Back At Special Agent ERV’s Blog…

_{April 12, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

DMS, with an as yet undetermined appendage writes:

Might I suggest that “someone” (perhaps a group effort) work up a brief flyer to hand out to people going to see Expelled. It should be non-snarky, non-confrontational, with some simple points and web addresses to go to for more information

Great idea! I think they should shave their heads, wear togas, and chant ziiiiiiii-enzzzzzz ziiiiii-enzzzzz ziiiiii-enzzzzz. People will wonder if the Hare Krishnas are making a comeback and be naturally curious.

Now boys and girls at Ms. ERV’s website please, no applause for this awesome marketing strategy. Just send me money to show your appreciation. Y’all have paypal, right? Of course you do.

Comments

Everything comes from the nature of reality that doesn’t explain why the form of something is one way vs another. This is not an answer because it can be applied to anything and tells us nothing in regards to purpose. But in the cell an din DNA and fine tuning we have positive evidence for design. A mind though does have the dialectical power to choose and form. Either way you need mind because that is the only thing we know of that can design form. Since nature cannot be shown to “pick itself” because the first cause of the universe is not known in property or in conceptual form I have to reject a materialistic cause that is not intelligent. And obviously I posit that mind transcends matter from the inference of the Kalam argument that all things that come into being have a cause - the universe came into being as the big bang has strongly solidified and hence the universe has a cause that as far as I can tell must have been non-material as the current models hold. I remain "convinced" of a nonmaterial mind. Now run along.Frost122585_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

Meg, the problem with your anology is where does the origin of the rejection mechinism come from?
Where does the intelligent designer come from? :) OK, no not really, the rejection mechinsm comes from the nature of reality. Some things survive and some things don'e (they are "rejected"). The things that survive propogate.
Evolution is perfectly compatible with ID but you still need ID for the evolution or rock rejecter to climb mount improbable.
Of course. However the issue I have is that on one side you have a mechanism that has been explored and documented in detail (step by step micro-evolution leading to macro evolution) and on the other side we appear to have "some features of the universe are best explained by intelligent agency". Sure, I accept that ID cannot tell us about the designer as such, but then what hope of explaining the origin of complexity?
What you are referring to is the “exogenous” factors.
Indeed. What are the “exogenous” factors around the designer?
They are necessary for any evolutionary theory to work but still not enogh if you dont have rocks in the first place and vise versa.
Presumably this refers to the origin of life problem? Frost, what came first, the Chicken or the Egg? Does the fact that the designer created life have bearing on what came first? Chicken or Egg?
Both require assembledge instructions which easily imply mind and hence ID.
Lay observations and thinking imply the sun orbits the earth. Imply is not proven. I remain unconvinced by this line of argument.Megan.Alavi_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

Meg, the problem with your anology is where does the origin of the rejection mechinism come from? Evolution is perfectly compatible with ID but you still need ID for the evolution or rock rejecter to climb mount improbable. What you are referring to is the "exogenous" factors. They are necessary for any evolutionary theory to work but still not enogh if you dont have rocks in the first place and vise versa. Both require assembledge instructions which easily imply mind and hence ID.Frost122585_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, I think the problem people are having with your "Welcome to Wales" example is that sure, it's unlikely that a bunch of rocks will spell out such a message. However, I don't believe that anybody is claiming the same for biological life. Nobody is saying that "this complex message (cell) randomly assembed from parts (rocks) lying about" Perhaps your rock example could better be reworked as something like rocks rolling down a hill but there is a mechanism at the bottom of the hill that rejects rocks based on a given set of criteria. So if the message "Welcome to Wales" has as it's analogue in this new system "Optimised for the enviroment" then rocks that fail to meet this criteria (or within a given tolerance) are rejected. Over time rocks that meet the criteria build up the message. Where is the "selection" in your example? To use such an example and try to avoid selection (as it's a critical component of Evilution) simply misleads the less educated reader into thinking your example actually has some relevance to the real world. my 2c.Megan.Alavi_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus
evolutionary materialist adherents are unable to account for the origin of a credible mind within the terms of their system of thought.
I find this fasincating. Could you tell me what your credible account of the origin of mind is please? Also from your always linked I you say
underscoring that neither evolutionary materialist school of thought on origin of life has a credible, robust chance + necessity only model for the origin of the FSCI in life:
Presumably you have a credible robust model for the origin of the FSCI in life? What is is please? Also as your position, as far as I can tell, is that chance + necessity cannot account for the complexity found in biological life. Kairosfocus, at this point I think it would be worthwhile to find out what you think chance + necessity can accomplish. Anything? What level of complexity can chance + necessity alone create? I'm reading your always linked now, but coud you tell me what units FSCI is measured in? And you go to alot of trouble to define it in your always linked but I don't see any examples of you working of the value of FSCI for both a negative (I.E a naturally created item) and a positive (I.E A bac-flag). Is that possible? It would help illustrate the main point of the dicussion, for me anyway.Megan.Alavi_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

Good luck bro.Frost122585_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

3] All of this yet again has zero to do with my plea for a little understanding of the philosophy of mind upthread. And again, my plea continues to have no effect. This, from a man who has failed to address the presentation of an actual excerpt from and link to a key article in the enc of cog sci on the hard problem as they see it, and the exposed question-begging and explanatory failures that trace thereto. Just cf 158 for details. Sorry, the problem is that we DO understand the phil that is being embedded in the foundation of the sci – worldview level evolutionary materialist question-begging. So, again, we have excellent reason to conclude that the complex theorising that follows – sadly -- is little more than erudite elaboration on a fatally flawed foundation. No wonder it becomes a “hard problem.” Indeed, self-referential absurdity lurks therein: materialists have to use their minds to infer to evolutionary materialism, and within their materialism have no good grounds to truth the deliverances of said minds. 4] DK, 162: Separate your “mind” from your body and explore the universe. Fly as high and as far and as long as you like. Of course you won’t be able to see anything, because you left your visual apparatus behind. Ditto for hearing, smelling, tasting, sensing heat or cold or touch or pain, etc., etc. See the problems of [a] diversion from the issue as put in the WALES example, [b] embedding of materialistic assumptions, [c] resulting self-referential absurdity? Not to mention, [d] DK, have you shown that it is it logically and physically impossible that pure mind may be able to perceive and act into external reality in the physical world by mechanisms we do not currently understand, starting with the possible origin of the observed, life-facilitating, multidimensionally and convergently fine-tuned physical cosmos by Mind? (Otherwise your thought experiment challenge comes down to little more than question-begging.) FYFI, DK, Kant was there long before you. We hold and filter our perceptions through our sense organs and associated internal “software,” forming the phenomenal world as opposed to the noumenal world of things in themselves. Multiply by the embedding of such organs and synapses etc in brains that are on evo mat assumptions originated, driven and controlled by chance + necessity acting on matter + energy. Such a dynamic, however, has no reliable correlation to [a] the logic of ground-consequent, or [b] the truth of reference of concept to reality, or [c] the possibility of free and reasonasble action of an agent into the world using brain, hands, tongue etc. And, the Wales example simply underscores just this point. You have an umbridgeable chasm between the noumenal and phenomenal, one that resists even appeal to empirical observation, as the empirical is filtered through the same suspect system. Wheel, and tun, and come again . . . 5] DK, 161: Ain’t seen no evidence that “mind” is a substance separable from the activity of a brain…yet. Onlookers, let's see: evidence that chance + necessity acting on matter + energy cannot credibly account for accurate or reasonable information and the reason that sometimes marks our internal lives is not “evidence”? Thence, the observation that intelligence in action and its signs -- which BTW are the most central of our experiences [i.e. we are CONSCIOUS OF and ACT INTO the external world through our . . . minds in action . . .] -- has radically different properties not accountable for on the basis of such C + N etc, is not “evidence”? Ah, DK is sticking out for the old: I gotta see this with my own eyes and feel with my own fingers route. Oops, DK: HOW, on evo mat premises, do you convert physico-chemical impulses in your own eyes and hands and electrochemistry of neuronal impulses into seeing, feeling and understanding with your mind – without self referential absurdity tracing to the sort of error made by Sir Francis Crick as previously cited, or simply and plainly begging the question? Namely:
FK, The Astonishing Hypothesis, 1994: “ ‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” PJ, Reason in the Balance, 1995: Observes that Sir Francis should be willing to preface his writings thusly: “I, Francis Crick, my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” In short, “[t]he plausibility of materialistic determinism requires that an implicit exception be made for the theorist.”
GEM of TKI PS: Ona personal note, this morning, I go sit in a hot seat on energy, 9:30 am EDC time, ZJBkairosfocus_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

Yay! Okay, here is a long-standing response: ____________ First and foremost, let us observe, again, how -- even after I have now several times pointed out the logical structure of the WALES example -- neither EM nor DK have been able to answer it on its terms. A few corrective- for- the- record remarks are in order, but the thread above already makes it quite plain that evolutionary materialist adherents are unable to account for the origin of a credible mind within the terms of their system of thought. That is, their whole system of thought is on the evidence of this and earlier threads, arguably self-referentially incoherent as a worldview. Nor – per red herrings and strawman arguments just above -- can they face the implications of the sort of question-begging redefinition of science at the outset that came out in the Enc of Cognitive Science article I cited above. Sadly, that turns far too much of the sort of professional level exposition EM wants us to all peruse, into erudite elaboration on a cracked foundation: a worldview-level question-begging claim rooted in a historically and philosophically unjustifiable attempt to redefine science away from being an empirically anchored search for the truth about our world, into little more than applied evolutionary materialist philosophy repackaged under the prestigious name, “Science.” [If that echoses of Paul's “Science . . .” -- gnosis -- "knowledge" --“. . . falsely so called,” that, sadly, is no accident.] Okay, on a few selective points: 1] EM, 163: 114 is Daniel King, not me My mistake was simply in the numbering, I cited 120, accurately – from EM. I then responded to it, pointing out that the basic problem is that EM has ducked the issue by trying to deny the antecedent in the Wales example:
. . . echoing Richard Taylor, suppose you were in a train and saw [outside the window] rocks you believe were pushed there by chance + necessity only, spelling out: WELCOME TO WALES. Would you believe the apparent message, why?
But when he said:
Would I believe I was in Wales if I also believed the rocks spelled out WELCOME TO WALES by chance? What a silly question! I would have no reason to hold such a belief, because I know that people — intelligent agents of which I have first-hand knowledge — arrange rocks all the time. I’ve seen them do it. I’ve even done it myself . . .
. . . all he succeeded in is showing just how well-warranted the design inference on functionally specified complex information is; especially since we have no good reason to infer that humans exhaust the list of possible or actual intelligent agents. Thus, we see we have excellent, empirically anchored reason to infer to agent action per FSCI etc as reliable signs of intelligence. But in fact – and as I have repeatedly noted here and elsewhere – it is strictly logically and physically possible for rocks rolling down a hillside by chance to spell out WELCOME TO WALES. Just, per overwhelming improbability, due to the vastly more common non-functional configurations, utterly unlikely to happen. The focus on this case was on the unlikely becoming actual: per chance + necessity acting on matter + energy, an apparent message. Would such a message-by-chance [and rocks arranged by humans next to a railroad in Pennsylvania are irrelevant!] be credible? Obviously not: for cause-effect tracing to mechanical necessity + chance happenstance has no good correlation to ground-consequent and warrant. And, therein lieth revealed the core gap in the evo mat account of the mind, for it claims that chance + necessity acting on matter + energy gave rise to the machines, algorithms and codes of life, thence to the diversification up to and including man with mind. So, chance + necessity controls all, and accounts in principle for all. That brings us right back to the point cited in 49; kindly scroll up for details or hit this link to an earlier thread. Easy to divert attention from, a lot harder to answer to on the merits. Not to mention, at length in 163, EM said: 2] 163: One reason the WELCOME TO WALES hypothetical is silly is that I have to “believe [the rocks] were pushed there by chance and necessity only.” It’s therefore absurd, since I don’t believe chance messages. In short, EM has -- while trying to deflect and dismiss the force of the Wales example -- inadvertently conceded the point: apparent messages originating in chance-driven processes are not credible. Now, since the mechanical necessity only accounts for the low contingency natural regularities, the alternatives for the high contingency part showing up in the arrangement are: chance or intelligence. [Cf: (a) how a die sits on a table -- NR; and, (b) which side is uppermost -- chance or intelligence.] Next, EM rejects the possibility of chance giving rise to the apparent message, and thus its reference to empirical reality. [NB: I actually only hold the weaker, thermodynamics rooted, empirically anchored point that such apparent messages -- per the dynamics of configuration spaces -- are highly improbable once the apparent messages are sufficiently complex. Dembski's UPB is a metric of just such "complex enough." And BTW, as a glance at the clouds or irregularly cracked concrete pavement or pitch pine panelling etc will show, so long as there are lobate lines and blobs in a medium, our pattern recognition capability will see faces and bodily shapes of men and beasts. The FSCI is in that in-built pattern recognition software, not in the common shapes that may trigger it whimsically. So, the answer tot he Virgin in a slice of toast etc examples is: where did the irreducibly complex framework of coding, algorithms and implementing machinery etc come from in our brains, per CV + NS etc, all the way back to the underlying origin of cell-based life?] So, we see that chance + necessity are plainly inadequate to explain functionally specified, complex information. But, the deliverances of minds are replete with just that FSCI - well beyond the UPB, i.e what it is reasonable that chance + necessity could do on the gamut of the observed cosmos. Therefore, given EM's "I don’t believe chance messages", where did this come from: surely, not chance + necessity acting on matter plus energy across the space and time of the observed cosmos? And, if resort is then made to the speculation that there is a quasi-infinite array of cosmi giving many opportunities for chance + necessity to work, and we just happen to inhabit the one that lucked out, that is philosophy, not empirically anchored science. Indeed, it is metaphysics of the worst kind: unobserved, probably unobservable, and ad hoc. Extracosmic Mind as the explanation of mind as we experience it, and indeed of the complex, finetuned and multidimensionally convergent life-facilitating physics of matter and energy in our observed cosmos, then makes a lot better sense, relative to the key issues of comparative difficulties: factual adequacy, coherence, explanatory power. Once we take question-begging out of the picture and see Mind as seriously on the cards for explaining the existence of the FSCI-rich physical cosmos, it is not surprising at all to then see that our derivative minds are rational, able to understand, and able to act into a world made by Mind, starting with being able to act on our own brains, bodies, sense organs and effectors [hands, tongues, etc]. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

Okay . . . Let's see if this has been fixed after a week . . . GEM of TKI PS: I have added an appendix, no 6, to my always linked, on the core issue at stake in this thread.kairosfocus_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I never said "the investigation is the investigator" -- that was your coinage, as is the use of Platonic "substance" to infer dualism. What, is the next step to go Aristotle on me and talk about essence and accident?evo_materialist_{April 25, 2008
April
04
Apr
25
25
2008
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

evo-materialist: If you understand the subject, you will not need to appeal to the other traditions, you will simply make you case. So make it. How do you conduct an investigation if the investigation is the investigator?StephenB_{April 25, 2008
April
04
Apr
25
25
2008
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

StephenB, my earlier comment apparently got lost in the jam over the last few days. Now that comments are appearing again, I'll simply say this: there are many philosophical and other traditions that do not hold to your view of dualism. I don't have the time or inclination to bring you up to speed on this, but there it is. What's more, I think most self-respecting dualists would cringe at your facile dismissal of all non-dualist perspectives as irrational. "Different substances" indeed.evo_materialist_{April 25, 2008
April
04
Apr
25
25
2008
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

evo-materialist: the investigator does not socially construct the investigation. There is either something there to investigate or there is not. This is the standard for rationality and your materialism is at odds with it. As a materialist/monist, you must think of the investigator and the investigation as being of one and the same substance. As a practical matter, you understand that the investigator and the investigation are different substances. Thus, you believe in one philosophy, but you practice another. That is not rational.StephenB_{April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

StephenB, you won't be surprised that I disagree. It may be that, to the extent I care about philosophy, I come from a different philosophical tradition. I certainly don't agree with you about dualism, since "subject" and "object" seem much more likely to be constructed historically than not. They're real now, of course, in the sense that we (usually) either experience our world in such terms or talk about our experience as though it conformed to such terms. But they're not necessarily pre-existing. The world happens to have gotten carved up that way, for (most of) us, now. It could have been carved up a number of other ways. But dualism has plenty of problems too. When I referred to other ways of knowing, I was thinking not of philosophy but of love, interpersonal relationships, poetry, art, music. My relation to dualism can be expressed in these lines by Jack Spicer:
When I praise the sun or any bronze god derived from it Don't think I wouldn't rather praise the very tall blond boy Who ate all of my potato-chips at the Red Lizard. It's just that I won't see him when I open my eyes And I will see the sun. Things like the sun are always there when the eyes are open Insistent as breath. One can only worship These cold eternals for their support of What is absolutely temporary.
And later:
The voice sounds blond, sounds tall, sounds blond and tall. "Goodbye from us in spiritland, from sweet Platonic spiritland, You can't see us in spiritland, and we can't see at all."
That's my view of dualism.evo_materialist_{April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Testingkairosfocus_{April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

----evo-materialist: "StephenB, of course you’re right that there are other ways of knowing. I would not deny that: in fact, I once had a long argument with hardcore reductionist Paul Churchland about precisely that issue. But I thought we were talking about things that can be known scientifically." I appreciate hearing from you on this, because, my approach has been different that KF's, though I do agree with his points. So, yes your instincts are correct. While I like the scientific arguments, I like the philsophical arguments much better, and those are the ones that I am appealing to. My argument is clean and quick. The issue is monism vs. dualism. If we don’t assume metaphysical dualism, the entire rational enterprise collapses. Science is possible only under the following metaphysical conditions: [A] We have rational minds and [B] We live in a rational universe. Without a rational mind, there is no tool with which to conduct the investigation; without the rational universe, there is nothing to investigate. Put another way, rationality requires a subject and an object or, if you like, an investigator and something to be investigated. One cannot reason his way to a destination if there is no place to go. In effect, monism is too restricted, because it acknowledges only on realm. If monism is true, something essential for rationality will be missing, because one of two situations will be the case: Either 1) everything in the universe is an object with no subject to apprehend it; or 2) everything is a subject with no object to apprehend. What happens is this: materialists posit monism, but each time they reason they unconsciously assume dualism. That is because dualism is the necessary condition for rationality.StephenB_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, the references you provide seem wrong -- 114 is Daniel King, not me. Anyway, one more time: One reason the WELCOME TO WALES hypothetical is silly is that I have to "believe [the rocks] were pushed there by chance and necessity only." It's therefore absurd, since I don't believe chance messages. Now, would I believe the message if I thought it were put together by humans? Depends: if I were on a train to Wales, maybe. If I were on a train to Philadelphia, probably not. It's a loaded, pointless example. Futher, it points to an kind of design that is well within our experience of human design, as the cosmos, life, etc. are not. I would need much more than the form of a thing to infer design in those instances. I would need other evidence that a plausible designer may exist. Back to the silly example. Maybe it's not spelling "Welcome to Wales." Maybe I just see the pattern, like an animal in a constellation, because I have wanted to visit Wales since childhood and dream of Wales nightly. Messages can be awfully subjective. Let's I saw the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich, or Jesus on the trunk of a silver maple. Have I made a design inference? If so, I'd call that a false positive. All of this yet again has zero to do with my plea for a little understanding of the philosophy of mind upthread. And again, my plea continues to have no effect.evo_materialist_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Here's a thought experiment (Gedankenexperiment) for kf: Separate your "mind" from your body and explore the universe. Fly as high and as far and as long as you like. Of course you won't be able to see anything, because you left your visual apparatus behind. Ditto for hearing, smelling, tasting, sensing heat or cold or touch or pain, etc., etc. Did you experience anything?Daniel King_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Good work, evo-materialist. Your erudition and patience are exemplary. Ain't seen no evidence that "mind" is a substance separable from the activity of a brain...yet. The appearance of that evidence seems to have been delayed by a confusion on the part of the metaphysicians here about the difference between evidence and argument. But that is autochthonous to the species, is it not?.Daniel King_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Re EM: GEM at 112 above:
suppose you were in a train and saw [outside the window] rocks you believe were pushed there by chance + necessity only, spelling out: WELCOME TO WALES. Would you believe the apparent message, why? That should be enough to show the difference between mind and blind chance + necessity acting on matter + energy across space and time.
EM, 114:
What? Would I believe I was in Wales if I also believed the rocks spelled out WELCOME TO WALES by chance? What a silly question! I would have no reason to hold such a belief, because I know that people — intelligent agents of which I have first-hand knowledge — arrange rocks all the time. I’ve seen them do it. I’ve even done it myself. So as a Gedankenexperiment it’s pretty weak.
GEM, 124:
First, congratulations on making a design inference based on organised, functional complexity . . . . let’s get back to the main point: [The WALES example] Now, how did you respond? ANS: By inferring that only design — presumably on overwhelming improbability of chance + necessity making sense much less making true sense out of rocks tumbling down a hill — could credibly account for such a configuration. In other words, you find it incredible (on overwhelming improbability) that chance + necessity acting without intelligent direction can arrive at functionally specified complex information. (Rightly so, BTW.)
EM, 159:
you have grossly overstated how hard I “struggled.” The WELCOME TO WALES case was poorly stated and a bad analogy.
It is easy to see that EM was unable to address the case on its terms, so he tried to proposed a restriced inference to design. That ran into two problems, [1] he was using FSCI to infer to design, in a context where he has no good grounds for claiming that humans exhaust teh set of actual or possible intelligent agents, [2] he implies that chance + necessity are unable to achieve a sense-making, relevant and even reliable message. In short, he has implied that chance + necessity acting on matter + energy cannot credibly account for the properties of mind, at least on the gamut of the observed universe; not least because of the search space problem. As to the onward appeal to authority, EM has to address the problem of censoring science to evolutionary materialism, based on the just noted challenge. Otherwise what we are seeing is not an empirically anchored search for t5he truth about the observed world, but an attempt to find the best evolutionary materialist explanation of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans. That is, science is held hostage to worldview, agenda and ideology, by begging the question from the outset. [And, in that context, kindly note that I cited from a relevant, more or less standard reference.] Let us step into the sunshine, stepping out of the evo mat cave of shadow shows. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, you have grossly overstated how hard I "struggled." The WELCOME TO WALES case was poorly stated and a bad analogy. I struggled only with responding in a way that did not waste your valuable time or mine. I know you're quite pleased with the case, as you keep coming back to it, but my response was quite adequate to the quality of the case. I have "ducked" nothing. In fact, I would say that others have ducked plenty. My initial post in this forum was to suggest that people against materialist theories of mind learn a little of what they're talking about by reading the major figures in the field. So far, nobody seems to have taken me up on that.evo_materialist_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

KF asked me to post this for him- Participants (and Onlookers) – with thanks to Frosty: It is time to put the above in context, especially in light of the underlying repeated ducking of actually dealing squarely with serious issues, e.g the plain implications of the WELCOME TO WALES example – cf. my remarks from 112 on and then DK at 114, EM at 120 and JT at 130. When a point is so strongly ducked by several advocates of an opposed position, it can be taken as well made. So, let us now take up a look from another angle, in light of context. Context – imposed evolutionary materialism . . . This is not a surprise – after all, we are in an age where there are many who try to re-define science – in the teeth of history and philosophical issues – as in effect the best evolutionary materialistic account of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans, usually disguised nowadays under terms like “natural explanations” or “methodological naturalism.” It boils down to only “allowing” explanations that fit in well with evolutionary materialism. Censorship, in one word. No more is this more blatantly evident than in what is now often called cognitive science – the “scientific” study of the mind and its operations. So, let's start there: Cognitive “Science” -- the hard question, massively begged . . . Ned Block's article on phil issues connected to cognitive science -- recall, as Lakatos informs us, phil issues are embedded in the core of scientific research programmes -- for the Enc of Cognitive Science [MIT?] is all too emblematic of the problem:
The Hard Problem of consciousness is how to explain a state of consciousness in terms of its neurological basis . . . . There are many perspectives on the Hard Problem but I will mention only the four that comport with a naturalistic framework . . . . Eliminativism . . . . Philosophical Reductionism or Deflationism . . . . Phenomenal Realism, or Inflationism . . . . Dualistic Naturalism
a --> Note, how the materialistic perspective is imposed, right from the outset, via the presented definition of the problem: explain[ing] a state of consciousness in terms of its neurological basis. So, any explanation that does not set out to in effect account for consciousness on the basis of neurons and their electrochemistry or the like is excluded from the outset. b --> Block then sets out to look at four “naturalistic” alternatives: [1] the view that “consciousness as understood above simply does not exist,” [2] allowing that “consciousness exists, but they 'deflate' this commitment—again on philosophical grounds—taking it to amount to less than meets the eye,” [3] the view that in effect consciousness emerges from but is not reducible to neurological activity [a comparison is made to how heat as a concept may be explained as tracing physically to thermal agitation of molecules, but is conceptually different], [4] views that “standard materialism is false but that there are naturalistic alternatives to Cartesian dualism such as pan-psychism.” c --> What is never on the table is the key issue that the design inference points to: we know, immemorial, that there are three major causal factors, chance, necessity, intelligence. Necessity is associated with mechanical regularities [e.g. how heavy objects fall and come to rest on a table], so is not associated with highly contingent outcomes. Contingency [e.g. which face of a die, having fallen to and settled on a table is uppermost] traces to chance or agency. When we have functionally specified, complex information, we have a situation that in observation and on grounds of inadequacy of required search resources, reliably traces to intelligence, not chance. d --> Indeed, when EM finally did say something about the WALES example, he inferred to intelligent action on the grounds that he could not reasonably expect such an outcome to happen by chance and necessity, as did JT. Of course, EM also tried to insist that we know relevant agents are about, to constrict the possibility for making a wider inference to agent action. In so doing he both let the cat out of the bag that should have had a piglet in it, and opened himself up to the counter that we have no good reason to assume or imply that humans constitute the only possible or actual intelligent agents. e --> So, we see clearly that there is a characteristic and even routine sign of intelligence: FSCI, which -- per want of search resources -- is beyond the reasonable reach of chance on the gamut of our observed cosmos, and which is marked by high contingency, thus does not fit the known characteristic of mechanical necessity summarised in laws of nature: natural regularities. f --> That means that attempted reductions or explanations in light of neural networks and their electrochemistry etc is doomed to failure. An apt example of why can be found in Phil Johnson's response to Sir Francis Crick's claim to reduce consciousness etc to neuronal activity in his The Astonishing Hypothesis. For, to be consistent, Crick should be willing to preface each of his writings: “I, Francis Crick, my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” Johnson then aptly comments that “[t]he plausibility of materialistic determinism requires that an implicit exception be made for the theorist.” g --> In short, the whole evo mat project – precisely because of its monistic attempt to reduce the cosmos and its contents to matter + energy acted on by chance + necessity across space and time -- grinds to a halt in the face of the self referential incoherence I highlighted at 49 above. h --> Thus, options 1 and 2 fall apart directly, and 3 and 4 boil down to defiantly flying the materialistic flag in the teeth of consistent explanatory failure. But the failure is not just a matter to be fobbed off with a promissory note or two on future deliverances of “Science,” it is inherent in the redefinition of what science is and tries to do. For, the exclusion of intelligence ends up in both question-begging and in self referential incoherence. The explanations cannot even explain the works of the researchers themselves. i --> This brings us right back to the force of the WALES example:
suppose you were in a train and saw [outside the window] rocks you believe were pushed there by chance + necessity only, spelling out: WELCOME TO WALES. Would you believe the apparent message, why?
j --> ANS: IF one believes that rocks sliding down a hillside at random just happened to line up in accord with the abocve sentence in English, THEN one would have no good reason to accept that the result is likely to have any reasonable or accurate reference to empirically observable reality. For, chance + necessity are about what is by accident of boundary conditions and/or the undirected forces of nature. Irrelevant attempted dismissals notwithstanding. k --> So [a] the overwhelming majority of outcomes will not be in accord with any functionally specified outcome as described, and [b] if we do see such an outcome, we have no reason to believe that the chance + necessity will reliably connect to the empirical realities of the situation. Apparent messages are logically possible based on chance + necessity, but when such a potential sufficiently complex and functionally specified, even were we to see it – admittedly, maximally unlikely – we have no grounds for accepting it as factually or logically well grounded. l --> And that is precisely why EM above struggled so hard with the little thought experiment. For, he knows that complex, functionally organised information such as apparent messages, reliably trace to mind, and that mind has capabilities that do not credibly trace to chance + necessity acting on matter + energy. In short, we have strong empirically based reason to see that with mind as viewed through the characteristics of its traces, we are dealing with something that points beyond the world of matter + energy acted on by forces tracing to chance + necessity only. So, let us call on the denizens of the evo mat cave of manipulative shadow shows: “step into the sunshine, and step out of the shade . . .” GEM of TKI PS: This reworks and replaces comments submitted earlier that did not make it through the mod filter for one reason or another, as also happened to short test submissions.Frost122585_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

You say the origins of the laws of nature isn't science. I say it is because its a question with important implications and only minds have been shown to produce laws. I think we therefore have the scientific explanation for such. No I don’t find the hyperbole of the Expelled movie offensive and neither do you. Your just using this issue to drive an emotion wedge between the obvious connection between there being no purpose to life - no nature intrinsic value of life planned into nature (which is not proven and I think is false) and the theory of DE which puts all of its weight on unguided natural processes and natural selection. Hitler wanted to kill off all of the disabled, gypsies, Jews etc because they were in his view less fit. The connection is perfectly clear to anyone who saw the film and whether its offensive or not is in my opinion not nearly as important as getting the much overlooked point across. While DE is insufficient, morally bankrupted, and hopeless, ID is the opposite of these three. That coupled with its evidence is why I support it and why I think many people will in the future. Poeple say its not scientific but it does cast doubts on various Dariwnian claims and therefore produces scientific tests which can either disprove it or add evidence to its assertions. The "it's not science" stuff is IMOP a patent lie and nothing more than a mantra. It's no wonder your posts either simply dissent from my view by professing your own "belief" or focus on a personal qualitative statement I make about the character of your posts as above. You have made it very clear that you aren't interested to speaking to the arguments I posted above in all of my lengthy posts. I don't think we have anyhting more to talk about. I'll stick with my Design Inference and you can have your incredulity. Time will have the final say and sort it all out.Frost122585_{April 20, 2008
April
04
Apr
20
20
2008
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

Frost, how kind of you to compare me to a racist. Nice. No wonder you don't find the holocaust hyperbole of the Expelled crowd offensive. I'm not biased against people who hold to ID (or for that matter creationists), some of whom are friends and family. I am biased against ID as a theory and an explanation, because it's neither.evo_materialist_{April 20, 2008
April
04
Apr
20
20
2008
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

And the movie was excellent. Especially compared to most of the other unintelligent garbage out there. But you wont give it any credit at all most e. That is because you are "bias" against ID just like a racist is bigoted against people of color. You point that ID is not scientific does not address the point that if others disagree with you then why not let them have a say in the process. ID has in the past lead to discover. The laws of physics that were mostly the result of the super genius of sir Isaac Newton was the result in large part of Newton’s belief that he was discovering God’s laws- that they were the product of mind, mean tot be discovered and therefore were comprehensible. When one thinks the world does have things in it that are “meant to” and “can be” discovered it is far more motivating. This is true of al things in life. If no one had ever broken 80 in golf before one struggling to do so might easily loose hope. But since a lot of people do usually after long and hard practice and work, we know that if we keep trying there is a good chance for success. Likewise with ID we don’t know if more laws and such are discovered- and as you pointed out we don’t know where they come from but we can assume from the ID perspective that there is a good chance that they are out there and are comprehensible. DE offers no such hope. It relies totally on one's personal desire and convenience to keep trying to solve a problem that they have no reason to suspect there is any solution to. How inspiring. These are the facts of life.Frost122585_{April 20, 2008
April
04
Apr
20
20
2008
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

I dont know why you would want to see a move that makes a case for ID when you rule out the possbility a priori.Frost122585_{April 20, 2008
April
04
Apr
20
20
2008
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Frost, even the very few positive reviews of Expelled have pointed out that it doesn't make a case for ID. So I have no desire to see it. Stephen, deductive reasoning can make no progress, as it only formalizes what's contained in its premises. I'll stick with the limitations of the scientific method, thanks.evo_materialist_{April 20, 2008
April
04
Apr
20
20
2008
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Evo- at 149, You should go see Expelled and if you have an ounce of humanity in your body you’ll realize that science does not get along fine without metaphysics. It is completely blind at best. Also we have a scientific explanation for the complexity of life and possibly the laws. There is only one known acting cause of such things and that is intelligence. We have an explanation that you reject for no reason except out of bias. You have NO explanation at all. Excluding metaphysical explanations a priori is not scientific.Frost122585_{April 20, 2008
April
04
Apr
20
20
2008
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

StephenB, of course you're right that there are other ways of knowing. I would not deny that: in fact, I once had a long argument with hardcore reductionist Paul Churchland about precisely that issue. But I thought we were talking about things that can be known scientifically.evo_materialist_{April 20, 2008
April
04
Apr
20
20
2008
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

-----evo-materialist: "Bingo. Yes, I don’t know. And there’s no way to know the answers to those questions by means of scientific testing. And so any answers I reach on those questions will be metaphysical speculation. Meanwhile, science gets by fine non-metaphysically and without the need for such abstractions." You are laboring under a great misconception. We know a great many things that are not arrived at by the scientific method. Further, all science depends on philsophical assumptions, the "the law of non-contradiction" being foremmost among them. Indeed, any conclusion that we arrive at through a deductive reasoning is more reliable than anything the scientific method can produce. That things do no cause themselves is obvious to all rational people.StephenB_{April 20, 2008
April
04
Apr
20
20
2008
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply