determinism in physics is not true. And a materialist like Coyne, who bases his rather bizarre rejection of free will on an assertion that physics has proved determinism to be true, when in fact since the 1930s, it’s been very clear according to quantum mechanics, that determinism is not true and since the 1980s, it’s been proven experimentally, really makes you wonder how well Coyne understands the science. I mean, his metaphysics is off the wall, but his science is about a century behind.

Casey Luskin: Coyne is, of course, a diehard defender of Neo-Darwinism, which many scientists are now beginning to reject. Even mainstream evolutionary scientists are becoming very critical of Neo-Darwinism and of course, Coyne has had his own debates with some of those folks. He’s dead set on defending the modern version of Darwin’s 19th-century theory.

News, “Why free will is philosophically and scientifically sound” at Mind Matters News

Takehome: Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor points out that, though free will may be unpopular with atheist thinkers like biologist Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, science doesn’t refute it.

You may also wish to read: Is consciousness the sort of thing that could have evolved? Researchers Simona Ginsberg and Eva Jablonka have written a book attempting to trace the evolution of consciousness. Material processes cannot, for example, account for the power to grasp infinity or perfection — which are not material ideas. (Michael Egnor)

Comments
PPS, SA, you here identify a key point for worldviews and right reason:
we have to trust some things that we cannot prove
Take anything we posit as so, A. Why accept it? because of B which supports or warrants it [as we believe]. But, why B? C. Why C, . . .? We thus, face an infinite regress, impossible to traverse and impossible to do so without error for us fallible creatures. Or else, circularity where M and N are held to mutually support; but this is of course often little more than worldviews level question begging. Where we end up, then is some F, our finitely remote faith point set of first plausibles that gives shape to our worldviews. To responsibly hold such a view, we understand that all views have difficulties and address on comparative difficulties involving factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power . . . neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork. F of course includes self evident first facts, truths and principles, but such can never constitute an overall worldview. However, they serve as useful plumb lines that are naturally straight and upright. Comparative difficulties analysis is part of wider right reason, and it is part of prudence and warranting with recognition of limitations. Of course, knowledge, as generally used, is a weak form claim [think of scientific, historical and forensic knowledge etc]: warranted, credibly true [and so reliable as tested] belief. Faith and reason are inextricably intertwined in our worldviews and schemes of knowledge and we need to squarely face that.kairosfocus
July 9, 2022
July
07
Jul
9
09
2022
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
SA (attn Sev): Right from the beginning in discussing selective hyperskepticism as a development on Greenleaf in Evidence etc, I took time to look at the anticipated projected mirror. It is not necessary, the issue is, one disbelieves what one should believe [as it has good warrant but is unwelcome] BECAUSE one already believes what one should not. This is the crooked yardstick effect. So, what is focal is hyperskeptical rejection of what has good enough warrant. Above, we can see as an example, the resistance to acknowledging that D/RNA are digital storage units, that there is string data structure coded algorithmic information in D/RNA, that this is used in protein assembly, and that this manifests both language [codes are an aspect of language] and goal directed process [algorithms are stepwise, goal directed, finite processes with halting]. On knowing context, this rejection of results that won several Nobel prizes, reflects an underlying commitment to a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow travellers. Which, can only succeed by locking out the obvious, empirically well warranted source of such FSCO/I, intelligently directed configuration. KF PS, I think, skepticism has been improperly promoted in place of virtues and duties such as right reason, prudence and warrant. It has now become a pseudo virtue, alongside radical tolerance etc.kairosfocus
July 9, 2022
July
07
Jul
9
09
2022
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
Seversky
Which is better, hyperskepticism or hypercredulity?
Virtue is in the middle of extremes. We refer to "healthy skepticism" because there is an unhealthy version (hyperskepticism).
If I told you God had appeared to me in a vision and told me that ID was a satanic stratagem devised to lure the faithful away from the straight and narrow, would you believe me?
I've never met a believer that did not have a moderate level of skepticism towards claims. The Vatican has a team of scientists that skeptically evaluate claims of miracles. In any case, the correct alternative to hyperskepticism is not hypercredulity. Both have crippling effects. Instead, healthy skepticism would enable a person to believe where there is reasonable evidence to believe. It would enable a person to accept a good inference where there is evidence to accept it. Hyper-skepticism destroys all trust, and therefore destroys the foundation of rational thought (we have to trust some things that we cannot prove).Silver Asiatic
July 8, 2022
July
07
Jul
8
08
2022
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Which is better, hyperskepticism or hypercredulity? If I told you God had appeared to me in a vision and told me that ID was a satanic stratagem devised to lure the faithful away from the straight and narrow, would you believe me?Seversky
July 8, 2022
July
07
Jul
8
08
2022
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @50, I've heard it said that skeptics are skeptical about everything except their own skepticism. -QQuerius
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
Querius
a link to the web page of a research biologist supporting my observations in high school
I posted an additional, unrelated source saying the same thing. So, that's three references to the claim - one directly observed from you. So, putting the best spin on it, skepticism means that all three sources were mistaken in their measurements, somehow.Silver Asiatic
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
I just remain skeptical about hydra polyps' ability to extend their tentacles by 1,000 percent, linearly. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.Fred Hickson
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Querius @17
In my opinion, such attacks are either mindless parroting or deliberate deception that doesn’t consider the pragmatic advantage ID has repeatedly demonstrated over the Darwinist approach when confronted with poorly understood biological structures and features.
Agreed. That view has been corrected several times with examples of non-religious ID supporters but the same comment returns.Silver Asiatic
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
All, Even after providing Fred Hickson with a link to the web page of a research biologist supporting my observations in high school regarding the maximum length of hydra under ideal conditions, he proclaims that he "remains skeptical." This demonstrates that he considers his chosen skepticism to be irrefutable, contrary to any evidence presented to him regardless of the source. Please bear that in mind. -QQuerius
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
ET at 43, Who wrote that headline? An Advertising Agency? The following is more accurate but still contains a few "we did it! We did it!" No, not really. https://www.nature.com/articles/531557arelatd
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
FH at 44, Wow. I need to write down the time and date ! You, you dare to bring up stopped clocks? Why I oughta'.relatd
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
@ ET Relatd is correct. *resists urge to mention stopped clocks* Venter reproduced (i e copied) a minimal set of bacterial genes and introduced them into a "de-gened" bacterial cell. He did not create any sequences de novo.Fred Hickson
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
Venter Institute Scientists Create First Synthetic Bacterial Genome- enjoy!ET
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
ET at 41, Venter did what? Have you read any scientific papers about his work? He's a tinkerer. He's got a CRISPR device and he tinkers. That's all. "Venter, who has co-founded a company that seeks to harness synthetic cells for making industrial products, says that the feat heralds the creation of customized cells to make drugs, fuels and other products."relatd
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
Design me a protein, for example!
Venter designed an entire genome!ET
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
I know ID has lost its way.
Wrong again. YOU have lost your way, Fred. ID still offers the only scientific explanation for our existence.ET
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
When an ID proponent can predict an outcome from a DNA sequence to a biological function by decoding it, then I’ll be impressed.
That doesn't have anything to do with ID. You are clearly just a clueless troll. When an evolutionism proponent can tell us how blind and mindless processes produced the processes involved in developmental biology, the entire world will be impressed! Heck, if they could demonstrate anything that they claim, the world would be impressed.ET
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
... to decode DNA information you need another and more complex system than DNA. ... to connect together these two systems(to code-decode) you need a 3rd system much more complex that will manage the process( in an adaptive way for a single purpose) ...the 3rd system in order to be triggered to start coding-decoding process requires orders from a 4th more complex system that analyze internal/external stimuli and decides that is time for producing a certain protein for a certain purpose (from thousands of different purposes) ...the 4th system ...etc.Lieutenant Commander Data
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT
PS, rubbish on political accusations is irrelevant to evidence pointing to a substantial matter of knowable, evidence backed truth on origins,kairosfocus
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT
FH, denial on your part by projection does not change the facts on the table. What such confession by projection reveals, is, however, instructive. Obviously, you cannot acknowledge that D/RNA is a storage medium despite it now being explored as an archival medium, and you cannot acknowledge facts taught in essentially every biology text, that the genetic code is used to express algorithms for synthesising AA chains towards protein manufacture in the cell. Thus, we have coded algorithms, which are in a machine language. The fact of such insistent hyperskeptical denial then implies onward that the evidence is decisive and not in favour of the notion that such originated by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. That is, it is strong and even decisive evidence of the design of cell based life. Further, it is text, text for chapter zero of earth history. Such, is the context in which I have now drawn the conclusion, for cause, that we have excellent reason to acknowledge that the world of life reflects design as principal cause. KFkairosfocus
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT
Projection, G. I know ID has lost its way. With a conservative SCOTUS, you no longer need the figleaf to avoid church/state separation.Fred Hickson
July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT
FH, ducking, dodging and raising an irrelevancy by way of cross-complaint. You long since knew or should have known and should have acknowledged that D/RNA is a storage medium for coded information found in the cell. You still have not actually acknowledged it, even as BBC news informs the world that DNA is being explored for adaptation to general digital storage for archival uses as it is so much more compact and durable than magnetic hard drives. We know enough to know that we are seeing coded algorithms and their execution through ribosomes. That's language and step by step goal directed finite processes with halting [note, stop codons]. That whoever designed the system knows a lot more about polymer chemistry than we currently do, is not a reason to disregard what we can and do know. Which is decisive, as it means text is written into the cell, so is antecedent to biological, cell based life on earth. KFkairosfocus
July 6, 2022
July
07
Jul
6
06
2022
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
Design me a protein, for example!Fred Hickson
July 6, 2022
July
07
Jul
6
06
2022
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT
When an ID proponent can predict an outcome from a DNA sequence to a biological function by decoding it, then I'll be impressed.Fred Hickson
July 6, 2022
July
07
Jul
6
06
2022
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT
PPPS, to clench over the nails on the coffin for your argument, BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59489560
Scientists claim big advance in using DNA to store data By Paul Rincon Science editor, BBC News website Published 1 December 2021 Scientists say they have made a major step forward in efforts to store information as molecules of DNA, which are more compact and long-lasting than other options. The magnetic hard drives we currently use to store computer data can take up lots of space. And they have to be replaced over time. Using life's preferred storage medium to back up our precious data would allow vast amounts of information to be archived in tiny molecules. The data would also last thousands of years, according to scientists. A team in Atlanta, US, has now developed a chip that they say could improve on existing forms of DNA storage by a factor of 100. "The density of features on our new chip is [approximately] 100x higher than current commercial devices," Nicholas Guise, senior research scientist at Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI), told BBC News. "So once we add all the control electronics - which is what we're doing over the next year of the program - we expect something like a 100x improvement over existing technology for DNA data storage." The technology works by growing unique strands of DNA one building block at a time. These building blocks are known as bases - four distinct chemical units that make up the DNA molecule. They are: adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine. Scientists write film into bacterial DNA DNA chipImage source, Sean McNeil Image caption, The microchip will be used for growing multiple strands of DNA in parallel The bases can then be used to encode information, in a way that's analogous to the strings of ones and zeroes (binary code) that carry data in traditional computing. There are different potential ways to store this information in DNA - for example, a zero in binary code could be represented by the bases adenine or cytosine and a one might be represented by guanine or thymine. Alternatively, a one and zero could be mapped to just two of the four bases. Scientists have said that, if formatted in DNA, every movie ever made could fit inside a volume smaller than a sugar cube. Given how compact and reliable it is, it's not surprising there is now broad interest in DNA as the next medium for archiving data that needs to be kept indefinitely. The structures on the chip used to grow the DNA are called microwells and are a few hundred nanometres deep - less than the thickness of a sheet of paper. The current prototype microchip is about 2.5cm (one-inch) square and includes multiple microwells, allowing several DNA strands to be synthesised in parallel. This will allow larger amounts of DNA to be grown in a shorter space of time.
In short, they used a different code, as they needed 2 rather than 4 states per element in the string, but the point is plain. D/RNA is a known storage medium. That you refuse to acknowledge it, trying to obfuscate by reference to biochemistry -- hurling an elephant -- speaks volumes on your desperation to avoid facing the coded information and algorithms in the heart of the cell.kairosfocus
July 6, 2022
July
07
Jul
6
06
2022
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT
PPS, to get even more explicit, here is the next confession wrung from the weight of facts:
In communications and information processing, code is a system of rules to convert information—such as a letter, word, sound, image, or gesture—into another form, sometimes shortened or secret, for communication through a communication channel or storage in a storage medium.
Cherry on top? The example of storage medium chosen, shown in a pop up illustration: "DNA and RNA can be considered as biological storage mediums.[1]" That article, opens:
Data storage is the recording (storing) of information (data) in a storage medium. Handwriting, phonographic recording, magnetic tape, and optical discs are all examples of storage media. Some authors even propose that DNA is a natural data storage mechanism.
Of course, Crick knew that by March 19, 1953, so we can here see Wiki's notorious moderators dragged kicking and screaming into making a partial admission against ideological inclination. You evidently are even more unwilling to admit the massively obvious than they are. Desperation level hyperskepticism.kairosfocus
July 6, 2022
July
07
Jul
6
06
2022
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT
FH, you play the red herring ad hom tactic, meanwhile you are desperate to reject the information encoded in D/RNA, telling us that it is decisive. KF PS, Wiki is forced to admit, reflecting the sheer weight of the evidence you wish to dismiss:
The genetic code is the set of rules used by living cells to translate information encoded within genetic material (DNA or RNA sequences of nucleotide triplets, or codons) into proteins. Translation is accomplished by the ribosome, which links proteinogenic amino acids in an order specified by messenger RNA (mRNA), using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time. The genetic code is highly similar among all organisms and can be expressed in a simple table with 64 entries. The codons specify which amino acid will be added next during protein synthesis. With some exceptions,[1] a three-nucleotide codon in a nucleic acid sequence specifies a single amino acid. The vast majority of genes are encoded with a single scheme (see the RNA codon table). That scheme is often referred to as the canonical or standard genetic code, or simply the genetic code, though variant codes (such as in mitochondria) exist.
This includes:
[Caption for an illustration:] A series of codons in part of a messenger RNA (mRNA) molecule. Each codon consists of three nucleotides, usually corresponding to a single amino acid. The nucleotides are abbreviated with the letters A, U, G and C. This is mRNA, which uses U (uracil). DNA uses T (thymine) instead. This mRNA molecule will instruct a ribosome to synthesize a protein according to this code.
kairosfocus
July 6, 2022
July
07
Jul
6
06
2022
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT
:lol: Fred Hickson :"If you know everything about chemical composition and molecular structure of paper and ink that would make you Shakespeare. "Lieutenant Commander Data
July 6, 2022
July
07
Jul
6
06
2022
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
@ Kairosfocus G, biochemistry is not your field. Not even wrong is too generous.Fred Hickson
July 6, 2022
July
07
Jul
6
06
2022
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
ES at 25, On the contrary. I'm eagerly awaiting others to join in. There are a lot of trophies to give away, for a small fee of course :)relatd
July 6, 2022
July
07
Jul
6
06
2022
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply