Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Eigenstate Sends Hay to His Cows Up North

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The philosophical and scientific discussions on this site are interesting to be sure, but the psychology displayed by the materialists who comment here is nothing short of fascinating. It is a wonder to behold, and I would not have believed such a thing is possible if I had not seen it myself. Self deception is absolutely essential to maintaining the materialist worldview. Again, WJM’s dictum: No sane person acts as if materialism were true.

I was talking about this with my dad this afternoon and the following conversation ensued:

Barry: The discussions on UD are fascinating. I have never seen a materialist change his mind about anything even when the logical incoherence of his view has been established beyond the slightest doubt. How can they continue to believe this stuff.

Dad: That’s where you’re wrong son. They never believed it to begin with.

Barry: Say what?

Dad: They know the truth just the same as anyone else. But they lie to you and they lie to themselves, and they lie so often and so long they eventually become so invested in the lie that they act like they believe it is true.

Barry: Hmmmm, maybe you’re on to something.

Dad: It reminds me of the story of a farmer who was always bragging to his neighbors about all the cows he had on his property “up north.” Year after year he bragged about his cows up north until finally he started sending them hay.

An exchange between WJM and eigenstate in the thread to this post came to mind when I heard dad’s story. In the exchange they discuss whether on materialist premises the sensation of top-down, mind-over-body control over what one does or thinks is an illusion. In very brief summary, early in the thread eigenstate says in a dialogue with me:

The processes are all, at the core “just physics”.

WJM says:

If what is at stake is the characteristic of whether or not a thing has top-down, prescriptive control, that characteristic cannot exist under the assumption that all behaviors are causally generated by that which lies at the bottom.

IOW, if MELP (matter/energy/law/probability) causes all effects and phenomena, then no phenomena can have the characteristic of not being caused by MELP.

Eigenstate agrees:

Tautologically true. If all phenomena are products of STEM [space/time/energy/matter], then all phenomena are products of STEM, agreed.

WJM says:

If the bottom-up process generates a sensation that one has top-down, mind-over-body control of what one does or thinks, that sensation is necessarily, definitionally illusory because the materials and forces at the bottom dictate the behavior of thoughts of the aggregate.

Eigenstate responds:

I don’t see the relevance of complaining about “illusions”, here. If it’s illusory, it’s illusory.

WJM:

Acting in accordance with such illusions as if they were not illusions is called a delusion.

Eigenstate

What’s the problem with this, beyond any frustrations you or I may have in accepting that we’re mistaken?? [i.e., mistaken about whether our sensation of top down control mapped to anything real]

WJM

Do you really not know what the problem is in insisting in a debate that everyone, yourself included, is delusional?

I don’t know why eigenstate is so invested in materialism (actually invested in hating theism is more likely). But he has lied to himself so long and swallowed the logical incoherence of his worldview so often, he has started to send hay to his cows up north.

Comments
Z, Computers are not wholly deterministic, though we like to imagine that they are. The glitch is a classic example of chance disruptions. KFkairosfocus
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
gpuccio: Let me understand: why do you say that a computer is “a deterministic bottom-up system”? Barry Arrington: "a computer’s output can be traced down to the very last iota to bottom-up computation." William J Murray: Are you saying that computers do not behave strictly as they are caused by matter and energy interacting according to natural law and probability? As noted, computers are deterministic systems. William J Murray: If you agree that computers behave exactly as determined by the laws of nature and mechanical probability dictate, then you are simply using the label “top down control” as a deceptive label hiding a more detailed description that is exactly the same as the bottom-up description. If you make your conclusion your premise, then of course, you'll think your conclusion is supported. Are you saying a computer can't act as a top-down control system?Zachriel
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Z, computers compute. They are GIGO-limited, purely mechanistic blind devices wholly dependent on their engineers and programmers for any utility they may have. As those old enough to recall the Pentium recall will remember, they will happily carry out nonsense if someone makes a boo boo. Computers are NOT examples of reasoning and the only top-down control in them in cybernetic systems lies in the work of their designers. KFkairosfocus
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Zachriel said:
A computer is a material deterministic system. Why would or should it be discontinuous?
I didn't claim that a computer should be discontinuous. Are you saying that computers do not behave strictly as they are caused by matter and energy interacting according to natural law and probability? If you agree that computers behave exactly as determined by the laws of nature and mechanical probability dictate, then you are simply using the label "top down control" as a deceptive label hiding a more detailed description that is exactly the same as the bottom-up description.
A computer is a material deterministic system. The top-down control is orchestrated from the bottom-up.
IOW, "top-down" is a deceptive label that actually means "bottom-up" under materialism.William J Murray
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Zachriel: "It’s not an argument in favor of materialism, but just shows how a deterministic bottom-up system can act as top-down control." Let me understand: why do you say that a computer is "a deterministic bottom-up system"? A computer is designed. Top down designed. It is a machine which executes instructions inputted by a conscious being. And in no way it is aware of what it is doing. The of the computer certainly obey natural laws, but its configuration is the output of inner conscious representations and purposes. Am I missing something?gpuccio
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: The computer makes a rather poor counter-example... This doesn’t make for a particularly strong argument in favor of materialism. It's not an argument in favor of materialism, but just shows how a deterministic bottom-up system can act as top-down control. William J Murray: 1. How, under materialism, is the supervening phenomena’s matter and energy causally discontinuous from the bottom’s natural law and mechanical probability? A computer is a material deterministic system. Why would or should it be discontinuous? William J Murray: 2. If top-down control is not itself orchestrated by matter and energy operating according to natural law and mechanical probability, then what is orchestrating it? A computer is a material deterministic system. The top-down control is orchestrated from the bottom-up.Zachriel
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
Zachriel said:
Just because phenomena supervene on material doesn’t mean that material can’t be organized for top-down control, in which case the sensation of top-down control is not an illusion, but a sensation.
1. How, under materialism, is the supervening phenomena's matter and energy causally discontinuous from the bottom's natural law and mechanical probability? 2. If top-down control is not itself orchestrated by matter and energy operating according to natural law and mechanical probability, then what is orchestrating it?William J Murray
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
The computer makes a rather poor counter-example. The computer only functions because of the representationalism given to its contingent organization. This means it has a medium being translated into physical effects that are (as a matter of physical neccesity) discontinuous to the medium. In other words, the very thing that distinguishes it as a system and allows it to function - the very thing that the entire system is organized around - is inert to the physical dynamics of the matter its made of. This doesn't make for a particularly strong argument in favor of materialism.Upright BiPed
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
Z, seriously, you are embarrassing yourself. Stop it.Barry Arrington
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
zac said, A computer is an example of a deterministic device that exhibits top-down control; hence, top-down control is not necessarily illusory just because the system is deterministic. I say, It's statements like this that prove that the other side has absolutely no idea what we are talking about. Friends, Materialists live in a different universe than we do. There is simply no way to get there from here. Without some Top Down help ;-) peace. PS I'm a determinist so I believe that top down control is not incompatible with determinism. It is however incompatible with materialism as the example of a computer demonstrates.fifthmonarchyman
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington: God help us. You've already indicated that computers are a bottom-up computation. Are you now saying they can't work as top-down control systems?Zachriel
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Z @ 5:
Top-down control can result from a bottom-up computation.
God help us. And I bet you've called theists irrational. Let me try again to help you out. When it has been pointed out that you've said something incredibly stupid, doubling down on the stupid statement is not an optimal strategy.Barry Arrington
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington: Do you really think you’ve solved the hard problem of consciousness by pointing to a computer? We didn't make any such attempt. Rather, we showed an example of a deterministic system that exhibits top-down control; hence, being deterministic doesn't preclude top-down control. Barry Arrington: No, Z, a computer’s output can be traced down to the very last iota to bottom-up computation. That's exactly the point. Top-down control can result from a bottom-up computation.Zachriel
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Zachriel @ 3:
A computer is an example of a deterministic device that exhibits top-down control . . .
Are you insane? Do you really think you've solved the hard problem of consciousness by pointing to a computer? Thousands of philosophers for hundreds of years have agonized over the problem. Too bad none of them ever thought to compare the brain to a computer. You really should think about what you write before you put it on the internet. No, Z, a computer's output can be traced down to the very last iota to bottom-up computation. Everyone on both sides of the argument (except, apparently, for you) acknowledges this. I know this comment is harsh, but I am trying to shame you into doing better. Think man.Barry Arrington
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington: Unless you can provide an account of causality that amounts to something more than “it is all supervene-y and stuff” your statement is the rhetorical equivalent of “it’s magic!” A computer is an example of a deterministic device that exhibits top-down control; hence, top-down control is not necessarily illusory just because the system is deterministic.Zachriel
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Zachriel, Unless you can provide an account of causality that amounts to something more than "it is all supervene-y and stuff" your statement is the rhetorical equivalent of "it's magic!" As atheist Thomas Nagel says:
To qualify as a genuine explanation of the mental, an emergent account must be in some way systematic. It cannot just say that each mental event or state supervenes on the complex physical state of the organism in which it occurs. That would be the kind of brute fact that does not constitute an explanation but rather calls for an explanation.
If emergence is the whole truth, it implies that mental states are present in the organism as a whole, or its central nervous system, without any grounding in the elements that constitute the organism, expect for the physical character of those elements that permits them to be arranged in the complex form that, according to the higher-level theory, connects the physical with the mental. That such a purely physical elements, when combined in a certain way, should necessarily produce a state of the whole that is not constituted of the properties and relations of the physical parts still seems like magic even if the higher-order psychophysical dependencies are quite systematic.
Barry Arrington
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
WJM: If the bottom-up process generates a sensation that one has top-down, mind-over-body control of what one does or thinks, that sensation is necessarily, definitionally illusory because the materials and forces at the bottom dictate the behavior of thoughts of the aggregate. Just because phenomena supervene on material doesn't mean that material can't be organized for top-down control, in which case the sensation of top-down control is not an illusion, but a sensation.Zachriel
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply