Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

In Fairness to the Materialists

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

As a follow-up to my last post, I think it is only fair for me to highlight all of the Christian gangbangers who renounced their faith in Christ, converted to materialist atheism, and turned from a life of hate and violence to a life of love, mercy and sacrifice for their families.

Oh wait, no such person exists.  Never mind.  Carry on with what you were doing.

Comments
Seversky,
Pindi is correct. Quantum mechanics describes the nature of matter at the sub-atomic level.
No, Pindi is not correct. It turns out that there is no separation between the scale of classical dynamics and that of quantum systems as many people once thought. Beginning in 2010, several experiments were performed that demonstrated that quantum effects were present in our macro experience. http://www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/quantum-mechanics-on-the-macroscale/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/12/sciences-breakthrough-of-2010-a-macro-scale-quantum-device/ It is now believed that the quantum interactions play a role in the operation of lasers, how the sun works, photosynthesis, and possibly even consciousness. Large molecules, even viruses demonstrate the same double-slit behavior as photons and electrons! Since then additional experiments include one that created quantum states visible to the human eye. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130721161710.htm
There are obvious problems with the simplistic notion of reality not existing unless we are looking at it.
Yes, but his is an ideological problem, not a scientific one. Called the measurement problem, it seems that conscious human observation does indeed affect reality. Quantum mechanics has been repeatedly verified in various experiments to a precision as high as 10 parts per billion. But, as you know, when scientific data conflicts with your ideology, it's easiest just to jettison science, right? -QQuerius
September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
Seversky @86,
Seversky: There are obvious problems with the simplistic notion of reality not existing unless we are looking at it. If nothing exists until we look at it then what are we looking at in the first place? If the nature of reality is entirely dependent on the individual consciousness perceiving it then why do we all apparently see the same thing? Why aren’t there as many different subjective universes as there are observers?
Excellent questions. I would like to offer a comparison: We all see meaning in written language. You and I see meaning in these very words and sentences. However, surely, meaning is subjective and is not part of the physical world. Meaning is not "in" these written sentences, so to speak. Meaning is obviously not a physical substance. Nonetheless, also here we "apparently see the same thing", as you said wrt physical reality. Indeed, how is that possible? And we can ask a similar question: "when no one is looking, does the meaning 'in' these words exist?". The same answer applies: "no, only when someone is looking".Origenes
September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
Querius @ 83
Pindi wrote . . .
Regarding your comment, quantum mechanics is a materialistic theory in physics
Then you don’t understand Quantum mechanics. It is precisely not material! And I didn’t mention “immaterial souls and God.” You did. But let’s let the physicists speak for themselves:
Pindi is correct. Quantum mechanics describes the nature of matter at the sub-atomic level. What we perceive matter to be at the macroscopic is exactly as it was before. You can still perform Dr Johnson's test and kick a rock and it will still hurt your toe. Quantum mechanics has changed our understanding of what matter is at that level just as relativity theory changed our understanding of how the universe behaves at our level and above. The big problem seems to be finding a way of reconciling the two. There are obvious problems with the simplistic notion of reality not existing unless we are looking at it. If nothing exists until we look at it then what are we looking at in the first place? If the nature of reality is entirely dependent on the individual consciousness perceiving it then why do we all apparently see the same thing? Why aren't there as many different subjective universes as there are observers?Seversky
September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
The one thing we can all agree on is that Pindi is a terrific debater — always willing to defend his (opposing) views with reason, logic and evidence. This site would be an echo chamber without him.Origenes
September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT
Hmm. Pindi seems to be gone again, but I think I can synthesize his answer:
I’m still here. Just haven’t seen anything convincing.
His ideological poisoning, in this case Dimethylmaterialism, is severe enough to cause logical blindness. Too bad. It eventually makes the victim really sick of life. -QQuerius
September 24, 2016
September
09
Sep
24
24
2016
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
Pindi wrote . . .
Regarding your comment, quantum mechanics is a materialistic theory in physics.
Then you don't understand Quantum mechanics. It is precisely not material! And I didn't mention "immaterial souls and God." You did. But let's let the physicists speak for themselves: The results of this Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that reality is determined by the way an object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
“It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release dated June 3, 2015.
Reality does not exist if you are not looking at it? Remember, Dr. Truscott is a scientist, and you believe in science, don't you? Here are some more quotes on the subject:
"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it". – Niels Bohr
“Reality is in the observations, not in the electron.” – Paul Davies
"It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." – Eugene Wigner
“We have become participators in the existence of the universe. We have no right to say that the past exists independent of the act of observation.” – John Wheeler
“There must exist some reality outside of space-time.” – Nicolas Gisin
I can easily find more quotes like this because quantum physicists disagree with your contention that Quantum Mechanics is materialistic. It's not. Do you think you could convince these scientists that they're wrong about Quantum Mechanics and that you're right? -QQuerius
September 22, 2016
September
09
Sep
22
22
2016
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
Hi Querius, I'm still here. Just haven't seen anything that inspired me to comment. Regarding your comment, quantum mechanics is a materialistic theory in physics. I'm not sure why you think it has something to do with immaterial souls and God.Pindi
September 21, 2016
September
09
Sep
21
21
2016
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT
Hmmm, I think we lost Pindi. Was it the rock-solid logic? The unsettling quantum mechanics? Or was it due to his untenable position involving a collective of mythical thinking atoms? Not at all! Rather it's his unwavering faith in materialism that's perpetually resurrected like an ancient phoenix from the smoking ashes of his arguments. It's indeed a pity. -QQuerius
September 21, 2016
September
09
Sep
21
21
2016
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
steveO, #76, well done. :)Upright BiPed
September 21, 2016
September
09
Sep
21
21
2016
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
as to:
Seurat was a pointilist, so all of his people, and everything else depicted, is constructed as small dots of color. Using only a few colors, but layering and varying amounts, Seurat was able to achieve many varieties of tones, shades, hues, etc.,,,
i.e. Materialism can't do context! Pastor Joe Boot puts the insurmountable problem of 'context', in regards to any materialistic explanations, like this:
“If you have no God, then you have no design plan for the universe. You have no preexisting structure to the universe.,, As the ancient Greeks held, like Democritus and others, the universe is flux. It’s just matter in motion. Now on that basis all you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There’s no design plan. It’s like my kids do ‘join the dots’ puzzles. It’s just dots, but when you join the dots there is a structure, and a picture emerges. Well, the atheists is without that (final picture). There is no pre-established pattern (to connect the facts given atheism).” Pastor Joe Boot – 13:20 minute mark of the following video Defending the Christian Faith – Pastor Joe Boot – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqE5_ZOAnKo
The insurmountable problem of 'context' shows up very early in materialistic explanations. Materialistic inflationary models try to account for the "flatness problem" and the "horizon problem":
Inflation theory was proposed to solve two fine-tuning problems of the initial conditions of the early universe known as the "flatness problem"[1] and the "horizon problem"[2]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem The Cosmic Background Radiation Excerpt: These fluctuations are extremely small, representing deviations from the average of only about 1/100,000 of the average temperature of the observed background radiation. The highly isotropic nature of the cosmic background radiation indicates that the early stages of the Universe were almost completely uniform. This raises two problems for (a naturalistic understanding of) the big bang theory. First, when we look at the microwave background coming from widely separated parts of the sky it can be shown that these regions are too separated to have been able to communicate with each other even with signals traveling at light velocity. Thus, how did they know to have almost exactly the same temperature? This general problem is called the horizon problem. Second, the present Universe is homogenous and isotropic, but only on very large scales. For scales the size of superclusters and smaller the luminous matter in the universe is quite lumpy, as illustrated in the following figure. ,,, Thus, the discovery of small deviations from smoothness (anisotopies) in the cosmic microwave background is welcome, for it provides at least the possibility for the seeds around which structure formed in the later Universe. However, as we shall see, we are still far from a quantitative understanding of how this came to be. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html
As hinted at in the previous paper, materialistic inflationary models have failed, spectacularly, to give an account for the 'context' of why the entire universe is flat and homogenous:
Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation - 25 September 2014 Excerpt: (Inflation) theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous.,,, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation's other problems. Meet the multiverse Steinhardt says the idea that inflationary theory produces any observable predictions at all – even those potentially tested by BICEP2 – is based on a simplification of the theory that simply does not hold true. "The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn't end the way these simplistic calculations suggest," he says. "Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn't make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it's physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26272-cosmic-inflation-is-dead-long-live-cosmic-inflation.html?page=1#.VCajrGl0y00
That materialistic mathematical models such as inflation, that eschew God, should fail so spectacularly as to providing the proper 'context' for why the entire universe would be flat and homogenous should not be that surprising. Godel, who proved that mathematics was incomplete, stated the 'missing ingredient' of materialistic explanations as such:
“In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind. “Matter” refers to one way of perceiving things, and elementary particles are a lower form of mind. Mind is separate from matter.” Kurt Gödel – Hao Wang’s supplemental biography of Gödel, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996. [9.4.12]
Godel's incompleteness is also succinctly stated as such:
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove "mathematically" to be true.” Kurt Gödel (ref. on cite), halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”. Thus, based on the position that an equation cannot prove itself, the constructs are based on assumptions some of which will be unprovable." Cf., Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010) @ 15-6
The entire universe is not the only place where materialistic explanations completely fail to give an reasonable account for 'context'. The insurmountable problem of 'context' also shows up in biology. There simply are no coherent materialistic explanations as to why any particular organism will have any particular 'form' (much less how one 'form' can possibly achieve transmutation into another form). Stephen Meyer puts the insurmountable problem of 'form' for materialistic, i.e. Darwinian, explanations like this:
‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body-plan. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins and Information for Body Plans – video https://youtu.be/hs4y4XLGQ-Y
Stephen Talbott puts the insurmountable problem of 'form' for materialistic explanations like this:
The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott - 2010 Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings
Here is an elaboration on Talbott's question “What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”
Scientific evidence that we do indeed have an eternal soul - video 2016 https://youtu.be/h2P45Obl4lQ
Of related note, I highly recommend Wiker & Witt’s book “A Meaningful World” in which they show, using the “Methinks it is like a weasel” phrase, (that Dawkins’ used from the Shakespeare’s play Hamlet to try to illustrate the feasibility of Evolutionary Algorithms), that the ‘information problem’ is much worse for Darwinists than just finding the “Methinks it is like a weasel” phrase by a unguided search. Basically this ‘brick wall’ problem for unguided material processes is because the “Methinks it is like a weasel” phrase doesn’t make any sense at all unless the entire context of the play of Hamlet is taken into consideration. Moreover the context in which the weasel phrase finds its meaning is derived from several different levels of the play. i.e. The ENTIRE play, who said it, why was it said, where was it said, and even nuances of the Elizabethan culture, etc… are taken into consideration to provide proper context to the phrase. The Weasel phrase simply does not make sense without taking its proper context into consideration
A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature – Book Review Excerpt: They focus instead on what “Methinks it is like a weasel” really means. In isolation, in fact, it means almost nothing. Who said it? Why? What does the “it” refer to? What does it reveal about the characters? How does it advance the plot? In the context of the entire play, and of Elizabethan culture, this brief line takes on significance of surprising depth. The whole is required to give meaning to the part. http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C228303755/E20060821202417/
In fact, it is interesting to note what the specific context is for the “Methinks it is like a weasel” phrase actually is. The context in which the weasel phrase is used is to illustrate the spineless nature of one of the characters of the play. i.e. To illustrate just how easily the spineless character in the play can be led around by the nose to say anything that Hamlet wants him to say:
Ham. Do you see yonder cloud that ’s almost in shape of a camel? Pol. By the mass, and ’t is like a camel, indeed. Ham. Methinks it is like a weasel. Pol. It is backed like a weasel. Ham. Or like a whale? Pol. Very like a whale. http://www.bartleby.com/100/138.32.147.html
After realizing what the actual context of the ‘Methinks it is like a weasel’ phrase was, I remember thinking to myself that it was perhaps the worse possible phrase that Dawkins could possibly have chosen to try to illustrate his point. i.e. The phrase, when taken into proper context, reveals deliberate, nuanced, deception and manipulation of another person. I’m sure purposeful deception is hardly the overall 'contextual' point that Dawkins was trying to convey with his ‘Weasel’ program.bornagain77
September 21, 2016
September
09
Sep
21
21
2016
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
Hi Vy, matter can taste like chocolate dog shit is matter Therefore dog shit tastes like chocolate
You said it ;) Glad to see you acknowledge the absurdity of your argument. Do you have anything against sand thinking?Vy
September 21, 2016
September
09
Sep
21
21
2016
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT
Pindi @60,
Pindi: Origines, the case you have to make is that consciousness and thinking are not caused by, or a property of, physical stuff acting according to physical laws. You haven’t made that case, you’ve just asserted it.
I have provided several arguments. For instance: 1. Physical stuff acts according to physical laws and does not concern itself with meaning, intention, morality, logical laws, context and oversight. 2. Thinking is based on meaning, intention, morality, logical laws, context and oversight. Therefore 3. Physical stuff does not think.
Pindi: Regarding your last sentence, there is every reason to think that matter can think. Human beings are matter. Human beings can think.
In the context of this discussion, “human beings are matter” is what you have to argue — not what you are allowed to assume.
Pindi: It’s you who has the onus to make the case that there is something more beyond what we observe.
I did just that. It’s on you to provide us with any reason to believe that matter thinks. I have countered each of your arguments in post #59. //edit: it is not the case that one doesn't observe mental phenomena. However they (consciousness, thoughts, feelings and so forth) often lack "third-person ontology" (see #59). To be clear: it doesn't make sense, as Pindi does, to conflate "what we observe" with observations of the external world, since internal observation is foundational.Origenes
September 21, 2016
September
09
Sep
21
21
2016
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT
UP
"In short, you are not the product of physico-dynamics; but the product of a specific type of contingent (and very well understood) organization — one that was presented in theory and confirmed by experiment. This is not a misunderstanding fronted by mystics, Pindi, it’s the result of decades of specific scientific research."
I don't mean to nitpick but would you agree to one minor change: ""In short, you are not the product of physico-dynamics alone: but ...... " Just like my friend producing a high quality craft beer. The beer is the result of physico dynamical processes under the control and within the parameters of a specification. The intelligent specification is of course the key but the beer is also the product of physico-dynamical processes. Again a minor change but I try to parse your posts carefully to be sure my understanding is correct. Cheers StevesteveO
September 21, 2016
September
09
Sep
21
21
2016
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT
Pindi,
Querius, yes, as I said, matter is deeply mysterious.
But matter can't be mysterious. Why not? Because matter doesn't actually exist apart from someone or something observing a probability wave, which causes it to collapse. The fundamental nature of existence is not atoms. It's observation and probability waves, all of which involves information and none of which is material! This has been verified by scientists. So if everything is actually the result of the act of observation and probability waves (actually, the wave function, Phi, if you want to look it up), who caused the stars to exist by observing them before humans came on the scene? Was it Seurat? Or was it something else? -QQuerius
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT
Pindi, fair enough. But why do you think it is unreasonable to believe that there IS a 'Seurat' out there, particularly given the fact that so many of your human brothers and sisters throughout history have had very powerful experiences and insights that have convinced them 'he' is there? Would you say Rumi's profound poetry is mere delusional thinking? Or some of the psalms or certain portions of the Bhagavad Gita? All of that should be discounted as just the human brain playing tricks on itself?soundburger
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT
Soundburger, it's funny because I feel the same way. That is, I feel like I'm the one who is open to possibilities but is constantly derided. To use your analogy, I don't think describing humans as atoms or lumps of matter gets close to what we really are, which are complex evolved animals with a staggeringly complex brain. I just don't think there's a Seurat out there who created us.Pindi
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT
#54, Pindi writes "But I just don’t see how adding an immaterial soul helps." Actually, it can 'help' more than insisting stubbornly upon materialism. Imagine a group of figures in a Seurat painting. Seurat was a pointilist, so all of his people, and everything else depicted, is constructed as small dots of color. Using only a few colors, but layering and varying amounts, Seurat was able to achieve many varieties of tones, shades, hues, etc. If these figures were to look only at themselves, they might insist that small dots of color is all that there is. They would assume that outside the painting as well, if such a world were to exist, it would also necessarily be made up of small dots of color. They would be fixated on small dots of color as the answer to everything! It's all we are! Small dots of color that just happened to configure us into shapes of people! If one of them were to suggest that they must be more than just that, and further they must have come about through a plan of some kind, and that whatever created them must have had abilities (foremost of which would be the ability to move a paintbrush through space) that they couldn't fully comprehend, that figure would be right, not 'deluded' or 'superstitious'. That is essentially what it feels like to argue with materialists who refuse to take seriously the possibility that they could be wrong about their devotion to pure materialism as an explanation for everything, to be that figure in the painting. He is right, but because he can't produce a full accounting of Seurat, his ideas are not merely rejected, but derided and scoffed at.soundburger
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
Hi HeKS, I agree with this sentence: "That an atom on its own can’t have this mechanical function called “thinking” is really irrelevant, as complex systems made from atoms can carry out all kinds of mechanical functions that individual atoms cannot". And I wouldn't totally discount the description of "thinking" you give in that paragraph. Certainly, those experiments that show people taking actions before they have consciously decided to suggest our intuitive notions of thinking and consciousness may not be correct. I don't know much about "aboutness" (that's intentionality right?) so will do a bit of reading before responding further. cheersPindi
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
Pindi @54, I only have time for a few quick comments right now:
Now, looking at your argument. I hear things like “clumps of matter can’t be about clumps of matter”. Or “atoms can’t think”. Or “bags of chemicals can’t have minds”. (I am paraphrasing, I don’t have the time to go back and look for exact quotes).
Of those three, I only recall making a statement similar to the first, which is that one clump of matter cannot be about another clump of matter. I don't believe I said (or would say) either of the other two. The second is true but not especially relevant. The third is too imprecise and susceptible to equivocation to be useful, and I wouldn't really even say it's true that a 'bag of chemicals' can't have (i.e. possess) a mind. It would be more appropriate to say that a bag of chemicals can't be a mind ... but even this will depend on what we mean by 'mind'.
Phrases like “clumps of matter” are used pejoratively, so let’s exchange “clumps of matter” with “human being”. “Human beings can’t think” doesn’t have quite the same ring does it.
I'm not sure why you think "clump of matter" is being used pejoratively. It is being used descriptively so as to avoid attempts to skirt the issue by employing terms that are understood differently by different people. Do you think ardent atheist Alex Rosenberg is using "clump of matter" pejoratively in order to make atheistic materialism seem distasteful? In any case, you are really mischaracterizing the argument when you translate it to the claim that atheistic materialism means "Human beings can’t think". I certainly didn't make that claim. Left like that the claim is really useless. After all, what does it mean to "think"? If "thinking" is merely defined as some mechanical function whereby chemical reactions in the brain are triggered by stimuli in the environment which produce something we call 'thoughts' as a by-product and these 'thoughts' cause our bodies to move in certain ways then I don't see any reason why, on atheistic materialism, that couldn't happen in the human brain (allowing for the sake of argument that getting to the human brain is feasible on A/M). That an atom on its own can't have this mechanical function called "thinking" is really irrelevant, as complex systems made from atoms can carry out all kinds of mechanical functions that individual atoms cannot. The actual problem here is not how some sufficient number of atoms, when properly arranged, can fulfill some mechanical function that single atoms cannot, but about how any arrangement of atoms to any degree of complexity could be about some other arrangement of atoms, or about abstract concepts. Nothing that we know about matter or physics or chemistry lends any support at all to the notion that this could be possible, even in principle. I'm not aware of any chemists who go around saying that it is simply inexplicable how water could result from the bonding of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, but nobody has the slightest clue how one clump of matter could be about another clump of of matter regardless of how it is arranged. We have no experience with this phenomena at all. Nothing that we see or make is inherently about anything else except within the confines of our own minds. Were all conscious observers to suddenly disappear from existence and all of our inanimate products and constructions were to be left behind, nothing on this planet would be about anything else. There would likely still be machines that would run on for a while carrying out mechanical functions, but nothing would be about anything. If you grasp the depth of this problem and why it seems completely unsolvable in principle then I don't need to say anything further, and you will understand why people like Alex Rosenberg have spoken at length about this issue and stated in no uncertain terms that aboutness is impossible on atheistic materialism and that it is therefore impossible for humans to have thoughts about anything in spite of the fact that he himself is an atheist materialist. If you don't see why the problem is so intractable then I'd be happy to explain a little further when I have a bit more time (this already went quite a bit longer than I intended). Take care, HeKSHeKS
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
Hello Pindi, The only reason you exist at all is because of contingent organization, (i.e. not the dynamic properties of matter). The interactions of matter are dependent on the exchange, and rates of exchange, of energy. They are indeed rate-dependent, as described by the generalizations of physical law. However, what is causing the organization inside the cell is dependent on a set of coordinated physical constraints. These are what physicists describe as “non-integrable” constraints. In other words, such systems require two complimentary descriptions; one for the physical operation of the system and another for the selection of these non-integrable constraints. How these constraints came to be selected and coordinated is the great mystery, but they had to come into being in order for the system to complete its primeval function (i.e. open-ended self-replication), and the selection of these non-integrable constraints had to be formalized in the arrangement of rate-independent physical memory. This is the “threshold of complexity” (Turing, von Neumann, Crick, Pattee, Polanyi, etc) required to begin the life-cycle of the cell. And all of this is required prior to onset of Darwinian natural selection. Without these things, life would simply not exist. I am telling you this because the commenters on this site already see that you don't have a particularly firm grasp of the philosophical faults of your position, and with several of the comments you make, you demonstrate that you have less than a full grasp of the empirical faults as well. You believe the dynamic properties of matter can get you to a point where you can perceive the world around you and make judgements from where you came. But the dynamic properties of matter do nothing of the sort. Instead, you have the products of a rate-independent memory being determined by a set of non-integrable constraints -- and Life on this planet depends on the successful cross-coordination of both of these things prior to the existence of the first living cell. In short, you are not the product of physico-dynamics; but the product of a specific type of contingent (and very well understood) organization -- one that was presented in theory and confirmed by experiment. This is not a misunderstanding fronted by mystics, Pindi, it’s the result of decades of specific scientific research. And in case you are not already aware, the system described above is uniquely identifiable among all other physical systems known to science. Other than being found inside the cell, it can be identified in only one other place in the cosmos, and that place is in recorded language and mathematics -- two universal correlates of intelligence. Hence, the empirical inference to design.Upright BiPed
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
Hi Vy, matter can taste like chocolate dog shit is matter Therefore dog shit tastes like chocolatePindi
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
Vy, that is the fallacy of composition.
From your post:
Regarding your last sentence, there is every reason to think that matter can think. Human beings are matter. Human beings can think.
- Matter can think - Sand is matter - Therefore sand can think It's your argument. Now, when was the last time you had a conversation with the grains of sand at a beach? Do you think they think that being stepped on is hurtful?Vy
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
The periodic table, far from being haphazard, also gives compelling evidence for intelligent design.
Michael Denton's Privileged Species Premieres in Seattle to a Packed House - November 14, 2014 Excerpt: If life exists elsewhere (in the universe), its home would remind us of Earth and the aliens would reminds us of ourselves. The periodic table, so wonderfully concise, is a recipe for us. Oh, and for our way of life too. While focusing on the unique properties of water, carbon, and oxygen, Denton shows that the chemical elements appear beautifully structured to allow the development of technology, from our use of fire to the rise of computers. He emphasizes that this "stunning series of coincidences" is not a matter of scientific controversy, and in fact represents the great scientific discovery of the past century. It's a matter of fact, not interpretation. Denton observed that properties of nature uniquely fit for life continue to be discovered regularly and he offered the prediction that in the upcoming century scientists will uncover more and more. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/11/michael_denton_091241.html The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis - Michael J. Denton - February 25, 2013 Summary (page 11) Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. These include the thermal properties of water, its low viscosity, the gaseous nature of oxygen and CO2 at ambient temperatures, the inertness of oxygen at ambient temperatures, and the bicarbonate buffer, with its anomalous pKa value and the elegant means of acid-base regulation it provides for air-breathing organisms. Some of their properties are irrelevant to other classes of organisms or even maladaptive. It is very hard to believe there could be a similar suite of fitness for advanced carbon-based life forms. If carbon-based life is all there is, as seems likely, then the design of any active complex terrestrial being would have to closely resemble our own. Indeed the suite of properties of water, oxygen, and CO2 together impose such severe constraints on the design and functioning of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems that their design, even down to the details of capillary and alveolar structure can be inferred from first principles. For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.1/BIO-C.2013.1 Privileged Species - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoI2ms5UHWg Dr. Michael Denton Interview Excerpt Question 14: 14. Q: ,,,you also detail that nature isn’t fine-tuned for just any kind of life, but life specifically like human life. Would you expound on this for our readers? A: there are certain elements of the fine-tuning which are clearly for advanced being like ourselves. We are warm-blooded, terrestrial aerobes; we use oxidation to get energy, we’re warm-blooded and we breathe air. We get our oxygen from the air. First of all, a warm-blooded organism needs to maintain a constant temperature. To do that we are massively assisted by the high specific heat of water, which buffers our body against rapid changes in temperature. In getting rid of excess heat, we utilize the evaporative cooling of water. That’s why dog’s pant, we sweat, etc. Warm-blooded organisms have to get rid of excess heat, and the evaporative cooling of water is the only way you’ve really got to get rid of heat when the temperature reaches close to body temperature. When it’s hot you can’t radiate off body heat to the environment. These critical thermal properties are obviously of great utility to air breathing, warm-blooded organisms like our self. But what relevance do they have to an extremophile living in the deep ocean, or a cold-blooded fish living in the sea? It’s obvious that these are elements of fitness in nature which seem to be of great and specific utility to beings like us, and very little utility to a lot of other organisms. Of course it is the case that they are playing a role in maintaining the constancy of global climate, the physical and chemical constancy of the hydrosphere and so forth. No doubt the evaporative cooling of water plays a big role in climatic amelioration; it transfers heat from the tropics to the higher latitudes and this is of utility for all life on earth. But definitely water’s thermal properties seem particularly fit for advanced organisms of biology close to our own. And even the freezing of water from the top down rather than the bottom up, which conserves large bodies of fresh water on the earth, is again relevant to large organisms. Bacterial cells can withstand quite well periodically freezing. And for unicellular organisms living in the hot sub surface rocks its pretty well irrelevant. In other words the top down freezing and the consequent preservation of liquid water is of much more utility for a large organism, but of far less relevance for microbial life. Or consider the generation and utilization of oxygen. We use oxygen, but many organisms don’t use oxygen; for a lot of organisms it’s a poison. So how do we get our oxygen? When we look at the conditions in the universe for photosynthesis, we find a magical collusion between of all sorts of different elements of fitness. First of all the atmospheric gases let through visual light which has got the right energy for biochemistry, for photosynthesis. And what are the gases in the atmosphere that let through the light? Well, carbon dioxide, water vapor, oxygen, and nitrogen. And what are the basic reactants which are involved in photosynthesis? Well, oxygen, water, and CO2. The same compounds that let through the light are also the main ‘players’ in photosynthesis. And then you might wonder what about the harmful radiations? UV, Gamma rays, microwaves? Well to begin with the sun only puts out most of its electromagnetic radian energy in the visual region (light) and near infrared (heat) and puts out very little in the dangerous regions (UV’s, gamma rays, X-rays etc.). And wonder on wonder, the atmospheric gases absorb all these harmful radiations. And so on and on and on, one anthropocentric biofriendly coincidence after another. And what provides the necessary warmth for photosynthesis, indeed for all life on earth. What keeps the average temperature of the earth above freezing? Well water vapor and carbon dioxide. If it wasn’t for water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature of the earth would be -33 centigrade. Now when you consider all these factors necessary for the generation of oxygen via photosynthesis knowing that not all organisms use oxygen implying that all these coincidences are irrelevant to the vast majority of all species (most of the biomass on the planet may well be anaerobic unicellular life occupying the hot deep biosphere in the sub surface rocks) never use oxygen, its clear that the special fitness of nature for oxygen utilization is for us. http://successfulstudent.org/dr-michael-denton-interview/ “Dr. Michael Denton on Evidence of Fine-Tuning in the Universe” (Remarkable balance of various key elements for life) – podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-08-21T14_43_59-07_00
Moreover, every class of elements that exists on the periodic table of elements is necessary for complex carbon-based life to exist on earth. The three most abundant elements in the human body, Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, 'just so happen' to be the most abundant elements in the universe, save for helium which is inert. A truly amazing coincidence that strongly implies 'the universe had us in mind all along'. Even uranium the last naturally occurring 'stable' element on the period table of elements is necessary for life. The heat generated by the decay of uranium is necessary to keep a molten core in the earth for an extended period of time, which is necessary for the magnetic field surrounding the earth, which in turn protects organic life from the harmful charged particles of the sun. As well, uranium decay provides the heat for tectonic activity and the turnover of the earth's crustal rocks, which is necessary to keep a proper mixture of minerals and nutrients available on the surface of the earth, which is necessary for long term life on earth. (Denton; Nature's Destiny).
"Without Plate Tectonics Life on Earth Might Never Have Gained a Foothold" - May 7, 2014 Excerpt: Plate tectonics -the movement of huge chunks, or plates, of a planet's surface- are crucial to a planet's habitability because they enable complex chemistry and recycle substances like carbon dioxide, which acts as a thermostat and keeps Earth balmy. Carbon dioxide that was locked into rocks is released when those rocks melt, returning to the atmosphere from volcanoes and oceanic ridges. "Recycling is important even on a planetary scale," http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/05/without-plate-tectonics-life-on-earth-might-never-have-gained-a-foothold-harvard-smithsonian-center-.html
Plate tectonics is much rarer than was previously thought:
We may be overlooking a critical factor in our quest to find alien life - August 2016 Excerpt: Many scientists assume that plate tectonics is a given on rocky, Earth-like worlds, but this may be rarer than anyone imagined. A new study in the journal Science Advances questions the idea that rocky worlds "self regulate" their heat after forming. The implications could be enormous, says study author Jun Korenaga, a geophysicist at Yale University. Essentially, we could be overlooking another "Goldilocks" factor in our searches for worlds habitable to aliens: a planet's initial temperature. If you're a planet and you start out too hot, the thick layer of rock below the crust called the mantle doesn't give you plate tectonics. If you're too cold, you also don't get plate tectonics. The mantle is not as forgiving as scientists once assumed: you have to have the right internal temperature to begin with. "Though it's difficult to be specific about how much, it surely does reduce the number of habitable worlds," Korenaga wrote in an email to Business Insider. "Most ... Earth-like planets (in terms of size) probably wouldn't evolve like Earth and wouldn't have an Earth-like atmosphere." That would mean that many planets in the "Goldilocks" zone may not be habitable after all.,,, ,,, Mars and Venus weren't so lucky. Those planets have a "stagnant lid" of relatively unbroken crust, and in Venus' case, the consequences are clear: Without the ability to bury carbon in the atmosphere, the surface turned into an 860-degree-Fahrenheit hell. The new models suggest that rocky planets which can regulate their temperature, and thus develop all the geologic support systems life needs to emerge and thrive, are much rarer than we might hope.,,, he wrote. "[A] planet like Earth could well be the one of a kind in the universe." http://www.businessinsider.com/goldilocks-exoplanet-habitability-internal-heat-2016-8 The Role of Elements in Life Processes - Periodic Table - Interactive web page for each element http://www.mii.org/periodic/MiiPeriodicChart.htm
Quotes:
The vastness, beauty, orderliness, of the heavenly bodies, the excellent structure of animals and plants; and the other phenomena of nature justly induce an intelligent and unprejudiced observer to conclude a supremely powerful, just, and good author. — Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691), father of experimental chemistry Peering Into the Unseen—What Is Revealed? Excerpt: Mendeleyev left blank spaces (on the Periodic Table) for 16 new elements. When asked for proof for his predictions, he replied: “I have no need of proof. The laws of nature, unlike the laws of grammar, admit of no exception.” He added: “I suppose when my unknown elements are found, more people will pay us attention.” That is exactly what occurred! Clearly, as research chemist Elmer W. Maurer noted, “this beautiful arrangement (of the Periodic Table) is hardly a matter of chance.” Of the possibility that the harmonious order of the elements is a matter of chance, professor of chemistry John Cleveland Cothran observed: “The post-prediction discovery of all of the elements whose existence [Mendeleyev] predicted, and their possession of almost exactly the properties he predicted for them, effectively removed any such possibility. His great generalization is never called ‘The Periodic Chance.’ Instead, it is ‘The Periodic Law.’” http://m.wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102000602
bornagain77
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
Querius, yes, as I said, matter is deeply mysterious.Pindi
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
Vy, that is the fallacy of composition.Pindi
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Hmmm, the 'adding a proton' alters the characteristics of the material, is a damn good argument for materialism, don't you think? I never thought about that, and I am certain Pindi is honest enough (being an atheist, and having no God to satisfy), to admit s/he is not the first to think about this. Look at the Periodic Table! Why does the change in atomic number or weight, change an elements's fundamental properties from something conducive to life, to something trajic to life? Good question. What do the faithful believe God was thinking with such arbitrariness? Surely, all the really heavy stuff kills, and all the light stuff is good, but then how do you explain Lithium (3) etc?rvb8
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
Hi Pindi,
Origines, the case you have to make is that consciousness and thinking are not caused by, or a property of, physical stuff acting according to physical laws. You haven’t made that case, you’ve just asserted it.
Physics is the most heavily tested and verified of the sciences and Quantum Mechanics is the most heavily tested and verified area of Physics. According to QM, matter and energy as you're describing don't actually exist. According to QM, what exists is observation and the collapse of probability waves (termed Phi). They are the result of or involve information. For example, did you know about as long as you continuously observe an unstable particle such as a radioisotope, it will never decay? This is called the Quantum Zeno Effect and it has been experimentally demonstrated several times in the past 25 years. You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect#Experiments_and_discussion Do you believe that this is true? -QQuerius
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
You haven’t made that case, you’ve just asserted it.
Look in the mirror.
Regarding your last sentence, there is every reason to think that matter can think. Human beings are matter. Human beings can think.
OK. When was the last time you had a conversation with the grains of sand at a beach? Do you think they think that being stepped on is hurtful?Vy
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
Origines, the case you have to make is that consciousness and thinking are not caused by, or a property of, physical stuff acting according to physical laws. You haven't made that case, you've just asserted it. Regarding your last sentence, there is every reason to think that matter can think. Human beings are matter. Human beings can think. It's you who has the onus to make the case that there is something more beyond what we observe.Pindi
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Pindi @54,
Pindi: Now, looking at your argument. I hear things like “clumps of matter can’t be about clumps of matter”. … Phrases like “clumps of matter” are used pejoratively, so let’s exchange “clumps of matter” with “human being”. “Human beings can’t think” doesn’t have quite the same ring does it.
How about “the neurons in your brain”? Does that help?
There is nothing in the whole universe—including, of course, all the neurons in your brain—that just by its nature or composition can do this job of being about some other clump of matter. [Rosenberg]
Pindi: Now, as I understand it, the argument is that matter is made of atoms and atoms clearly don’t think or have feelings etc. But the reality is, matter is deeply mysterious.
Sure, but not to the extent that we must leave open the possibility that atoms are conscious beings who think.
Pindi: We have no idea about many fundamental aspects of it. Take hydrogen and oxygen atoms and make water. Where does the wateriness come from?
Simply the effect of water molecules interacting in a certain way.
Pindi: There’s nothing watery about either hydrogen or oxygen.
You have been misinformed. Have you never heard of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen? Also here, simply moleculse interacting.
Pindi: What I am getting at I guess is that you are engaging in the fallacy of composition. But, you will say, “thoughts, mind, intelligence etc are completely different things to goldiness and wetness. You are not comparing apples with apples”. Well, that’s just an assertion. That’s the hard problem of consciousness (as I understand it). Whether there is anything intrinsically different about consciousness and thoughts compared to any other properties that arise out of matter is one of the big unanswered questions. As I understand it, philosophers are divided on this.
As I understand it, philosophers generally accept the distinction between objective and subjective. Physical properties, such as wetness, are objective in the sense that anyone has access to them. Mental properties, such as thoughts, pain and awareness, are subjective in the sense that they are only available to a person. Searle prefers the terms ‘third-person ontology’ and ‘first-person ontology’.
Pindi: In fact, I believe that only a minority of philosophers adopt libertarian free will as the answer to the quandary.
Free will has little to do with the distinction objective subjective.
Pindi: So I don’t see that the logical entailements of materialism are that I can’t think about the world, or that me and everyone else are absurd. I think that “matter” can think, just like it can be wet.
Water can be wet, so matter can think. Is that your argument?
Pindi: I don’t know how. It’s an open question. Maybe we will never know.
You have not even begun to make your case. What you have to address is that physical stuff acts according to physical laws. Physical stuff does not concern itself with meaning, context, overview, logic and so forth. Wetness and goldiness has little to do with that. Moreover, things are caused bottom-up according to materialism. Causation stems from (utterly blind, unaware, unthinking) fermions and bosons to higher levels. So, there is actually no reason whatsoever to think that matter can think.Origenes
September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply