Artificial Intelligence Intelligent Design Mind

Aw, Facebook, quit blaming AI for your goofs and shady practices

Spread the love

One thing to be said for granting personhood to intelligent machines is that we could then blame them for things that go wrong.

From Sarah Jeong at The Verge:

Over the course of an accumulated 10 hours spread out over two days of hearings, Mark Zuckerberg dodged question after question by citing the power of artificial intelligence.

Moderating hate speech? AI will fix it. Terrorist content and recruitment? AI again. Fake accounts? AI. Russian misinformation? AI. Racially discriminatory ads? AI. Security? AI.

It’s not even entirely clear what Zuckerberg means by “AI” here. He repeatedly brought up how Facebook’s detection systems automatically take down 99 percent of “terrorist content” before any kind of flagging. In 2017, Facebook announced that it was “experimenting” with AI to detect language that “might be advocating for terrorism” — presumably a deep learning technique. It’s not clear that deep learning is actually part of Facebook’s automated system. (We emailed Facebook for clarification and have not yet heard back.) But we do know AI is still in its infancy when it comes to understanding language. As The Verge’s James Vincent concludes from his reporting, AI is not up to snuff when it comes to the nuances of human language, and that’s not even taking into consideration the edge cases where even humans disagree. In fact, AI might never be capable of dealing with certain categories of content, like fake news.More.

Of course Facebook would not be able to deal with “fake news.” For one thing, much of the normal news stream is fake news. But the only possible remedy is the cultivation of good judgement. In any event, the term has become a catch-all for things someone with a position somewhere finds it inconvenient or distasteful that others should hear.

Highlights from Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony

See also: Experts slam EU proposal to grant personhood to intelligent machines

Part I: What is fake news? Do we believe it?

Part II: Does fake news make a difference in politics?

Part III: What can we do about fake news that would not diminish real news? Critics of ‘fake news’ should go to China — only the government has the right to post fake news.

And

Extra! Extra! A handy guide to the normal fake news: Surviving information overload

72 Replies to “Aw, Facebook, quit blaming AI for your goofs and shady practices

  1. 1
    asauber says:

    Personhood isn’t something that is granted by people to other people or things. It’s endowed to humans by their Creator.

    Any other position is error/stupidity/evil.

    Andrew

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    asauber – can you persuade ba77 that? He seems to think he can remove personhood from people, which is rather bizarre.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    No Bob- to a/mats “personhood” is an illusion.

  4. 4
    Bob O'H says:

    ET – you seem to be suggesting that ba77 is an a/mat. I don’t think he’ll like that at all.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    What? bornagain77 accepts personhood. What he was saying is that to a/mats it is just an illusion. But that is moot because under materialism there aren’t any humans

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Andrew states:

    Personhood isn’t something that is granted by people to other people or things. It’s endowed to humans by their Creator.

    Any other position is error/stupidity/evil.

    And here, right after Andrew’s post on the necessity of Theism to ground ‘personhood’, Bob O’Hara adamantly claims he is a real person.

    Conclusion, Bob O’Hara must have suddenly become a Christian or at least a Theist.

    i.e.

    1. Humans are endowed by their Creator alone (i.e. God) the status of being a real person. (Any other position is error/stupidity/evil.) (Andrew post 1)
    2. Bob adamantly claims he is a real person. (post 2 and even post 4)
    Conclusion,,
    3. Bob believes he is a real person who was created by God.

    Who says that miracles are not possible???

    And not so surprisingly, unlike Darwinian evolution which is empirically bankrupt of any substantiating evidence, Bob has much empirical evidence to appeal to in order to support his newly found Christian/Theistic belief that he was created by God (as a ‘real person” made in His image):

    Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y

    Darwinism vs Biological Form
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    Jeremiah 1:5
    “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

    Psalm 139:13
    For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

    James 2:26
    As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

    Matthew 16:26
    For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

  7. 7
    asauber says:

    Bob O’H,

    I don’t know what you are referring to.

    But if you are talking about personhood as a legalism, that’s obviously not the same thing. It just happens to use the same word.

    Andrew

  8. 8
    Bob O'H says:

    asauber – see, for example here. It would seem to me that if personhood is endowed by a creator, then that would be true whether one believed in a creator or not.

    FWIW, I agree that you (and I, and even ba77) are people, even if I don’t believe in a creator. TBH I think respect for people is a good thing, regardless of how one gets to that respect.

  9. 9
    LarTanner says:

    asauber @7 –

    Any other position is error/stupidity/evil.

    The unofficial motto of Uncommon Descent.

  10. 10
    kurx78 says:

    “Any other position is error/stupidity/evil.”

    The official motto of any a/mat forum and wikipedia.

  11. 11
    kurx78 says:

    “Any other position is pseudoscience/woo”
    I’ve simplified the motto 🙂

  12. 12
    jdk says:

    ba writes,

    Matthew 16:26
    For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

    Dylan has a great song called “I Ain’t Gonna Go to Hell for Anybody. See this youtube video (start at 0:50 to skip the intro)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTggm-AUzJM

    Lyrics at https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobdylan/aintgonnagotohellforanybody.html

  13. 13
    asauber says:

    I think respect for people is a good thing, regardless of how one gets to that respect.

    Your problem Bob, is that what you consider respect for people is not what I consider respect for people.

    And the reason we differ is because you don’t recognize the truth about personhood.

    You derive your position on personhood from political arrangements. I suspect that you feel the need to conform.

    I derive mine from the nature of the human being.

    I know you want to gloss over/smear the differences for diplomacy’s sake. But the truth is what it is. It doesn’t change as a matter of political convenience.

    Andrew

  14. 14
    LocalMinimum says:

    Replace “AI” with the ever hypothetical “Somebody Else”; only, with the further expectation of this universally noted personage’s ever awaited arrival being ex silico.

  15. 15
    ET says:

    LarTanner has clearly never read Dawkins. Well heck every evo says that those who disagree with them are in error, stupid or wicked/ evil.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    1. Bob believes it is (morally) disrespectful to believe people are not persons.
    2. Bob’s atheistic worldview denies that people are real persons and it also holds his preferred morality of respect for persons to be subjective and illusory, i.e. not real.
    3. Bob’s atheistic worldview denies Bob himself to be a real person and thus disrespects Bob and his moral preferences.
    ,,, 3a. Bob’s atheistic worldview could care less if Bob wants respect for being a ‘real person’ since Bob, and his morals, are illusions.
    Conclusion 1.,,
    4. If Bob wants ‘respect’ for being a ‘real person’, then Bob needs to change his worldview to Theism in order to be consistent within his worldview and to get respect.

    And I would further add that Christian Theism in particular offers the most ‘respect’ for human personhood since God himself became a human person in Jesus Christ.

    i.e. No greater ‘respect’ for human personhood can possibly be found than God Himself becoming a human.

    Conclusion 2.
    5. If Bob wants the most respect he can possibly have for being a real person, then Bob should become a Christian.

  17. 17
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 16 –

    2. Bob’s atheistic worldview denies that people are real persons and it also holds his preferred morality of respect for persons to be subjective and illusory, i.e. not real.

    This is, as I have told you before, is simply not true. I dom’t know why you repeat these falsehoods, but I guess you have very different moral values, where respect for the truth is low on your list of priorities.

  18. 18
    kurx78 says:

    Like I said on a previous post (my two cents)
    Even if I disagree with Bob’s worldview en many things, I thing he’s one of the most reasonable agnostics I’ve ever seen on a forum.
    If you go to the Discovery Institute Facebook page or Stephen Meyer’s page you will find some of the most nasty, obtuse and agressive a/mats on the Internet.
    Situation gets even worse if you go to Quora or Youtube.

    https://www.facebook.com/discoverycsc/posts/10155522060303131

    You don’t need to believe in god to be nice to other people, to be respectful and have empathy.
    For me materialism is a good framework to study many aspects of nature, it may be limited in terms of making sense of the ultimate reality (we need quantum mechanics for that)

    Sorry if I made a mistake while redacting (my natural language is spanish) 🙂

  19. 19
    Allan Keith says:

    Bob O’H,

    This is, as I have told you before, is simply not true. I dom’t know why you repeat these falsehoods, but I guess you have very different moral values, where respect for the truth is low on your list of priorities.

    9th Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.

    There must be a bug in BA77’s programming. Maybe a reboot is needed. 🙂

  20. 20
    FourFaces says:

    Delete FaceBook and join the better alternative: http://www.minds.com. Minds.com is open source, decentralized and not censored or spied on by the fascist left or anyone else.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, you can’t have it both ways.

    You can’t agree with Andrew, as you did in post 2, when he says personhood can’t be had in any other worldview save for Theism and then turn around in later posts and try to argue that personhood can be had in atheism.

    But then again I forgot, I was addressing the automaton of Bob (and weave) who is notorious for his inconsistency, and who, even if there is a person in there who is aware of his actions, does not have the free will necessary to change his actions, i.e. his faulty programming, even if he wanted to. (faulty programming that was wrought by the illusory designer substitute of natural selection I might add).

    Faulty programming is discarded, even cursed, and is certainly not ever given ‘respect’

  22. 22
    Bob O'H says:

    bs77 – I didn’t say I agreed with asauber in my comment 2, though. You read more into my comment than was there.

  23. 23
    asauber says:

    Bob doesn’t really have positions. He has opinions. That way, he can write whatever he wants, bob and weave, leave behind whatever idea he might have implied he actually holds, and waste everyone’s time.

    Andrew

  24. 24
    Allan Keith says:

    BS77,

    Faulty programming is discarded, even cursed, and is certainly not ever given ‘respect’.

    The approach I take is to respect everyone, regardless of worldview, until they demonstrate that they don’t deserve it. I respect Bob O’H, Seversky, jdk, Gpuccio, Dieb, kurx78, johnnyb, Dr. Hunter and many others here. You, on the other hand, base whether a person deserves respect on whether or not they agree with you. And your overriding determination to respect is whether or not the person is a theist (specifically, Christian). Sadly, most atheist I know behave in a more Christian manner than you do. But, such is life.

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    AK, under atheistic materialism you are not a person. You can’t be! You are a automaton, i.e. a mindless puppet, with no free will and therefore no moral agency. Only moral agents can give and have ‘respect’.

    You are only under the illusion that you really are a real person that deserves the moral respect of being a real person.

    Both you and Bob are very much in a situation similar to Pinocchio’s

    “The Adventures of Pinocchio” by Italian author Carlo Collodi. It was written for children, but in reality it contains some deep metaphors and moral truths. ,,,

    Pinocchio is a boy trapped in the body of a wooden puppet. He is able to do whatever all the other kids of his age can do, but nobody takes him seriously, because he is just a puppet. Pinocchio studies hard and rises to the top of his class, but this makes the other schoolboys jealous. People continuously make fun of him for the way he looks and dresses. The Fox and the Cat, two swindlers, lead him astray and unsuccessfully attempt to murder him. Pinocchio listens more to them than to the good people such as his father Geppetto, the Talking Cricket and the Fairy with Turquoise Hair. Even Candlewick, his best friend, misleads him.

    Pinocchio soon realizes that he is much more than a talking piece of wood, much more than the other puppets in Mangiafuoco’s theater. He has feelings, he can think and can learn from his mistakes. He gains wisdom through the long series of misadventures which lead him to becoming a real boy as reward for his good deeds.
    https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Pinocchio-so-excited-about-being-a-real-boy

    And much like Pinocchio, there is hope that you and Bob can someday be real persons also:

    Darwinian Cognitive Dissonance Disorder (DCDD). Yes folks, it is a mental disease. But there is hope:

    Cognitive Conditioning and the Distortion of Reality – Brian Miller – April 17, 2018
    Excerpt: On the bright side, I have found that the cognitive conditioning, (i.e. DCDD), can be overcome by those who have a very strong desire to know the truth. And people who leave philosophically oppressive academic institutions often find work in environments that are much more congenial to exploration. The conditioning can then wane, and their design-detection capacities and critical thinking can reengage. At that point, many describe a process where “scales seemed to fall from my eyes,” and the evidence for design in nature becomes self-evident, as does the logical incoherence of many materialist rationalizations to deny it.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/cognitive-conditioning-and-the-distortion-of-reality/

  26. 26
    Allan Keith says:

    BS77,

    AK, under atheistic materialism you are not a person. You can’t be! You are a automaton, i.e. a mindless puppet, with no free will and therefore no moral agency. Only moral agents can give and have ‘respect’.

    It is well known that those who are incapable of rational thought often resort to demeaning those that they disagree with to bolster their fragile egos. Thank you for being the poster boy for this malady.

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    First off, ‘rational thought’ requires free will. Which is something that your very own atheistic materialism denies that you have:

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    It is certainly not me demeaning you. It is your very own atheistic materialism that is demeaning you as a ‘non-person’.

    Don’t believe me??? Perhaps you will listen to a holocaust survivor who was denied the legal status of ‘personhood’ because of the materialistic thinking of Darwinists.

    “If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instincts, heredity, and environment, we feed the despair to which man is, in any case, already prone.
    I became acquainted with the last stages of corruption in my second concentration camp in Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the Nazis liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”
    —Viktor E. Frankl, Holocaust survivor and Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry, University of Vienna Medical School; from his book, The Doctor and the Soul: Introduction to Logotherapy, 1982, p. xxi).

    8 Horrific Times People Groups Were Denied Their Humanity – July 02, 2014
    Excerpt: According to Ernst Fraenkel, a German legal scholar, the Reichsgericht, the highest court in Germany, was instrumental in depriving Jewish people of their legal rights. In a 1936 Supreme Court decision, “the Reichsgericht refused to recognize Jews living in Germany as persons in the legal sense.”
    Nazis described Jews as Untermenschen, or subhumans to justify exterminating them.
    http://www.personhood.com/8_ho.....r_humanity

  28. 28
    Allan Keith says:

    BS77,

    It is certainly not me demeaning you. It is your very atheistic materialism that is demeaning you as a ‘non-person’.

    Don’t believe me??? Perhaps you will listen to a holocaust survivor who was denied the legal status of ‘personhood’ because of the materialistic thinking of Darwinists.

    I love irony. Here is BS77 denying atheists personhood because of their world view, and talking about the horrors of the Nazis denying personhood to Jews because of their world view. Do you ever think before you type? Do you ever think?

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    Hmmm interesting, AK wants me to freely concede to him that he is a real person when his very own atheistic materialism denies that he is a real person.

    I, as a Christian, certainly think everybody, from fetuses to Down syndrome people to the most rabid Darwinian materialist, are ‘real persons’ who deserve respect (and more importantly they deserve the right to life) because it is, as Andrew pointed out in post 1, a right that is ‘endowed to humans by their Creator’ of being a real person.

    My point all along has been to point out the sheer logical contradiction within the Atheist’s worldview. The atheist desperately wants to be recognized as a real person, but his own worldview denies him the privilege of what he so desperately wants (see Pinocchio in post 25). Only on Theism does the concept of ‘real persons’ have a coherent foundation. And, as pointed out in post 16, only in Christianity is the maximal respect for human ‘personhood’ attained in that God himself grants that respect to humanity by becoming a human Himself.

    Verse:

    John 1:14
    The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

    If AK and Bob, per Pinocchio, want to be real people someday, I suggest they start to recognize the numerous self-defeating logical contradictions within their very own atheistic worldview.

  30. 30
    Seversky says:

    I’m still not clear what is meant by “personhood” here and I don’t remember the Bible saying anything about it either. Is God a person, for example.

  31. 31
    Allan Keith says:

    BS77,

    Hmmm interesting, AK wants me to freely concede to him that he is a real person …

    Not at all. I know that I am a real person. It is you, because I am an atheist, who is claiming that I am not. The last person I am aware of that was making such a claim was a little Austrian corporal who rose to power by claiming that Jews were not persons. You find yourself in good company.

    I, as a Christian, certainly think everybody, from fetuses to Down syndrome people to the most rabid Darwinian materialist, are ‘real persons’ who deserve respect…

    Really? When are you going to start demonstrating this?

    My point all along has been to point out the sheer logical contradiction within the Atheist’s worldview.

    No. Your point all along has been to point out the logical contradictions within your strawman version of the atheist’s worldview. You have steadfastly refused to listen and accept what atheists claim their worldview to be.

    Only on Theism does the concept of ‘real persons’ have a coherent foundation.

    Sorry, but this is just bullshit. What coherent foundation are you talking about? The coherent foundation of an omnipotent and omniscient god who gives you free will but punished you for using it? An omnipotent and omniscient god who knows everything that you will do, tells you you have free will, and then punishes you for what he knows you will do? Sorry, but that is just incoherent.

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    To further drive the point home that the entire concept of ‘personhood’ will forever be beyond the scope of reductive materialistic explanations, it is good to remember Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.

    Gödel’s incompleteness theorems can be stated simply as such, “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”

    “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel (ref. on cite), halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”. Thus, based on the position that an equation cannot prove itself, the constructs are based on assumptions some of which will be unprovable.”
    Cf., Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010) @ 15-6

    Gödel went on to state this in regards to the implications of his incompleteness theorems for reductive materialism.

    “In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind.,,, Mind is separate from matter.”
    Kurt Gödel – Hao Wang’s supplemental biography of Gödel, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996. [9.4.12]

    Gödel incompleteness theorems have now been extended to physics and now prove that the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution will forever lack the explanatory power to be able to explain why any particular organism may take the basic macroscopic form that it takes:

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    That is to say that, in order to explain why any particular organism may take the specific form that it does, it is necessary to go beyond the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution and, via Gödel, posit “a soul or a mind”.

    Moreover, positing a soul answers the simple, but profound, question of what is it exactly that keeps the trillions of cells of our material body from disintegrating “precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer”

    The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Stephen L. Talbott – 2010
    Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.
    ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?
    Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity.
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....-of-beings

    And to add further empirical evidence to the claim that it must be a ‘soul’ that is keeping our material bodies together “precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer”, advances in Quantum Biology now reveal that there is a transcendent, non-local, i.e. beyond space and time, component to our being that is found in every molecule of our material bodies…

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – video
    https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y

    ,,, A transcendent component to our material bodies that is “conserved”. That is to say that it cannot be created nor destroyed,,,,, as Stuart Hameroff states in the following video: “the quantum information,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/jjpEc98o_Oo?t=300

    To further back up the claim that we need to posit “a soul or a mind” in order to explain ‘the whole’ of an organism, as well as to draw all this together into the present discussion we are having about the concept of “personhood”, if a person were merely the brain, as materialists hold, then if half of a brain were removed then a ‘person’ should only be ‘half the person’, or at least somewhat less of a ‘person’, as they were before. But that is not the case, the ‘whole person’ stays intact even though the brain suffers severe impairment:

    Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics’ Lives: – 1997
    Excerpt: “We are awed by the apparent retention of memory and by the retention of the child’s personality and sense of humor,” Dr. Eileen P. G. Vining,,
    Dr. John Freeman, the director of the Johns Hopkins Pediatric Epilepsy Center, said he was dumbfounded at the ability of children to regain speech after losing the half of the brain that is supposedly central to language processing.
    ”It’s fascinating,” Dr. Freeman said. ”The classic lore is that you can’t change language after the age of 2 or 3.”
    But Dr. Freeman’s group has now removed diseased left hemispheres in more than 20 patients, including three 13-year-olds whose ability to speak transferred to the right side of the brain in much the way that Alex’s did.,,,
    http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08.....lives.html

    In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study:

    “Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications.”

    Further notes:

    Strange but True: When Half a Brain Is Better than a Whole One – May 2007
    Excerpt: Most Hopkins hemispherectomy patients are five to 10 years old. Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. ,,,
    Another study found that children that underwent hemispherectomies often improved academically once their seizures stopped. “One was champion bowler of her class, one was chess champion of his state, and others are in college doing very nicely,” Freeman says.
    Of course, the operation has its downside: “You can walk, run—some dance or skip—but you lose use of the hand opposite of the hemisphere that was removed. You have little function in that arm and vision on that side is lost,” Freeman says. Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. ,,,
    http://www.scientificamerican......than-whole

    How Removing Half of Someone’s Brain Can Improve Their Life – Oct. 2015
    Excerpt: Next spring, del Peral (who has only half a brain) will graduate from Curry College, where she has made the dean’s list every semester since freshman year.
    http://www.mentalfloss.com/art.....their-life

    The following study is particularly interesting because it lists many case studies where even more than half a brain is missing from a “whole person”

    Discrepancy Between Cerebral Structure and Cognitive Functioning: A Review – 2017
    Excerpt: The aforementioned student of mathematics had a global IQ of 130 and a verbal IQ of 140 at the age of 25 (Lorber, 1983), but had “virtually no brain” (Lewin 1980, p. 1232).,,,
    This student belonged to the group of patients that Lorber classified as having “extreme
    hydrocephalus,” meaning that more than 90% of their cranium appeared to be filled with cerebrospinal fluid (Lorber, 1983).,,,
    Apart from the above-mentioned student of mathematics, he described a woman with an extreme degree of hydrocephalus showing “virtually no cerebral mantle” who had an IQ of 118, a girl aged 5 who had an IQ of 123 despite extreme hydrocephalus, a 7-year-old boy with gross hydrocephalus and an IQ of 128, another young adult with gross hydrocephalus and a verbal IQ of 144, and a nurse and an English teacher who both led normal lives despite gross hydrocephalus.,,,
    Another interesting case is that of a 44-year-old woman with very gross hydrocephalus described by Masdeu (2008) and Masdeu et al. (2009). She had a global IQ of 98, worked as an administrator for a government agency, and spoke seven languages.,,,
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/12/Discrepancy-between-cerebral-structure-and-cognitive-functioning-JNMD.pdf

    Thus, as far as empirical evidence and logic, via Godel, is concerned, the Christian Theist is sitting VERY well in his claim that he has a soul. A soul created by God in which the “whole person” can be rationally grounded. Whereas the “neuronal illusion” of the atheist is, once again, at a complete loss to coherently explain why he is should be considered a ‘real person’ instead of just being a ‘neuronal illusion’ of a person (Coyne; Dennett),, as well he is at a complete loss to coherently explain why any of the preceding evidence should be as it is:

    Verses

    “You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.”
    George MacDonald – Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood – 1892

    Psalm 139:13
    For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

    Matthew 16:26
    For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

    Matthew 22:37
    Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’

  33. 33
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 –

    I, as a Christian, certainly think everybody, from fetuses to Down syndrome people to the most rabid Darwinian materialist, are ‘real persons’ who deserve respect (and more importantly they deserve the right to life) because it is, as Andrew pointed out in post 1, a right that is ‘endowed to humans by their Creator’ of being a real person.

    If you think everyone is a person, why do you repeatedly tell people like me that we are not people? You don’t tell us that under our world-views we should not consider ourselves people, you literally tell us that we are not people.

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    Andrew states in post 1:

    Personhood isn’t something that is granted by people to other people or things. It’s endowed to humans by their Creator.

    Any other position is error/stupidity/evil.

    Bob states in post 2

    asauber – can you persuade ba77 that? He seems to think he can remove personhood from people, which is rather bizarre.

    Again Andrew in post 1 stated:

    Personhood isn’t something that is granted by people to other people or things. It’s endowed to humans by their Creator.

    Thus it follows (post 6),,,

    1. Humans are endowed by their Creator alone (i.e. God) the status of being a real person. (Any other position is error/stupidity/evil.) (Andrew post 1)
    2. Bob adamantly claims he is a real person. (post 2 and even post 4)
    Conclusion,,
    3. Bob believes he is a real person who was created by God.

    And yet in post 8, as usual, Bob (and weave) backtracks and states:

    ,,,I don’t believe in a creator.,,,

    Thus, I don’t know why you keep going on with me about me personally granting you the status of being a real person Bob, (even though it is your very own atheistic worldview that says you are a neuronal illusion with no moral agency). In post 2 you agreed with Andrew that God alone endows a person with personhood, and that it is not up to people to do it. And in post 8, you then backtracked and denied that you believed in God. Thus you yourself denied that you are a real person since you denied the only Person, i.e. God, who has the authority to grant you the status of being a real person.

    As you yourself agreed, I simply don’t have the authority to grant personhood to anyone. Only God can do that.

    Yet you want me to grant you the status of being a real person in spite of the fact that you have rejected God.

    To repeat, you yourself have denied yourself the status of being a real person since you have rejected the only Person, i.e. God, who has the authority to grant you that status.

    It certainly is not on me, as you yourself agreed, to grant you that status of being a real person instead of an illusion.,, That option is simply unavailable to me.

  35. 35
    uncommon_avles says:

    I agree that AI is too rudimentary at present to be granted personhood (legal status as a person). Even Sophia doesn’t deserve citizenship/personhood

  36. 36
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 –

    To repeat, you yourself have denied yourself the status of being a real person since you have rejected the only Person, i.e. God, who has the authority to grant you that status.

    You’ve said that God is the only person with authority to grant me personhood. You have also said that I am not a person.

    So who made you God?

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    To repeat:

    you want me to grant you the status of being a real person in spite of the fact that you have rejected God.,,,
    That option is simply unavailable to me.

    See the parable of Pinocchio, remember that only when Pinocchio learned to stop lying, and to be brave and unselfish, was he granted his desire of becoming a real boy.
    Who knows, maybe you, like Jiminy in the story, will also eventually be rewarded with a solid gold badge that certifies you as officially conscience.

    Pinocchio (1940 film) – plot
    Excerpt: Back home, the group mourns Pinocchio. The Blue Fairy, however, decides that Pinocchio has proven himself brave, truthful, and unselfish, that he is reborn as a real human boy, and everyone celebrates. Jiminy steps outside to thank the Fairy, and is rewarded with a solid gold badge that certifies him as an official conscience.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinocchio_(1940_film)#Plot

  38. 38
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – I was under the impression that God had made everyone a person, whether they believed in God or not. Am I wrong? Where in the Bible does God say that only Christians (and, I guess, possible Jews and Muslims) are people?

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, you certainly are treading some very thin ice there. You want the status of being a real person without believing in God. Yet God himself, who alone has the authority to grant you personhood, as apparently you yourself have now repeatedly agreed, holds belief in Him to be of tantamount importance.

    John 3:18
    Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

    And I’m certainly not going to try to tell God that belief in Him is unimportant if He Himself holds it to be of tantamount importance.

    Your beef with being granted the status of being a real person is not with with me but is with your Creator, and more precisely it is with your belief, and/or lack thereof, in your Creator, i.e. in God,

    Again, the option of granting you true, and real, personhood is simply unavailable to me. I am not God!

  40. 40
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – OK, so I’m condemned. But that doesn’t say that I’m not a person.

    You’re the one telling me that I’m not a person. I’m trying to find out what scriptural authority you are using to make this determination.

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, again the issue of you being a real person is an issue between you and God.

    If you want to argue with God that belief in him is not important for being a ‘real’ person do it.,,, He may even give you some pointers on how to argue properly with Himself (see Job for example)

    again, The option of granting you true, and real, personhood is simply unavailable to me. I am not God!

  42. 42
    Bob O'H says:

    The option of granting you true, and real, personhood is simply unavailable to me. I am not God!

    And yet you’ve seen fit to actually make that decision when you’ve told me that I am not a person, apparently without any guidance from God.

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    I don’t know what to tell you (if there really is a ‘you’ in there somewhere). You keep wanting me to grant you the status of being a real person even though you yourself acknowledge that only God has the authority to do so. Do you think I am God??? I can assure you for a 100% fact that I AM NOT GOD.

    You also tell me that you don’t believe in your Creator, i.e. God, so I am now forced, since I AM NOT GOD, to take you at your word and to hold that you are not a real person since you have rejected the only Person who has the authority to grant you the status of being a real person.

    Again, see Pinocchio

  44. 44
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – I’m actually suggesting that you acknowledge the authority you claim God has. If, as you say, God grants people personhood, then why are you disagreeing with that? Surely God has granted me personhood, regardless of what I, personally believe? Why are you so keen to deny what, so you claim, God has granted?

    I have never “acknowledge[d] that only God has the authority to do so [grant me personhood].” I have acknowledged that you and asauber claim that, and suggested courses of action you could take given you hold that belief.

    What make this more absurd is the argument you give for saying I am not a person is that (so you claim) I don’t believe I am a person. But do believe that I am a person, because I believe personhood doesn’t come from God, it is an intrinsic aspect of being conscious. So, I think I’m a person. As far as I can tell, God thinks I am a person (or would do if He existed). But you don’t. You’re the only person denying my personhood.

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    Despite what you may want to believe, (since you have now rejected your Creator who alone has the authority to grant you the status of being a real ‘person’), the entire concept of personhood is now rigorously shown, experimentally and logically, to forever be beyond the scope of reductive materialistic explanations.

    See post 32
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/aw-faceboook-quit-blaming-ai-for-your-goofs-and-shady-practices/#comment-656536

    Basically, your belief that you are not a neuronal illusion but are a real person, is a belief that is born out of Theistic presuppositions. You simply have no evidence, logical or empirical, that atheistic materialism can ground “personhood”. PERIOD! (If you have evidence for the genesis of conscious from matter, then go get your Nobel prize and fame that awaits you)

    Thus we are back to you making a ‘blind faith’ philosophical and theological argument as to why I, a person who is definitely NOT GOD, should grant you, a neuronal illusion, the status of being a real person.

    Again,

    I don’t know what to tell you (if there really is a ‘you’ in there somewhere). You keep wanting me to grant you the status of being a real person even though you yourself acknowledge that only God has the authority to do so. Do you think I am God??? I can assure you for a 100% fact that I AM NOT GOD.

    You also tell me that you don’t believe in your Creator, i.e. God, so I am now forced, since I AM NOT GOD, to take you at your word and to hold that you are not a real person since you have rejected the only Person who has the authority to grant you the status of being a real person.

    Again, see Pinocchio

  46. 46
    Bob O'H says:

    Thus we are back to you making a ‘blind faith’ philosophical and theological argument as to why I, a person who is definitely NOT GOD, should grant you the status of being a real person.

    Hm, yes. Blind faith that you will follow up on your convictions. This should be so simple – you should use your philosophical and theological arguments, to decide whether I am a real person. Why are you making all this effort not to apply your own worldview to the issue?

  47. 47
    bornagain77 says:

    Great question Bob,,, “Why are you making all this effort not to apply your own worldview to the issue?”

    Hint: I am being consistent with my worldview. It is you that is not being consistent with your own worldview, and, moreover, insisting that I not be consistent with mine.

    You did not earn the nickname “bob and weave” for no reason Bob! Inconsistency is the overriding characteristic of your debating style.

    Moreover, the sheer insanity inherent in your worldview goes much deeper than just the denial of personhood:

    Basically the atheist claims he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims for Darwinian evolution, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear, and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God.
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitin-system-functional-complexity-and-semiosis-joined-together/#comment-655355

    Thus, Darwinists have lost any coherent basis for reality and are, in fact, adrift in a world of illusions and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab onto.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic Materialism has turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Frankly, I don’t blame you for not living consistently within that garbage worldview. Anyone who did tried to do so would be driven completely insane.

  48. 48
    Bob O'H says:

    Thanks for saying that is a great question! Now how about answering it?

  49. 49
    LarTanner says:

    Are we considering the word “person” to be synonymous with “human being”?

    If so, why would an atheist–or a theist, or deist, or conspiracy theorist, for that matter–NOT be able to identify some being as a person. On what basis could a non-theist deny the entire category of person?

    The whole discussion about worldviews conferring or not conferring “personhood” is claptrap and a sideshow. BA77, your virtue signaling is tiresome. Maybe it’s time to get back to your bread and butter: how about a nice series of links on the Shroud of Turin, NDEs, and quantum entanglement?

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, you are confusing my Christian belief that you are a real person with God’s sole power and authority to actually endow a human being with ‘personhood’. Belief that people are real persons and the actual power and authority to endow it on, and within, humans are two VERY different things.

    You are asking me to be inconsistent in my worldview in that you are asking me to confuse my belief with God’s actual power and authority, and endow you with the status of being a real person which is a power and authority I simply do not have. I AM NOT GOD!

    Might I suggest that atheists and Darwinists forgetting who God actually is, as you are now doing, and being under the delusion that they can be like God, (i.e. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, to name a few tyrants), and can therefore decide who gets to be a ‘person’ and can therefore further decide who gets to live and who gets to die, has been the cause of much suffering in the world?

    Only under Theism, and only in a nation who truly lives “under God”, is the status of personhood given a sure footing in which people are guaranteed legal rights of ‘persons’ that can be, for the most part, trusted to endure.

    As the founders of America stated, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

    Of related note. The Darwinian worldview is clearly at war with the sanctity of human life ethic that was crucial to the founding of America

    How Darwin’s Theory Changed the World
    Rejection of Judeo-Christian values
    Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide.
    “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75).
    Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.).
    http://www.gnmagazine.org/issu.....-world.htm

    The Cultural Impact of Darwinian Evolution – John West, PhD – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh4whzh_NU

  51. 51
    bb says:

    Bob O’H,

    Maybe I can help, as a bystander.

    I don’t see ba77 denying your humanity. I see him pointing out how materialism denies you your humanity, and ba77 trying to describe how incoherent it is for you to embrace a worldview that denies what you know about yourself. To be consistent with materialism is to agree with the idea that a person is just matter in motion, and nothing more, which is the logical conclusion of materialism. ba77 shared a quote in these pages long ago, that makes the point:

    Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.

    -Andrew Ferguson, in a column on Thomas Nagel The Weekly Standard, The Heretic, Mar 25, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 27

    The Atheist Soviet Union, Mao’s China, North Korea, Castro’s Cuba all demonstrated the psychopathic condition resulting from actually living out what materialism concludes about humanity.

  52. 52
    asauber says:

    worldviews conferring or not conferring “personhood” is claptrap

    LarTanner,

    This is a grave error. Personhood is the basis on which you and I can possibly have a rational conversation.

    If you can’t get the concept right, you doth beclown yourself an a/mat bag of meat troll making noises.

    Andrew

  53. 53
    Bob O'H says:

    bb – your interpretation might be right except for one problem – ba77 has repeatedly said that I am not a person. Not that I shouldn’t consider myself a person, but that I am not a person.

  54. 54
    LarTanner says:

    asauber–

    Personhood is the basis on which you and I can possibly have a rational conversation.

    No, it is not the case that personhood is the basis for two people having a conversation. You are inflating and over-complicating the matter.

    Moreover, you provide no clarification or defense to the assertion, rendering it pretty much vacuous. You also fail to connect how worldview “confers” personhood. You seems to want to make “personhood” ideological, when it’s easier and and more straightforward to tie it to material characteristics. A human being is therefore a person and so has “personhood.”

  55. 55
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, herein lies your confusion, (and maybe I have not been clear enough is the source of your confusion), I have (tried to) consistently maintain that your very own worldview denies you the status of personhood, and that the premises inherent to your very own Atheistic Materialism lead directly to the conclusion that ‘you’ are your brain. Which is to say, the entire concept of “you” as a real person is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ generated by your brain. There is no ‘you’, only the random jostling of the atoms in your brain is to be considered real under Atheistic Materialism.

    “You” adamantly disagree with this direct implication of your own worldview and claim that atheistic materialism can somehow rationally ground the concept of “you” as being a real person. Yet, as pointed out in post 32, the entire concept of personhood is now rigorously shown, experimentally and logically, to forever be beyond the scope of reductive materialistic explanations.

    See post 32
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/aw-faceboook-quit-blaming-ai-for-your-goofs-and-shady-practices/#comment-656536

    You further claim that I am being inconsistent in my Christian worldview in holding you accountable to the implications of your own insane worldview, when the fact of the matter is that you are the one who is. blatantly, not living consistently within your own worldview. You want, as Nancy Pearcey noted in her book ‘Finding Truth”, to ‘free ride’ on the Christian worldview without paying the price of actually believing in Christianity

    Moreover, even if you wanted to live consistently within your worldview, it is, in fact, impossible for you to live consistently within your worldview as if it were actually true:

    As bb already referenced:

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

    And in the following article, Nancy Pearcey quotes many leading atheists who readily admit it is impossible for them to live as if their worldview were actually true:

    Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails – Nancy Pearcey – April 23, 2015
    Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, “Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get.”
    An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, “The impossibility of free will … can be proved with complete certainty.” Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. “To be honest, I can’t really accept it myself,” he says. “I can’t really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?”,,,
    In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots — that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one “can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free.” We are “constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots.”
    One section in his book is even titled “We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.”,,,
    When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine — a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, … see that they are machines.”
    Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: “That is not how I treat them…. I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis.” Certainly if what counts as “rational” is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis
    within Brooks’s worldview. It sticks out of his box.
    How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn’t. Brooks ends by saying, “I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs.” He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....95451.html

    And in the following article, even Dawkins himself admited that it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live as if his atheistic worldview were actually true:

    Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006
    Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,,
    Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?
    Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02783.html

    In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.

    Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
    Conclusion: Atheism is false.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

    Moreover, this insanity inherent to the atheistic/materialistic worldview is born out empirically, in that people who claim to be atheists tend to suffer mentally and physically, as a result of their worldview, much more than believers do.

    “I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion.
    The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – preface
    https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PR11#v=onepage&q&f=false
    “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100
    https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

  56. 56
    asauber says:

    No, it is not the case that personhood is the basis for two people having a conversation.

    LarTanner,

    So we are back to me trying to talk to a bag of meat that makes noises.

    Pointless.

    Andrew

  57. 57
    LarTanner says:

    asauber–

    So we are back to me trying to talk to a bag of meat that makes noises.

    Your problem is not worldview, but attitude and imagination.

    Aren’t you people supposed to have “joy in your heart”?

  58. 58
    asauber says:

    Your problem is not worldview, but attitude and imagination.

    LarTanner,

    It’s all pops and whistles and squishes, Mr. Meat.

    Andrew

  59. 59
    LarTanner says:

    Mr. Meat

    Your mom calls me that, too.

  60. 60
    asauber says:

    Your mom calls me that, too.

    As opposed to Mr. Brain, I guess.

    Andrew

  61. 61
    Allan Keith says:

    By BS77’s rationale, the following are not persons:

    Hindus
    Buddhists
    Sikhs
    North, central and south indiginous peoples
    Australian indigenous peoples
    Polynesians
    Atheists
    African indigenous peoples
    Japanese
    Chinese

    And, when you classify people as non-persons, you justify not affording them respect, freedom and, in the worst case, life. Just ask the slaves, American and Australian indigenous peoples, Jews in Nazi Germany.

    It is obvious that BS77’s ploy of calling atheists non-persons is just a rhetorical tactic to demean the people that he disagrees with and not have to address their questions. It says more about his morality than it does about atheists.

  62. 62
    bornagain77 says:

    Nope AK, just leading atheistic materialists claim, in all seriousness, to be ‘neuronal illusions’.

  63. 63
    jdk says:

    Buddhists and Hindus believe the self is an illusion and that recognizing that is a key to enlightenment.

  64. 64
    Origenes says:

    But here comes Danny [Daniel Dennett] the Sophist who asserts that consciousness is an illusion. Well, that is just nonsense sired by his otherwise laudable desire to explain things coupled with an uncritical and not-so-laudable conceit that everything can be explained. If consciousness is an illusion, then it is an illusion for consciousness. But then our sophist has moved in a circle, reinstating the very thing he was trying to get rid of. Or else he is embarked upon a vicious infinite regress.

    Calling Dennett a sophist is not very nice, even though I have very good reason to impugn his intellectual integrity, as you will discover if you read my entries in the Dennett category. So let me try to be charitable. Our man is a naturalist and an explanatory rationalist: he is out to explain everything. But not everything can be explained. Consciousness is not only presupposed by the distinction between reality and illusion, it is also presupposed by the quest for explanation. For where would explanations reside if not in the minds of conscious beings?

    So I say consciousness cannot be an illusion. One cannot explain it the way Dennett wants to explain it, which involves explaining it away. For details, see Can Consciousness be Explained? Dennett Debunked .

    But if consciousness, per impossibile, were an illusion, why wouldn’t truth also be an illusion? Consciousness is an illusion because naturalism has no place for it. Whatever is real is reducible to the physical; consciousness is not reducible to the physical; ergo, consciousness does not exist in reality: it is an illusion.

    By the same reasoning, truth ought also to be an illusion since there is no place for it in the natural world. Note also that Dennett obviously thinks that truth is objectively valuable and pursuit-worthy. Where locate values in a naturalist scheme?

    more Bill Vallicella

  65. 65
    LocalMinimum says:

    AI is quickly becoming, not an object, not a state of being or threshold of functionality, but a set of techniques.

    Anything using neural net style code structure or recursive self parameterization is now AI. Which, if you’re carrying the expectations from the legacy usage of the word into the conversation, is about like conflating a blob of lab grown neurons with a fully operational brain.

    Clever marketing, though. In bad faith, as marketing is commonly done; but clever.

  66. 66
    jdk says:

    Just FTR, in 63 I said the self was an illusion (i.e. the personhood ba is talking about), not consciousness. Buddhists and Hindus consider consciousness as primary.

  67. 67
    Allan Keith says:

    BS77,

    Nope AK, just leading atheistic materialists claim, in all seriousness, to be ‘neuronal illusions’.

    Atheists do not have leadership. We leave that to religion.

  68. 68
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note to the the claim that only a few atheistic materialists claim to be ‘neuronal illusions’.

    In their (false) claim that methodological naturalism is the supposed ‘ground rule’ for practicing science, (Judge Jones; Dover), atheists have basically ruled agent causality (and/or immaterial minds) out of bounds before any scientific investigation has even begun, As Paul Nelson states in the following article,

    Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014
    Excerpt: “Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
    MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed (the illusion of) you of that event after the fact.
    “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
    Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,
    You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,,
    some feature of “intelligence” must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for.”,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90071.html

    Thus atheists, whether wittingly or not, have basically tried to codify their materialistic belief that agent causality (i.e. immaterial minds) must be ‘neuronal illusions’ into science with their appeal to methodological naturalism.

    Yet this denial of agent causality, as imposed by the artificial imposition of Methodological Naturalism onto science, is completely unwarranted.
    If anything, we understand our own agent causality (our own immaterial mind) much better than we understand mechanical causality. As Professor J. Budziszewski states,,,

    A Professor’s Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist – University of Wyoming – J. Budziszewski
    Excerpt page12: “There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition.
    If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don’t know. “But there is gravity,” you say. No, “gravity” is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. “But there are laws of gravity,” you say. No, the “laws” are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term “laws”; they prefer “lawlike regularities.” To call the equations of gravity “laws” and speak of the apple as “obeying” them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the “laws” of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more.
    The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn’t trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn’t have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place.”
    http://www.undergroundthomist......theist.pdf

    Moreover, besides the catastrophic epistemological failure that is inherent to the atheist’s worldview which excludes immaterial minds from the outset before any scientific investigation has even begun, as the following video makes clear, advances in quantum mechanics have now shown us that the mental attribute of ‘free will’ and also the mental attribute of what is termed ‘the experience of the now’ are both integral parts of Quantum Mechanics. That is to say that key and defining attributes of the immaterial mind are now found to be central to our best scientific understanding of reality in Quantum Mechanics:

    Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4

    The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008
    Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: –
    Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....13961.html

    In fact, as the following article by Steven Weinberg shows, in quantum mechanics humans are brought into the laws of physics at the most fundamental level instead of humans being the result of the laws of physics as Darwinists had falsely imagined us to be.

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://www.nybooks.com/article.....mechanics/

    And as Anton Zeilinger states at the 7:00 minute mark of the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    – Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:57 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/4C5pq7W5yRM?t=500

    Thus, contrary to the claim by atheists that immaterial minds are unscientific (and are even “neuronal illusions”), and their claim that only mechanical causality can be allowed in science, it is now found that Agent causality is very much integral to quantum mechanics itself, which is currently our best scientific description of reality.

    Moreover, when we rightly let the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into the picture of modern physics, as the Christian founders of modern science had originally envisioned, (Sir Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, and Max Planck, to name a few), as these following quotes make clear,,,

    “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
    – Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy

    “At the same time I think that each individual man should do all he can to impress his own mind with the extent, the order, and the unity of the universe, and should carry these ideas with him as he reads such passages as the 1st Chap. of the Ep.(Epistle) to Colossians (see Lightfoot on Colossians, p.182), just as enlarged conceptions of the extent and unity of the world of life may be of service to us in reading Psalm viii, Heb ii 6, etc.,,,”
    – James Clerk Maxwell

    “for the book of nature, which we have to read is written by the finger of God.”
    – Michael Faraday

    “As a physicist, that is, a man who had devoted his whole life to a wholly prosaic science, the exploration of matter, no one would surely suspect me of being a fantast. And so, having studied the atom, I am telling you that there is no matter as such! All matter arises and persists only due to a force that causes the atomic particles to vibrate, holding them together in the tiniest of solar systems, the atom.
    Yet in the whole of the universe there is no force that is either intelligent or eternal, and we must therefore assume that behind this force there is a conscious, intelligent Mind or Spirit. This is the very origin of all matter.”
    – Max Planck, as cited in Eggenstein 1984, Part I; see “Materialistic Science on the Wrong Track”.

    ,,, if we rightly let the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into the picture of modern physics, then an empirically backed reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, i.e. the ‘Theory of Everything’, readily pops out for us in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NziDraiPiOw

  69. 69
    bornagain77 says:

    By the way Origenes, excellent find at 64. I’m borrowing it. 🙂

  70. 70
    jdk says:

    In 68, ba quotes Steven Weinberg from a very interesting article from nybooks.com concerning the instrumentalist approach to QM and the implication that consciousness is essential to a QM description of reality.

    However, Weinberg started the section that ba quotes by writing,

    Today there are two widely followed approaches to quantum mechanics, the “realist” and “instrumentalist” approaches, which view the origin of probability in measurement in two very different ways.9 For reasons I will explain, neither approach seems to me quite satisfactory.10

    That is, FTR, Weinberg is explaining what some think, but not a position that Weinberg himself endorses.

    Later in the article, Weinberg writes,

    What then must be done about the shortcomings of quantum mechanics? One reasonable response is contained in the legendary advice to inquiring students: “Shut up and calculate!” There is no argument about how to use quantum mechanics, only how to describe what it means, so perhaps the problem is merely one of words.

    On the other hand, the problems of understanding measurement in the present form of quantum mechanics may be warning us that the theory needs modification. Quantum mechanics works so well for atoms that any new theory would have to be nearly indistinguishable from quantum mechanics when applied to such small things. But a new theory might be designed so that the superpositions of states of large things like physicists and their apparatus even in isolation suffer an actual rapid spontaneous collapse, in which probabilities evolve to give the results expected in quantum mechanics.

    A point I want to make in response to this is that it is not actually consciousness that “touches the world”, so to speak, but rather some piece of measuring apparatus, be it a single photon or some macroscopic object, and furthermore, physicists themselves are macroscopic physical objects.

    So even though we, as a conscious being, have to be present in order to experience the effects of measurement, it is not actually consciousness itself which impacts the measured particle, but rather some other entity in the physical world.

  71. 71
    bornagain77 says:

    As to jdk’s claim for “decoherence” i.e. his claim that “it is not actually consciousness that “touches the world”, so to speak, but rather some piece of measuring apparatus, be it a single photon or some macroscopic object”

    Well Weinberg also rejects jdk’s position of decoherence for very pragmatic reasons:

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    The trouble is that in quantum mechanics the way that wave functions change with time is governed by an equation, the Schrödinger equation, that does not involve probabilities. It is just as deterministic as Newton’s equations of motion and gravitation. That is, given the wave function at any moment, the Schrödinger equation will tell you precisely what the wave function will be at any future time. There is not even the possibility of chaos, the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that is possible in Newtonian mechanics. So if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?
    One common answer is that, in a measurement, the spin (or whatever else is measured) is put in an interaction with a macroscopic environment that jitters in an unpredictable way. For example, the environment might be the shower of photons in a beam of light that is used to observe the system, as unpredictable in practice as a shower of raindrops. Such an environment causes the superposition of different states in the wave function to break down, leading to an unpredictable result of the measurement. (This is called decoherence.) It is as if a noisy background somehow unpredictably left only one of the notes of a chord audible. But this begs the question. If the deterministic Schrödinger equation governs the changes through time not only of the spin but also of the measuring apparatus and the physicist using it, then the results of measurement should not in principle be unpredictable. So we still have to ask, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?,,,
    Today there are two widely followed approaches to quantum mechanics, the “realist” and “instrumentalist” approaches, which view the origin of probability in measurement in two very different ways.9 For reasons I will explain, neither approach seems to me quite satisfactory.10
    http://www.nybooks.com/article.....mechanics/

    Weinberg also rejects the “realist” approach for very pragmatic reasons (basically it is an insane approach if I recall correctly 🙂 ). ,,, Weinberg basically gives up altogether on ever understanding quantum mechanics with any approach.
    But the reason he rejects the instrumentalist approach in particular in interesting, Weinberg rejects the instrumentalist approach not for any pragmatic reason but for a philosophical reason. He does so precisely because he does not want humans to be brought into the laws of nature at their most fundamental level. Basically he cites Darwinian evolution as the reason why he rejects the instrumentalist approach.
    And if anything should send up a red flag for readers of UD, it is someone citing Darwinian evolution as their reason for rejecting a certain point of view! 🙂

    Moreover, because of Weinberg’s rejection of the instrumentalist approach, that is precisely the reason I further cited the experimental work of Anton Zeilinger.

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    – Anton Zeilinger –

    And I can go much further in this vein citing experimental work that supports the validity of free will in quantum mechanics,,,

    But anyways,,, in the meantime,,, Here are a few more notes that falsify jdk’s appeal to decoherence:

    The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

    The Renninger Negative Result Experiment – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3uzSlh_CV0

    An Interaction-Free Quantum Experiment (Zeilinger Bomb Tester experiment, and in the double slit experiment, the Detector can be placed at one slit during the double slit experiment and yet the photon or electron still collapses in the unobserved slit) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOv8zYla1wY

    Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester
    Excerpt: In 1994, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat, Harald Weinfurter, and Thomas Herzog actually performed an equivalent of the above experiment, proving interaction-free measurements are indeed possible.[2] In 1996, Kwiat et al. devised a method, using a sequence of polarising devices, that efficiently increases the yield rate to a level arbitrarily close to one.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.....xperiments

    At the 16:34 minute mark of the following video the reason why detector interference does not explain quantum wave collapse is explained (i.e. observation changes the nature of what we are observing not just the activity of what we are observing):

    Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism – video – video – (3:05 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK9kGpIxMRM

    The following video also explains why decoherence does not solve the measurement problem:

    The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE

  72. 72
    bornagain77 says:

    To go further in Weinberg’s rejection of the instrumentalist approach because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and because, “the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    “In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,”
    – Weinberg

    The reason why it is so interesting that Weinberg rejected the instrumentalist approach because it turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin of humans being described as being purely the result of the laws of nature is that no one, and I mean NO ONE, has ever been able to discover these so called “impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    There simply are no ‘laws of evolution’ within the known physical universe “that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    Laws of science
    1 Conservation laws
    1.1 Conservation and symmetry
    1.2 Continuity and transfer
    2 Laws of classical mechanics
    2.1 Principle of least action
    3 Laws of gravitation and relativity
    3.1 Modern laws
    3.2 Classical laws
    4 Thermodynamics
    5 Electromagnetism
    6 Photonics
    7 Laws of quantum mechanics
    8 Radiation laws
    9 Laws of chemistry
    10 Geophysical laws
    per wikipedia

    As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”

    The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14)
    Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.
    ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf

    In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on.
    ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
    https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

    In fact, not only is there no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a realistic mathematical model upon, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or ‘naturally selected’ for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached.

    Moreover, since Weinberg was wrong in his belief that Darwinian evolution was built on some type of physical law, “that control human behavior along with everything else”, then Weinberg should not have rejected the instrumentalist approach!

Leave a Reply