Gobsmackingly Stupid Things Atheists Say, Example 8,264

_{Barry Arrington

June 13, 2016

Intelligent Design}

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

Jason Rosenhouse writes:

We certainly do not know a priori that piles of bricks do not form images of imaginary unicorns, and it is not logically impossible that they do.

UPDATE:

I decided I could not resist adding Example 8,265 from the some post:

I do not know how the chemical reactions and electrical firings inside my head lead to mental images, but there is copious evidence that they do and zero evidence that anything non-physical is involved

Wow. How does Rosenhouse deal with all of the evidence contrary to his position? Easy peasy. Fiat. Just declare that it does not exist.

Turns out the hard problem of consciousness is not so hard after all. All David Chalmers needed to do was call up Jason Rosenhouse and the conversation would have gone something like this

Dave: Hey, Jason, I have all of these observations that I cannot fit into monist categories. The observations are so puzzling that I have coined a term, the “hard problem of consciousness.”

Jason: Do tell.

David: Yep. I have all of this evidence. How do I deal with it Jason?

Jason: Easy. The evidence does not exist.

David: I’m pretty sure it does.

Jason: Nope. You are wrong. It does not exist.

David. Well, OK then. I’m glad we talked. That’s a load off my mind.

In all seriousness, this is a persistent problem that materialists don’t seem to be able to understand, far less overcome. They genuinely seem to believe that evidence that does not persuade them is “non-evidence” instead of “unpersuasive-to-me-evidence.” See here where I discussed this in depth. Especially amusing is the smug certitude with which Rosenhouse and his ilk dismiss all evidence contrary to their position as if it does not exist. It must be nice to live in a bubble of incurious certitude where one’s beliefs are never challenged because anything that could possibly challenge them does not, by fiat, exist. Nice, but boring.

Comments

Matspirit @63: "If you doubt that all information is embodied in the arrangement of matter, please give an example of any information which exists without matter." Still waiting.MatSpirit_{June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Eric: "But the information is always separable from the medium." Not in the case of intrinsic information. See my example of the Venus de Milo before it was discovered. If you copy information from the newly discovered statue, you will transmit or store it by re-arranging a medium.MatSpirit_{June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson MatSpirit @70: When you write to a floppy disk, atoms are not added or subtracted from the film, so the mass remains the same. Part of Meyer’s point. Glad you agree. My statement in context. Please respond to the last line: "When you write to a floppy disk, atoms are not added or subtracted from the film, so the mass remains the same. Data is stored by rotating all of the atoms in a small area so they point in the same direction. Now the magnetic fields of the atoms reinforce each other and that spot has either a north or south pole. These magnetic poles are used to encode the data on the disk. Or, in other words, “information is embodied in the physical arrangement of matter” as I said in my first message."MatSpirit_{June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Mung, have you ever in your life made a serious post that added to the conversation?MatSpirit_{June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit @72:
Information is separate from the medium . . .
Correct.
. . . but you have to have some kind of medium or you have no information.
What you presumably mean is that the information has not yet been encoded in the medium. Indeed, in the very act of preparing your comment, the information you were going to write existed prior to the time you typed on the keys. Or are you telling us you were surprised by what you wrote? :) Something meaningful became encoded and then at that point you realized you had information? Nope. That is precisely the opposite of how it works. You are getting confused because your are conflating the existence of information with its communication. These are very different things.
I hope this clears up some of the confusion about information that permeates the religio/ID world.
No. But it does demonstrate your confusion. Let's get back to the central question that you are very carefully, very studiously avoiding answering: What physical properties does information have? Which of the 7 international units of measure do you think we should use to measure it? ----- Incidentally, your examples of discovery bring up an interesting issue, but the correct conclusion is precisely the opposite of what you are claiming. We, as intelligent beings, can clearly produce information as a result of our intellectual activity and using our tools of discovery and research. That is what happens in the investigative process. We can then encode that information in an agreed-upon encoding system. And once encoded, we can use the encoded medium to transmit and communicate the information. But the information is always separable from the medium.Eric Anderson_{June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit @70:
When you write to a floppy disk, atoms are not added or subtracted from the film, so the mass remains the same.
Part of Meyer's point. Glad you agree.Eric Anderson_{June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit: You decide what characteristics all apples have (shape, taste, colors, DNA, what kind of tree it grows on, etc, and see if the candidate apple shares them. How do you decide which characteristics all apples ought to share? Do you test every single potential apple? How do you derive ought from is? How do you decide which characters define appleness? They grow on trees? They are green or red? They taste good?Mung_{June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT}

Eric in 68: Information is separate from the medium, but you have to have some kind of medium or you have no information. What is the information content of empty space? Zero. If you want to add information to empty space, you have to add some material to it, whether atoms, radio waves, photons of light or what have you. No material = nothing to measure = no information. There are also times when you can't substitute mediums, either. Think of the statue of Venus de Milo, the one in the Louvre. If you wanted to duplicate it, you could do a 3-D scan and convert the shape of the statue into a string of numbers which could be fed into a 3-D carving machine which would then carve a block of marble into a second statue. Those numbers could be encoded into any medium that the scanner and carver could both handle. (They could also be stored on a floppy disk whose mass would not change.) But would the copy be identical to the original? No, you've just measured the statue's outside shape. You didn't measure any of the internal structure of the statue. Your 3-D carver could carve a block of lead into the same shape as the original, but the insides would be totally different from the original. To make a perfect copy, you'd have to observe the type and placement of every atom in the statue and place a duplicate atom in the same position in the copy. Now go back to 1800. The Venus de Milo has not been discovered yet. It's hidden inside a buried niche within the ancient ruins of Milos. No living person has ever seen it, there are no sketches or paintings of it, let alone 3-D scans. The people who buried it are all long dead. All we have is the original. ALL information about the statue is imbedded in the atoms of the statue - the types of atoms and their physical properties, especially their placement. The information is intrinsic to the statue, embodied in the medium of those atoms, their placement and any other physical properties. In this case, you cannot change the medium without also changing the information. If you substitute an oxygen atom for a silicon atom, the statue will be different from the original. This is important because all of the molecular machines in our cells embody information in their atoms type and location. If you change the type of an atom or move it to a different location, the molecular machine will be different from the original, the intrinsic information it contains will be different from the original and it may work differently or not at all. Our cells also contain information in their DNA which will cause our cell to manufacture a new copy of a molecular machine. This non-intrinsic data can have its format changed without affecting the information it contains. For instance, Craig Venter read lengths of DNA and converted the information in it to digital signals which could be stored on a floppy disk (without changing the disk's mass) then transmitted as photons of light to a DNA factory which then manufactured vials containing large quantities of copies of the DNA and bacteria with copies of the DNA embedded in them aND physically shopped them to Craig. Venter then removed the original DNA from his test bacteria and physically replaced it with the newly manufactured DNA. That new DNA then directed the manufacture of molecular machinery that was identical to the ones manufactured originally. The intrinsic information in the new machinery was identical to that in the originals, but if one single atom was a different type from the original or placed in a different position, the new machine would have been different and the information intrinsic to it would also be different. I hope this clears up some of the confusion about information that permeates the religio/ID world.MatSpirit_{June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

I guess Weiner, Penrose and Ellis are idiots in your book too?
“The mechanical brain does not secrete thought “as the liver does bile,” as the earlier materialists claimed, nor does it put it out in the form of energy, as the muscle puts out its activity. Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day. “ Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician - (Cybernetics, 2nd edition, p.132) "Those devices (computers) can yield only approximations to a structure (of information) that has a deep and "computer independent" existence of its own." - Roger Penrose - The Emperor's New Mind - Pg 147 Recognising Top-Down Causation - George Ellis Excerpt: page 5: A: Causal Efficacy of Non Physical entities: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts. Excerpt page 7: The assumption that causation is bottom up only is wrong in biology, in computers, and even in many cases in physics, for example state vector preparation, where top-down constraints allow non-unitary behaviour at the lower levels. It may well play a key role in the quantum measurement problem (the dual of state vector preparation) [5]. One can bear in mind here that wherever equivalence classes of entities play a key role, such as in Crutchfield’s computational mechanics [29], this is an indication that top-down causation is at play. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Ellis_FQXI_Essay_Ellis_2012.pdf
also of note: It should be noted that Rolf Landauer himself maintained that the information in a computer was merely ‘physical’. i.e. He held that information in a computer was merely an ‘emergent’ property of a material basis, and thus he held that the information programmed into a computer was not really it’s own independent entity. Landauer held this ‘materialistic’ position in spite of objections from people like Penrose and Weiner who held that information is indeed real and has its own independent existence separate from matter-energy. Landauer held this ‘materialistic’ position since he thought that ‘it ALWAYS took energy to erase information from a computer and therefore the information in the computer must be ‘merely physical’ (merely emergent). Yet the validity of that fairly narrowly focused objection from Landauer, to the reality of ‘transcendent ‘information’ encoded within the computer, has now been overturned, because information is now known to erasable from a computer without consuming energy.
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy - June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that "more than complete knowledge" from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, "This doesn't mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine." The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what's known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says "We're working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm Scientists show how to erase information without using energy - January 2011 Excerpt: Until now, scientists have thought that the process of erasing information requires energy. But a new study shows that, theoretically, information can be erased without using any energy at all. Instead, the cost of erasure can be paid in terms of another conserved quantity, such as spin angular momentum.,,, "Landauer said that information is physical because it takes energy to erase it. We are saying that the reason it (information) is physical has a broader context than that.", Vaccaro explained. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-scientists-erase-energy.html New Scientist astounds: Information is physical - May 13, 2016 Excerpt: Recently came the most startling demonstration yet: a tiny machine powered purely by information, which chilled metal through the power of its knowledge. This seemingly magical device could put us on the road to new, more efficient nanoscale machines, a better understanding of the workings of life, and a more complete picture of perhaps our most fundamental theory of the physical world. https://uncommondescent.com/news/new-scientist-astounds-information-is-physical/
bornagain77_{June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

BornAgain77 @ 67: "One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity." This is a prime example of why ID doesn't get any respect. Meyer is easily one of the smartest and most knowledgeable people in ID, and writing in one of the most heavily promoted ID books in the last ten years and yet he either doesn't know how a floppy disk works or ... I can't think of any good alternative here. A floppy disk is covered on both sides with a film of magnetic material. The atoms in the film act as microscopic magnets, each with a north and south pole. On a blank disk, the magnetic poles of the atoms point in random directions and their fields cancel each other out. When you write to a floppy disk, atoms are not added or subtracted from the film, so the mass remains the same. Data is stored by rotating all of the atoms in a small area so they point in the same direction. Now the magnetic fields of the atoms reinforce each other and that spot has either a north or south pole. These magnetic poles are used to encode the data on the disk. Or, in other words, "information is embodied in the physical arrangement of matter" as I said in my first message.MatSpirit_{June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

Mung @ 66: "But how would you measure “apple” or “appleness,” something shared by all apples that is not itself any particular physical apple?" You decide what characteristics all apples have (shape, taste, colors, DNA, what kind of tree it grows on, etc, and see if the candidate apple shares them.MatSpirit_{June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit: Mung has already answered, but I'll add a bit. Information can be represented by physical media. That is of course true. We can represent information with stones, sticks, letters, toothpicks, whatever. And that physical medium allows us to convey information from a sender to receiver. And we can measure that physical medium using a combination of the 7 universally-recognized units of measure. And that is all irrelevant to the question at hand. It is a well established principle in information theory that the information is separate from the medium. They are not one and the same. That is precisely why we can transmit it, why we can translate it, why it can be represented by many different kinds of media. The information is not the same as the physical medium used to represent it. So the question remains, how do you measure information, if it is physical, as claimed? What are the physical properties of information and which of the 7 universally-recognized units of measure can be used to measure it?Eric Anderson_{June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Since information tells matter exactly what state to be in, in quantum teleportation, then information is real and is more primary to reality than matter and energy are.
"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College - a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.
The important point to realize is that information is fundamentally different than matter and energy are. Thus, contrary to what Darwinists may claim, Information, by its very nature, can not possibly be 'emergent' from a material basis.
“One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin? And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce. In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.” -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Intelligent design: Why can't biological information originate through a materialistic process? - Stephen Meyer - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8
bornagain77_{June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

All information is embodied in the physical arrangement of matter. The measures necessary to describe and quantify the information depend on the type of matter and how it is arranged. I think that was his point. The medium is not the message. There are many individual apples, all physically embodied. Apples are physical objects. But how would you measure "apple" or "appleness," something shared by all apples that is not itself any particular physical apple? If you cannot quantify it, then it is not physical.Mung_{June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

And how do you measure the newly transferred information? By measuring the state of the "receive" atom. If the state doesn't change, the information transfer failed. There's no such thing as an "Infoscope" that detects information directly. You measure the physical state of the atom to see what information it now contains.MatSpirit_{June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

In quantum mechanics, information is its own distinct entity that is shown to be independent of matter and energy.
Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,, “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts
In fact, in quantum mechanics, as opposed to classical mechanics, its is information, not matter and energy that is primarily conserved.
Black holes don't erase information, scientists say - April 2, 2015 Excerpt: The "information loss paradox" in black holes—a problem that has plagued physics for nearly 40 years—may not exist.,,, The research marks a significant step toward solving the "information loss paradox," a problem that has plagued physics for almost 40 years, since Stephen Hawking first proposed that black holes could radiate energy and evaporate over time. This posed a huge problem for the field of physics because it meant that information inside a black hole could be permanently lost when the black hole disappeared—a violation of quantum mechanics, which states that information must be conserved. http://phys.org/news/2015-04-black-holes-dont-erase-scientists.html+/ Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html Quantum no-deleting theorem Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence
As well, 'non-local', beyond space and time, quantum entanglement, which cannot be reduced to any material explanation, can be used as a 'quantum information channel' to performs feats that are impossible in classical mechanics
Quantum Entanglement and Information Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/ Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
bornagain77_{June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson: "If information is physical, please tell us which of these 7 measures we should use to describe and quantify information." All information is embodied in the physical arrangement of matter. The measures necessary to describe and quantify the information depend on the type of matter and how it is arranged. For instance, if the information is embodied by changing the voltage on a pin in an RS-232 port, you'll need to measure the voltage at different times. If it's embodied by turning a laser beam on and off, you'll need to measure the amplitude of the beam at various times. In something like a marble statue, the information is embodied in the types of atoms in the marble and their physical arrangement. You can make a perfect copy of a statue by measuring the location and type of every atom in the statue and putting an identical atom in the same position in the copy. The information in a heart is embodied in the type and location of its atoms the same way and can be copied in the same way. Ditto for a kidney, liver, eye or any other organ. You can compress some information. DNA makes an organ by providing a recipe that can be followed to grow one. It says things like "You brain cells, move in that direction for thirty days and then connect to the nearest cell." This takes a lot less DNA than giving millions of cells an individual location to move to and a specific cell to connect to. If you doubt that all information is embodied in the arrangement of matter, please give an example of any information which exists without matter.MatSpirit_{June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

Seversky @56:
As an a/nat/mat v2.0 (physicalist) I would have to say [information is] physical but its origin is a mystery.
Excellent. So given that you think information is physical, we should be able to apply some of our standard investigative tools to examining and measuring information. As you no doubt are aware, there are 7 units of measure that form the basis of all physical measurements. Scientists the world over recognize that these 7 basic units (together with their derivations), can measure and describe anything physical. The units measure the following quantities: length, mass, time, electric current, temperature, amount of substance (mole), and luminous intensity. If information is physical, please tell us which of these 7 measures we should use to describe and quantify information.Eric Anderson_{June 17, 2016
June
06
Jun
17
17
2016
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Dreams: Seversky, @ 59: and spirit. _____________________________________________________________ “What is “spirit”? The same as “soul”? Is it conscious? Is it personality?” Also: “I remember a dream where I entered the office building where I had worked for many years at the beginning of another day. I made my way to an upper floor where my office was, saying “good morning” to my co-workers on the way, some of whom I had known for many years. Just as I was about to settle at my desk, I woke up and was very confused. The reason was that I realized I had never worked in such a building and I had never known any of the people from the dream in real life. Yet in the dream the sense of recognition was absolute. I had no doubt whatsoever it was all true. Yet it wasn’t.” And @ 57: “If you were faced with evidence that there is no God, could you live with that or would it be intolerable?” ________________________________________________________________ In my undertraining, the spirit is the higher part of the soul in humans. Animals have a soul, but no spirit, in the context that God breathed a particle of himself into the first humans. Our divine spirit is no longer active as such. The whole point of salvation is that we will be eventually like Christ, in our case, re divinized. Still, as God does not evolve in essence, that particle of God in us, is immortal. Meaning, our true ancestor is God. As an aside, the immortal spirit in us needed no evolving, say from one spirit into another spirit: why then should God wait billions of year to evolve a body to suit the immortal and perfect spirit? Jesus said he was spirit, in that he came from heaven. He said he is God, by equating himself to “I am.” The Jew knew full well what that meant. Hence, attempts at stoning and to through him over a cliff. Finally, renting their clothes at his trial when they heard he would not deny whom he said he is. Thank you Seversky, for sharing a dream. Jung considered dreams the royal road to the unconscious. Having myself worked with deaf patients having a mental illness; dream or art interpretation was part of therapy. I have kept a dream diary for over 40 years. From my own experiences, I would say, even saints can be a part of your dreams in the disguise of other humans. Guidance, that is, in accordance with free will, and the state of the psyche, plays a part in dreams. Indeed, God, warned Joseph in a dream to save God/Jesus from being killed. However, a thought from your dream comes to my mind: did you really and truly know those whom you worked with; their soul, their spirit, and the reasons for their belief? Was the dream actually pointing out a truth to you? Finally, could I live without believing in God? Well, God, by giving us free will, must also give us space and strength to live without God, and in accordance to our own free will. Some may call this the states of heaven and hell. Yes, we could survive—just. Therefore, my question to you Serversky, is this. If people are happy to live for all eternity in such a manner, so be it. However, In Judaeo-Christian terms, such must be prepared to live with a mix of people each doing their own will, and in all destructive perversion, and that includes Satan. In heaven, there is only one will—God’s. However, I agree; as you say: “We are imperfect beings in an imperfect world.” Still, does not such “imperfection” lead to greater evolutionary fitness? Or, is “imperfection” the result of the Fall, as such scripture claims.mw_{June 17, 2016
June
06
Jun
17
17
2016
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Seversky:
unverifiable eyewitness accounts may only be evidence of the witnesses imagination and nothing else.
You are not dealing with unverifiable eyewitness accounts, and as noted in 54 above, there are effective, longstanding means of verification: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/gobsmackingly-stupid-things-atheists-say-example-8264/#comment-610647 The sum of the matter is there are up to a dozen minimal facts that have to be coherently and cogently explained, which leads to just two serious options. A, collective mass hallucinations or "visions" utterly inexplicable on the relevant psychology and circumstances; B, the historic Christian faith stands on a substantially and astonishingly true foundation. (Cf here: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-1-biblical-foundations-of-and-core.html#u1_grnds ) Back on the focal topic, you run perilously close to proposing a Plato's cave world of general delusion. Any view which would invite the conclusion that our senses and common sense of living in a real world as responsibly and rationally free individuals in community is delusional may be set aside as undermining the very base and frame for rationality. Yes, error may be widespread but if we cannot reasonably access the truth of our world, all collapses. In this context, evolutionary materialist schemes face a challenge identified by Reppert, and as was already put on the table at 55:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
KF PS: I have repeatedly drawn attention to the Smith model of a two tier controller cybernetic loop. In this view the upper controller would use the in the loop one as an i/o front end unit. In which context we can face the fundamentally blindly mechanical nature of computing substrates -- cf Reppert -- and find a means to transcend them. Our challenge is not to climb up from the computing substrate, but to recognise that we ourselves are cybernetic loops where our brains as computing substrates of some form are not enough to explain the responsible rational freedom that is a condition of being able to have a reasoned discussion. In short there is a revealing explanatory gap relative to the first fact of our experience: intelligent, reasoning, responsible consciousness.kairosfocus_{June 17, 2016
June
06
Jun
17
17
2016
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT}

mw @ 35
Jesus said, it is the spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing. That is, matter left to itself.
What is "spirit"? The same as "soul"? Is it conscious? Is it personality?
Zero evidence of such? There is recorded truthful eye witnessed evidence, ready to die after seeing beyond the physical boundaries of the flesh; the unbelievable.
I remember a dream where I entered the office building where I had worked for many years at the beginning of another day. I made my way to an upper floor where my office was, saying "good morning" to my co-workers on the way, some of whom I had known for many years. Just as I was about to settle at my desk, I woke up and was very confused. The reason was that I realized I had never worked in such a building and I had never known any of the people from the dream in real life. Yet in the dream the sense of recognition was absolute. I had no doubt whatsoever it was all true. Yet it wasn't. I'm not saying faith is bad but unverifiable eyewitness accounts may only be evidence of the witnesses imagination and nothing else.Seversky_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @ 34
Seversky @ 28: “I would agree.” This statement entails that you believe the hard problem of consciousness is not hard after all. In fact, if must be positively easy.
I don't see that believing that it has a physical basis entails making the hard problem of consciousness any easier. It's still a hard nut to crack. I also don't see how assuming a non-physical component makes it any easier either
So, do tell us your positively easy solution to the formerly hard problem Sev.
I wish I had one. I could make a fortune.Seversky_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

mw @ 33
Do you think you or I have enough free will or not?
Enough for what?
Are we captive to the thoughts and will, of say for example, the Judaeo-Christian God? That is, divine law?
Since I don't believe in a god I have to say no. If your "Judaeo-Christian God" actually exists as described then you don't have free will.
In Darwinian terms, is our free will not the result of human thought, behaviour, atmospherics and past animals grunts, with a great deal of mutated destructive free will and chance?
Such free will as we have must have a naturalistic origin if there is no other source.
Who therefore, even in some type of collective consenting Darwinian free will, is to be chief amongst us animals that is morally or amorally certain and reliable?
Certainty and absolute reliability are ideals. We are imperfect beings in an imperfect world. We make the best of it and accept that we might always be wrong. I could be wrong about God but I could live with that. In fact, if I found compelling evidence that there is such a being, I would not be upset at all. I would be fascinated and want to know more. Could you say the same? If you were faced with evidence that there is no God, could you live with that or would it be intolerable?Seversky_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

Eric Anderson @ 30
Seversky/rvb8: Is information physical or non-physical? How does it arise?
As an a/nat/mat v2.0 (physicalist) I would have to say physical but its origin is a mystery.Seversky_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

F/N: Connected to the main point, I have always found Reppert's argument something to take a few moments to digest:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
I would suggest that when evolutionary materialist atheism and the like views can cogently answer as to how the responsible, rational freedom of mind required to seriously discuss this and other matters is accounted for on their views, then we can proceed to take their views seriously on other matters. Failing such, we are looking at self falsifying self referential incoherence. KFkairosfocus_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

F/N: Notice Greenleaf on evidence and warrant as he opens his classic, Evidence:
Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved . . . None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error [--> Greenleaf wrote almost 100 years before Godel], and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction. Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd. The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them. The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved. By competent evidence, is meant that which the very-nature of the thing to be proved requires, as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case, such as the production of a writing, where its contents are the subject of inquiry. By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal test of which they are susceptible, is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man; and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon that conviction, in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. [A Treatise on Evidence, Vol I, 11th edn. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1888) ch 1., sections 1 and 2. Shorter paragraphs added. (NB: Greenleaf was a founder of the modern Harvard Law School and is regarded as a founding father of the modern Anglophone school of thought on evidence, in large part on the strength of this classic work.)]
This remark is also relevant:
“[E]vidence includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact is established or disproved, and is further defined as any species of proof legally presented at trial through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete objects, etc., for the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury.” People v. Victors, 353 Ill. App. 3d 801, 811-812; 819 N.E.2d 311 (2004).
Greenleaf in Testimony of the Evangelists:
Every event which actually transpires has its appropriate relation and place in the vast complication of circumstances, of which the affairs of men consist; it owes its origin to the events which have preceded it, it is intimately connected with all others which occur at the same time and place, and often with those of remote regions, and in its turn gives birth to numberless others which succeed. In all this almost inconceivable contexture, and seeming discord, there is perfect harmony; and while the fact, which really happened, tallies exactly with every other contemporaneous incident, related to it in the remotest degree, it is not possible for the wit of man to invent a story, which, if closely compared with the actual occurrences of the same time and place, may not be shown to be false. [p. 39.] a false witness will not willingly detail any circumstances in which his testimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there is a danger of his being detected by a comparison of them with other accounts, equally circumstantial . . . Therefore, it is, that variety and minuteness of detail are usually regarded as certain test[s] of sincerity, if the story, in the circumstances related, is of a nature capable of easy refutation, if it were false . . . . [False witnesses] are often copious and even profuse in their statements, as far as these may have been previously fabricated, and in relation to the principal matter; but beyond this, all will be reserved and meagre, from fear of detection . . . in the testimony of the true witness there is a visible and striking naturalness of manner, and an unaffected readiness and copiousness in the detail of circumstances, as well in one part of the narrative as another, and evidently without the least regard to the facility or difficulty of verification or detection . . . the increased number of witnesses to circumstances, and the increased number of circumstances themselves, all tend to increase the probability of detection if the witnesses are false . . . Thus the force of circumstantial evidence is found to depend on the number of particulars involved in the narrative; the difficulty of fabricating them all, if false, and the great facility of detection; the nature of the circumstances to be compared, and from which the dates and other facts to are be collected; the intricacy of the comparison; the number of intermediate steps in the process of deduction; and the circuity of the investigation. The more largely the narrative partake[s] of these characteristics, the further it will be found removed from all suspicion of contrivance or design, and the more profoundly the mind will rest in the conviction of its truth. [pp. 39 - 40.]
KF PS: Post "Elevatorgate" the new atheists and the like need to ponder very carefully the extent to which they have fallen into the rhetorically very convenient but self-refuting position of selective hyperskepticism. Grand, self-serving question begging dressed up in an intellectual pose that refuses to assess the reasonable degree of evidence likely to be available or actually available and what a responsible, consistent, prudent person would conclude from it with serious issues on the table.kairosfocus_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

PPS: Notice how far we have drifted from the unanswered challenge that physicalism is unable to give an account of conscious mindedness and associated responsible, rational freedom required to provide a basis for reasoned argument? PPPS: On the secondary issue, "proof" of the reality of God, the first issue is what does proof mean in a context like this? I would suggest that sufficient warrant for a responsible reasonable person to acknowledge the reality of God, and in regards to the Judaeo-Christian view, enough for such a view to be reasonable and responsible for an informed person. That is, moral certainty. And, I am quite confident that: 1: generic ethical theism easily passes the moral certainty threshold: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_bld_wvu 2: Christian theism, also: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-1-biblical-foundations-of-and-core.html#u1_grndskairosfocus_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

PS: And, I should add that the point of mentioning the 500 in the discussion was to say, go to them to settle the points in debate here and now c 55 Ad after first preaching to them c 50 - 52 Ad and sustaining an onward troubled relationship . . . this was a church that tended to significant moral problems in a city with so bad a reputation it was a byword among the pagans . . . that went on to crop up in Clement of Rome's epistles c 95 AD. If Paul's core but challenged claims -- they cut clean across Greek philosophical views and Non-Christian Jewish skepticism alike -- were false to fact, he would have been readily refuted c 50 - 55 AD and we would never have had the belt of churches he founded which were the pivot on which the long term thriving of the Christian faith turned. Nor the NT documents tracing to him and his travelling companion, Luke. Remember, his case was sufficiently credible that he could appeal to the local king when on trial then to Nero's seat (most likely Burris); not the mark of a conman or deluded ignoramus despite Festus' outcry that his learning had taken him round the bend -- all of this in front of the leading men of Israel who wanted his head. So, GC has strawmannised what I said, then set up a false target of effectively demanding 500 separate written documents (in an ORAL culture!) then suggests or invites that we dismiss the force of what we do have as he can make up something we don't and impose it as a hyperskeptical demand.kairosfocus_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Gordon Cunningham:
I’ve already admitted that I have never felt compelled to get deep into the God/no god debate.
First, you say you are not convinced by the arguments for God's existence, then you admit that you know nothing about those same arguments. How do you suppose that you could be convinced by arguments that you have never heard of?
Frankly, I think it is a pointless argument as there is no way to prove that he exists and no way to prove that he doesn’t.
You have already admitted that you have no grounds for thinking what you think. In a way, you are very unusual. Not many people would want to admit that they are ignorant about a subject and would prefer to remain that way---even as they presume to tell everyone else what they think about that subject.StephenB_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

GC said:
there is no way to prove that he exists and no way to prove that he doesn’t.
Quite an assertion for someone that admits:
I have never felt compelled to get deep into the God/no god debate.
Let me guess - you're probably not all that interested in philosophy or logic, either?William J Murray_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply