Competing Worldviews Only?

_{Barry Arrington

March 22, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

sal in comment #162: Thank you, my friend. It is nice to know that, despite all of our disagreements (Lord knows they are many), you remain in all of your interactions with me, a gentleman and a scholar. And so, to bed...Allen_MacNeill_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Allen, And just to show I can be civil at times: Get well soon. I just got over a head cold myself. And, of course, I agree with you on the mind.nullasalus_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

nullasalus in comment 161: You made me laugh out loud – his hair is, indeed, "uncivil" in the extreme. Nice leather, though...Allen_MacNeill_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

And (surprise, surprise!) I completely agree with bornagain77 on one point: to me it seems clear that the "mind" is neither the same as, nor reducible to, the brain or any of its parts. This, of course, means that I am a "dualist", but if so, I'm in good company: so is David J. Chalmers, Edwin Arthur Burtt, Wilder Penfield, and many of my teachers (and, later, colleagues) at Cornell.Allen_MacNeill_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

And, before I go back to bed (I’m currently harboring a rapidly reproducing population of rhinoviridae in my nasal epithelia),
I wish you the best of health. I think your concerns and ideas deserve consideration and I've found them educational. Good health to you, my friend.scordova_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

Allen, The idea that I would find Chalmers nonsensical because of his t-shirt is nothing short of inane. Clearly, it's because of his hair. More seriously, Chalmers is an anti-physicalist with ID sympathies. You can do a lot worse as far as rationality goes.nullasalus_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

BTW, bornagain77, the Earth is in the "center" of the universe (in the video you are so fond of linking) to in the same way that every single point on the surface of a sphere is at the "center" of that surface. If one focuses on anypoint in the universe during either its expansion or contraction, that point will appear to be at the center of the universe. The same thing is true for an inkspot on the surface of a balloon covered with inkspots. Blow the balloon up or deflate it and keep your eye on any dot, and it will be in the "center" of the "universal" expansion or contraction. I believe that's called "relativity". Heard of it, perchance?Allen_MacNeill_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Sorry, I lost my "way" in sentence 2 of comment #157 (just before "violate").Allen_MacNeill_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

further extenuating evidence for a "mind" that is separate from the brain Aleta: This following NDE occurred under tightly monitored conditions The Day I Died - Part 4 of 6 - The NDE (Near Death Experience) of Pam Reynolds - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045560 Miracle Of Mind-Brain Recovery Following Hemispherectomies - Dr. Ben Carson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994585/ Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics' Lives: Excerpt: "We are awed by the apparent retention of memory and by the retention of the child's personality and sense of humor,'' Dr. Eileen P. G. Vining; In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study: "Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications." http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/19/science/removing-half-of-brain-improves-young-epileptics-lives.html Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience - Pim Lommel - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599/ Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their NDEs. 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/bornagain77_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

Aleta: I have often used the example of a thunderstorm to illustrate the same kind of emergence you exemplify with a tornado. Both of these exhibit what Chalmers calls "weak emergence", and so do not in any violate the criterion of "causality" asserted by stephenB. But if that is the case, then I would simply say the same thing about abiogenesis, the origin of the genetic code, and everything else in evolutionary biology, and, indeed, in the natural history of the universe, exempting (perhaps) consciousness. I haven't (yet) had time to read Chalmer's arguments for the "strong emergence" of consciousness, and so will not comment on it yet, except to say that it sounds to me (on first blush) quite similar to my argument for "meaningful information". That is, the "meaning" of "meaningful information" is not reducible to nor derivable from the medium in which it is encoded, transmitted, and decoded. So maybe I already agree with Chalmers. vjtorley, what do you think?Allen_MacNeill_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

Further note Aleta: In conjunction with the mathematical necessity of an "Uncaused Cause" to explain the beginning of the universe, in philosophy it has been shown that,,, "The 'First Mover' is necessary for change occurring at each moment." Michael Egnor - Aquinas’ First Way http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html I find this centuries old philosophical argument, for the necessity of a "First Mover" accounting for change occurring at each moment, to be validated by quantum mechanics. This is since the possibility for the universe to be considered a "closed system" of cause and effect is removed with the refutation of the "hidden variable" argument. i.e. There must be a sufficient transcendent cause (God/First Mover) to explain the quantum wave collapse to the "uncertain" 3D effect for "each moment" of the universe. Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579/ Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm This following experiment highlights the centrality of consciousness in the Double Slit Experiment as to the wave collapse and refutes any "detector centered" arguments for wave collapse: Delayed choice quantum eraser http://onemorebrown.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/god-vs-the-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser/ of note; Consciousness must be INFORMED with local certainty to cause the wave to become a particle. We know from the Double Slit Experiment, with delayed erasure, that the simple fact of a detector being present is NOT sufficient to explain the wave collapse. If the detector results are erased after detection but before conscious analysis we see the wave form result instead of the particle result. This clearly establishes the centrality of consciousness to the whole experiment. i.e. The clear implication from the experiment is that consciousness is primary, and detection secondary, to the collapse of the wave function to a 3-D particle. Consciousness must precede 3-Dimensional material reality. "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 1963 Why, who makes much of a miracle? As to me, I know of nothing else but miracles, Whether I walk the streets of Manhattan, Or dart my sight over the roofs of houses toward the sky,,, Walt Whitman - Miracles Moreover, the transcendent cause must be sufficient to explain the semi-unique effect of 3D centrality witnessed by each individual observer in the universe. The Known Universe - Dec. 2009 - very cool video (please note the centrality of the earth in the universe) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4240304/ of note: The only way to "geometrically" maintain continuous 3D spherical symmetry of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, within the "3D universe", from radically different points of observation in the universe, is for all the "higher dimensional quantum information waves" of the universe to collapse to their "uncertain" 3D particle state, universally and instantaneously, for/to each individual conscious observer in the universe. The 4-D expanding hypersphere of the space-time of relativity is grossly insufficient to maintain 3-D integrity/symmetry from radically different points of observation in the universe. That the "mind" of a individual observer would play such an integral yet not complete "closed system role", in the instantaneous quantum wave collapse of the universe to "3D centrality", gives us clear evidence that our "mind" is a unique entity. A unique entity with a superior quality of existence when compared to the "uncertain 3D particles" of the "material" universe. This is clear evidence for the existence of the "higher dimensional soul" of man that supersedes any "material basis" that the soul/mind has been purported to "emerge" from by materialists. And also is compelling to the Theistic postulation of God being the "sustainer" of the universe 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 I find it extremely interesting that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its "uncertain" 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that I exist? This is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence they seem to be having a extremely difficult time "unifying" mathematically (Einstein, Penrose). The Physics Of The Large And Small: What Is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: This, (the unification of General Relativity and the laws of Quantum Mechanics), would also have practical advantages in the application of quantum ideas to subjects like biology - in which one does not have the clean distinction between a quantum system and its classical measuring apparatus that our present formalism requires. In my opinion, moreover, this revolution is needed if we are ever to make significant headway towards a genuine scientific understanding of the mysterious but very fundamental phenomena of conscious mentality." Yet, this "unification" between what is in essence the "infinite world of Quantum Mechanics" and the "finite world of the space-time of General Relativity" seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man: The Center Of The Universe Is Life - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993426/bornagain77_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

Sorry, pwn3dAllen_MacNeill_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

And PaV, unless you missed it, I'm back, so by your criterion at least, you lose (or, as my kids would say, pwned)Allen_MacNeill_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

Aleta: But how can material give rise to that which it is dependent on for its own existence? A transcendent cause is necessary to explain the universe: Genesis 1:1-3 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. The Creation Of The Universe (Kalam Cosmological Argument)- Lee Strobel - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993987/ Hugh Ross PhD. - Evidence For The Transcendent Origin Of The Universe - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347185 Formal Proof For The Transcendent Origin Of the Universe - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4170233 "The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science." - William Lane Craig http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115 Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete - Borde-Guth-Vilenkin - 2003 Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - Pg. 176bornagain77_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

I am beginning to feel a little like Michael Corleone... In the paper by Chalmers that I cited in comment #73, Chalmers asserts that consciousness (i.e. not the origin of the universe) is the only example of strong emergence (i.e. it is not reducible to nor explainable by the "natural" mechanisms of neurobiology). I find this interesting, as consciousness has also been implicated directly in quantum mechanics and (by some physicists, including John Wheeler) the "cause" of the "big bang". I'm not certain that I agree with Chalmers, but I find his assertion intriguing. Please note that Chalmers is not asserting that there is something "magical" or "supernatural" in the neurophysiology of the nervous system that produces the strongly emergent phenomenon of consciousness. Indeed, he does not speculate on what it is about nervous systems that makes it possible for them to "host" the strongly emergent phenomenon we refer to by the term "consciousness". To me, it seems likely that consciousness emerges from a particular pattern of wiring in the nervous system, probably having to do with "self-referential feedback circuitry" (as suggested by Douglas R. Hofstadter in Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid), but that is a topic I also don't want to get into in this thread. Maybe next time... And, to satisfy Aleta's request for a statement by an evolutionary biologist vis-a-vis how causality "works" in biology, click here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/sci;134/3489/1501.pdf By doing so, you will download a reprint of Ernst Mayr's 1961 article from Science magazine, "Cause and Effect in Biology", one of the most widely cited and reprinted articles from that journal. And, before I go back to bed (I'm currently harboring a rapidly reproducing population of rhinoviridae in my nasal epithelia), I would like to slightly revise my assertion about the origin of the universe. Having thought about it a lot (thank you, stephenB, for that much at least), I would like to assert (without evidence, of course, but for the sake of logical consistency) that I believe that the "big bang" indeed was caused, but that we cannot determine what its cause was using empirical methods...at least, not yet. BTW, Chalmers is not an evolutionary biologist. In fact, he's not even an empirical scientist, he's an Australian philosopher specializing in the philosophy of mind. He is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Consciousness at the Australian National University in Canberra, Australia [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._Chalmers ]. But, I'm sure nullasalus and stephenB will find his views to be equally "nonsensical" and "uncivil". After all, what rational person would wear such a hideous T-shirt? And, before I go, a question for stephenB (and whomever else would like to respond): I agree that your arguments for logic as presented here apply to deductive logic, as presented in Aristotle's Analytica Priora. Do you see any validity in inductive logic, as presented in Francis Bacon's Novum Organum, or in the fields of mathematical logic commonly referred to as sentential and predicate logic? If not, why not? And yes, I appear to be hooked, and so, to quote the governator, I'll be baaaaaaaak...Allen_MacNeill_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

But how do you know that what we experience as mind was not/is not present in matter? And how do you know that the conditions of life are not present in non-life? Obviously tornadoes are somehow "present" in the very basic nature of things that was present at the beginning of the universe, and we know this because tornadoes are here. Life and mind are also here - so on what basis do you declare that they are not "present" in the nature of matter. 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? You may believe that in fact life and mind require something special to exist (and I use the word may to mean "have permission to"), but you can't use your belief as a reason to support the claim that they aren't "present" in the nature of matter and energy, and then use the fact that they aren't present to conclude that life and mind require something special. 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. It's a matter of different worldviews, true, but it is not a matter of affirming or denying causality. ================================ And in response to an earlier post of yours, You ask, in several ways, "Here is the point, though: I know that the universe didn’t just pop into existence because the law of causality precludes it. The question is, how do you know it? We have no evidence that could help solve that riddle. We only have evidence that the universe began to exist. So, how do you conclude that it had a cause?" 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 I have said this quite a few times. 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. You write, "Please forgive me, but this is the essence of the materialist confusion. The logic of our minds corresponds to the logic of the universe because both were caused [designed] to correspond." 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. 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. And of course, the question is, how do you know this? You write, "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. You continue, by the way, to assert that I and others state that "emerging" implies no causation without offering any evidence that that is what we believe. That's why I would like you to answer my question about the tornado. 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.Aleta_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

Aleta @149. There once was no tornado and now there is. Does this statement deny causality? No, because the effect does not constitute anything that was not first present in the cause--material conditions gave rise to a material tornado--out of matter came a material event. That is different from mind coming from matter because there is nothing in the matter that can explain it--that is, something was added in the effect [consciousness] that was not present, or even potentially present, in the cause.StephenB_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

There once was no tornado and now there is. Does this statement deny causality?Aleta_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

----Aleta: “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.” Allen has already declared that he is not sure that the universe was caused. So the law is certainly in jeopardy with him. How can you, a professed believer in a caused universe, and a doubter in the non-negotiable law of causality, assure him that the universe was, indeed, caused? If, for him and for you, a quantum event can be uncaused, why not a universe? ---“If we in fact were creatures in a universe where in fact things just popped into existence or otherwise didn’t consistently demonstrate the regularities we associate with causality then we wouldn’t have a “law of casuality.” Right you are. If the universe was irrational, we would likely have no laws or else those laws would be inconsistent, which is another way of saying that they wouldn’t be laws. Of course, for Allen, laws have exceptions, meaning that they can both be laws and not be laws. You seem to be in that camp as well. This, of course, violates the law of non-contradiction, which is the mother of the law of causality. Here is the point, though: I know that the universe didn’t just pop into existence because the law of causality precludes it. The question is, how do you know it? We have no evidence that could help solve that riddle. We only have evidence that the universe began to exist. So, how do you conclude that it had a cause? ---“It is certainly not the case that any law of logic forces the world to be a certain way. The laws of logic are abstractions of understandings that are embedded throughout our being and nature, and are the way they are because we live in the world that we do. There is a fit because our ability to abstract rules for understanding through logic has developed in the context of living in, and surviving in, a world that displays the kinds of regularities that it does.” Please forgive me, but this is the essence of the materialist confusion. The logic of our minds corresponds to the logic of the universe because both were caused [designed] to correspond. As I have pointed out, logic wasn’t developed, it was discovered, and even if it had “developed,” it could only comprehend a universe that had a corresponding logic that was made for it. 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]. A corollary of the law of causation is the fact that nothing can occur in the effect that was not somehow present in the cause---something cannot come from nothing. For Materialist Darwinists, something is always coming from nothing: there was once no universe, and now there is; there once was no mind, and now there is; there was once no life, and now there is; there once was no information, and now there is. This is a good example of how Darwinists deny causality without even knowing it. ----Can you give me a quote, please. I have you and Allen right here. Why go anywhere else?StephenB_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

Innerbling: Let me offer my full statement so as to put the quote you offered in context: "The logical laws we have, to the extent they can be applied to the world, are what they are in part because the wor[l]d is as it is. It is certainly not the case that any law of logic forces the world to be a certain way. The laws of logic are abstractions of understandings that are embedded throughout our being and nature, and are the way they are because we live in the world that we do." Notice that I am not saying that the world is irrational, or that it doesn't flow in an orderly and rational way. In fact, I am saying that it we have the understandings about logic that we do because the world exhibits the order it does that, both because we observe the world manifesting that order and because, as a creature that is a product of that rational world our nature manifests the world's order: our order is a microcosm of the world's order because we emerged out of the world. 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. So, I believe very much that we live in an orderly and rational world, and that our ability to build orderly and rational explanations of the world is a manifestation of and a reflection of that world.Aleta_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

Aleta in 141: "It is certainly not the case that any law of logic forces the world to be a certain way." == 1. The world can be irrational i.e logic doesn't necessarily apply to our world. 2. Thus it necessarily follows that I can explain my sense perceptions any way I choose because logic doesn't necessarily apply to them. How else can you understand that sentence by laws of logic and what necessarily follows as a consequence?Innerbling_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

No I don't. In fact I have repeatedly said that we observe regularities which we can understand using reason and logic. To say that "he can believe whatever he chooses because [the] world is not necessarily logical" is nonsense, and I have said nothing of the sort. I'm a bit baffled as to how you could draw this conclusion as to what I believe.Aleta_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Aleta in 141: The logical laws we have, to the extent they can be applied to the world, are what they are in part because the word is as it is. It is certainly not the case that any law of logic forces the world to be a certain way. The laws of logic are abstractions of understandings that are embedded throughout our being and nature, and are the way they are because we live in the world that we do. If you read the sentence you will understand that Aleta denies rationality and logic as a fundamental principle of the world like the ancient epicureans. In his worldview he can believe whatever he chooses because world is not necessarily logical. Irrational explanations are acceptable because that is how the world is. I choose however to hold logic and reason as one of my first priorities and thus I believe in God.Innerbling_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Aleta [56]: Thanks you for responding to my challenge. Allen, from what I can see, hasn’t.
On topic, though, Allen wrote, “This means, of course, that the process of speciation is the one and only process in macroevolution, and you wrote, “This is inconsistent with Darwin’s Principle of Divergence.”
Here you’ve stated the challenge. And then you say:
No it isn’t, I don’t think. An analogy is the branching of the twigs on a tree. The point of branching is the speciation event – the event which differentiates two species. Further divergence as the branches grow and perhaps branch more is the continuation of the process, but is not inconsistent with the fact that the moment of divergence itself – speciation – is the critical event.
From what I understand of Darwin, it is. The image that Darwin gives us is not of a simple branching event, that of twigs on a tree. Rather, he gives us an image of twigs ‘dangling in the air’. That is, according to the Principle of Divergence, once a certain branch splits into a twig, and then that twig into another twig, what happens is that the second twig now ‘displaces’ the orginal ‘branching’ event. Ergo, you have maybe the first twig, but possibly only the second twig, with the second twig having displaces both the orginal branching event (ie. the first species) and the twig (ie. the second species). Thus we have twigs just ‘dangling in the air.’ If you doubt this, then just take a look at the ONLY illustration that is found in the Origins, the famous branching diagram. If you look at the bottom of that figure, there are no ‘branching events’; there are only ‘species’ coming out of ‘nowhere’. Alfred Wallace’s description of the Principle of Divergence is actually better than Darwin’s. And it wasn’t until Wallace enunciated this principle that Darwin was ready to ‘go public’ with his hypothesis. (Maybe Allen would like to correct me?) Allen: [in passum]: From Chalmers article: “The existence of phenomena that are merely weakly emergent with respect to the domain of physics does not have such radical consequences. The existence of unexpected phenomena in complex biological systems, for example, does not on its own threaten the completeness of the catalogue of fundamental laws found in physics. As long as the existence of these phenomena is deducible in principle from a physical specification of the world (as in the case of the cellular automaton), then no new fundamental laws or properties are needed: everything will still be a consequence of physics. So if we want to use emergence to draw conclusions about the structure of nature at the most fundamental level, it is not weak emergence but strong emergence that is relevant.” Allen, in your post at [59], you stated that you see the Designer/Someone building the laws of nature into the universe. Per Chalmers statement here, this is an instance (perhaps the ONLY instance) of ‘strong emergence’. My impression, then, is that you don’t mind the Designer acting at the Beginning, but that you object---for ‘scientific reasons’---to the Designer acting later on. What I mean by objecting on the basis of ‘scientific reasons’ is that you strongly feel that any such ‘strong emergence’, per Chalmers definition, falls outside of the knowable laws of nature. It would seem to me that this reduces itself to the notion of whether it is possible, or not, for a Designer to act within, and thus supervening, the laws of nature we find in ‘time and space’ and that can be presupposed to have emerged in the beginning. Along the same line, you might simply say that should the Designer dabble in ‘strong emergence’ within ‘time and space’ (as we experience it), then science cannot describe it; that is, it falls outside the purview of science. In the first case, to deny that the Designer is prohibited from acting after the ‘Beginning’ is to assume a Deist position. That then seems to me to be something that would only be resolved along philosophical/theological lines, and, so, is a discussion that lies outside of ‘science.’ In the latter case, this is kind of an agnostic position---an agnosticism that you more or less stated in the previous post, and an agnosticism that would imply, in your view, the impossibility of ID to assume any ‘scientific’ basis. I suppose this is how you see it. And I guess you would say (if I may allowed to put words into your mouth): “I, as an evolutionary biologist, work along the lines of ‘weak emergence’, which allows me to invoke to some degree the already knowable and existent ‘laws of nature’; whereas ID must invoke ‘strong emergence’, and hence, by definition (Chalmer’s) it is cut-off from any such known and existent ‘laws’. Hence, I can work within the realm of ‘science’, and ID cannot. Therefore, ID, per se, is “non-scientific”, and cannot be anything else.” Thus, in your view, the entire discussion (for one reason or another) will end up lying outside the realm of science. (It ends up being very Gouldian, you might say.) Allow me to put the last two paragraphs another way: ID says that evolutionary biologists cannot explain “macroevolution” using “microevolutionary” mechanisms. Thus, “macroevolution” is, per ID, “strongly emergent”---which, then, places itself outside of science. Evolutionary biologists, taking the ‘weakly emergent’ view, say that, although we cannot give actual mechanisms, “macroevolution” emerges from the “microevolutionary” realm, and, hence, is fully compatible with science. If this is so, then, to use a phrase we’re familiar with, this is no other than “Darwin’s Black Box.” IDists say the “mechanism” hidden within this black box is “irreducible” to the plain laws of physics, etc. EB’s on the other hand, say, that though these “mechanisms” are hidden, yet they somehow are reducible to known laws. Stated this way, I guess we have no more than a mere standoff. My sense is that you are essentially arguing this ‘standoff’. And you, I suppose, would argue that any ID claims, ipso facto, essentially amount to non-scientific ones. Yet, Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” was written exactly to demonstrate the “irreducible” character of biological phenomena. And, increasingly, the complexity of the genetic organization of biological life grows with further experimentation upon it, with the level of complexity now reaching beyond mere “microevolutionary” mechanisms (read here “neo-Darwinian mechanisms)---a fact you openly acknowledge. Well, doesn’t this description of today’s biological status-quo actually favor the ID position? It would seem it does. And what ID argues, it argues from a scientific standpoint. So, putting that all together, we can say: from a purely ‘scientific’ point of view (that is, from what we now know through investigation and experimentation), a Designer is a better explanation (“has more explanatory power” in the words of Steven Meyers) of biological reality than the current Darwinian one. I think I’m being objective here. Therefore, though ID takes, let us say, a ‘strongly emergent’ position vis-à-vis macroevolution, this doesn’t, per se, make its claims non-scientific. I think you might disagree with this statement. Nevertheless, in the end we are dealing with ‘scientific ignorance’ (black box), and if one assumes the ‘weakly emergent’ position (and it is an assumption when made in the face of ignorance, an ignorance you openly agree to in the case of the ‘Beginning’ [107]) this seems to me to amount to no more than accepting a ‘materialist’ point of view. Science means “knowledge”; it doesn’t mean “knowledge of only that which is reducible to the strictly material”. In assuming the ‘materialist’ point of view, one runs the risk of limiting the truly knowable. Switching topics, to the philosophical/theological, if you have problems with a Designer interrupting the normal functioning of natural laws, then you are forced to explain such ‘miracles’ as the Shroud of Turin and the Tilma of Juan Diego. There are no ‘scientific explanations’ of them. If ‘science’ can’t explain to what to us is so ordinary---and relatively simple---that is, images on a cloth, then what confidence should we place in this ‘science’ to explain the truly extraordinary complexity of life? Finally, Allen, as to your last remark in [59], please impress me first with your intelligence before making any further such comments. You’ll notice I haven’t made many posts here. Maybe there’s a reason.PaV_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the Live memory link Sal, you got any more like that?bornagain77_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Stephen writes, "The propositions that mind arises from matter, that life comes from non-life, or that information can appear without explanation all constitute the coming into existence of something without a cause? The vast majority of evolutionary biologists believe both. So, you can likely find your example by just picking one at random. Begin with Richard Dawkins and work your way down—or up, depending on your world view." Can you give me a quote, please. I don't believe Dawkins or anyone else has said that these things happen without cause. I'm sure that the explanations that they have offered concerning cause have not satisfied you, but that is an entirely different matter than actually claiming that things happen without cause. You write, "That’s right. Materialist atheists/agnostics deny causality daily, and most evolutionary biologists fall into that category." Examples please. Again, I think that you are confusing offering causes that you don't think are correct with believing that no causes at all exist. You write, in respect to my question about speciation: "No, not at all. The issue is not whether or not the process occurs but rather if the process was caused by some event or entity from the outside. In order for something to begin to exist, something from the outside that already has existence must bring that thing into existence. Of course, materialists think that things can bring themselves into existence, which is their main logical flaw." No, we think that things are brought into existence by other things. I don't believe a tornado brings itself into existence - I believe that if came into existence as a result of a whole bunch of causes. Similarly, I don't think that birds brought themselves into existence, or human beings. Rather things that weren't in existence at one time emerge out of things that were already in existence. There is no denial of causality here. You write, "Quantum events are, indeed, different from other events, but they are not immune from the law of causality. If the law doesn’t apply there, it may not apply other places, which means there would be no way of knowing where the law really applies at all. Under the circumstances, there would be no way of knowing that anything at all is caused." This is a black-and-white, slippery-slope anxiety that is, I think, unwarranted. 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. You write, "If the law of causality can be questioned at the micro level, why can it not be questioned at the macro level? You cannot say that you accept the “evidence”for such things—evidence does not lead to the law of causality; evidence is interpreted in its light. The law of causality informs the evidence and not the other way around." You can question it at the macro level, if you wish, but the evidence supports causality. I think the question of whether "the law of causality informs the evidence" or whether it's other way around is an important question. If we in fact were creatures in a universe where in fact things just popped into existence or otherwise didn't consistently demonstrate the regularities we associate with causality then we wouldn't have a "law of casuality." The logical laws we have, to the extent they can be applied to the world, are what they are in part because the word is as it is. It is certainly not the case that any law of logic forces the world to be a certain way. The laws of logic are abstractions of understandings that are embedded throughout our being and nature, and are the way they are because we live in the world that we do. There is a fit because our ability to abstract rules for understanding through logic has developed in the context of living in, and surviving in, a world that displays the kinds of regularities that it does.Aleta_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

faded_glory, "I think I made it quite clear that the point where I think causality may well break down is T=0." And I made it clear that causality only breaks down for small flightless birds before 37000 BC. "You do know that that point is a singularity where the laws of physics as we know it no longer hold, do you? It is not just any arbitrary moment in the history of the universe." Gotcha. Causality only goes overboard in situations that we find confusing, say are very special, or would lead us in directions we find unpalatable. "I do not believe it is a fact there are no facts. How can you link such a viewpoint to empiricism?" I can't. It's a good thing I didn't. "Lunacy is basically denial of established reality. Having different axioms on the foundations of reality is not the same as denyng reality." And how do you know someone is denying actual reality? Make sure their axioms are consistent with their statements? Take a poll? "How and why this has descended into you assigning a phletora of incorrect positions to me I don’t know. It is almost as if you think there is only one correct metaphysics, and dissent is a sign of madness. Not a lot of philosophers would agree with you on that." Look - I'm pointing out that denying causality comes at a very high price for reason, reasonable discourse, and science. You disagree, and seem to think it's very impolite of me to use words like "absurd" when criticizing it. I'm not concerned. If a small army of philosophers frantically insist to me that 2+2=5 (whether they say it's reasonable given what we know of math, or that 'science will prove in the future that this is the case', or what have you), I'm going to have no problem saying they're flat-out wrong. I have zero problem standing in opposition to quite a lot of people (Hell, my position on ID squares me off against most darwinists AND most ID proponents.) Truth is not determined by vote. Tell you what: If you want to drop this, go ahead. I stand by everything I've said, but clearly this will go nowhere, so why waste time? It's not like I take some pleasure from this kind of thing (I suspect StephenB enjoys it more than me, as I've seen him get in this fight about a dozen times now at least. Then again, that causality gets tossed that often never ceases to amaze me.) But you can stop trying to get me to treat denying causality as reasonable. I won't, because it manifestly is not. And just to illustrate: I don't write off idealists, panentheists, simulation theorists, panpsychists, or others in this fashion. But there are requirements for reason that are possible to violate. Denying causality is one way to do it.nullasalus_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

nullasullus, I think I made it quite clear that the point where I think causality may well break down is T=0. You do know that that point is a singularity where the laws of physics as we know it no longer hold, do you? It is not just any arbitrary moment in the history of the universe. So I most certainly don't think that aknowledging the unique nature of T=0 somehow opens the floodgates to a torrent of uncaused events at T>0. I don't see anything particularly humourous in an empiricist thinking that the Big Bang is a unique event in the history of the Universe - after all, everything we know about it we know because of the use of empirical science. I do not believe it is a fact there are no facts. How can you link such a viewpoint to empiricism? Do you even know what empiricism is? You are also wrong about my standards. I do not think it is downright impossible to be a loon. Lunacy is basically denial of established reality. Having different axioms on the foundations of reality is not the same as denyng reality. You know, I am rather disappointed about the way this conversation has developed. I thought your original point about science and metaphysics hs some validity, and I agree with you about people like Dawkins who draw unwarranted metaphysoical conclusions from science. How and why this has descended into you assigning a phletora of incorrect positions to me I don't know. It is almost as if you think there is only one correct metaphysics, and dissent is a sign of madness. Not a lot of philosophers would agree with you on that. Do you have anything better to offer than erecting and tearing down strawmen? fGfaded_Glory_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Correction: Also, we didn’t “develop” [the laws of] logic; we “discovered” them–if they had been socially constructed they could be socially deconstructed.StephenB_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

---Aleta: "Hmmm. I see. Then that takes me back to a previous point: I don’t believe you can show me an example of an evolutionary biologist stating that either life or mind arose uncaused." The propositions that mind arises from matter, that life comes from non-life, or that information can appear without explanation all constitute the coming into existence of something without a cause? The vast majority of evolutionary biologists believe both. So, you can likely find your example by just picking one at random. Begin with Richard Dawkins and work your way down---or up, depending on your world view. ---"Also, I’m curious what else you include in this list. Your phrase “whenever it suits them” makes me think that you consider the denial of causality quite common." That's right. Materialist atheists/agnostics deny causality daily, and most evolutionary biologists fall into that category. ----"Or does the universe, life, and mind exhaust the list? In particular, I’m curious whether you include evolutionary events like amphibians arising from fish or humans arising from pre-hominids as events where causality is denied?" No, not at all. The issue is not whether or not the process occurs but rather if the process was caused by some event or entity from the outside. In order for something to begin to exist, something from the outside that already has existence must bring that thing into existence. Of course, materialists think that things can bring themselves into existence, which is their main logical flaw. On the other hand, they sometimes honor the law of causality when it suits them. Hence, they are selective about when to accept it and apply it. ---"As for quantum events, that is a different matter." I don’t think it is an “abandonment of reason” to consider that perhaps quantum events are not caused: it may very well be that the concepts of cause just doesn’t apply there." Quantum events are, indeed, different from other events, but they are not immune from the law of causality. If the law doesn't apply there, it may not apply other places, which means there would be no way of knowing where the law really applies at all. Under the circumstances, there would be no way of knowing that anything at all is caused. I have already made that point several times. Did you miss it? Besides, the very concept of quantum events was established on the strength of the law of causality. To deny the law of causality is to deny the foundation of the reasoning that allowed the discovery of quantum theory in the first place. ---"There have been other instance in the history of science where things that people thought were a simple matter of reason and logic turned out to be wrong: there is no guarantee that the logical ideas we have developed based on our experience of the world might turn out to be wrong as we learn more about the world, and there is certainly no guarantee that those ideas would apply to whatever metaphysical world that lies “beyond” our universe." You are confusing science's laws, which are changeable, with reason's laws, which are not. Just as one can measure the changes in a growing child because the yardstick doesn't change its standard of measurement, science's laws can be measured and reformed precisely because reason's yardstick is stable enough to do the measuring. Also, we didn't "develop" logic; we "discovered" it--if they had been socially constructed they could be socially deconstructed. If there is no guarantee that the law of causality is true or that the law of non-contradiction is true, then there is no way to do reasoned science or even engage in rational discourse. Materialist atheists and Darwinists do not understand this, which is one reason why that they have difficulty reasoning in the abstract when the subject matter is about first causes. On matters of daily living, they do not seem to have that same problem because their biases and prejudices against design do not come into play. ---"So having questions about the nature of causality of quantum events does not overturn the principle, which I agree with, that in the world, at the macroscopic, non-quantum level, all events have causes." If the law of causality can be questioned at the micro level, why can it not be questioned at the macro level? You cannot say that you accept the "evidence"for such things---evidence does not lead to the law of causality; evidence is interpreted in its light. The law of causality informs the evidence and not the other way around. So, the question persists: Why do you believe that all events at the macroscopic level must have causes?StephenB_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply