Fred, Bob and Saber-Toothed Tigers

_{Barry Arrington

March 11, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

In this post the UD News Desk quotes from Nancy Pearcey’s new book concerning evolutionary epistemology:

An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value.

Piotr thinks he has a cogent response to this:

Does she believe “the ideas in our minds” are innate, or what? At best, it could be argued that the human mind has been shaped by natural selection in such a way that it can produce ideas which help us to survive and have offspring. As far as I can see, thought processes which allow us to understand the world and make correct predictions (and so are empirically “true”) are generally good for survival.

Sorry Piotr. Truth (i.e., saying of that which is that it is and of that which is not that it is not) has no necessary connection to survival. This has been illustrated many times along the following lines:

Assume you have two cavemen, Bob and Fred. Consistent with truth, Bob believes saber-toothed tigers are fearsome monsters that want to eat us. When Bob sees a saber-toothed tiger he runs and hides.

Contrary to truth, Fred believes saber-toothed tigers are warm and fuzzy and only want to be our friends. It just so happens that Fred also believes (again, contrary to truth) that “hide and seek with people” is saber-toothed tigers’ favorite game. Therefore, whenever he sees a saber-toothed tiger he also runs and hides.

Assume for the sake of argument that Fred’s running and hiding as part of the game he thinks he is playing is just as effective at eluding saber-toothed tigers as Bob’s running and hiding out of stark raving fear.

Here’s the kicker: Natural selection is blind to the difference between Fred’s belief and Bob’s belief. Natural selection “selects” for traits that result in differential survival rates. If Fred and Bob survive at the same rate, natural selection cares not that Fred is a loon.

Comments

Zachriel at 43, although the relationship between reliable beliefs and survival is not nearly as straightforward as you would prefer to believe,
Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind Is Atheism Irrational? By GARY GUTTING - NY Times - February 9, 2014 Excerpt: GG: So your claim is that if materialism is true, evolution doesn’t lead to most of our beliefs being true. Plantinga: Right. In fact, given materialism and evolution, it follows that our belief-producing faculties are not reliable. Here’s why. If a belief is as likely to be false as to be true, we’d have to say the probability that any particular belief is true is about 50 percent. Now suppose we had a total of 100 independent beliefs (of course, we have many more). Remember that the probability that all of a group of beliefs are true is the multiplication of all their individual probabilities. Even if we set a fairly low bar for reliability — say, that at least two-thirds (67 percent) of our beliefs are true — our overall reliability, given materialism and evolution, is exceedingly low: something like .0004. So if you accept both materialism and evolution, you have good reason to believe that your belief-producing faculties are not reliable. But to believe that is to fall into a total skepticism, which leaves you with no reason to accept any of your beliefs (including your beliefs in materialism and evolution!). The only sensible course is to give up the claim leading to this conclusion: that both materialism and evolution are true. Maybe you can hold one or the other, but not both. So if you’re an atheist simply because you accept materialism, maintaining your atheism means you have to give up your belief that evolution is true. Another way to put it: The belief that both materialism and evolution are true is self-refuting. It shoots itself in the foot. Therefore it can’t rationally be held. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 Content and Natural Selection - Alvin Plantinga - 2011 http://www.andrewmbailey.com/ap/Content_Natural_Selection.pdf Quote: "In evolutionary games we put truth on the stage and it dies. And in genetic algorithms it never gets on the stage" Donald Hoffman PhD. - Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception - 7:19 to 9:20 minute mark - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dqDP34a-epI#t=439
Thus, although that relationship between trustworthy beliefs and survival is not nearly as straightforward as you would prefer to believe Zach,,, you also have a much more profound problem to deal with in trying to account for the materialistic origination of the 'illusion of consciousness'. An 'illusion consciousness' so as to have a place for those faulty beliefs to exist in the first place:
David Chalmers on Consciousness (Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo Mind and Cosmos – Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False – Thomas Nagel Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history. http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199919758.do The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant:,,) Read more here: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0
Moreover Zach, as if that was not bad enough, you also have to account for the 'illusion of free will'. In other words, not only is your material brain under the illusion that it is a real person who holds certain real beliefs, but your material brain is also under the illusion that it also has a free will so as to have the power to be able to choose to believe rational beliefs and to do rational actions. But, since free will is an illusion under materialism, then there is no logical connection that just because the 'illusion of you' may think that certain beliefs may be true that the illusion of you should have to power to choose to believe them. In fact, materialism demands that the mind is illusory and has no real causal power so as to enforce it will to choose to believe anything whether it be true or false.
Physicalism and Reason - May 2013 Summary: So we find ourselves affirming two contradictory propositions: 1. Everything is governed by cause-and-effect. 2. Our brains can process and be changed by ground-consequent logical relationships. To achieve consistency, we must either deny that everything is governed by cause-and-effect, and open our worldviews to something beyond physicalism, or we must deny that our brains are influenced by ground-consequence reasoning, and abandon the idea that we are rational creatures. Ask yourself: are humans like falling dominoes, entirely subject to natural law, or may we stand up and walk in the direction that reason shows us? http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2012/09/physicalism-and-reason/ “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter”. J. B. S. Haldane ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html
In other words Zach, your belief that you are a real person with real power to choose certain actions and beliefs, i.e. with free will, is only "a dream within a dream" within your materialistic premises. i.e. absurdity stacked on top of absurdity!bornagain77_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

Human cognition evolved from more primitive cognitions.
Evidence please. We all know how evos love to oversell their position's claims.Joe_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Beliefs and behaviour are both heritable. Both get passed on to the offspring. Behaviour can trump genetic change and is much easier to change that genomes. However natural selection does NOT select. Whatever is good enough to survive does so. Whatever is lucky enough to reproduce does so.Joe_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Box
Under materialism beliefs are nothing but particles in motion – like anything else. Some particles in motion ‘survive’ and get selected, others don’t.
That's right. Beliefs are chemical configurations like any other selectable trait. Actually, life itself is merely a chemical configuration in the materialist view. Chemicals seem to exist very well without any apparent need for truth. If we want to distinguish certain chemicals as "living", then trees, bacteria and butterflies seem to be existing well-enough without reference to truth. Although they may all accept that God exists - so let's call that an important truth they accept. Meanwhile, illusions and falsehoods could have as much or more survival benefit as truth for those chemicals that want to make such distinctions. Discerning truth certainly carries far more burdens than a non-awareness. An awareness of truth means an equal awareness of illusion. Someone caught in a decision-making process ... "is this real or am I misreading it?" Instead of immediately running away, discerning truth from fiction requires some thought - and the possibility that a saber-tooth tiger is just an illusion means that Bob won't run away quickly enough -- or in some cases, will mistakenly think the tiger is not real.Silver Asiatic_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

#42 Box
Mark Frank: Evolution does not select for specific beliefs. Box: I would like to see some evidence/arguments for this assertion.
Evolution can only select characteristics that are heritable. Beliefs are not heritable.Mark Frank_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Human cognition evolved from more primitive cognitions. Big teeth bad is a straight-forward relationship that forms the foundation of saber-toothed thinking in humans.Zachriel_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank: Evolution does not select for specific beliefs.
I would like to see some evidence/arguments for this assertion. It is much too easy to come up with scenario's in which beliefs play a crucial role wrt survival - the case Fred, Bob and the Saber-Toothed Tigers is just one example. On what ground should we assume that evolution does not select for specific beliefs? Under materialism beliefs are nothing but particles in motion - like anything else. Some particles in motion 'survive' and get selected, others don't. On a general note: who disputes that - despite its disconnect from reality and truth - paranoid beliefs (and paranoia in general) are excellent for survival?Box_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank If what you say is true how can we verify its truth? Surely if its not about truth but survival we can't trust a word you say..... Can we, Do you trust yourself?Andre_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

I think RB and KS have more or less covered this. But to express it another way. Evolution does not select for specific beliefs. Beliefs are the result of inherited capacities (which are selectable) such as reasoning ability and powers of observation plus whatever happens to you in the course of your life. However good those capacities are at leading to true beliefs, there are bound to be cases where those capacities lead to false beliefs (wrong information, the improbably happens etc). Very occasionally false beliefs will lead to behaviour that is as good (or even better) for survival than having a true belief. As everyone has pointed out this is essentially a bizarre coincidence. For the vast majority of the time there is a massive survival advantage in having capacities that tend to lead to correct beliefs. There are, of course, theories that we have evolved some psychological traits that are good for survival which can systematically lead us into false beliefs in certain situations. One example being a tendency to believe there is an intention behind any phenomenom that we don't understand. This is a good survival strategy in many cases because the cost of wrongly believing there is no intention is generally far higher than the cost of wrongly believing there is no intention.Mark Frank_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

wallstreeter43 @ 38
And as I showed before to Chartsil , when I presented some nde evidence for him,...But then again I shouldn’t be hard on you guys. I really think that u can’t help your lack of critical thinking
If you mean the AWARE study, it has debunked NDE, not supported it! As I commented in other threads - Not a Single patient out of the over 2000 studied, was able to recall placard messages - which was the only objective way to verify NDE. Here's something I posted in other threads: It is well known that awareness during anesthesia may be experienced by 1 or 2 cases out of every 1000 patients. Analysis of ASA Closed Claims Project shows intraoperative awareness accounted for up to 2% of all claims. In an emergency situation ,the anesthetist has little time to monitor and achieve a Bispectral index of 40-60 to ensure full unconsciousness. So, if a patient is one among the 1000 who requires a higher dose of anesthetic, it is more likely that he will be anesthesia aware during the surgery than not. Combine this fact with the fact that Clinically dead is still controversial term, and you will find that the 3 minutes ‘clinically dead’ patient being aware of surgery is not significant at all. Now, in the light of all above facts, let’s look at a veridical NDE: Amid the blaring of sirens, you (or your enemy) are wheeled into the ER of a hospital. The ER doctor administers basic first aid and intubates you. Among the cocktail of drugs is Ketamine or its derivatives (BTW, Ketamine is used by thousands of teens to get Out of body experience pretty much everyday OBE is achieved when they hit the k-hole state.). You are wheeled by emergency personnel to the surgery room. They talk about your case or some other patients or the blue shoe on the 2nd floor ledge or the weather- all these info is being recorded by your brain. You are next being prepared for the surgery. The anesthetist injects drugs to induce general anesthesia. He is not aware that you are 1 among the 1000 people who needs extra dose of anesthesia to achieve a Bispectral index of 40 to 60. Meanwhile surgeons and nurses stream in. They talk about the surgical procedure, they use technical terms too, may be they talk about their kids or cats and dogs , about some article in some journals, use each other nick names etc. The ketamine in you takes you to the k-hole state. You are now ‘out of body’ and are intra-operation aware. You hear the conversation while having a OBE. Suddenly in the middle of the surgery, your heart flatlines. The doctor declares you dead – too soon – a clinically death proclamation needs to be made only after 38 minutes of trying to resurrect. The doctors frantically do whatever needs to be done and ‘resurrect’ you. You make a full recovery. You are overwhelmed- you had an out of body experience, you are aware of seemingly secret info of the surgical procedure , you can recall something about a shoe on the ledge so you truly believe you went out of body, floated around, met God and came back. You just had a veridical NDE. Me_Think_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

Me thinks said ""Don’t be ridiculous. Belief has nothing to do with evolution. It has everything to do with the company you keep and the books you read. Just try mingling with atheist and your superstition will be gone."" Yes and if you want to become superstitious just hang out with atheists all day long . Ty again for making such a. Great point . And as I showed before to Chartsil , when I presented some nde evidence for him, instead of refuting it he would only acceot it when the experience brought back next weeks winning lotto numbers lol. But then again I shouldn't be hard on you guys. I really think that u can't help your lack of critical thinking . Maybe one day medical science will help on this issue .wallstreeter43_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

Wow Diogenes now quotes one theologian and beliefs that this theologian speaks for all Christianity. Using the same logic you just employed lets quote Richard Dawkins and ask "who crafted God " and since I am now claiming that Dawkins speaks for all atheists I must say that critical thinking is not only not needed to become an atheist , but it must be thrown away al together . I guess that is what you get when you quote a guy like Aron ra who looks and acts like he is stoned half the time. I doubt that even professor moran would ever use logic from Aron ra lol But then again this is what happens when you don't think for urself ;)wallstreeter43_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT}

Diogenese , you came back for more ? Especially after our shroud discussion ? Wow talk about Sadomasochistic lol But then again after u got spanked by professor moran on his blog for being too ignorant to even understand your opponents position it must be hard to know what blog you belong to . Now I may not agree with many things the good professor says , we sure do agree on you being ignorant about the other sides position lol. Now Diogenes , I'll make it easy on you buddy. Lets leave the shroud aside and ask you what is your opinion on near death experiences ? Are they generated by the brain ;) Are u even versed enough to have a coherent position on this. But please this time take professor morans advice and actually do some reading for comprehension to know your opponents position . It doesn't looks like u made a favorable impression on him. Maybe he doesn't cow idea you a fellow brite ;)wallstreeter43_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT}

Sorry Piotr. Truth (i.e., saying of that which is that it is and of that which is not that it is not) has no necessary connection to survival.
The Fred/Bob thought experiment is a rather nice example of why we survival and truth can become disconnected, but it doesn't show that the two are always totally disconnected: in general I would expect Bob to survive better (OK, yes, I'm biased, I know) if he always picks the action based on truth, as they will be optimal. In contrast, if Fred always takes actions that are only related to truth by chance, then because there are so many bad possibilities, he won't survive that long. It's also not obvious to me that just because our intellect evolved to enhance survival doesn't mean we can't decide what's true. We have systems of thought to do this: that's what the scientific method is about (although we accept that we can't get at truth itself, only approximations to it that tend to become better over time). If I design (or evolve!) a car for use on roads, that doesn't mean it won't work when driving on fields. It might work less well, but it'll work. And I can then alter the car to take account of the new situation.Bob O'H_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT}

Me-think said "now that's a superstition" We already know atheism is a superstition , please tell us something new.wallstreeter43_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

Cross @ 28
Just try mingling with atheist and your superstition will be gone” Along with all hope and the will to live
That's a superstition !Me_Think_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

Is there any conceivable phenomenon which you cannot claim as evidence for your God’s existence? What conceivable observation is excluded?
The Babel fish.Bob O'H_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT}

Let me get this straight. Christians for hundreds of years argue that Christianity has to be believed on faith and that human reason and logic are unreliable, that reason leads to infidelity and atheism, and that that proves that reason is unreliable. Human reason is unreliable because Adam ate an apple, we inherited original sin, which clouds our reason. We can never understand "mysteries" like the Trinity-- how can 3 = 1? or why God allows tsunamis and earthquakes to kill babies, we can't answer the Problem of Evil, because our reason is clouded. And the unreliability of reason is evidence of God's existence, said Christians. Fast forward past Charles Hodges and the Princeton Seminary theology, and now today we have apologists saying the reliability of reason is evidence of God's existence. For example, here. Or here. Is there any conceivable phenomenon which you cannot claim as evidence for your God's existence? What conceivable observation is excluded? Oh for crying out loud, here's your hero.
"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians." “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but— more frequently than not — struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” [Luther, Table Talk, CCCLIII, cited by http://freethoughtblogs.com/aronra/2012/11/19/lutheran-citations/.] "Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ...Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets." — [Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148] "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... [wish to?] know nothing but the word of God." “But since the devil’s bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she’s wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil’s greatest whore.” "You must kill the other thoughts and the ways of reason or of the flesh, for God detests them." "Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason." "We must give reason a vacation and enter a different school. We must refrain from consulting reason. We must bid reason hold its peace; we must order it to be dead. We must gouge out its eyes and pluck its feathers..."
So I thought it was the unreliability of reason that meant we had to believe in Christianity? Look, I don't have time to point out the flaws in that idiot Alvin Plantinga's amateur philosophy. Here's the bottom line: if Christianity is true, then our cognitive faculties are unreliable. Right? Most people on Earth are not Christians. The minority who are Christians didn't voluntarily choose to believe in Christianity, it was forced on them or on their ancestors, or they grew up with it, and they "chose" it about as much as people choose their native language! But most people on Earth think Christianity is false. So if Christianity is true, then that means our cognitive faculties are unreliable. So this makes Christianity "self-refuting" in the same way you try to make evolution self-refuting, right? Right.Diogenes_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT}

BA77 , 21: right as rain, identifying what on evo mat would constitute general delusions such as self aware personal identity, responsible freedom of action [Bob and Fred think they are choosing???] . . . a shout-out to support a much underestimated contributor here at UD. The closer we look, the more solid is Pearcey's critique. KFkairosfocus_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT}

F/N: The response to remarks by VS, here, will prove helpful. KFkairosfocus_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

Me_Think @ 25 "Just try mingling with atheist and your superstition will be gone" Along with all hope and the will to live ;) CheersCross_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

Thanks ppolish: Nancy Pearcey has a new website Official Website of Nancy Pearcey http://www.nancypearcey.com/bornagain77_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

ppolish @ 23
But I have never have been disappointed with the music vids I do listen to / watch
so you are disappointed with everything else in BA77's posts? :-)Me_Think_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Jim Smith @ 24,
...because humans evolved to be superstitious
Don't be ridiculous. Belief has nothing to do with evolution. It has everything to do with the company you keep and the books you read. Just try mingling with atheist and your superstition will be gone.Me_Think_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

Materiailsts also have to apply rule consistently. It is not logical to dismiss reports of paranormal phenomena because humans evolved to be superstitious and then say materialism is a better philosophy because it is rational.Jim Smith_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Ba77, I read most of your links, all of your verses, but only view some of your music vids. But I have never have been disappointed with the music vids I do listen to / watch. I am either lucky or (more likely) missing some great music. Thanks as usual. The fetal position and the crucifix position at the end of the vid. Whoa:) Love You, thank You, and im sorry. Important stuff.ppolish_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

Poem, Music and Verse
Take this kiss upon the brow! And, in parting from you now, Thus much let me avow: You are not wrong who deem That my days have been a dream; Yet if hope has flown away In a night, or in a day, In a vision, or in none, Is it therefore the less gone? All that we see or seem Is but a dream within a dream. I stand amid the roar Of a surf-tormented shore, And I hold within my hand Grains of the golden sand-- How few! yet how they creep Through my fingers to the deep, While I weep--while I weep! O God! can I not grasp Them with a tighter clasp? O God! can I not save One from the pitiless wave? Is all that we see or seem But a dream within a dream? A Dream Within a Dream Edgar Allan Poe, 1809 - 1849 Tori Amos - Cornflake Girl [UK Version] (HD Official Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVSuSsoXABQ 2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

I like the nuance that Dr. Pearcey draws out. It is not only that, under materialistic premises, our perceptions may be false, it is also that, under materialistic premises, free will, consciouness and even our sense of self, are illusions!
Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself - Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, "Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not." The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion -- and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html
Thus, the problem is much worse than the problem that we might believe false things about a sabre tooth tiger and choose to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. The problem is that our material brains falsely believe that they exist as real persons in the first place, and that our brains, as illusory persons, also falsely believe that they somehow have a free choice whether to tell the material body to run away from the tiger or not! Moreover, as if all of the preceding was not already the very definition of absurdity, under materialistic premises the tiger's brain is also having an illusion that it really exists as a tiger, and its brain is also under the illusion that it has a choice as whether it wants to eat us or whether it wants to take a nap. Moreover, while all this is a very compelling philosophical proof that the naturalistic/materialistic position is patently absurd, due to advances in science we don't have to rely solely on this compelling philosphical proof. In other words, we can underscore our compelling philosophical argument with rigid empirical evidence. For instance, to underscore the fact that we have free will, we can refer to the quantum experiment of 'Delayed choice for entanglement swapping':
“If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.” Asher Peres, Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 139-143 (2000). Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a “Gedankenexperiment” called “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”, formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000.,,, According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video:
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained – 2014 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4
In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past? This experiment is simply impossible for any coherent materialistic presupposition! And to underscore the fact that consciousness is not emergent from a material basis, we can reference this recent experiment from quantum mechanics (among many experiments).,, Dean Radin, who spent years at Princeton testing different aspects of consciousness, recently performed experiments testing the possible role of consciousness in the double slit. His results were, not so surprisingly, very supportive of consciousness’s central role in the experiment:
Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: six experiments – Radin – 2012 Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s(seconds). Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4:36, p = 6·10^-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0:43, p = 0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem. http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%20Essays%20Radin%20final.pdf
And to experimentally support the Theistic contention that really do exist as real persons, we can reference this:
Dr. Gary Mathern - What Can You Do With Half A Brain? - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrKijBx_hAw Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics' Lives: - 1997 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,, Dr. John Freeman, the director of the Johns Hopkins Pediatric Epilepsy Center, said he was dumbfounded at the ability of children to regain speech after losing the half of the brain that is supposedly central to language processing. ''It's fascinating,'' Dr. Freeman said. ''The classic lore is that you can't change language after the age of 2 or 3.'' But Dr. Freeman's group has now removed diseased left hemispheres in more than 20 patients, including three 13-year-olds whose ability to speak transferred to the right side of the brain in much the way that Alex's did.,,, http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/19/science/removing-half-of-brain-improves-young-epileptics-lives.html
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." Strange but True: When Half a Brain Is Better than a Whole One - May 2007 Excerpt: Most Hopkins hemispherectomy patients are five to 10 years old. Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. ,,, Another study found that children that underwent hemispherectomies often improved academically once their seizures stopped. "One was champion bowler of her class, one was chess champion of his state, and others are in college doing very nicely," Freeman says. Of course, the operation has its downside: "You can walk, run—some dance or skip—but you lose use of the hand opposite of the hemisphere that was removed. You have little function in that arm and vision on that side is lost," Freeman says. Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. ,,, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-when-half-brain-better-than-whole
More evidence of brain plasticity is here
The Case for the Soul - InspiringPhilosophy - (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Schwartz's work) - Oct. 2014 - video The Mind is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity). Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism cannot explain mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
In fact not only is the mind able to modify the structure of the brain, but not the mind has been shown to have the ability to reach all the way down and effect the genetic expression of our bodies:
Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, - December 10, 2013 Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.,,, the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways. http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes/
Thus, not only is atheistic materialism phiosophically absurd in the extreme, but atheistic materialism is also directly undercut by empirical evidence. If we were dealing with a science instead of a religion, this would be devastating for the hypothesis of materialism!bornagain77_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

The entire argument is wrong. Nature doesn't select individuals, only population.Me_Think_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

Liars and Truth Tellers. I think Evo is guided to preserve the Truth Tellers. But that's just me. Not sure what George would think... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQppolish_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply