Mind Over Matter

_{Barry Arrington

January 1, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place.

William J Murray

Comments

KN: You are a philosophy professor, by your own admission. Could you therefore explain to me why you have put up the strawman caricature:
it’s completely un-obvious how might get from “everything that ~~exists~~ [begins to exist or may cease from existing or is otherwise contingent] must have a cause”
As I have used the strike and insert to show, this is a caricature of half of the principle of sufficient reason, that for what exists we may properly ask, why. Those things that depend on external necessary (on/off switch, enabling or required component etc . . . ) factors that must be "on" are the things that are contingent, like a fire that depends on heat, oxidiser, fuel and an uninterrupted chain reaction. Such things can begin, are sustained in being by supporting factors, and once one or more key factors are withdrawn, will cease to exist. These contingent beings are said to be caused, i.e. a sufficient cluster of factors for them to exist must be present and must be sustained across their existence, and where withdrawal of one or more necessary causal factors will cause such things to cease to exist, perhaps leaving remains that decay. And of course the effect of the withdrawal may be gradual not necessarily instant, e.g. there is such a thing as a mortal wound. Contingent beings need to be causally explained. There is another possible and indeed actual class of being, that does not have these on/off factors, the necessary being. Not having external dependence on on/off factors, it does not come into being, nor can it cease from being, nor is its being sustained by external factors. A good simple example is the truth expressed in the symbols 2 + 3 = 5. It did not have a point where it was not true, it is not dependent for its truth on factors we can turn on or off, and it cannot cease from being true. The key relevance is that our observed cosmos -- the only observed cosmos, never mind multiverse speculations branes and the like -- is credibly contingent, not least per the Hubble results form 90 years ago, near on. E = m*c^2 also implies that both forms of matter and energy in its various forms are contingent. The contingent observed cosmos cries out for a root of its being, ultimately in a necessary being sufficient to account for such. Multiply by the finetuning for life and we see that a very credible candidate is a necessary, intelligent, purposeful, powerful being who is self-existent, uncaused and the cause of what would have to be regarded as creation. KFkairosfocus_{January 5, 2013
January
01
Jan
5
05
2013
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT}

Kantian Naturalist
I wonder about this edict, “nothing can be in the effect that was not first present in the cause”. Is that really so ‘self-evident’?
I didn’t say that it was self-evident. I asked you to recognize its validity as a corollary to the Law of Causality.
I’m quite familiar with how Descartes uses it in the Third Meditation, where he uses it as a premise for the existence of God. There, he basically just says, “it is clear by the light of reason.” Oh, “the light of reason”! So obvious, now that the light of reason has shined down upon us! Except that it’s completely un-obvious how might get from “everything that exists must have a cause” to “there cannot be more ____ (reality? power? ___?) in the effect than there was in the cause.”
For purposes of our discussion, the relevant quote from Descartes would be this: “For if we admit that there is something in the effect that was not previously present in the cause, we shall also have to admit that this something was produced by nothing." Descartes was wrong about many things, but he was right about that. It is perfectly straightforward. It’s just a question of going through the process, beginning with the Law of Causality as a premise: Nothing can begin to exist without a cause. If something was in the effect that was not first in the cause, then it would have come into being without a cause. Yet nothing can begin to exist without a cause. Therefore, nothing can be in the effect unless it was first in the cause. From that point, it is a simple matter of substitution. Mind cannot be in the effect if mind was not first in the cause.
One cannot get to “mind” from “matter” — on that much we can agree. But, what I’ve been trying to argue here is that (a) one can get from “matter” to “life” and (b) one can get from “life” to “mind”.
You might want to rethink that comment. To acknowledge that one cannot get from matter to mind is to also acknowledge that one cannot get from matter to mind through life.
I’m willing to use the term “matter” as a dummy-term for “the structure, objects, and properties of the universe minus all living things and their properties”, but I’m reticent to endorse the term with all its various historical uses, implications, connotations, etc.
Just call it M/E for matter and energy if you like. Or, use your own definition or formulation. The point is that you can’t make the journey from M/E to mind and maintain the Law of Causality.
Do I have a “mind”? I have thoughts, beliefs, sensations, pains, aches, wishes, desires, fears, dreams, neuroses — are these all features of my mind? Certainly they are all features of me, the rational animal, the embodied person, that I am. But, having read Ryle, Sellars, Rorty, and Dennett, I am increasingly uncertain how much sense it really makes to class all these together under one heading, “mind”, and then in a totally different class put my height, weight, hair color, cholesterol levels, blood type, respiration rate, heart beat, etc.
For my part, a mind is an immaterial faculty of a spiritual soul. That is why I argue that matter cannot produce one. Perhaps you don’t think that minds exist by that definition.
I don’t recall signing off on “reason’s rules” — in fact, if memory serves, we went around a couple of times about the history of logic without concluding. In point of fact, however, I do accept something like a priori truths — but I’m less confident than you are that Aristotle just got them right the first time around.
What I had in mind was the Laws of …Identity, Excluded Middle, Non-Contradiction, and Causality. Do you accept these rules of reason as being ontologically, epistemologically, and psychologically true—for everyone, for all times, and for all places?
Here’s one way of putting it: on a careful reading of Aristotle’s own argument for the LNC, he basically just presupposes his own ontology — that there are things with properties — and reads the LNC off of it. If one changes the ontology, one changes the logic. (Hegel realized this, I think.) Buddhist logic rejects the LNC, but guess what? Buddhist metaphysics rejects the object-property ontology, too! (Indeed, the Buddhists teach that it is acceptance of this ontology that leads to suffering!)
I am aware that there are many traditions that do not accept reason’s rules. My question is about your position.
In any event, I do think that there are some very general rational norms that are “valid for everyone, everywhere, for all times” — by virtue of being implicit in what it is for something to be a language at all. But do I really want to say that, prior to the emergence of language around 1.5 million years ago, there were no rational norms? You know, upon reflection, yes — yes, that is what I want to say
Are you saying that prior to the development of language, it was logically possible that Jupiter could exist and not exist at the same time and under the same formal circumstances, but after language emerged, it became logically impossible.
I’m not denying the LNC; I’m just doing philosophy here, exploring a line of thought in dialogue and seeing what happens.
I am not clear on your position. If you are not denying the "Law" of Non-Contradiction, why did you just reduce it to a “norm” in the preceding comment?StephenB_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

graham2, if you take a peek back, you state:
I still think the area of a rectangle = LxB. I was told this by a schoolteacher, and god didnt seem to be involved.
Yet you hold that area of a rectangle = LxB is true but incompleteness shows that the truth of area of a rectangle = LxB is not inherent within the equation area of a rectangle = LxB. The truth of area of a rectangle = LxB, and all mathematical statements, derives from an outside source. Yet numbers and equations are transcendent of any space time constraints, thus the source that makes area of a rectangle = LxB true must also be transcendent of any space time constraints. Being that area of a rectangle = LxB is true in all parts of the universe, this transcendent source that makes area of a rectangle = LxB true must be omnipresent in all parts of the universe. Being that area of a rectangle = LxB is true regardless of whatever year it is,,, are you starting to get the drift? You see Graham2, you need to ask yourself why is area of a rectangle = LxB true since the truth of the equation is not contained within itself? That leads to the necessary Being of God: note, this is hardly the only line of argumentation in this line of thought: Not Understanding Nothing – A review of A Universe from Nothing – Edward Feser - June 2012 Excerpt: A critic might reasonably question the arguments for a divine first cause of the cosmos. But to ask “What caused God?” misses the whole reason classical philosophers thought his existence necessary in the first place. So when physicist Lawrence Krauss begins his new book by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well. ,,, ,,, But Krauss simply can’t see the “difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.” The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothingbornagain77_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

By philosophers. Nice try, though! :)Kantian Naturalist_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

KN:
It’s not that I think “mind” is “material” or “immaterial,” or that there is no “mind” — it’s that I think all these questions are just fundamentally ill-conceived.
Ill-conceived by matter, or mind? ;)Mung_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

In re: StephenB @ 93:
Because the Law of Causality indicates that nothing can be in the effect that was not first present in the cause. Or, as I have put it elsewhere, you can’t get something from nothing. “Poof, there it is,” does not qualify as a logical explanation. Also, recall that we are not discussing “life,” we are discussing “mind.” The former can exist without the latter. You are moving the target.
A few casual remarks: (1) I wonder about this edict, "nothing can be in the effect that was not first present in the cause". Is that really so 'self-evident'? I'm quite familiar with how Descartes uses it in the Third Meditation, where he uses it as a premise for the existence of God. There, he basically just says, "it is clear by the light of reason." Oh, "the light of reason"! So obvious, now that the light of reason has shined down upon us! Except that it's completely un-obvious how might get from "everything that exists must have a cause" to "there cannot be more ____ (reality? power? ___?) in the effect than there was in the cause." (2) I'm not trying to get to something from nothing, I'm trying to get from one kind of something (mind) from another kind of something (matter). So to speak. Except not, because, (3) I'm sorry I came across as illicitly 'moving the target' because I really hoped to come across as arguing that the target really is ill-conceived. One cannot get to "mind" from "matter" -- on that much we can agree. But, what I've been trying to argue here is that (a) one can get from "matter" to "life" and (b) one can get from "life" to "mind". If one doesn't have "life" as a basic category, then but only then does the transition from "matter" to "mind" look like an unbridgeable gulf.
If you want to use another word other than matter, feel free. I think we should use the word matter as a common term so as to avoid confusion. In any case, the issue is that the basic raw materials (what I call matter) of the universe, absent any immaterial qualities, cannot produce the quality of a non-material faculty, which is what is required for mind. A designer must introduce that element from the top down. (Notice also, that if you refuse to use the word matter, then I cannot use the word non-material and we cannot have a rational discussion).
I'm willing to use the term "matter" as a dummy-term for "the structure, objects, and properties of the universe minus all living things and their properties", but I'm reticent to endorse the term with all its various historical uses, implications, connotations, etc. It's not that I think "mind" is "material" or "immaterial," or that there is no "mind" -- it's that I think all these questions are just fundamentally ill-conceived. Do I have a "mind"? I have thoughts, beliefs, sensations, pains, aches, wishes, desires, fears, dreams, neuroses -- are these all features of my mind? Certainly they are all features of me, the rational animal, the embodied person, that I am. But, having read Ryle, Sellars, Rorty, and Dennett, I am increasingly uncertain how much sense it really makes to class all these together under one heading, "mind", and then in a totally different class put my height, weight, hair color, cholesterol levels, blood type, respiration rate, heart beat, etc. Clearly there's some point to these distinctions -- but what? I don't think it's really as obvious as you make it out to be.
At first, you seemed to say that matter can produce mind, later you said, in effect, that something like matter can produce mind, but you didn’t want to call it matter; now you say that neither exists at all, except as an abstraction from “the sensuous reality of embodied experience.” Once again, you appear to be setting up a moving target.
I apologize for the inconsistency of my presentation. I certainly hope I didn't say that matter could produce mind! In any event, it's not that neither "matter" nor "mind" exist, so much as that our concepts of matter and of mind are arrived at through abstraction from lived experience. Abstractions are not useless guides to reality -- on the contrary! I'm just trying to sort out the epistemological issues from the metaphysical ones. It's complicated.
I think we agreed previously that I was successful in demonstrating that the Law of Causality is inextricably tied to the law of Non-contradiction.
I interpreted your argument to have shown the following: since causality is necessarily temporal, nothing can be the cause of itself without violating the law of non-contradiction. This doesn't show that everything must have a cause, but rather that if something has a cause, then that cause cannot be itself. (A further corollary was introduced, I believe by Mung, that if something is contingent, then it must have a cause. That does seem intuitively right, but part of the job of the philosopher is to question her intuitions, as far as she can.)
Do I also need to explain why the Law of Causality is inextricably tied to its corollary [nothing can exist in the effect unless it was first present in the cause]. If you reflect on it, I think it will become clear to you.
Please feel free to enlighten me. I do mean that seriously. I'm teaching Descartes soon, and I'm aware that he leans heavily on this Scholastic precept (without acknowledging his predecessors, the scurrilous bastard!), but my knowledge of the Scholastic tradition is, ahem, casual.
How can rationality be maintained if the Law of Non-contradiction is subject to evolutionary change? That would invalidate our previous discussion about the reliability of reason’s rules as principles that are true for everyone at all times.
I don't recall signing off on "reason's rules" -- in fact, if memory serves, we went around a couple of times about the history of logic without concluding. In point of fact, however, I do accept something like a priori truths -- but I'm less confident than you are that Aristotle just got them right the first time around. Here's one way of putting it: on a careful reading of Aristotle's own argument for the LNC, he basically just presupposes his own ontology -- that there are things with properties -- and reads the LNC off of it. If one changes the ontology, one changes the logic. (Hegel realized this, I think.) Buddhist logic rejects the LNC, but guess what? Buddhist metaphysics rejects the object-property ontology, too! (Indeed, the Buddhists teach that it is acceptance of this ontology that leads to suffering!) In any event, I do think that there are some very general rational norms that are "valid for everyone, everywhere, for all times" -- by virtue of being implicit in what it is for something to be a language at all. But do I really want to say that, prior to the emergence of language around 1.5 million years ago, there were no rational norms? You know, upon reflection, yes -- yes, that is what I want to say. I'm not denying the LNC; I'm just doing philosophy here, exploring a line of thought in dialogue and seeing what happens.Kantian Naturalist_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

That was meant as sarcasm. This is just creepy, Im out of here.Graham2_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

g2: If god didnt exist, then we couldnt calculate the area of rectangles? bingo! bingo! bingo! bingo! One for each side.Mung_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

I still think the area of a rectangle = LxB. I was told this by a schoolteacher, and god didnt seem to be involved. If god didnt exist, then we couldnt calculate the area of rectangles ?Graham2_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

So how do I make it to the shops ? You, your mind, made a decision to go to the shops and directed you body via your brain to go there. Does god lead the way?. You have a free will to go to the shop or to not go. God did not make you a robot to blindly obey him. Whereas, ironically, on materialistic determinism you would have no choice but to go. (Go figure!) But to back up, since you seem to have a extremely difficult time understanding incompleteness to its ultimate conclusion for the necessity of God let's try to go back over that trouble spot for you and see if the following can help you out of your rut: Alan Turing extended Godel's incompleteness to material computers, as is illustrated in this following video: Alan Turing & Kurt Godel – Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8516356 And it is now found that,,, Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html Yet super-computers with many switches have a huge problem with heat,,, Supercomputer architecture Excerpt: Throughout the decades, the management of heat density has remained a key issue for most centralized supercomputers.[4][5][6] The large amount of heat generated by a system may also have other effects, such as reducing the lifetime of other system components.[7] There have been diverse approaches to heat management, from pumping Fluorinert through the system, to a hybrid liquid-air cooling system or air cooling with normal air conditioning temperatures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer_architecture yet the brain, though having as many switches as all the computers on earth, does not have such a problem with heat,,, Appraising the brain’s energy budget: Excerpt: In the average adult human, the brain represents about 2% of the body weight. Remarkably, despite its relatively small size, the brain accounts for about 20% of the oxygen and, hence, calories consumed by the body. This high rate of metabolism is remarkably constant despite widely varying mental and motoric activity. The metabolic activity of the brain is remarkably constant over time. http://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10237.full THE EFFECT OF MENTAL ARITHMETIC ON CEREBRAL CIRCULATION AND METABOLISM Excerpt: Although Lennox considered the performance of mental arithmetic as “mental work”, it is not immediately apparent what the nature of that work in the physical sense might be if, indeed, there be any. If no work or energy transformation is involved in the process of thought, then it is not surprising that cerebral oxygen consumption is unaltered during mental arithmetic. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC438861/pdf/jcinvest00624-0127.pdf Does Thinking Really Hard Burn More Calories? – By Ferris Jabr – July 2012 Excerpt: So a typical adult human brain runs on around 12 watts—a fifth of the power required by a standard 60 watt lightbulb. Compared with most other organs, the brain is greedy; pitted against man-made electronics, it is astoundingly efficient. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=thinking-hard-calories Moreover, the heat generated by computers is primarily caused by the erasure of information from the computer,,, Landauer’s principle Of Note: “any logically irreversible manipulation of information, such as the erasure of a bit or the merging of two computation paths, must be accompanied by a corresponding entropy increase ,,, Specifically, each bit of lost information will lead to the release of an (specific) amount (at least kT ln 2) of heat.,,, Landauer’s Principle has also been used as the foundation for a new theory of dark energy, proposed by Gough (2008). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle Thus the brain is either operating on reversible computation principles no computer can come close to emulating (Charles Bennett), or, as is much more likely, the brain is not erasing information from its memory as material computers are required to do,, because our memories are stored on the ‘spiritual’ level rather than on a material level,,, A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs (Near Death Experiences) – Pim van Lommel Excerpt: For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories (information) inside the brain, so far without success.,,,,So we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness. And as soon as the function of brain has been lost, like in clinical death or in brain death, with iso-electricity on the EEG, memories and consciousness do still exist, but the reception ability is lost. People can experience their consciousness outside their body, with the possibility of perception out and above their body, with identity, and with heightened awareness, attention, well-structured thought processes, memories and emotions. And they also can experience their consciousness in a dimension where past, present and future exist at the same moment, without time and space, and can be experienced as soon as attention has been directed to it (life review and preview), and even sometimes they come in contact with the “fields of consciousness” of deceased relatives. And later they can experience their conscious return into their body. http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm To support this view that ‘memory/information’ is not stored in the brain, one of the most common features of extremely deep near death experiences is the ‘life review’ where every minute detail of a person’s life is reviewed: Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/bornagain77_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Graham2:
So how do I make it to the shops ? Does god lead the way?.
Does matter lead the way? Exactly what characteristic of matter allows it to lead other matter?
Do you all agree math equations come from god ?
Do you believe math equations come from matter? Exactly what characteristic of matter leads other matter to math equations?Phinehas_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

SB:
I think we agreed previously that I was successful in demonstrating that the Law of Causality is inextricably tied to the law of Non-contradiction. Do I also need to explain why the Law of Causality is inextricably tied to its corollary [nothing can exist in the effect unless it was first present in the cause]. If you reflect on it, I think it will become clear to you.
Laying things out 1, 2, 3 might make for a very good topic for an OP some day. :) 1. Law of Identity 2. Law of Non-Contradiction. 3. Law of Causality 4. Nothing can exist in the effect that is not present in the cause. I don't know if I've ever seen these laid out in an easily accessible manner.Mung_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

This is weird and getting weirder ... you have no reason to presuppose that .. your ‘brain’ .. reliable for ascertaining reality So how do I make it to the shops ? Does god lead the way?. I note with some alarm that this all passes without comment by the regulars. Do you all agree math equations come from god ?Graham2_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Graham2, this is a weird statement:
Our brain is capable of doing something you know.
Because as a Darwinist, and on evolutionary naturalism (which you hold, without warrant of evidence, to be true), you simply have no coherent reason to presuppose that the cognitive faculties of your 'brain' to be reliable for ascertaining reality, much less for appreciating mathematical truths that probe the deepest mysteries of reality. notes: Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not." Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/ Alvin Plantinga - Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8 The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?); Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - October 2011 Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?) Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html Evolutionists Are Now Saying Their Thinking is Flawed (But Evolution is Still a Fact) - Cornelius Hunter - May 2012 Excerpt: But the point here is that these “researchers” are making an assertion (human reasoning evolved and is flawed) which undermines their very argument. If human reasoning evolved and is flawed, then how can we know that evolution is a fact, much less any particular details of said evolutionary process that they think they understand via their “research”? http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolutionists-are-now-saying-their.html An atheist said the following in response to Dr. Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism: 'Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind.' Yet we find,,, Children are born believers in God, academic claims - Telegraph - November 2008 Excerpt: "The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html 'Believers' gene' will spread religion , says academic - January 2011 Excerpt: The World Values Survey, which covered 82 nations from 1981 to 2004, found that adults who attended religious services more than once a week had 2.5 children on average; while those who went once a month had two; and those who never attended had 1.67. Prof Rowthorn wrote: "The more devout people are, the more children they are likely to have." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8252939/Believers-gene-will-spread-religion-says-academic.html Why do atheists have such a low retention rate? - July 2012 Excerpt: Only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults. This “retention rate” was the lowest among the 20 separate categories in the study. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-atheists-have-such-a-low-retention-rate/ Thus either the atheist is right and evolution is producing a true belief, and that true belief is Theism, since atheists have a 'praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind', or Dr. Plantinga is right and there is no guarantee that the results of Darwinian evolution will produce true beliefs about the nature of reality! Which is it? Either answer is a self defeater for evolutionary naturalism!bornagain77_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

To Ba77: OK, so maths is incomplete. How do you jump from that to the claim that a specific result came from god ? You are fond of citing all manner of weird and wonderful ideas, and then jumping to the conclusion that goddidit. Our brain is capable of doing something you know.Graham2_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

KN: Please read the previously linked. complexity is not in itself either order or organisation. A chaotic situation may be complex indeed, but utterly irrelevant to functionally specific organisation, especially the sort in cell based life. And the example of marbles in a box should help see how moving from simplicity -- say a specific pattern that is periodic, to one that is much harder to describe specifically, can be consistent with moving from order to disorder. I need not mention that vortices and snowflakes do not represent specific, functional complex organisation, which is what cell based life is about. Cf Orgel and Wicken on this, as I have often cited. KFkairosfocus_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

And what specifically do you not understand about incompleteness: Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.” i.e. THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians Godel and Physics - John D. Barrow Excerpt (page 5-6): "Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons...fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time." Stanley Jaki - Cosmos and Creator - 1980, pg. 49 http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612253.pdf further note: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind's capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Mario Livio, or the Poverty of Atheist Philosophy: A Review of “Is God a Mathematician?” Excerpt: In short, Wigner committed a treason against science. He didn’t, in an Einsteinian fashion, just declare a personal faith in a God that had only marginal relevance to his scientific studies. He went farther than that: he implied that science was impossible and inexplicable without accepting a higher reality, transcending the mind of man and its capabilities for reasoning and experimentation. The short and ostensibly innocent article faced some really violent reactions; some objected to the conclusions in it, others to the premises, and still others refused to even deal with it, pretending it had never been written. But Wigner remained right about one thing: Despite the many attempts, no one could give a rational explanation for what Wigner described as the “uncanny ability of mathematics to describe and predict accurately the physical world.” http://americanvision.org/4333/mario-livio-or-the-poverty-of-atheist-philosophy-a-review-of-is-god-a-mathematician/ Calvin and Hobbes - cartoon - The Mathematical Atheist http://s3.hubimg.com/u/270622_f520.jpgbornagain77_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

@78 kairosfocus
kairosfocus : And, the other issue is that we are not here looking for order, but organisation and even contrivance.
Kairosfocus, what are your thoughts on ‘downward organization’? James A. Shapiro considers the cell, as a whole, to be an agency: “By itself, DNA does nothing. It is the cell that uses DNA as a RW memory device. To think biologically about agency, we have to focus at the cell level. All vital activities occur in this context." Stephen L. Talbott is also very outspoken on this subject: “When regulators are in turn regulated, what do we mean by “regulate” — and where within the web of regulation can we single out a master controller capable of dictating cellular fates? And if we can’t, what are reputable scientists doing when they claim to have identified such a controller, or, rather, various such controllers? If they really mean something like “influencers,” then that’s fine. But influence is not about mechanism and control; the things at issue just don’t have controlling powers. What we see, rather, is a continual mutual adaptation, interaction, and coordination that occurs from above.” And if life is downward organization of matter (the parts) isn’t that telling us that materialism is utterly debunked? Would you agree with me that downward organization cannot be explained from the parts?Box_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @76: I am surprised by your candor. So, if we take an example (area rectangle) A = LXB Does this (specific example) come from God ?Graham2_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

Kantian Naturalist
But why, I enjoin you to ask yourselves, must we begin with a conception of matter to which something else must be added in order to produce life?
Because the Law of Causality indicates that nothing can be in the effect that was not first present in the cause. Or, as I have put it elsewhere, you can’t get something from nothing. “Poof, there it is,” does not qualify as a logical explanation. Also, recall that we are not discussing "life," we are discussing "mind." The former can exist without the latter. You are moving the target.
The answer, I believe, is that the Epicureans were so adamant in following Democritus’ anti-creationism that they failed to see that in the process they were eliminating life as a basic category.
If you want to use another word other than matter, feel free. I think we should use the word matter as a common term so as to avoid confusion. In any case, the issue is that the basic raw materials (what I call matter) of the universe, absent any immaterial qualities, cannot produce the quality of a non-material faculty, which is what is required for mind. A designer must introduce that element from the top down. (Notice also, that if you refuse to use the word matter, then I cannot use the word non-material and we cannot have a rational discussion).
So the correct starting-point for my inquiry is to begin roughly where Aristotle began: by taking life seriously. When this is done, both “matter” and “mind” fall into place as abstractions from the sensuous reality of embodied experience, not as fundamental realities in themselves.
At first, you seemed to say that matter can produce mind; later you said, in effect, that something like matter can produce mind, but you didn’t want to call it matter; now you say that neither exists at all, except as an abstraction from “the sensuous reality of embodied experience.” Once again, you appear to be setting up a moving target. Let’s return to the point: Matter cannot produce spirit. Something cannot come from nothing. There is nothing in the former that can account for the latter. I think we agreed previously that I was successful in demonstrating that the Law of Causality is inextricably tied to the law of Non-contradiction. Do I also need to explain why the Law of Causality is inextricably tied to its corollary [nothing can exist in the effect unless it was first present in the cause]. If you reflect on it, I think it will become clear to you. [If both the [yardstick and the thing being measured are thought to be changing, rationality is lost forever. That seems evident].
Certainty, yes; rationality, no.
How can rationality be maintained if the Law of Non-contradiction is subject to evolutionary change? That would invalidate our previous discussion about the reliability of reason’s rules as principles that are true for everyone at all times.StephenB_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

PS: And order is to be sharply distinguished from organisation in this context. Maybe, the 2nd ID foundations series post, here, will help too.kairosfocus_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

KN: Irrelevant. That earth is an open system is challenged by no one, there is a sun in the sky and there is a steady flux of cosmic dust for instance. What is the big problem is to move from mere uptake of "raw" energy -- which naturally INCREASES entropy -- to the organising "shaft work" that accounts for complex, functionally specific organisation on a molecular scale in the living cell. This, from my always linked, app 1, will give an explanation that starts from the issues raised by Thaxton et al nearly 30 years back, now. KFkairosfocus_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

As well KN, since Darwinists certainly will not bring this up, it is interesting to note just how extreme is the violation of thermodynamics for the simplest life on earth:
Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis - Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D. Excerpt: A thermodynamic analysis of a mixture of protein and amino acids in an ocean containing a 1 molar solution of each amino acid (100,000,000 times higher concentration than we inferred to be present in the prebiological ocean) indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10^-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^85 liters. At 10^-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10^229 universes (100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds. So we must look elsewhere for a mechanism to produce polymers. It will not happen in the ocean. http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html
Professor Harold Morowitz shows the Origin of Life 'problem' escalates dramatically over the 1 in 10^40,000 figure when working from a thermodynamic perspective,:
"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology pg. 99, Biophysicist of George Mason University)
Dr. Morowitz did another probability calculation working from the thermodynamic perspective with a already existing cell and came up with this number:
DID LIFE START BY CHANCE? Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias) http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html Punctured cell will never reassemble - Jonathan Wells - 2:40 mark of video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKoiivfe_mo
Also of interest is the information content that is derived in a cell when working from a thermodynamic perspective:
“a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong 'The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica." Carl Sagan, "Life" in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894
of note: The 10^12 bits of information number for a bacterium is derived from entropic considerations, which is, due to the tightly integrated relationship between information and entropy, considered the most accurate measure of the transcendent quantum information/entanglement constraining a 'simple' life form to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium.
"Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ....The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental..." Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90, [Quotes Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin]
For calculations, from the thermodynamic perspective, please see the following site:
Moleular Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: - Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz' deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures. http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~angel/tsb/molecular.htm
Related note:
"Klimontovich’s S-theorem, an analogue of Boltzmann’s entropy for open systems, explains why the further an open system gets from the equilibrium, the less entropy becomes. So entropy-wise, in open systems there is nothing wrong about the Second Law. S-theorem demonstrates that spontaneous emergence of regular structures in a continuum is possible.,,, The hard bit though is emergence of cybernetic control (which is assumed by self-organisation theories and which has not been observed anywhere yet). In contrast to the assumptions, observations suggest that between Regularity and Cybernetic Systems there is a vast Cut which cannot be crossed spontaneously. In practice, it can be crossed by intelligent integration and guidance of systems through a sequence of states towards better utility. No observations exist that would warrant a guess that apart from intelligence it can be done by anything else." Eugene S – UD Blogger https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/id-foundations-15c-a-faq-on-front-loading-thanks-to-genomicus/comment-page-1/#comment-418185
supplemental note:
Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086
bornagain77_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

KN 86:
Other Types of Entropy - September 6, 2012 Excerpt: So why do people like Styer and Bunn and Sal, insist on treating all types of entropy as thermal entropy, and attempt to express the entropy associated with evolution, or the entropy of a 747, in units of Joules/degree Kelvin? If you insist on limiting the second law to applications involving thermal entropy, and that the only entropy is thermal entropy, than Sal is right that the second law has little to say about the emergence of life on Earth. But it is not just the “creationists” who apply it much more generally, many violent opponents of ID (including Asimov, Dawkins, Styer and Bunn) agree that this emergence does represent a decrease in “entropy” in the more general sense, they just argue that this decrease is compensated by increases outside our open system, an argument that is so widely used that I created the video below, Evolution is a Natural Process Running Backward to address it a few months ago. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/other-types-of-entropy/ Evolution is a Natural Process Running Backward - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=259r-iDckjQ
Of course KN you can prove to us that the second law does not hold for evolutionary processes by providing empirical evidence. Trouble is that the empirical evidence does not support your preferred metaphysics:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit
supplemental note:
Physicist Rob Sheldon offers some thoughts on Sal Cordova vs. Granville Sewell on 2nd Law Thermo - July 5, 2012 Excerpt: This is where Granville derives the potency of his argument, since a living organism certainly shows unusual permutations of the atoms, and thus has stat mech entropy that via Boltzmann, must obey the 2nd law. If life violates this, then it must not be lawfully possible for evolution to happen (without an input of work or information.) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-rob-sheldon-offers-some-thoughts-on-sal-cordova-vs-granville-sewell-on-2nd-law-thermo/
While neo-Darwinian evolution has no evidence that material processes can generate functional prescriptive information above that which is already present, i.e. Intelligent Design does have 'proof of principle' that information, via intelligence, can 'locally' violate the second law and generate potential energy:
Maxwell's demon demonstration turns information into energy - November 2010 Excerpt: Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a "spiral-staircase-like" potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html
bornagain77_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

The creationist argument is that advanced organisms are more orderly than primitive organisms, and hence as evolution proceeds living things become more ordered, that is less disordered, that is less entropic. Because the second law of thermodynamics prohibits a decrease in entropy, it therefore prohibits biological evolution.
lol. really? That's the creationist argument?Mung_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

KN: Because I fill my car up with gas doesn't mean it can fly or rebuild itself into a tank. Energy doesn't bestow limitless, magical ability on a material system to create **anything**.William J Murray_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Those of you who aren't afraid of a little math might find this interesting: "Entropy and Evolution", Daniel Styer. The conclusion is worth noting:
In other words, at a minimum the Earth is bathed in about one trillion times the amount of entropy flux required to support the rate of evolution assumed here. Presumably the entropy of the Earth’s biosphere is indeed decreasing by a tiny amount due to evolution, and the entropy of the cosmic microwave background is increasing by an even greater amount to compensate for that decrease. But the decrease in entropy required for evolution is so small compared to the entropy throughput that would occur even if the Earth were a dead planet, or if life on Earth were not evolving, that no measurement would ever detect it.
Kantian Naturalist_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

as to: "Ah, but that’s the crucial question — entropy always increases in closed systems. Kauffman’s speculation is that there is a counter-balancing tendency towards increased complexity in open systems." Can “ANYTHING” Happen in an Open System? - Granville Sewell PhD. Math Excerpt: If we found evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips, and books entered through the Earth’s atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps the appearance of humans, cars, computers, and encyclopedias on a previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a violation of the second law here (it would have been violated somewhere else!). http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/appendixd.pdf Can Anything Happen In A Open System - Granville Sewell PhD. Math - video http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/secondlaw.htm The common sense law of physics - Granville Sewell - July 2010 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-common-sense-law-of-physics/ Are You Looking for the Simplest and Clearest Argument for Intelligent Design? - Granville Sewell - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/looking_for_the056711.html Casey Luskin interviews Granville Sewell - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-02-17T13_17_00-08_00 Prof. Granville Sewell on Evolution: In The Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHOnqDNJ0Bc Granville Sewell - Mathematics Dept. University of Texas El Paso (Papers and Videos) http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/ Why Tornados Running Backward do not Violate the Second Law - Granville Sewell - May 2012 - article with video Excerpt: So, how does the spontaneous rearrangement of matter on a rocky, barren, planet into human brains and spaceships and jet airplanes and nuclear power plants and libraries full of science texts and novels, and supercomputers running partial differential equation solving software , represent a less obvious or less spectacular violation of the second law—or at least of the fundamental natural principle behind this law—than tornados turning rubble into houses and cars? Can anyone even imagine a more spectacular violation? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-tornados-running-backward-do-not-violate-the-second-law/ Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH Excerpt: This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420bornagain77_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

In re: Kairos Focus @ 78
Kauffman’s speculations notwithstanding, the actual on the ground observation is that while there are ordering forces in the world (such as form crystals), there are also disordering and chance forces (thus 2nd law of thermo-d), leading to a situation where the net global trend is downhill.
Ah, but that's the crucial question -- entropy always increases in closed systems. Kauffman's speculation is that there is a counter-balancing tendency towards increased complexity in open systems.
And, the other issue is that we are not here looking for order, but organisation and even contrivance.
I'd have to hear a lot more about how you're distinguishing between "order", "organization," and "contrivance." From my perspective, it sure looks to me as though Paley's contrivances are emergent phenomena. It's one thing to say that protein synthesis or the Krebs cycle are "irreducibly complex," if that means that if one component of the system is removed, the entire system breaks down; it's quite another to say that they could not have emerged from simpler autocatalytic cycles. All that "irreducible complexity" entails is that the system could not have emerged through a linear accumulation of parts added onto the whole. It doesn't entail that a simple autocatalytic holistic system could not have developed into a more complex one. At best irreducible complexity undermines reductionism.
There is only one thing that is empirically observed that can account for it, and that is intelligence acting by skill and knowledge to achieve purpose, through ART.
First of all, this simply raises the question, "what is intelligence"? I can't make any sense of the idea that "intelligence" is some weird kind of thing, out there in reality or whatever, all by itself. Intelligence is a kind of behavior that is manifest in the detection, manipulation, and creation of patterns. As for the passage from The Laws you cited, I think there's plenty of room here for someone to interject, "wait a minute -- 'self-moving activity, 'life,' and 'soul' are all very different notions, we need to make some distinctions."
While we may debate the ins and outs of his wider philosophy all day, that will not be pivotal, what is, is the issue that organisation towards purpose through art is empirically detectable and points to the action of the knowledgeable, skilled and purposeful mind as chief initiating cause behind the resulting contrivance. Even where a contrivance has the further feature Paley identified, of being able to replicate itself, and which von Neumann elaborated on the idea of a coded blueprint, reader and constructor under control of that blueprint.
This is the very heart of the issue: are organisms and artifacts species of a common genus? If so, does that genus contain predicates that allow us to predicate of organisms what is predicated of artifacts, namely, that they are manufactured? To be perfectly blunt, I simply don't think that organisms and artifacts are species of a common genus. I think that artifacts and organisms share certain features in common, such as purposiveness, because artifacts are made by organisms -- in particular, intelligent organisms, and especially by us -- in order to advance our interests and satisfy our needs. But I think that to then turn this all around and say that organisms are themselves a kind of artifact, manufactured by some mysterious Intelligence, is no explanation at all. Artifacts display finality, or final causes, as a result of having been made by organisms that are purposively organized, and treating organisms as if they were artifacts in order to explain how the organisms themselves came to be purposively organized is just one big petitio principii
And all this also brings us back to the final turtle issue you have said you would get back to some weeks back now.
I'm pretty sure I already responded to that, at least twice, but here's a third go at it: in your criticism of "the raft metaphor", you allude to the fact that the raft rests on "the ocean," which you explicated as the biological, chemical, and physical facts which make it possible for us to exist at all. My response is to basically concede the letter of your criticism but to deny the spirit. Because I think that there is a serious conflation of two very different senses of "grounding" -- grounding-as-justifying and grounding-as-causing -- at work here. The "planks" of the raft 'ground' each other in the sense that it is the inferential relationships between the beliefs which confers warrant. (So I hold a coherence theory of justification, though not of truth.) Of course the raft as a whole -- the whole fabric of beliefs which occupies the space of reasons -- is 'grounded', but not in the sense of warranted -- it is 'grounded' in the sense of caused -- caused by precisely the biological, chemical, and physical facts cited in criticism of the raft metaphor.Kantian Naturalist_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

correction: Yet, apparently unbeknownst to the physicist in the preceding video, there is another singularity to be found in the universe besides the singularities of Blackholes and the singularity at the creation event of the Big Bang,,bornagain77_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply