Competing Worldviews Only?

_{Barry Arrington
March 22, 2010

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Evolutionary biologist Allen MacNeill, who appears frequently in the comments sections of our posts, makes the following comment to my previous post:

Teleology must exist in any functional relationship, including those in biology. The question is not “is there teleology in biology”; no less an authority on evolutionary biology than the late Ernst Mayr (not to mention Franciso Ayala) emphatically stated “yes”! The real question (and the real focus of the dispute between EBers and IDers) is the answer to the question, “where does the teleology manifest in biology come from”? EBers such as Ernst Mayr assert that it is an emergent property of natural selection, whereas IDers assert that it comes from an “intelligent designer”. It has never been clear to me how one would distinguish between these two assertions, at least insofar as they can be empirically tested. Rather, the choice of one or the other seems to me to be a choice between competing metaphysical world views, which are not empirically verifiable by definition.

Is Allen correct?

Comments

When I wrote to Stephen, “You say there is nothing in matter that can explain mind. And how do you know that? And I presume you would say that there is nothing in non-life that can explain life – how do you know that?”, he replied, "I have already explained that the law of causality disallows more in the effect that was present in the cause." But that doesn't answer the question: you accept that somehow tornadoes were present in the beginning state of the universe, but that life wasn't, but you offer no criteria or evidence to distinguish why you think as you do. Just asserting that one was present and one wasn't when in fact both are here doesn't establish that you are right, or even give me anything to discuss further about the situation. As to the cause of the universe, Stephen writes, "In any case, I still don’t know what you believe about causality. Was the universe caused or not? It would really help a lot if you could say, [A] I don’t know, in which case that would be an admission that you aren’t really sure about causality, [B] Yes, it was, in which case that would be an affirmation of the law of causality, or [C] No, it was not, in which case that would be a denial of causality, and he adds other comments about being unsure of my position. However I think I have clearly stated my position: At 151: "I don’t know why the universe is here, and I have said that I don’t know whether our concept of cause, which is based on our understanding of how this world works, applies to how our universe came to be. If there is some larger reality from which our universe came, I have no idea whether its fundamental concepts and logic are like the fundamental concepts and logic of our world or not: the idea of cause as we know it might now even apply." I think that's pretty clear. I don't believe the law of causality is a non-negotiable principle, because, as I've said, "We know whether the law applies by looking at the evidence, and the evidence is extremely strong that causality pervades our universe: time and time again we have found antecedent reasons for things. Just because the law might not apply at some extreme boundary conditions does not throw the whole law into jeopardy, and I've said (I can't find the quote) that I'm aware enough of the limitations of the human perspective that I think it is unwarranted to think that what I believe about this world - that causality pertains, necessarily applies to whatever metaphysical reality of which or out of which our universe exists. So I think I've pretty much covered this topic - not to your satisfaction, of course. And last, you write, ""Why do you believe that there are causes behind the “emergence of life” and the “emergence of mind?” Because I believe that in this world the law of causality applies. :) This is an ironic question: you complain that I don't accept the law of causality because I don't know whether it applies to the origin of the universe, and yet you complain that I do accept the law of causality when it comes to life and mind. Which takes us back to what I think is the main issue that I started this post with:
When I wrote to Stephen, “You say there is nothing in matter that can explain mind. And how do you know that? And I presume you would say that there is nothing in non-life that can explain life – how do you know that?”, he replied, "I have already explained that the law of causality disallows more in the effect that was present in the cause." But that doesn't answer the question: you accept that somehow tornadoes were present in the beginning state of the universe, but that life wasn't, but you offer no criteria or evidence to distinguish why you think as you do. Just asserting that one was present and one wasn't when in fact both are here doesn't establish that you are right, or even give me anything to discuss further about the situation.
Aleta_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

In comment #192 stephenB wrote:
"If it was necessary, it was necessary because it was set up to “unfold that way.”
Not quite; I would reword this as follows: "If it was necessary, it was necessary because it was set up that way.” In other words, the teleological qualifier "to" seems to me to be unnecessary.Allen_MacNeill_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

---Allen: At least some scientists (myself included) believe that life (and, perhaps, consciousness) is a necessary outcome of the evolution of a universe with the laws that ours exhibits. Far from being a “coincidence”, a “comprehensible universe” and beings who can comprehend it may very well be inevitable, rather than coincidental." Here I must take issue. The orderliness of the laws must be explained, and the only reasonable explanation is that orderliness comes from one who does the ordering. But even if you don't accept previous point, the "necessary outcome" itself must be explained-- that same necessary outcome, by the way, that seemed to scandalize you earlier and which prompted you to use the word "determinism" with disapproval. But, let's move onward. Why is it necessary? Clearly, IF it was necessary, as you now suggest, it was necessary because it was set up to "unfold that way." To pass that off to an "evolutionary process" is to beg the question for the same reason. The reality and the logic of the evolutionary process must be explained AND the power/energy that initiates/drives/sustains it must be explained. Thus, the law of causality is not "trivial" as you suggested earlier. Once we have already established that nothing can come into existence without a cause, several logical errors that hide behind the scenes can be identified and eliminated. Of course, one can argue fruitlessly that the Universe/time/space always existed, but we do, as you well know, have empirical evidence that such was not the case.StephenB_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

stephenB in comment #189: You're quite welcome.Allen_MacNeill_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

In comment #183 innerbling wrote:
"Allen your answer to StephenB is a bit condescending or do you really believe that Christians just assert “God did it” whenever we see something we cannot explain?"
No, from the foregoing it seems to me that stephenB asserts that "God did it" whenever we observe something that has a cause...which, according to stephenB, is everything. To me, this makes the assertion "God causes everything" simultaneously very grand and also completely pointless (and certainly not explanatory, in the usual sense of that word).Allen_MacNeill_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

Allen: [Acknowledging two realms] Some do, myself included. However, “understanding” the reality of these two realms and explaining why they exist and/or come to be are two entirely different things." I didn't know that you accepted two realms until I read your response to BA 77 pertaining to "dualism." Thank you for that information.StephenB_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

----Allen: However, stephenB did not ask “How did the universe come to be?”, s/he asked “Was the universe caused or not?” Despite their similar construction, these are not the same questions at all. On the contrary, asking if something has a cause is most emphatically not the same as asking what that cause was." Exactly right. Thank you.StephenB_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

Oops... The not-quote part: I like this. A test based upon a prediction based upon a worldview. The results should be illuminating.Charlie_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

If one thinks that life and consciousness in the universe is inevitable, one can easily set out to look for it. If one thinks that life and consciousness has only happened once, what would be the point of looking for it anywhere else? I like this. A test based upon a prediction based upon a worldview. The results should be illuminating.
Charlie_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

innerbling in comment #178: I would agree, but only when one is referring to deductive (i.e. Aristotelian, or "classical") logic. That is, the "laws" of deductive logic are...well, perhaps "true" is not the right word. How about "valid", in the sense that if one follows the rules of deductive logic, one's conclusions are always valid, but they may also be obviously untrue. For example, if one asserts as a major premise "All residents of Ithaca are liberals", and then asserts "Allen is an Ithaca resident", then the only valid conclusion is that "Allen is a liberal". But I'm not: that is, the major premise is false, and so despite the fact that the minor premise follows from the major premise, and the conclusion follows from the minor premise (i.e. is deductively valid), the entire syllogism is false, as it is based upon a false major premise. Furthermore, it should be obvious that major premises by themselves cannot be shown to be valid or invalid via deduction. To do so would be purely circular reasoning, and any conclusions derived from such reasoning are completely unwarranted. In the context of this thread, it is also the case that major premises that are based on axiomatic worldviews are also not necessarily valid either. Simply asserting a major premise that flows from one's worldview is no guarantee whatsoever that such a premise is indeed valid. Ergo, for our conclusions about empirical reality to be warranted, some other form of reasoning must be used to formulate major premises. In the natural sciences, the methods used to formulate major premises are (in order of increasing confidence): induction, abduction, and consilience. And yes, according to this worldview (i.e. the worldview of the empirical/natural sciences), there is no such thing as "truth", there is only greater or lesser degrees of confidence (usually expressed as the outcome of some form of statistical analysis). And yes, this often leaves a person committed to the empirical method in a position of "unknowing". Some people find this condition extremely unsettling, while others find it exciting. Which way one feels under such conditions often determines whether one becomes a scientist or not. Most scientists find uncertainty tantalizing, as it means there is more to investigate. Many non-scientists find the same uncertainty frustrating, if not frightening. Hence, at least part of C. P. Snow's "two cultures" derives from the different experiences scientists and non-scientists have in the presence of uncertainty.Allen_MacNeill_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

In comment #173 stephenB also wrote:
"It would really help a lot if you could say, [A] I don’t know, in which case that would be an admission that you aren’t really sure about causality, [B] Yes, it was, in which case that would be an affirmation of the law of causality, or [C] No, it was not, in which case that would be a denial of causality."
These three alternatives comprise a reasonably concise summary of agnosticism, theism, and atheism/materialism, at least when applied to the question of "How did X come to be?" in those cases in which X is a phenomenon that can be empirically investigated. For example, if one asks "How did the universe come to be?", in the absence of any empirical evidence, one could reasonably answer "I/we don't know" (agnosticism), "God created it" (theism), or "It simply came into being on its own" (atheism/materialism), and all three answers would be warranted, depending on one's worldview. Notice that this question is not the same as asking "How did the universe come to have the characteristics we observe in it now (i.e. after having come into existence). Unlike the first question, that question can be answered with reference to empirically verifiable processes, and therefore one need not leave open stephenB's three alternatives (i.e. agnostic and theistic responses would not be warranted). However, stephenB did not ask "How did the universe come to be?", s/he asked "Was the universe caused or not?" Despite their similar construction, these are not the same questions at all. On the contrary, asking if something has a cause is most emphatically not the same as asking what that cause was. In other words, one can still validly assert that something had a cause, without knowing what that cause was. Indeed, I think it is stephenB's assertion that everything that exists (whether material or immaterial) must have a cause, otherwise it would not exist. Ergo, one can assert that the universe was caused without having the faintest idea about how this came about. To state this formally: Major Premise: "All things that exist (whether material or immaterial) are caused." Minor Premise: "The universe exists." Conclusion: "The universe was caused." Notice that one can make exactly the same logical assertion about the origin of consciousness: Major Premise: "All things that exist (whether material or immaterial) are caused." Minor Premise: "Consciousness exists." [c.f. Decartes; I know that consciousness exists because I, at least, am conscious] Conclusion: "Consciousness was caused." [1] Notice also that in neither of these cases do we have any idea of how these things came to exist, only that they were caused. To me (and thank you, stephenB, for making this clear), this is the only logically supportable conclusion to which one can come, given the axiom that "All things that exist have a cause." To me, while mildly interesting from an intellectual point of view, this conclusion is also trivial. It does not help us in the slightest to determine how (much less why) anything exists, which is what I perceive to be the whole point to scientific investigation. Yes, there are some questions (e.g. "How did the universe come to be?") that are simultaneously not trivial in the sense referenced above, but also not answerable given our current state of knowledge. Under such conditions, it seems to me that the most (indeed, only) warranted answer is "We don't know", and as a scientist, I would immediately follow that response with "Let's find out, if we can." Finally, to make it perfectly clear what I have accepted as warranted and what I have not, I do not accept as warranted the assertion that "caused" = "designed". This, once again, is essentially an axiomatic assertion, rather than an assertion grounded in empirical investigation (except in those cases in which one can observe/has observed a designer actually doing the designing that is the "cause" of the phenomenon in question). Yes, one can construct arguments by analogy, in which one asserts that something "appears to be designed" because it appears to be similar to those things we know are designed, but as I have pointed out on numerous occasions in the past, arguments by analogy (i.e. by "transduction") alone have no necessary validity whatsoever. What validity they may have must be determined by some other form of argument besides simple analogy; by induction, deduction, abduction, or consilience. For more on this point, see: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/03/analogies-metaphors-and-inference-in.html http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/01/tidac-identity-analogy-and-logical.html http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/08/follow-up-post-on-analogies-in-science.html and http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/inference-and-boundaries-of-science.html Notes: [1] Notice that this formal treatment of the origin of consciousness says absolutely nothing about its "nature". That is, it does not in any way answer the question of whether or not consciousness is entirely "material", a position with which both Chalmers and I disagree.Allen_MacNeill_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Allen in 179 "The answer, it seems to me, is once again dependent on one’s worldview. If your worldview is grounded on the axiomatic assertion that, whenever one encounters a situation that cannot be empirically explained, then one simply asserts (without evidence) that “God did it”." Allen your answer to StephenB is a bit condescending or do you really believe that Christians just assert "God did it" whenever we see something we cannot explain? For kalam's cosmological argument for example my only options are 1. it's true hence God exists 2. it's false and thus reality is irrational If false reality is necessarily irrational because any materialistic explanation can be divided into two sets A and B. A) Matter is infinitely old and thus reality is irrational B) Causation is false and thus reality is irrationalInnerbling_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

P.S. I don't know this about Carl Sagan from his writings, I know it from personal acquaintance.Allen_MacNeill_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

BTW, this was Carl Sagan's position on the origin of life and consciousness: that it seemed to him to be a virtually inevitable outcome of the operation of the laws of nature in our universe. This is what inspired him to set in motion all of those programs we now identify with SETI. If one thinks that life and consciousness in the universe is inevitable, one can easily set out to look for it. If one thinks that life and consciousness has only happened once, what would be the point of looking for it anywhere else?Allen_MacNeill_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

very nicely put innerbling: to add weight to prescriptive logic; this last part of this video has a excellent example that prescriptive logic tells "the world" what to do. Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation - Granville Sewell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012bornagain77_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

In comment #173 stephenB wrote:
"It is both an objective and a subjective reality.
Agreed.
"Darwinists do not understand the reality of these two realms.
Wrong. Some do, myself included. However, "understanding" the reality of these two realms and explaining why they exist and/or come to be are two entirely different things. In the absence of a empirically verifiable cause, stephenB's solution seems always to be "God did it", whereas my response is "we don't know". Which of these two responses is more warranted, given the evidence available? The answer, it seems to me, is once again dependent on one's worldview. If your worldview is grounded on the axiomatic assertion that, whenever one encounters a situation that cannot be empirically explained, then one simply asserts (without evidence) that "God did it". However, if your worldview is grounded on the axiomatic assertion that, whenever one encounters a situation that cannot be empirically explained one must remain silent (as Wittgenstein asserts in Thesis 1.8), then "darüber muss man schweigen".
"More egregiously, they think that a comprehensible universe is a coincidence"
Once again, wrong. At least some scientists (myself included) believe that life (and, perhaps, consciousness) is a necessary outcome of the evolution of a universe with the laws that ours exhibits. Far from being a "coincidence", a "comprehensible universe" and beings who can comprehend it may very well be inevitable, rather than coincidental.Allen_MacNeill_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

Aleta in 147 "The issue here is in which direction, so to speak, do things happen. Do the laws exist and the world follows the laws – i.e. the laws are metaphysical prescriptions that impose themselves on reality from the outside, or are the laws after-the-fact descriptions of the behavior of the world? I believe it is the latter: the laws follow the world, the world doesn’t follows the laws. This is an age-old philosophical issue, and, in terms of the title of this thread, represents two different worldviews." Two axioms: Prescriptive: 1. Laws of logic are always true 2. Thus sense perceptions are always logical (logical reason can be found for them) 3. Hence make a infinite set A Descriptive: 1. Laws of logic have been found to be true after finite x sense perceptions 2. For 1 to be true x sense perceptions are necessarily logical (your memories are even somewhat correct, you are not living in a matrix, you can perceive what is logical and what is not etc.) 3. Thus prescriptive logic has to be necessarily assumed before descriptive statements can be made 4. Hence set x is subset of A and prescriptive logic is true So it's clear that after the fact finding of logic is indeed impossible because prescriptive logic has to be assumed before any "finding" can even begin to take place. Thus both of the axioms are true or both are false. For anyone to be consistently rational or logical they cannot believe only in the descriptive axiom.Innerbling_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

evolution can’t explain even one instance of novel functional information from a material basis
That's yet another one of those bold assertions without any proof. Remember, in a different thread I had challenged you to actually apply the concept of 'function information' as introduced by you to a biological system. You, however, first failed and then flaked out. Can you or can you not apply functional information on any system where evolution has been observed to occur? Of course not. You just like to imply that you can.hrun0815_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

Thanks to pelagius for the post at 169 about Chalmers. That was interesting.Aleta_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
Can you imagine a symphony having more music in it than was present in the mind of the composer?
Never heard Brian Eno's album Discreet Music, have you?efren ts_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

pelagius, methinks you place far to much faith in decoherence: you claim decoherence falsifies Wigner's consciousness centered Quantum world: to quote the 1999 article you cite: "Decoherence, in brief, describes the constant, tenuous interactions between a system or object and its environment, a set of interactions that allows concrete behaviors to emerge from the multitude of simultaneous possibilities that quantum theory allows." yet wikipedia, which for the most part is very anti any inference for ID whatsoever, states this about decoherence: "But within the framework of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, decoherence cannot explain this crucial step from an apparent mixture to the existence and/or perception of single outcomes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence Excuse me pelagius, but is this not the whole issue? To explain wave collapse? And they can't even explain "single" outcomes"? decoherence from all I can tell is very much like the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinian evolution, in that you have all this mathematical postulation and hyperbole of what is happening, and yet when it comes time to deliver the goods it fails for it can't even explain the most basic "single element of the phenomena in question! (i.e. evolution can't explain even one instance of novel functional information from a material basis) shoot pelagius, decoherence can't even muster so much as what the "uncertain variables" of Einstein sought to explain, and yet the "uncertain variables" which at least addressed the primary issue at hand of observer centered wave collapse were dealt a fatal blow last year: Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm (of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for “spooky” forces, as Einstein termed them—forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.) thus pelagius, seeing such profound foundational discontinuity within your explanation for why the waves collapse, I am rather comfortable with the very Theistic friendly consciousness centered quantum world! In fact after reviewing the extreme effort that went into trying to falsify Wigner's position with "decoherence", and yet its utter lack of explanatory power for even "single events of wave collapse" I would say I am now much more comfortable. 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.,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. The Mental Universebornagain77_{March 30, 2010
March
03
Mar
30
30
2010
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

scordova, Richard Conn Henry's piece in Nature (which is merely an essay, not a peer-reviewed paper) reveals that he does not fully understand the concept of decoherence. Henry writes:
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 decoherence, there is no collapse of the wavefunction, only an apparent collapse.
...in ‘Renninger-type’ experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing.
This is mere assertion. You could just as easily argue that the (apparent) collapse in the Renninger experiments is caused by a particle detector detecting nothing. To invoke consciousness at all, much less human consciousness, is a symptom of Henry's interpretational bias. It does not follow from quantum mechanics itself.pelagius_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT}

scordova, I'm not claiming that decoherence is the One True Interpretation of quantum mechanics. I'm pointing out that there are other interpretations, besides Wigner's, that are completely consistent with the equations of quantum mechanics. At least half a dozen of these interpretations assign no role to consciousness. Wigner was wrong -- consciousness is not essential to a consistent formulation of quantum mechanics.pelagius_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

---Aleta: “You say there is nothing in matter that can explain mind. And how do you know that? And I presume you would say that there is nothing in non-life that can explain life – how do you know that?” I have already explained that the law of causality disallows more in the effect that was present in the cause. Can you imagine a symphony having more music in it than was present in the mind of the composer? It has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with causality. ----“And in particular you can’t conclude that I deny causality just because I disagree with you by believing that, indeed, life and mind can arise out of the material world.” I didn’t conclude that you deny causality because you disagree with me; I conclude that you deny causality because you refuse to affirm it as a non-negotiable principle. --- “I don’t know why the universe is here, and I have said that I don’t know whether our concept of cause, which is based on our understanding of how this world works, applies to how our universe came to be.” I didn’t ask you why the universe is here. I asked you why you think that it was caused if you deny the law of causality as a law, which you clearly do. ---“If there is some larger reality from which our universe came, I have no idea whether its fundamental concepts and logic are like the fundamental concepts and logic of our world or not: the idea of cause as we know it might now even apply.” If you question whether “the fundamental concepts of logic of our world” apply to its cause, then you are questioning the caused universe. As I said, you seem to be trying to have it both ways. [As if to say, yes, the universe was caused, nevertheless, it may not have been caused at all] ---“And it’s not really a very important question to me. I start with the world as it is, and work from there. I am not so confident in the reach of my extremely limited perspective as a human being to think that I can just figure out what the nature of metaphysical reality is.” To understand that nothing can begin to exist without a cause is a long way from figuring out the nature of metaphysical reality. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to be able to make up your mind about whether or not you even believe in causality, except in a selective sense, which is what I stated all along and which you denied until it was no longer feasible, only to affirm it yet again. ---“I’m sorry, but I don’t forgive you for considering me confused. You may think that, if you wish, but you don’t need, or get, my forgiveness for thinking so. We are just each trying to describe what we believe.” I will refrain from using that word again. In any case, I still don’t know what you believe about causality. Was the universe caused or not? It would really help a lot if you could say, [A] I don’t know, in which case that would be an admission that you aren’t really sure about causality, [B] Yes, it was, in which case that would be an affirmation of the law of causality, or [C] No, it was not, in which case that would be a denial of causality. ---“So in the sentence above you write “both were caused [designed] to correspond.” Do you mean to imply here that “caused” means the same as “designed” in all cases, or do you just mean that our understanding of the laws of logic was a specific act of design? Your sentence is not clear.” No, design is just a special kind of cause. A subset, if you like, like “create.” I wrote: “If the universe had not been made comprehensible for human comprehension and if human minds had not been made comprehending, there would be no match. When it rains, the streets really get wet, and when we think about it, we really get the process inside of our minds. It is both an objective and a subjective reality. Darwinists do not understand the reality of these two realms. More egregiously, they think that a comprehensible universe is a coincidence [another example of denying causality, by the way] and that the comprehending mind “emerged” out of matter [yet another example of denying causation].” ---“In my post to Innerbling at 147 I explain a bit why the logic of our minds corresponds to the logic of the world: both because we observe the world and build our understanding accordingly, and more importantly, because our nature has arisen from the very world we are observing. We are a product of the world, and our internal nature is a natural microcosm of the world which has created us.” Your “explanation” does not really address the issue. How did the world itself become comprehensible? How did we become a product of the world? If “our internal nature is a natural microcosm of the world which created us,” what is the difference between the thing being comprehended [the world] and the entity doing the comprehending [us]. As a materialist, you are trying to reduce everything to one realm, which is why your pattern cannot explain the difference between the investigator and the object of the investigation. This again, is a denial of causality. In effect, you are saying that we are products of the world and that we are different enough from the world to investigate it. Thus, there is more in the effect [the investigator] than was present in the cause [the world, which was not capable of investigating itself]. Are you going to try to bridge that gap by using the word “emergence” again? Wouldn’t it be a lot less strained to simply acknowledge the obvious: A creator fashioned [another subset of cause] the world such that it can be investigated and fashioned the mind of the investigator to investigate it. Don’t you see how much more logical that scenario is? ---“I do believe that there are causes behind the emergence of life and causes behind the emergence of mind. I don’t know a lot about what those causes are, but I certainly don’t think my lack of knowledge implies that I think they just “poofed” acausally into the world.” Why do you believe that there are causes behind the “emergence of life” and the “emergence of mind?”StephenB_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

Wigner was incorrect, being unfamiliar with the concept of decoherence. Unfortunately, you’ll find that decoherence — though completely consistent with quantum mechanics — does not support your theistic preconceptions.
Decoherence may not resolve the problem Wigner highlights. The matter remains open. Richard Conn Henry as recently in Nature 2005 objected to decoherence as a solution. Futhermore, Rosenblum and Kutner have published a book supportive of Wigner as recently as last year and they too argue that decoherence doesn't solve the problem. It is possible that Quantum Mechanics is wrong, but that is specualtive at this time. The main competitor to Quantum Mechanics would be Stochastic Electro Dynamics which oddly enough is advocated also by creationists.scordova_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

That's what I thought. The "principled" exit at the arbitrary #100 never was. At least Sal's a scholar again (and always, apparently).Charlie_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 quotes Eugene Wigner:
“It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
bornagain, Wigner was incorrect, being unfamiliar with the concept of decoherence. Unfortunately, you'll find that decoherence -- though completely consistent with quantum mechanics -- does not support your theistic preconceptions.pelagius_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

nullasalus wrote:
Chalmers is an anti-physicalist with ID sympathies. You can do a lot worse as far as rationality goes.
nullasalus, I'm not sure where you got the idea that Chalmers is sympathetic to ID. He's anything but, as this blog entry of his demonstrates:
The problem of consciousness meets "Intelligent Design" It had to happen eventually. The "hard problem" of consciousness is being invoked in favor of anti-Darwinist ideas such as "Intelligent Design". Here's a key quote from an already infamous New Scientist article:
According to proponents of ID, the "hard problem" of consciousness - how our subjective experiences arise from the objective world of neurons - is the Achilles heel not just of Darwinism but of scientific materialism. This fits with the Discovery Institute's mission as outlined in its "wedge document", which seeks "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies", to replace the scientific world view with a Christian one.
The reporter contacted me to ask for a comment when she was writing the article. I told her that like many other scientists and philosophers (even people like Steven Pinker!), I have serious doubts about the possibility of a materialist explanation of consciousness, but that those doubts do little to support a religious agenda or intelligent design. I declined to be quoted on the record, though, because of the danger of being taken out of context as supporting the movement. Perhaps this was a mistake, as the article doesn't do a good job of separating the issues. I'd hate to see the consciousness/materialism issue and the design/theism issue run together in the popular imagination. As Peter Hankin says amusingly at Conscious Entities:
Oh boy: if there was one thing the qualia debate didn't need, it was a large-scale theological intervention. Dan Dennett must be feeling rather the way Guy Crouchback felt when he heard about the Nazi-Soviet pact: the forces of darkness have drawn together and the enemy stands clear at last!
Anyway, let's get things straight. The problem of consciousness is indeed a serious challenge for materialism. In fact, I think it's a fatal problem for materialism, as I've argued at length here and there. But it simply isn't a problem for Darwinism in the same way. Even if one rejects materialism about consciousness, Darwinism can accommodate the resulting view straightforwardly. The simplest way to see this is to note that the "hard problem" does nothing to suggest that consciousness doesn't lawfully depend on physical processes, at least in the sense that certain physical states are reliably associated with certain states of consciousness in our world. Even if materialism is rejected, there is still good reason to believe that there is such a dependence, via laws of nature that connect physical processes and consciousness. But if so, there is no problem at all with the idea that evolution can select certain physical states, which yield certain states of consciousness. If interactionist dualism (on which consciousness has a causal role) is true, evolution might even select for certain states of consciousness because of their beneficial effects. And if epiphenomenalism (on which consciousness has no causal role) is true, consciousness can still arise by evolution as a byproduct. Perhaps the thought that consciousness is a byproduct is unattractive, but if so the problem lies with epiphenomenalism, not with evolution. So I think there is very little support for anti-Darwinist ideas to be found here. I think there's also not much support for theist ideas: of course traditional theism requires that materialism be false, but the falsity of materialism does little to positively suggest that theism is true. As for intelligent design, I'm on the record as saying that I can't rule out the hypothesis that we're living in a computer simulation, so I suppose that it follows that I can't rule out the hypothesis that our world is designed. But there's not much here to support traditional theism or to oppose Darwinism, and whatever support there is doesn't come from the problem of consciousness. In any case, I hope that these issues remain firmly separated, as they should.
pelagius_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

What a messy post, here it is cleaned up a bit: MacNeill: You seem to think deeply about things every once in a while, so please ponder this: How do you maintain “3-D symmetry” for the entire universe from radically different points of observation in the universe using only the 4-D space-time of general relativity? It is clear that the 3-D geometric distortion visited on the problem, from radically different points of observation in the universe, is clearly far to great to be accounted for by the “expanding 4D space time” of general relativity. If you believe that quantum information wave collapse is not universal to each "central observer" please provide the formal mathematical proof that 4-D space-time is sufficient to maintain such 3-D symmetric centrality we witness for our "observer" position in the universe. “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963bornagain77_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

MacNeill: You seem to think deeply about things every once in a while, so please ponder this: How do you maintain "3-D symmetry" for the entire universe from radically points of observation in the universe using only the 4-D space-time of general relativity? It is clear that the 3-D geometric distortion visited on the problem, from radically different points of observation in the universe, is clearly far to great to be accounted for by the "expanding 4D space time" of general relativity to account for it. If you believe that quantum information wave is not universal please provide the formal mathematical proof that 4-D space-time is sufficient to maintain such centrality we witness for our position in the universe. “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963bornagain77_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply