At Reasons.org: Is the Universe the Way It Is Because It’s the Only Way It Could Be?

_{Eric Hedin

December 6, 2022

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design

4}_{Categories
Fine tuning
Intelligent Design}

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

Question of the week: How do you respond to the argument against fine-tuning as evidence for God by those who say the universe and its laws of physics are the way they are because that’s the only way they could be?

My answer: As I have documented in my books, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th edition, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, there are hundreds of independent features of the universe, its laws of physics, and its space-time dimensions that must be exquisitely fine-tuned to make the existence of humans, or their equivalent, possible in the universe. However, that pervasive fine-tuning is not the only way the universe and the laws of physics could be.

From a biblical perspective, the angelic realm has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Similarly, the future home of Christians, the new creation (see Revelation 21–22) has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Readers can see our book, Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men, for the scientific physical evidence for angels and the angelic realm.

As I explain in my books on fine-tuning, the universe can be fine-tuned in a different way to allow for the existence of certain kinds of bacteria but not allow for the existence of animals and humans. I also show how the laws of physics can remain unchanged but the universe structured so that no physical life is possible anywhere, anytime in the universe.
As I demonstrate in Designed to the Core, it is not just the laws of physics and the universe as a whole that are fine-tuned to make the existence of humans possible. All the universe’s subcomponents, from those on the largest size scales to those on the smallest size scales must be fine-tuned for humans to possibly exist.

Unlike the universe, the observed sample size of the universe’s subcomponents is not one. For example, there are a trillion trillion stars in the observable universe. So far, however, astronomers have detected only one star, our Sun, that possesses the fine-tuned history and features that make it possible for the existence of humans on a planet orbiting it. The Sun is not the only way stars can be. The same argument can be made for our Laniakea Supergalaxy Cluster, our Virgo Cluster of galaxies, our Local Group of galaxies, our Milky Way Galaxy, our local spiral arm, our Local Bubble, our planetary system, our planet, and our moon. The fine-tuning of the universe and all its subcomponents also vary according to the intended purposes for humans. As I show in Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, the fine-tuning that allows billions of humans on one planet to be redeemed from their sin and evil within a time span of several tens of thousands of years is orders of magnitude more constrained than the fine-tuning that allows for the existence of a tiny population of technology-free humans with lifespans briefer than 30 years.
Reasons.org

Dr. Ross refers to scientific observations that show evidence of fine-tuning, not just for the existence of life, but to sustain life as we know it on Earth, with millions of species of plant and animal life, and a multi-billion population of humans with a technologically advanced global civilization. Often, arguments against intelligent design boil down to bad theology. Dr. Ross provides here a very brief connection between physical design parameters and a biblically-based theology.

Comments

Kairosfocus @ PM1 @ KF, thank you for your excellent reply to PM1. Even if we were to accept *emergence* as a valid concept, it utterly fails to explain the specified complexity we observe in biology and elsewhere. Surely, complex functionally specific information/organization is an objective phenomenon. PM1's attempts to avoid the issue are as laughable as the nonsense he is spouting about Dawkins and Dembski.Origenes_{January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

F/N: Algorithms have no free standing meaning. They all exist in contexts of computational challenges involving a process logic problem. They have to specify start, onward and stop processes that successively address the problem while being finite and halting and involve symbolic, linguistic and/or graphical representation. They embed conventions and there must be relevant computational devices, including numerically controlled machines. The Ribosome is such. You have again set up and knocked over a strawman. In particular your projection that Dembski, Dawkins and I are unaware of the need for an interpretation system is grossly wrong and a strawman, what do you think symbols, codes, conventions, execution machines, computational devices [Turing Machines being a classic yardstick] etc are about. It seems, frankly, that you are predetermined to object and dismiss so are composing handy targets that bear only passing resemblance to reality. KFkairosfocus_{January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT}

PPS, Bits are a natural metric of information and stretch far beyond Shannon's use as a metric of information carrying capacity. Following Orgel, we can exploit Kolmogorov-Chaitin measures of algorithmic complexity and recognise the difference between a case where random bits would have minimal redundancy and one where functionally specific organised patterns of bits (or reducible to bits) can be distinguished from noise -- signal to noise ratio is a key quantity in communication and implies a design inference on signs of message vs noise -- and can be measured, routinely. Such messages of course appear in D/RNA as stored coded algorithms giving instructions for the assembly of proteins. There are even reports of a high art familiar from the days of 8-bit microprocessors and expensive memory, interwoven code. The protein assembly code, notoriously runs like "start-load methionine, extend with AAs x1, X2, . . . Xn, stop" [there being three stop codons]. This is code, it is machine readable code, it is in the imperative instruction paradigm, it is goal directed, it is stepwise, it is finite, it halts. Code is inherently symbolic and linguistic, algorithms are goal directed chains of steps that are finite and halt. These may not be welcome, but they are objective. And, DNA sequences take meaning from their context and imposition of conventions, the rules of the code, what goes beyond Pattee's frozen accidents. Where, it is not just Dembski or Dawkins you must address but a consensus since Crick. Lehninger, whose textbook is epochal, with his heirs:
"The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function." [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]
See https://uncommondescent.com/darwinist-debaterhetorical-tactics/protein-synthesis-what-frequent-objector-af-cannot-acknowledge/kairosfocus_{January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

PM1, pardon, but you are personalising and polarising, rather than dealing with objective facts that are readily accessible; which should be your proper focus (regrettably, rather like Dave Farina in his acrimonious attacks on Dr Tour). First, functionally specific organisation is a commonplace readily observable -- so objective -- phenomenon, including your texts above, the glasses you may be wearing, the computer or phone you may be using, your watch, your car, its engine, even nuts and bolts, etc. The same phenomenon is also present in biology, and it is present to high degrees of complexity that can be measured in information units; using compact description languages, cf. AutoCAD etc. In some cases, it is explicitly informational in the general world and in the world of life. (For convenience, I will shortly exhibit clips from Orgel and Wicken who noted on this across the 70's, in recent years Yockey modelled protein synthesis using an extension of the classic communication system model.). Let me again highlight the cases I listed yesterday, let me extend the list more explicitly:
[KF, 301:] "to the widely known facts of
[1] information in D/RNA, protein and enzymes as a subsets, [2] the cellular metabolic process-flow network, [3] many organelles in the cell [ponder, the ribosome], then [4] the complexities involved in origin and expression of major body plans . . . [5] your elbow has a hinge, [6] your femur fits into a ball-socket joint, [7] your eye has a light proof box, [9] an adaptive optics lens, [10] an aperture control iris, [11] a detection array, [12] a neural network processing system [13] (and may be corrected with lenses . . .), [14] colour vision uses a blend of frequency band detecting sensors, [15] your ear has a complex conical apparatus that helps with wave impedance matching, [16] it has a three bone mechanical leverage amplifier, [17] it has a coiled wave guide lined with an array of sensors with position tied to frequency so [18] it performs in effect a fast mechanical fourier transform, and [19] [I add, a favourite example of Wallace, co-founder of modern evolutionary theory, flight feathers and the wings of a bird] [xth] much more."

The ellipsis: "FSCO/I is real for the world of life, it is known to reliably come from design, poof magic emergence cannot, does not account for it with any good observational base. Living beings are far beyond mere mechanisms but they enfold mechanisms and it is entirely in order to point that fairly obvious fact out — e.g." Notice, "Living beings are far beyond mere mechanisms but they enfold mechanisms." I will next cite Orgel and Wicken, KF PS: First, Orgel, 1973:
living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . . [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:] These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.
[--> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant J S Wicken "wiring diagram" for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here, -- here and -- here -- (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).]
One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [--> so if the q's to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions. [--> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes [--> Orgel had high hopes for what Chem evo and body-plan evo could do by way of info generation beyond the FSCO/I threshold, 500 - 1,000 bits.] [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196.]
Wicken:
‘Organized’systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions and/or repetitive stepwise procedures] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [ --> originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65. (Emphases and notes added. Nb: “originally” is added to highlight that for self-replicating systems, the blue print can be built-in.)]
These two remarks are the obvious and actual source of my descriptive phrase and its abbreviation. At first, I spoke of FSCI, then as I further discussed, I found that functional organisation as of right should also be expanded. The point is, we here show history of ideas and are able to directly, readily point to easily accessible biological cases. So much so that when in another context I needed to discuss cameras at first technical level involving the notorious f-stop, the three comparatives are the pinhole camera, the lensed camera obscura . . . BTW, there is a plausible case Vermeer used such an apparatus . . . and what is sometimes called the camera eye. And yes, for the first time in decades, I built a pinhole camera, to develop an educational exercise, using a short potato crisps can and my now 40+ year old Swiss Army Knife's awl.kairosfocus_{January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

@307 Oh, I'm not denying that information is a crucially important concept for biology. I'm denying that "FSCO/I" is a helpful way of conceptualizing it. For one thing, Kairosfocus describes FSCO/I in terms of bits. But bits are only good for describing information as Shannon did, in terms of communication, and specifically, how to compare different messages in order to determine if they are the same or different. Shannon's communication theory tells us nothing about what the information is about or what it means. More generally, Dawkins and Dembski commit the same error: they treat DNA sequences as if they were intrinsically meaningful. Dembski is just more consistent and less self-contradictory than Dawkins. Neither of them realize, as Pattee and Deacon do realize, that there's no such thing as intrinsically meaningful information. Meaning requires an interpreting system. This is why my whole complaint about Kairosfocus is that he takes genetic sequences as having the free-standing meaning that algorithms have, prior to being read or implemented: a gene "means" a protein only in the context of a living cell that is actively keeping itself at far from equilibrium with its environment.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

PM1@ 307 Your personal animosity toward Dawkins is irrelevant here. Information in biology must be explained. What do you think all the talk about random mutations is about? Stop pretending that it is an ID thing only.Origenes_{January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

@305
“Only ID theorists?” Seriously? What do you think Dawkins’ “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL” was about?
Dawkins beings with an approach to evolutionary theory that I consider entirely misbegotten and communicates it in a style that so condescending as to be genuinely offensive. There is no living science writer for whom I have more contempt.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @301,
. . . .your rejection is irrelevant to the widely known facts of information in D/RNA, protein and enzymes as a subsets, the cellular metabolic process-flow network, many organelles in the cell, then the complexities involved in origin and expression of major body plans. FSCO/I is real for the world of life, it is known to reliably come from design, poof magic emergence cannot, does not account for it with any good observational base.
What PyrrhoManiac1 does is first assume that biological life must of necessity derive naturally and automatically from non-living elements and processes that create information ex nihilo. This is the basis for his critique of ID. Unfortunately for PyrrhoManiac1, the ID model actually works in exposing hidden functionality such as later found in what was originally presumed to be "junk" DNA and "vestigial" organs. ID functions on the basis of pragmatism while Darwinism functions on the basis of ideology (as demonstrated by its repeated failures to predict anything successfully, hence all the "surprises" and "rewrites" we encounter every month). What PyrrhoManiac1 needs to accept is that all science is based on pragmatic MODELS that should never be confused with REALITY. For example, the Standard Model in physics is recognized in physics as simply a model. It will remain as long as it's useful. The persistent coexistence of Einstein's Theory of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics is due to their pragmatic success in their domains even though they're incompatible due to the failure of anyone to come up with a Grand Unified Field Theory. This is how science works when there's no irrational allegiance to some underlying ideology or religious belief. -QQuerius_{January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

PM1 @303
Ori: The ubiquitous presence of FSCO/I in biology is a brute fact.
Then why is it that only ID theorists ever talk about it?
"Only ID theorists?" Seriously? What do you think Dawkins' "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" was about?
I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?
Surely, explaining the information in biology is not just for ID theorists.Origenes_{January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

@300 "The identity of consciousness and self-hood is precisely what Buddhists reject. Chandrakirti gives several arguments purporting to show that this identity leads to absurd paradoxes, and the practice of mindful meditation is designed to scaffold practitioners up into the direct experience of the non-existence of self. (Or as Buddhists like to say, self is conventionally real but not ultimately real.)" Yes I know, and that's complete incoherent nonsense. The arguments are bad and the view is (no pun intended) self-refuting... If the self is not real, who is gonna "directly experience the non-existence of self" ?... No experiencer, no experience, period.Jblais_{January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

@302
The ubiquitous presence of FSCO/I in biology is a brute fact
Then why is it that only ID theorists ever talk about it?PyrrhoManiac1_{January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

PM1@ 300
I find the notion of “FSCO/I” simply useless and therefore uninteresting.
The ubiquitous presence of FSCO/I in biology is a brute fact and your position cannot explain it. Unfortunately, you are not allowed to ignore it, simply because it is not a complete explanation of organisms or for any other reason you may think of. Your attempts to do so are completely irrational.Origenes_{January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

PM1, first, you made accusations of conspiracy theories, in a context further associated with antisemitism, specifically that claims regarding culture form marxism and derivative critical theories are conspiracy theories. I took time to cite literature to show there is such a bird, commonly seen in the academy and now beyond it. I suggest, given the gravity of the antisemitic implication, this is slander to be walked back. As for Orgel-Wicken functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, simply to object you added another case to the trillions showing its reliably known cause. In terms of biology, your rejection is irrelevant to the widely known facts of information in D/RNA, protein and enzymes as a subsets, the cellular metabolic process-flow network, many organelles in the cell, then the complexities involved in origin and expression of major body plans. FSCO/I is real for the world of life, it is known to reliably come from design, poof magic emergence cannot, does not account for it with any good observational base. Living beings are far beyond mere mechanisms but they enfold mechanisms and it is entirely in order to point that fairly obvious fact out -- e.g. your elbow has a hinge, your femur fits into a ball-socket joint, your eye has a light proof box, an adaptive optics lens, an aperture control iris, a detection array, a neural network processing system (and may be corrected with lenses . . .), colour vision uses a blend of frequency band detecting sensors, your ear has a complex conical apparatus that helps with wave impedance matching, it has a three bone mechanical leverage amplifier, it has a coiled wave guide lined with an array of sensors with position tied to frequency so it performs in effect a fast mechanical fourier transform, and much more. So, using the physics, information processing and chemistry of these aspects of our bodies is entirely in order to address relevant matters. Refusal to accept this, only further confirms want of a cogent argument. KFkairosfocus_{January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

@295
PM1, we can take it from your moving on behaviour that you have no cogent answer to several matters above.
First, that is a wholly unwarranted inference from the fact that I simply haven't said anything about the issues you want to talk about. Second, I have already said more than once that I categorically reject the whole framing of biology in terms of "FSCO/I ". That framing assumes the conceptual framework taken from engineering (specifically electronic engineering) and communication theory and applies it to biology. I consider that a profound error. My critique of ID has nothing to do with theology or politics -- it is based entirely about the fact that ID is based upon a complete misunderstanding of the very nature of life itself. ID is mostly updated 21st language for Paley's machine conception of organisms -- it just locates Paley's "intricate contrivances" at the level of subcellular organelles rather than multicellular organs. It's the same error, just transposed to a different level of organization. But what motivates this error is in part the correct recognition that organisms really are different from machines, because organisms have intrinsic teleology and machines do not. I find myself less interested these days in formulating a fully comprehensive metaphysical naturalism and much more interested in the ontology of life -- what makes something alive, a living being, an organism? But to that end, I find the notion of "FSCO/I" simply useless and therefore uninteresting. @293
What I meant is that buddhist metaphysics treats the “self” as an illusion or error, while considering consciousness as fundamental. This is doubly incoherent because: 1) not only is the possibility of the self unintelligible under the sort of monism that buddhishm (or any other members of this “pan-idealism” family of ontologies) espouses,
I find this quite puzzling. To my knowledge, Mahayana Buddhism (of which I am only familiar with Nagarjuna and Dharmakirti) is not a "monism" or "pan-idealism". To put their central idea in a Western idiom, what they deny is the existence of substance, what Aristotle called ousia: that which has independent existence. They teach that the the source of suffering is the craving for permanence, including the permanence that the Brahmins attach to the self or soul (that which reincarnates from life to life).
2) but it is also the necessary precondition of consciousness, the alleged ontological fondation of the whole system (consciousness IS selfhood/subjectivity).
The identity of consciousness and self-hood is precisely what Buddhists reject. Chandrakirti gives several arguments purporting to show that this identity leads to absurd paradoxes, and the practice of mindful meditation is designed to scaffold practitioners up into the direct experience of the non-existence of self. (Or as Buddhists like to say, self is conventionally real but not ultimately real.)PyrrhoManiac1_{January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

JBlais @293
2) but it [the self] is also the necessary precondition of consciousness, the alleged ontological foundation of the whole system (consciousness IS selfhood/subjectivity).
Indeed. Perhaps put differently, observing oneself is constitutive of consciousness/self-awareness.Origenes_{January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT}

Vividbleau @297, Oh, no! I'm so sorry to hear that and yes, our family's prayers are for his life and for his family during this horrible time! I agree that there seems to be a big increase lately in unexplained emergencies and deaths. Damar Hamlin's teammates and many others are praying for him and the game was suspended by the NFL: https://news.yahoo.com/bills-hamlin-collapses-field-gets-022157802.html -QQuerius_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

For those so inclined pray for Demar Hamlin and family. Bills safety collapsed on the field in tonight’s game. Is it just me it seems to me that a lot of weird stuff is happening to young athletes He was given CPR, incubated and is in critical condition Vividvividbleau_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

Q (attn PM1): ID can be characterised on first an empirically anchored inference to design on tested reliable signs; it extends to a research programme; it has a wider movement of support. It investigates, at core, the question as to whether there are significant cases where intelligently directed configuration can be recognised on empirically observable signs. Questions as to specific means of such contrivance or of identity of causal agent are secondary to this, for good and innocent reasons familiar to any detective. That is, recognising arson on signs is one thing, identifying or demonstrating particular suspects and techniques is another. Where, more broadly, a fruitful understanding of science is, the reverse engineering of nature, rooted in the systems engineering approach. Where, knowledge (focal to science) is not a simple concept/topic. You are right that too often loaded strawman caricatures of ID, its warrants and its purpose as a scientific endeavour are rhetorically set up and knocked over. KFkairosfocus_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

PM1, we can take it from your moving on behaviour that you have no cogent answer to several matters above. I note, too, there is a perfectly good word out there for those interested in statutory rape. KF PS, language:
pederasty (?p?d??ræst?) or sometimes paederasty n homosexual relations between men and boys [--> with particular reference to buggery; which BTW has a public health issue tied to it] [C17: from New Latin paederastia, from Greek, from pais boy + erast?s lover, from eran to love] ?peder?astic, sometimes ?paeder?astic adj Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
kairosfocus_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

PhyrrhoManiac1 @290,
This is where my interest connects with the ID movement: the ID movement has been very good at insisting upon the fundamental difference between biology and physics. It has been very good at recognizing that biology is impossible without concepts that have no analog in physics — concepts such as function, purpose, goal, intent, desire, feeling. (The ID movement has less good at recognizing the resurgence of active theorizing about teleology and agency within theoretical biology.)
Sorry, but this a substantial mischaracterization of ID. • ID takes the pragmatic position that poorly understood phenomena are more productively studied as if they were intelligently designed. Hence, there's no presumption that some DNA is "junk" or some organs are “vestigial.” • ID takes no position on the source of the intelligent design. It could be Vishnu, space aliens, or the results of an "ancestor simulation." • Anything else is an unwarranted extension or a smear. -QQuerius_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

@Origenes Sorry if I've been unclear. What I meant is that buddhist metaphysics treats the "self" as an illusion or error, while considering consciousness as fundamental. This is doubly incoherent because: 1) not only is the possibility of the self unintelligible under the sort of monism that buddhishm (or any other members of this "pan-idealism" family of ontologies) espouses, 2) but it is also the necessary precondition of consciousness, the alleged ontological fondation of the whole system (consciousness IS selfhood/subjectivity).Jblais_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

JBlais @283
For example, buddhists call it [consciousness] an error or an illusion, but never really explain (beyond vague handwaving) why such error is possible in the first place while failing to recognize that consciousness is nothing but the manifestation of subjectivity/selfhood.
This sentence is too difficult for me. I can understand the sentence up till the word “while.”
For example, buddhists call it [consciousness] an error or an illusion, but never really explain (beyond vague handwaving) why such error is possible in the first place …
this I can understand. Error or illusion is absurd and, frankly, extremely offensive. I am an error by/to whom? I am an illusion to whom? Who the hell is making these claims? The "universal consciousness"? Why should I care?Origenes_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @284 Amazing. Thanks!Origenes_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

@272
While the issue of the relationship between the special sciences and physics is an interesting one, there is a much deeper reason why emergence and ontology are related, namely, that the need to invoke emergence only occur in the context of naturalistic ontologies devoid of fundamental mental aspects.
I'm afraid I really must disagree. Mental states would seem to be absent from a naturalistic ontology only if one were to insist upon physics as the sole basis for constructing a naturalistic ontology in the first place. But that move is wholly optional. There is simply no reason why a naturalist must take physics alone as their account of what exists. A scientific metaphysics that takes on board biology, psychology, and the other human sciences would have no problem allowing for mental states in its ontology. Now, it is true that a naturalistic account of mental states will differ from a non-natural or supernatural account of mental states. But I see no reason why the non-natural account is obviously or clearly the right one -- which is to say, the arguments I have encountered thus far purporting to show that mental states cannot be part of the natural world have been question-begging or vacuous. I am quite interested in figuring out what exactly a naturalistic account of mental states is (and is not) committed to. Grounding mental states realistically in biology is sufficiently difficult to sustain my interest, and I think that any version of naturalism worth defending would need to take as a premise that biology and physics are very different sciences, e.g. The Dynamical Emergence of Biology From Physics: Branching Causation via Biomolecules. This is where my interest connects with the ID movement: the ID movement has been very good at insisting upon the fundamental difference between biology and physics. It has been very good at recognizing that biology is impossible without concepts that have no analog in physics -- concepts such as function, purpose, goal, intent, desire, feeling. (The ID movement has less good at recognizing the resurgence of active theorizing about teleology and agency within theoretical biology.)PyrrhoManiac1_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

PMI “Language cannot be controlled and the connection between language and thought is not so tight that the control of the former would imply control of the latter.” You mean like child mutilation redefined as gender affirming care? There is a huge difference between the two and the way people think. Of course to call it what it is , child mutilation instead of gender affirming care puts the former straight into the hate speech camp. Vividvividbleau_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Watch the spin: “minor attracted persons” is mind control like "methodological naturalism" or "pro-choice people" or "science deniers" or "science is settled" or..."evolution is fact". "minor" ? ="unimportant" this is the first anchor in brain why not "child(underage) attracted persons" This are studied first and then launched on the "market".whistler_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

PMI “The term “minor attracted persons” was not coined in order to normalize pedophilia;” Before normalization you start with sympathy then comes normalization and after that shame ing those who object, that’s the playbook. As Q has pointed out part of shaming is to classify something as hate speech, bigotry and the whole list of “phobes” Vividvividbleau_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

@282
Notice they are not pedophiles anymore they are “Minor Attracted Persons”
The term "minor attracted persons" was not coined in order to normalize pedophilia; it was coined because in the minds of many people, the word "pedophile" is already synonymous with "sex offender". The intent behind using the term "minor attracted person" is that people with this affliction will be more likely to seek help if they are less stigmatized. Minor attracted persons generally recognize it would be morally wrong to act on their desires, and consequently experience their own desire as shameful. They can be wracked with intense guilt and can engage in self-harming behaviors. Some of then seek out chemical castration, which can have bad side-effects if not done under medical supervision. The phrase has everything to do with helping these people get the help they need, not normalizing the sexual abuse of children.
To control language is to control thought.
Language cannot be controlled and the connection between language and thought is not so tight that the control of the former would imply control of the latter.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Vividbleau @282,
Next up the normalization of pedophilia. Notice they are not pedophiles anymore they are “Minor Attracted Persons” To control language is to control thought.
Yes, exactly! And anything that doesn't conform to their mandated language is redefined as "hate speech," which is now being proposed not to be protected under the First Amendment. Hate speech will be broadened to include any speech not in complete compliance with the Current Narrative for this week. Thus, freedom is slavery and slavery is freedom. This will all collapse, of course, and the resulting crushing poverty will be attributed to "bad luck" and added to the long list of political systems that apparently weren't "true socialism." -QQuerius_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Origenes at 265 "The other day I tried to remember the name of an old school friend, but the name refused to pop up. " You may enjoy this,
People who remember every second of their life | 60 Minutes Australia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpTCZ-hO6iI
bornagain77_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply