Barry Concedes a Point to TSZ, Well, Sorta

_{Barry Arrington

May 31, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

My thanks go to KF for pointing out the dustup over at TSZ over my last post. I found this little gem at TSZ particularly amusing.

Allan Miller quotes me and responds:

Barry: “Materialists are obliged to believe …”

Miller: … absolutely nothing. There is no obligation.

Well Allan, I suppose it depends on what one means by “obliged.”

My dictionary defines it in two ways:

“to require or constrain as by law or command”

“to require or constrain as by conscience”

Perhaps our difference lies in the different ways we have used the word. You are certainly correct that no one is going to require or constrain materialists by law or command to accept the conclusions that are logically compelled by their premises. There is no law against being irrational. You’ve got me there. I concede your point.

I was, however, using the word in the second sense. I assume (perhaps incorrectly, but I am always willing to give the benefit of the doubt) that materialists are honest. Honestly mistaken, but honest nevertheless. My conscience compels me to accept the conclusions that are logically compelled by my premises. For example, I believe the truth claims made in the ancient Christian creeds. From this premise I am “obliged” to further believe that there is one and only one God, and this means I am not free to believe there are 50 gods.

I assume that, just as with myself, materialists’ consciences compel them to accept the conclusions that are compelled by their premises. That is how I was using the word “obliged.” Now back to my original point to which you took umbrage. I wrote:

“Materialists are obliged to believe that every aspect of human behavior is determined – that it was selected for by evolutionary processes. Materialists are, therefore, obliged to believe that humor conferred on humans some reproductive advantage that was selected for by natural selection.”

Now, it seems to me that given their premises materialists are in fact “obliged” to believe these things. If you disagree you must show me where I am wrong. If I have stated correctly materialist premises and the argument I have constructed from those premises is valid, then the conclusions I have reached follow as a matter of logic. If you believe I am wrong you must show me where I have misstated materialist premises or where my argument is invalid or both. Your “neener neener neener I’m not obligated to believe anything” response is, to say the least, not particularly compelling.

Comments

JLA: I note your summary of corollaries of evolutionary materialism, and will comment on such on points: _____________ >> No objective, absolute, inherent meaning in life or the universe • No objective, absolute, inherent purpose in life or the universe • No objective, absolute, inherent value in life or the universe>> 1 --> Thus, no basis for good/evil etc, and so one may not use evil as an objection to anything. Might and manipulation make 'right." This is what Plato pointed out in The Laws Bk X. 2 --> Kindly highlight these to TSZ for me as they will not believe it from the likes of me. >>• We are the cobbled together Frankensteins of billions of years of trial and error>> 3 --> First point of direct trouble empirically, as we are anything but cobbled together, from the cellular molecular nanotech level up, what we see is elegant and sophisticated evident contrivance. 4 --> This is part of why the first stage of my challenge to such materialists is kindly explain on empirical evidence, OOL. >>• No objective, absolute, inherent morality in life or the universe. No good, no evil, no right, no wrong>> 5 --> Thus, amorality and nihilism as Plato warned. But this flies in the teeth of the undeniable fact of moral governance, and is unlivable. (Cf here.) >>• No objective, absolute, inherent truth in life or the universe • No objective, absolute, inherent knowledge in life or the universe • No objective, absolute, inherent logic in life or the universe>> 6 --> Absolute -- untainted, undiluted trugh and knowledge are a little different from objective [warranted, credibly so]. 7 --> The first test is Royce's assertion, Error exists, E. It is easy to show that by forming C = { E AND NOT-E}, that C must be false. On meaning,t hen NOT-E is false, and so E is undeniably true. This is an objective truth warranted to undeniable certainty, so that it is absolutely true. 8 --> Warranted, true belief is actually strong form knowledge, and so knowledge also exists. 9 --> As for logic and first principles of right reason, simply reflect on the self evident status of the identity cluster and the principle of sufficient reason, and one sees that likewise such collapses. [Cf. here.] 10 --> A world view that asserts confidently things in the teeth of such foundational self-evident truths is irretrievably irrational and false. >>• We have no free-will, mind, consciousness, rationality or reason. They are illusions and our very personhood, identity and humanity are not real.>> 11 --> No ability to reason and to think straight. That is reductio ad absurdum. >> • The emotions we express are just chemicals in our brain. The very things we seek in life like happiness, peace, contentment, joy are just chemicals reducing us to nothing more than chemical addicts.>> 12 --> if emotions are just chemicals, so is thinking, and the rest collapses again. Chemical interactions are not even in the same category as consciousness linked experiences such as love, or perceiving the truthfulness of Pons Asinorum in Geometry. >>• We are no more important than other animals. A dog is a rat is a pig is a boy. >> 13 --> So, we can kill off people like rats if they get out of control? Do you really want to go there? ___________ JLA, of course , may be writing satirically here. But in even that case, it lays out a context in which we see why the sorts of concerns that have been raised have been raised. And, as has been shown, his remarks strongly echo those of others who are in senior positions to speak as those int eh evo mat system of thought. I trust the TSZ denizens are noticing. KF PS: JLA, you may want to see [1] how a worldview level analysis leads to the credibility of generic theism, and how onwards, [2] one may find good warrant to hold to Judaeo-Christian theism.kairosfocus_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

F/N: Perhaps, above, someone overlooked the significance of the modifier, matter in the relevant form. That is, to discuss cybernetic systems, the general class of system that is relevant to discussing the materialist view of human beings with brains, CNS's and bodies. Bodies including brains and CNS's are made up of atoms organised into molecules, and of course as modified into ions in certain contexts. The interaction energies are those relevant to molecular orbitals, of order of eV [typical of chemical reactions and of energy levels of light photons, e.g. a red photon may have ~ 2 eV], not MeV to 100's of MeV which is the sort of level where mass-energy equivalence will be relevant. Such cybernetic systems as are relevant need fairly stable component entities built up from atom-based structures, and organised in functionally specific ways. It is in that context that I have gone on to discuss the issues in 4 above, and to note the difference between mV level potentials and signals and matters such as truth, meaning, morality, right wrong, etc. hence the force of Liebniz's remark in Monadology 17. I hope it will be plain that on that set of considerations, which should have been clear, the objection raised is tangential, distractive and strawmannish. KFkairosfocus_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Oops. I forgot to close a blockquote.Neil Rickert_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Eric:
Personally, when I talk of a materialist I have in mind someone who thinks (whether or not they recognize it is a tentative conclusion) that matter and energy are all there is; that all of reality is just a result of matter and energy interacting through natural physical forces. By that definition, I am not a materialist. And that's why I usually say that I am not a materialist. But, if you want to get more specific, the main point is that I am not a reductive materialist. I don't believe that mathematics or consciousness can be explained as matter and energy interacting. On the other hand, I don't believe that they provide evidence of anything beyond matter and energy. It's just that the reductionist program is hopeless. To take mathematics as an example, I have seen people attempt to say that numbers are pencil marks on paper. But that sort of explanation doesn't work. For myself, I don't take mathematical objects (such as numbers) to be metaphysical. I'm a fictionalist, so I take numbers to be useful fictions. However, the reductionist would still need a reductionist account of why people can maintain such fictions. And I see that, too, as hopeless. I'll admit to being a kind of behaviorist, though not a Skinner style behaviorist. I see mathematics as arising out of behavior (our information using behavior). For that matter, our knowledge of matter and energy arises out of our behavior.
Neil Rickert_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

Thats why youre Christian? Really? Those points from JLA speak to a specific religion? Why not bhuddism, judaism, muslim, etc? Oh thats right, its because you blindly accept what has been put before you by your church. Gotcha.CharlieD_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

goodusername @ 15: I'd agree with your statement about materialists being obliged to believe that anatomy was determined by natural selection. The problem of explaining exactly how humor, music, art, language, etc., came about as side consequences of mental characteristics would still remain. I've wondered if humanity's love of music was somehow related to mathematics and language.Barb_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Barb,
These abilities might be interrelated. But the point remains is that natural selection had to select them for them to be present in self-conscious beings today.
Our skill and love an music need not have been selected for to exist today if it is the result of other behavioral/mental abilities. In other words, music (and humor) may be side consequences of other mental characteristics that were selected for. What if someone said, "Materialists are obliged to believe that every aspect of human anatomy is determined – that it was selected for by evolutionary processes." Would you agree with that statement? I, personally, don't think that a large forehead and chin were "selected for" among our ancestors. Instead, the chin and large forehead are the result of other characteristics that were selected for (larger brain and other characteristics associated with speech, etc). Music and humor may be mental equivalents.goodusername_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001@13: This is why I'm a Christian.Barb_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

If there is no God and there's just naturalism, materialism: • No objective, absolute, inherent meaning in life or the universe • No objective, absolute, inherent purpose in life or the universe • No objective, absolute, inherent value in life or the universe • We are the cobbled together Frankensteins of billions of years of trial and error • No objective, absolute, inherent morality in life or the universe. No good, no evil, no right, no wrong • No objective, absolute, inherent truth in life or the universe • No objective, absolute, inherent knowledge in life or the universe • No objective, absolute, inherent logic in life or the universe • We have no free-will, mind, consciousness, rationality or reason. They are illusions and our very personhood, identity and humanity are not real. • The emotions we express are just chemicals in our brain. The very things we seek in life like happiness, peace, contentment, joy are just chemicals reducing us to nothing more than chemical addicts. • We are no more important than other animals. A dog is a rat is a pig is a boy. • There is no after life. Once we die, we fade from existence and all our memories, experiences, knowledge etc goes with it. In time, we are forgotten. • All the things we do in life are just for survival. Learning, loving, seeking, being positive, eating, relating, having fun are created for the sake of ignoring the real reason we are here and that’s to live as long as we can. • There is no help coming to save humanity as a species or as individuals. We are all alone and on our own. If you can’t survive, you die. This is reality if there is no God. I don't give a rat's ass what Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens or what other atheist wrote a book says. Nihilism is the truth and atheism is a noble lie just the same as theism would be. Survival and reproduction. THAT"S IT. All other things are made up bullshit for survival and reproduction. The atheists of old knew this. The new atheists are trying to say that you can have your cake and eat it too but there really is no cake.JLAfan2001_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

goodusername@11:
My point being that we are certainly not “obliged to believe” that our abilities in language, mathematics, and music were each separately selected for by evolutionary processes.
These abilities might be interrelated. But the point remains is that natural selection had to select them for them to be present in self-conscious beings today. For a materialist, there is no other option. The religious might acknowledge that they were designed in the image of God, but for the materialist, these processes are simply the result of blind chance working on raw materials.Barb_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

“Materialists are obliged to believe that every aspect of human behavior is determined – that it was selected for by evolutionary processes. Materialists are, therefore, obliged to believe that humor conferred on humans some reproductive advantage that was selected for by natural selection.” Now, it seems to me that given their premises materialists are in fact “obliged” to believe these things.
There's nothing in materialism, AFAIK, that says that "every aspect of human behavior" must be utterly separate and independently subject to selection. That idea is, I think, frankly very odd, and I think the vast majority of scientists would find the idea silly. For instance, while little understood, there seems to be a fascinating interplay between language, mathematics, and music. (IIRC, Galileo got his training in mathematics from his father, who in turn got his mathematical training as part of his study of music.) I think it very possible that much of our mathematical abilities were brought about as a result of our developing language abilities, and that our skills and love of music are a result of an interplay between mathematics and language. My point being that we are certainly not "obliged to believe" that our abilities in language, mathematics, and music were each separately selected for by evolutionary processes. While it's possible that humor and music were the result of selection (there are arguments that they were the result of "sexual selection") I think that, instead, they are the result of other things that may or may not have been selected for (in this sense, I suppose one could call them "spandrels," to use Gould's term. Even consciousness itself may fit into this category.)goodusername_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Neil: I think you ask an interesting question. Personally, when I talk of a materialist I have in mind someone who thinks (whether or not they recognize it is a tentative conclusion) that matter and energy are all there is; that all of reality is just a result of matter and energy interacting through natural physical forces. In contrast, someone who believes or acknowledges or suspects that there might be something else besides matter and energy (God, intelligence, a life force, whatever) would not be a materialist in my understanding of the word.Eric Anderson_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

You have NO empirical evidence period!bornagain77_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Please oh please Mr. Rickert, list the specific evidence for this ‘tentative conclusion’, not an a priori assumption mind you, for either functional information, life, and/or consciousness ‘emerging’ from a energy-matter basis.
It is tentative because the evidence is not conclusive.Neil Rickert_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Neil Rickert, now this is amazing for you state in regards to functional information, life, and/or consciousness 'emerging' from a energy-matter basis:: "For even if I believe that, it is not an a priori assumption. It is, at most, a tentative conclusion,,," Please oh please Mr. Rickert, list the specific evidence for this 'tentative conclusion', not an a priori assumption mind you, for either functional information, life, and/or consciousness 'emerging' from a energy-matter basis. Contrary to your claim for your belief being a 'tentative conclusion', I know of not one shred of evidence as for you to prove that your belief is not in fact an a priori assumption! (references upon request) Moreover, Mr Rickert, with all due respect, I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s short presentation, that I have linked, to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s position actually is. Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQbornagain77_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

KF:
We know what matter is, in the relevant form, atomic.
You might know that. I don't. If that view of matter is correct, then I am certainly not a materialist. For I see electromagnetic energy and kinetic energy as important, and not composed of atoms.Neil Rickert_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Neil Rickert, do you believe that functional information, life, and consciousness, ‘emerges’ from a energy-matter basis? If so you might be a materialist!
Even if I believe that, it does not compel other conclusions. For even if I believe that, it is not an a priori assumption. It is, at most, a tentative conclusion subject to change on the basis of future evidence.Neil Rickert_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

NR: We know what matter is, in the relevant form, atomic. Quantum theory is about 100 years old. It is probably the best empirically supported theory in all of science, never mind its weirdness. We know the organic chemistry that goes into cells, organs, tissues, systems and bodies. In particular we know that of the brain and CNS. We know enough to model neural networks and study their properties. We know that information and learning in the sense of enhanced, preserved functional effectiveness can be created by different wiring patterns and degrees of connectedness in such a network. We know that cybernetic control loops exist and that they have properties that emerge from interconnexion of components. Where the complexity involved implies a large space of possible outcomes -- raising again the issue of FSCO/I and that of fine tuning, as controllers have to be tuned. We know in that context that both negative and positive feedback are important, and that feedback opens reflexivity and tracking of performance relative to target track, but also can lead to instability. We know that nonetheless, when properly tuned -- itself no mean feat -- such can track set paths and effect controlled trajectories, and the like. We know that proprioception allows sensing of internal state in orientation to the external world, where the head is in key part a mobile sensor turret. We have mapped the homunculus across the Brain, to the point where illustrative sketches are commonplace. We also can see that something like the architecture of the Smith Model of a two-tier controller, with a supervisory level indirectly linked to the loop allows for imposition of a set path and that storage of ideal path allows control on difference between ideal and actual, which is where things like muscle memory come in. But none of this even trends to explain consciousness, nor the fact that without genuine freedom of action and choice, we cannot reason, know, be reasonable or responsible. Those are categorically distinct. Ion flow potential gradients, in mili-Volts are distinct from degree of truth or logical implication or rightness. They are simply incommensurate. None of this grounds moral responsibility, or obligation. It might ground might and manipulation make "right" -- meaning survival or promotion of survival, but that is just a gateway to the worst sort of nihilism if that is all. In short, we are here barking up the decidedly wrong tree. We are like the drunk looking for his contacts under the street light when he should realise his contacts were lost over in the dark. Leibniz nailed it in Monadology ever so long ago:
17. It must be confessed, however, that perception, and that which depends upon it, are inexplicable by mechanical causes, that is to say, by figures and motions. Supposing that there were a machine whose structure produced thought, sensation, and perception, we could conceive of it as increased in size with the same proportions until one was able to enter into its interior, as he would into a mill. Now, on going into it he would find only pieces working upon one another, but never would he find anything to explain perception. It is accordingly in the simple substance, and not in the compound nor in a machine that the perception is to be sought. Furthermore, there is nothing besides perceptions and their changes to be found in the simple substance. And it is in these alone that all the internal activities of the simple substance can consist . . .
And BA is right, when one accepts certain premises, they entail certain conclusions, as night follows day. You may refuse to follow the logic all you want, it makes no difference. We have an obligation to do so in our own defence as we know that systems built on such premises will work from the implications, not from what would be better. And so far, the evidence is, on logic and history, some within living memory, that Plato was right in The Laws, Bk X, when he pointed out the radical relativisation of knowledge, values and law, as well as resulting ruthless faction games leading to nihilistic chaos. Indeed, just the past few weeks here at UD we saw where such an inference by Schaeffer and Koop -- which was pooh poohed at the time and dismissed as scaremongering, is coming to pass scarce a generation later. Let me spell it out for you in one horrific, chilling phrase: "post-birth abortion." Quite literally of anyone that is not desired or deemed to have life unworthy of being lived. I dare you to translate that into German and tell me that the ghosts of the 1930's and 40's are not moaning out a warning, loud and long. You may not like the verdict of logic and the grim example of history, but it is there. And, thank you, we will heed it. And it will stiffen our determination to resist what is being pushed down our throats, for we know the price of standing idly by and doing nothing. You may have forgotten, but we have not. We dare not. KFkairosfocus_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

Mebbe, it was sexual selection? (As if it matters.) KFkairosfocus_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Neil Rickert, do you believe that functional information, life, and consciousness, 'emerges' from a energy-matter basis? If so you might be a materialist! Jeff Foxworthy - You might be a redneck https://vimeo.com/31079535bornagain77_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

I assume that, just as with myself, materialists’ consciences compel them to accept the conclusions that are compelled by their premises.
Do you have a reference to these premises that supposedly compel materialists? One of the reasons I am not a materialist, is that it is far from clear to me what is entailed by being a materialist, particularly when we are still discovering new things about matter.Neil Rickert_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply