My Thought About Justice is Not Justice: Easy for ID; a Deal Killer for Materialism

_{Barry Arrington

February 5, 2018

Intelligent Design}

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

At ENV Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor exposes how materialist metaphysics flounders on logical grounds in its theory of mind:

As an example, let us suppose that a certain pattern of neuronal activation in my cortex were shown to represent my thought about justice. Obviously that pattern is not my thought about justice itself — justice is a concept, not a bunch of neurons. And if that pattern of neuronal activation represented my thought about justice, it must map to my thought of justice, which presupposes my thought about justice and thus cannot explain it.

Succinctly, mental representation of abstract thought presupposes abstract thought, and cannot explain it. It is on abstract thought that materialism, as a theory of mind, flounders. Abstract thought, classically understood as intellect and will, are inherently immaterial. Any representation in the brain of abstract thought (while it may exist) necessarily presupposes abstract thought itself, which must, by its nature, be an immaterial power of the mind.

Comments

@Gupccio (@KF, @LM) Your responses are distinctions without a difference in respect to the points I’m making. Which is….
If we exist in a bubble of explicably that exists in a sea of inexplicability, the best explanation we can have for anything in that sea is that “Zeus rules” there. But it doesn’t end there. Why? Because our bubble of explicably supposedly depends on this sea in a myriad of ways. So, the best explanation we could possibility have for anything inside this bubble is “Zeus rues” here, as well. As such, things inside this bubble only appear explicable if you carefully avoid specific questions, such as the one’s I’ve just asked.
According to you, non-material aspects of ourselves do not perform a specific purpose (Or, if you like, perform the “work” in a specific step) due to being well adapted to serve that purposes. So, if we take that claim seriously, my question is, why does it serve any specific purpose at all? Or, to rephrase, why doesn’t it perform other purposes (or steps) just as well? This includes the use of material brains to experience the physical world. At best, you can say, we have brains because “we’re supposed to”. That’s a arbitrary choice. We could just as well not have brains, and get same outcome due to non-material aspects playing the same role because it was decided that “they’re supposed to”, as opposed to “not supposed to” . Example of a distinction without a difference? One can just as well say that the rock “obviously” contains information. Where each atom is located in the confines of the rock, its density, if it is made of limestone, etc. But it’s still not well adapted for the purpose of telling time, because you could make an exact copy of it, then ignore that information by significantly modifying it, and it would still serve the purpose of telling time just as well. The knowledge of how to use a rock to tell time is in us, not the rock. However, the watch is well adapted for the purpose of telling time. In constructor theoretic terms, it contains knowledge. The includes what we would traditionally consider information, and extends to the well adaptedness of the watch itself. This is a unification, not something vague, as this unification allows us to make exact statements that scale, rather than vague ones that are scale-dependent. So apparently, you’re all proponents of constructor theory as well, you just don’t realize it or don’t understand it? Furthermore, if a watch, which isn’t a self-replicator, contains “information” then what is UB going on about interpretation being necessary for evolution? Does the information in a watch need to be interpreted too? Apparently, the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing. Another example? You’re focused on the definitions of words, instead of the ideas they represent and my criticism of them. Your preference to consider conciseness as “non-material” and some source of inputs as not “from the physical world” as somehow distinct, doesn’t seem to make any meaningful difference if neither of them serve a purpose because they are well adapted to serve that purpose. It’s unclear why either of them serve no purpose or every possible purpose. In the case of the latter, it would make all but one of them unnecessary. Furthermore, it’s unclear how something non-material can be distinct if not based on being well adapted in a way that something else is not. What else is there? Nor is it clear what “switches” between these inputs if consciousness just experiences what it receives. Is that non-material too? Is it complex? That’s like arguing that a CRT TV is simple because it just excites phosphorus on the in side surface of a tube. But that ignores the rest of the parts necessary to make it work, such as the receiver, a means to switch channels, something that performs the role of the automatic channel switching fail-over system you described during NDEs, the radio spectrum, the broadcast towers, the cameras that detect light, the relatively close proximity of the receiver to the tower, etc. Apparently, there are entire broadcasts stations that are not physical, yet act like a physical broadcast system? Apparently, some broadcast stations are material, while other are not, because that’s “just the way it’s supposed to be”, not because a broadcast station serves the purpose of broadcasting because it’s well adapted to serve the purpose of broadcasting TV channels. If something can serve a purpose without being well adapted to serve it, then why can’t it serve any other purpose as well, including that of eyes, nerves, brains, etc.? Another example?
Moreover, OBEs are not indistinguishable from a normal experience in the body. Of course, if you see the outer world, and your body in it, from some perspective which is not tied to the body itself, that is a very different experience. Even you would be able to understand the difference, if you experience it.
That’s my point! If people actually experiences OOBNDE, that difference is what excludes the use of eyes, nerves and brains and an explanation for what would otherwise be equivalent to standing behind someone else if you had physical eyes, nerves an brain, etc. The only difference is a distinction without a difference. Since conciseness can supposedly receive different “inputs” depending on if your experiencing a NDE, this experience could be mimicked exactly. Just send conciseness the “input” of photons that that would have impacted the retinas of your eyes, if you had them, when not experiencing and NDE. At which point, it’s indistinguishable, right? Specially, since non-material things can serve purposes without needing to be well adapted to serve those purposes, something non-material could serve the very same purpose of an eye without necessary being well adapted like an eye actually is. And you could say the same about the nerves that go between our eyes and our brains, and our brain itself. etc. Right? In addition, why would you need multiple non-material things? We need multiple material things because they must necessarily be well adapted to serve specific purposes, which in turn, means they are necessarily not well adapted to server other purposes. But non-material things supposedly don’t need to be well adapted at all. Supposedly, they cannot be adapted, yet still serve a purpose. So, why not the purpose of our eyes, and the nerve that goes between it and our brain, and our brain as well, etc? The best you can say is that “it could, but it’s just not supposed to”, as compared to, “it cannot because it’s not well adapted to serve that purpose.” The former is arbitrary, the latter is not.critical rationalist_{February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

A practical illustration of gpuccio's point could be found in simulation programming. If I am to simulate a mechanism, I need data that details its configuration to feed to the physics functions. So, I'd have a data structure for an existing object. The necessary configuration of that data to achieve the desired function would be the information spoken of. The data for a process to actually build that object from otherwise configured materials would be another data structure/record entirely.LocalMinimum_{February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

J-Mac, consider the scriptural definition of physical death: "as the body without the spirit is dead . . . " and likewise spiritual death is about alienated separation of the creature's spirit from God: "Your sins have separated . . . ". Thus, we need to appreciate that death has a sense of violation of wholeness akin to severing a branch from a vine leading to decay or manifested in decay and of course fruitlessness. By contrast, redemption, regeneration and spiritual rebirth have to do with restoration of relationship with God, and eschatological resurrection of not mere restoration of mortal life but transformation of body to a spiritualised immortal form: "as in Adam all die so also in Christ shall all be made alive . . . " From this, we see that there is an implied understanding that humans are trans-dimensional amphibians, embodied living souls. I suggest that the human soul is best understood as a bridging interface between spirit [the transdimensional inner self and core of identity] and body [the readily observable outer man]. In this context, the spiritual aspect [often called soul by the Greeks] is not subject to disintegration and loss of existence once created. However, it can be alienated from its true source and object and fulfillment through alienation from our Creator, both in time and in eternity, the latter being spoken of as the second death. Perhaps, these thoughts may help? KFkairosfocus_{February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

CR, the watch manifests coherent, functionally specific, complex organisation with information being implicit or latent in its structures and systems; an exploded view diagram draws that out in explicit terms, as may be seen in say AutoCAD etc. This information we can routinely deduce by way of reverse engineering, much as Paley discussed 200+ years ago in his Natural Theology. And BTW, just after the discussion of stumbling on a rock vs finding a watch in a field in Ch 1, Paley discussed recognising a watch that is self-replicating in Ch 2, implying that algorithmic sequences and procedures would be embedded to achieve that. This anticipated the discussion in von Neumann on self-replicating automata by what, 140+ years? KF PS: Notice, Orgel:
living organisms are distinguished by theirspecified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . . [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:] These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.
[--> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant J S Wicken "wiring diagram" for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here, -- here and -- here -- (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).]
One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [--> so if the q's to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions. [--> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes [--> Orgel had high hopes for what Chem evo and body-plan evo could do by way of info generation beyond the FSCO/I threshold, 500 - 1,000 bits.] [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196.]
kairosfocus_{February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT}

My claim was that having a material brain would be arbitrary.
In what sense? I agree it is arbitrary as it isn't determined by any law
Specially, it wasn’t necessary for us to experiences things though them.
Not so. Did you actually make that case? Or did someone else? Where? The whole point is there is a reason for us-> our human form. And it seems that part of that reason is to experience things that the spirit/ soul alone cannot. Things that only come from the physical form and all it entails. As for the watch- it contains, at a minimum, all of the information needed to build it. That information can be teased out by reverse engineering it.ET_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

critical rationalist: A watch obviously has information. Even if it does not include instructions about how to build it, an observer can derive a lot of informatio just examinining the object. A detailed list of how to build the watch would include bothe the information about what the watch is, and the information about how to build it. Your reasonings about information in the watch clearly demonstrate that you don't understand what information is. For example, if we look at a protein, we can get the right sequence from it. Of course, that is not enough to synthesize the protein, if we don't have the tools to do that. But it is a fundamental information about the protein itself. Your ideas are really wrong about this point. "Your preference to compartmentalize non-matrial processes into multiple “non-things” (whatever that means) doesn’t change this. If, at any point, a person has a OBE that appears indistinguishable from a experience that would have gone though their eyes, nervous system, brain, etc. then it’s possible without them and they could have been omitted. Right?" Wrong. I have never said that there are multiple "non things". What do you mean by "things"? I have said that there can be objective inputs that do not come from the physical world we know, or that come from the physical world thorugh different channels. All objective realities are "things". The only reality which is not a thing is the perceiving I, which is a subject, and not an object. Moreover, OBEs are not indistinguishable from a normal experience in the body. Of course, if you see the outer world, and your body in it, from some perspective which is not tied to the body itself, that is a very different experience. Even you would be able to understand the difference, if you experience it. "Namely if it happened, it would have happened independent of a eyes, nerves and a brain, because the persons eyes, nerves and brain didn’t have the physical access necessary give the user that perspective, which eventually was integrated by conciseness. If there were true, this implies that eyes, nerves and a brain were an arbitrary choice by the designer, as they were not needed to achieve the very same thing." Wrong. they are necessary during human physical life. They are no more necessary in the new state. Even in dreaming you see things without using the eyes. "Apparently, it doesn’t happen all at once because “it’s not supposed to”?" Here you make no sense. I cannot answer arguments that have no sense. You ask why it doesn't happen all at once. I could ask why it should. Both statements are silly. The fact is that it happens as it happens. Again, we must start with facts, not with your imagination. I don't know if Zeus rules, but certainly "critical rationalist rules" is not a really satisfying idea. "As I’ve said before, theories are tested by observation, not derived from them. It’s unclear why you would assume this would be any different in the case of what we hear." This is senseless. Of course theories are derived from observations. And sometimes tested on new observations. But it's always the facts that rule. "Are you suggesting it would be impossible to experience two “I”s simultaneously because we haven’t done so in the past? Furthermore, there are gaps in our consciousness, such as when we are under anesthesia, etc. In the absences of the input of our brain, why don’t we switch over to an OOBE or see “a bright light”, etc. as people do during a NDE?" Again you are confused. One can certainly experience two or more mental contents simultaneously (or apparently so: computers tell us that it is difficult to define real simultaneity and distibguishb it from mutli-tasking). But that means that one same I is experiecing different things. As usual. Two different "I"s experiencing different things is a very common event. For example, you and I certainly experience different things. Let's imagine that for some strange situation I could experience, more or less at the same time, my thoughts and your thoughts. It would still be me experiencing that double content. The subject is always one. My thoughts and your thoughts would become, in the end, my experience. Or yours. But you cannot have two subjects conjoined in one subject. Each subject is simple and unique. Always. Sleep, dream and anesthesia are not suppression of consciousness. Consciousness still exists, but in a different condition. The fact that memory of that condition is not retained in the waking state is not evidence that no consciousness was there. Finally, as I have said, consciousness, the final step where inputs become subjective, is not well adapted. Your very vague coincept of being well adapted, which is only an imprecise form of functional information, does not apply to consciousness, because consciousness is not a sum of parts, and has no objective configuration. Again, it is simple. And still you do not address how proteins came into existence. Listen, if you cannot come with something which is more similar to reasoning, I will not go on answering your comments.gpuccio_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

J-Mac, I am more than satisfied that I have made my case and am also more than happy to let the readers decide for themselves who is being fair and who is being dogmatic.bornagain77_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

CR: Are you saying a watch contains “information” beyond what time it is? Since a watch is not a self replicator, it doesn’t contain the information of how to construct a copy of itself from raw materials. As such, how does a watch represented “functional information” in the traditional sense?

gpuccio:Of course. The information necessary to build a [working] whatch. It can also be expressed in digital form. This is absolutely obvious.
If it contained information of how to build a working watch, then it would contain a list of instructions necessary for something to transform raw materials into a watch. If this is obvious, then you should be able to obviously point it to such a list.
It contains the [information] about how a watch is.
It's unclear how this is information in the traditional sense. What form does it take?
the information about how to build it is additional information. It is not in the watch, but to builf a watch you certainly need the information that is in the watch, plus some additional information about how to build it. IOWs, you need the plan and the procedure.
If I received a list of instructions of what transformations of raw materials to perform and I performed them to the letter, I would't end up with a watch? I'd have to actually have a pre-built version of that watch too, and use it how exactly?
And yes, it seems that there are non physical senses at work. But consciousness is always the final step, the single I which represents all the inputs, whatever they are, and refers them to itself.
This is a distinction without a difference. My claim was that having a material brain would be arbitrary. Specially, it wasn't necessary for us to experiences things though them. Your preference to compartmentalize non-matrial processes into multiple "non-things" (whatever that means) doesn't change this. If, at any point, a person has a OBE that appears indistinguishable from a experience that would have gone though their eyes, nervous system, brain, etc. then it's possible without them and they could have been omitted. Right?
We don’t know in detail. I would say with perception instruments which are mental, and not physical. But that is an issue which should be investigated, as we get more information about NDEs. The simple fact that you do not understand how something happens does not mean that it does not happen.
I'm trying to take your view seriously, for the purpose of criticism, by assuming it did happen and there are real consequences of it happening. Namely if it happened, it would have happened independent of a eyes, nerves and a brain, because the persons eyes, nerves and brain didn't have the physical access necessary give the user that perspective, which eventually was integrated by conciseness. If there were true, this implies that eyes, nerves and a brain were an arbitrary choice by the designer, as they were not needed to achieve the very same thing.
CR: “And how can consciousness be simple if it can interface both material inputs of our brain and whatever is at work during an near death out of body experience?” G: I don’t see any problem in that. The perceiving I is simple. It represents different things, according to the different conditions it experiences, in its personal history. Including life, death, and after death.
I'm not following you. if it is compatible with all of these multiple inputs, then what causes the perceiving I from perceiving just one of those inputs individually instead of all at once? What prevents me from experiencing the input from my eyes, nerves and brain and the input people experiences during a OOB NDE? Not to mention inputs of "the light" that people experiences during other NDEs? Your choice to consider this supposedly necessary non-material "input switcher" as somehow separate from conciseness, then claiming conciseness is simple does't change the fact that it would be a necessary compilation. It's unclear how this actually helps. Apparently, it doesn't happen all at once because "it's not supposed to"?
Of course I don’t mean that. Would you say that the testimony of our ears, for example, has no scientific validity?
As I've said before, theories are tested by observation, not derived from them. It's unclear why you would assume this would be any different in the case of what we hear.
Consciousness is real, and it is objectively observed (intuitively, not by the senses) by ourselves.
We do not experience more than one vantage point at a time, as opposed to multiple vantage points. Are you suggesting it would be impossible to experience two "I"s simultaneously because we haven't done so in the past? Furthermore, there are gaps in our consciousness, such as when we are under anesthesia, etc. In the absences of the input of our brain, why don't we switch over to an OOBE or see "a bright light", etc. as people do during a NDE? Let me guess, the answer is, it's "not supposed to" as well?
CR: “I’m not following you. Are you saying that conciseness does serves a purpose because it is well adapted, we just don’t yet possess that explanation yet? And if we do come to possess it, it will somehow no longer be non-material?” G: I don’t follow you. Consciousness is. It is real. It experiences purposes, does not serve them.
You are equivocating. For your convenience.....
... consciousness is always the final step, the single I which represents all the inputs, whatever they are, and refers them to itself.
So, to rephrase....
Are you saying that conciseness [performs the final step, and just that final step] because it is well adapted, we just don’t yet possess that explanation yet? And if we do come to possess it, it will somehow no longer be non-material?” If not, then why does it [perform any steps at all]? Why doesn’t it [perform every other "step" as well]?
Again, it seems the best you can say is, it performs just that step because "it's supposed to." And it doesn't perform other steps, because "it's not supposed to." Nothing you've said seems to conflict with this. From an earlier comment....
If we exist in a bubble of explicably that exists in a sea of inexplicability, the best explanation we can have for anything in that sea is that “Zeus rules” there. But it doesn’t end there. Why? Because our bubble of explicably supposedly depends on this sea in a myriad of ways. So, the best explanation we could possibility have for anything inside this bubble is “Zeus rues” here, as well. As such, things inside this bubble only appear explicable if you carefully avoid specific questions, such as the one’s I’ve just asked.
critical rationalist_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

BA77, If you think I have not provided any evidence against the immortality of the soul, why don't you answer my questions regarding the Adam and Eve scriptures? Are you afraid that God is going to punish you with hotter hell if you come to the right conclusions? ;-) How can you be sure you are going to heaven? What about if you are mistaken and are set to go to hell? Your making sure it exists makes it more exciting... ;-)J-Mac_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

What non-material aspects of computers might you be referring to?
SoftwareET_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

critical rationalist: "Are you saying a watch contains “information” beyond what time it is?" Of course. The information necessary to build a wroking whatch. It can also be expressed in digital form. This is absolutely obvious. "Since a watch is not a self replicator, it doesn’t contain the information of how to construct a copy of itself from raw materials." It contains the oinformation about how a watch is. the information about how to build it is additional information. It is not in the watch, but to builf a watch you certainly need the information that is in the watch, plus some additional information about how to build it. IOWs, you need the plan and the procedure. "I’m not sure you’re actallly reading my comments, as the NDE included an out of body experience in which they saw themseves as if standing behind themsves. The scene appeared as if they had eyes that detected light that bounced off objects, and had been pre-processed by their brain, etc. They saw the scene as if they had used their senses, but were not." In OBEs, like in NDEs in general, consciousness has formal experiences. In OBEs, those experiences can include perceptions of the physical world. However, consciousness represents those inputs. But the inputs themselves come through formal instruments. You could call them "mental instruments", if you like. And yes, it seems that there are non physical senses at work. But consciousness is always the final step, the single I which represents all the inputs, whatever they are, and refers them to itself. "How did the non-material aspect of us achieve that if not by interacting with the material world though something other than a brain? Did it interact with someone else’s brain in the room? Did it interact with the photons bouncing off their own body?" We don't know in detail. I would say with perception instruments which are mental, and not physical. But that is an issue which should be investigated, as we get more information about NDEs. The simple fact that you do not understand how something happens does not mean that it does not happen. "And how can consciousness be simple if it can interface both material inputs of our brain and whatever is at work during an near death out of body experience?" I don't see any problem in that. The perceiving I is simple. It represents different things, according to the different conditions it experiences, in its personal history. Including life, death, and after death. The same I represents waking expereinces and dream experiences. They are different things, but the I is the same. "If by “observe”, you mean see with your eyes, then no, it’s not." Of course I don't mean that. Would you say that the testimony of our ears, for example, has no scientific validity? "We experience being conscious. But we also regularally experience two shapes as being two different colors when they are actually identical collars. We know the latter is false via criticism. Our brains cause us to experience colors of shapes that are in shadow as being lighter than they actually are." No. Our subjective experiences are always real, they are facts. The correspondence of the experience with physical properties of the object can be differently precise. Being conscious is certainly a fact. It does not correspond to any property of outer objects, so there is no problem of correspondence here. To be more clear, an hallucination is a real subjective experience, a fact. It's content, however, does not correspond to a real external object. Consciousness is real, and it is objectively observed (intuitively, not by the senses) by ourselves. "I’m not following you. Are you saying that conciseness does serves a purpose because it is well adapted, we just don’t yet possess that explanation yet? And if we do come to possess it, it will somehow no longer be non-material?" I don't follow you. Consciousness is. It is real. It experiences purposes, does not serve them. As I said, maybe there is a purpose in the existence of conscious beings, but that is not in the range of science at present. But conscious beings represent things as desirable or undesirable, and therefore have purposes among their representations. They seek joy, and try to avoid pain. Those are purposes. Those are purposes in consciousness, not served by consciousness. You make a lot of confusion with your terms, and your language is vague and imprecise.gpuccio_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

a) “Well adapted for”, “modifiable” and so on are all vague concepts that express the functional information in the object.
Except, you still haven’t answer my question. Are you saying a watch contains “information” beyond what time it is? Since a watch is not a self replicator, it doesn’t contain the information of how to construct a copy of itself from raw materials. As such, how does a watch represented “functional information” in the traditional sense?
During NDEs, consciousness does the same thing as before. But the inputs are different. They don’t come from the physical world, certainly not from the world we experience during our human life.
I’m not sure you’re actallly reading my comments, as the NDE included an out of body experience in which they saw themseves as if standing behind themsves. The scene appeared as if they had eyes that detected light that bounced off objects, and had been pre-processed by their brain, etc. They saw the scene as if they had used their senses, but were not. Again...
Here BA77 is appealing to the claim that people are supposedly able to accurately perceive things that could not be perceived though their nervous system. Are you saying this must be false because the non-material aspect of us can only interact with our brains? And since any input not from our brains wouldn’t be pre-processed by our nervous systems, then our non material aspect of ourselves couldn’t make heads or tails of it? Since we do not have eyes floating behind us in tow via nerves that lead to our brains, wouldn’t that mean that non-material part was interacting with something other than our brains, such as raw unprocessed photons that are behind out bodies?
Were they not perceiving their body “from the physical world,”? Was it unlike the what “we experience during our human life.”? How did the non-material aspect of us achieve that if not by interacting with the material world though something other than a brain? Did it interact with someone else’s brain in the room? Did it interact with the photons bouncing off their own body? Something other than our brain is at work here. Is it non-material too? And, apparently, our non-material consciousness can access it as well. So, why can’t it access at times other than an NDE? And how can consciousness be simple if it can interface both material inputs of our brain and whatever is at work during an near death out of body experience?
c) Of course consciousness is observable. Each of us can observe his own conscious experiences, knowing that he is experiencing them subjectively, and that there is one unifying subject that perceives the different experiences and refers them to itself.
If by “observe”, you mean see with your eyes, then no, it’s not. Our eyes only detect light and we don’t even observe that as it is, which is electrical crackles. So, it’s unclear how we can observe consciousness. We experience being conscious. But we also regularally experience two shapes as being two different colors when they are actually identical collars. We know the latter is false via criticism. Our brains cause us to experience colors of shapes that are in shadow as being lighter than they actually are.
d) The empirical reason why I speak of consciousness as “non material” is because we cannot explain it by any reference to configurations of material objects. IOWs, it is a pristine experience and knowledge, which does not depend on other concepts. Indeed, all other concepts depend on it.
I’m not following you. Are you saying that conciseness does serves a purpose because it is well adapted, we just don’t yet possess that explanation yet? And if we do come to possess it, it will somehow no longer be non-material? If not, then why does it serve any purpose at all? Why doesn’t it serve every purpose? Again, no better explatinon can be hand other than “it’s not supposed to”, which is arbitrary choice, not a necessary one. It is equivalent to saying “Zeus rules” here.critical rationalist_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist: Your way of reasoning is becoming pure delirium (or maybe it has always been). Briefly, for the parts that still can make some sense: a) "Well adapted for", "modifiable" and so on are all vague concepts that express the functional information in the object. What can be modified in the configuration without affecting the function is not part of the functional information. What cannot be modified is part of it. I suppose you have never understood the concept of functional information, and the way to compute it. But believe me, your terms are vague and absolutely non scientific. b) You say: "But, if we take you seriously, this same non-material aspect supposedly can serve the same purpose that our brains, nerves and eyes serve as well, during a NDE. Is it still simple then? Why wasn’t it capable of doing so before if not being unwell adapted to serve that purpose?" Completely wrong, again. Consciousness represents things subjectively, Those things are inputs from some external source. During NDEs, consciousness does the same thing as before. But the inputs are different. They don't come from the physical world, certainly not from the world we experience during our human life. And yes, consciousness is still simple. And it experiences complex things. c) Of course consciousness is observable. Each of us can observe his own conscious experiences, knowing that he is experiencing them subjectively, and that there is one unifying subject that perceives the different experiences and refers them to itself. How do you think that we know that consciousness exists? By reasoning on watches and rules of thumb? d) The empirical reason why I speak of consciousness as "non material" is because we cannot explain it by any reference to configurations of material objects. IOWs, it is a pristine experience and knowledge, which does not depend on other concepts. Indeed, all other concepts depend on it. e) You say: "You’re effectively asking me to explain how a non-authorative source of knowledge can be an authoritative source of knowledge. Of course, I can’t explain that. Nor will anyone else." I am only asking you how do you explain that proteins exist. It does not seem to be the same question, even if we want to consider your words as meaning something vaguely understandable. But luckily you clarify everything in the following paragraph: "This is because, knowledge doesn’t come from authoritative sources. You’re fundamentally mistaken about that. If that is your criteria then, of course, I haven’t addressed that. It’s an unreasonable expectation." OK, my last statement was sarcasm, for those who did not realize it! :)gpuccio_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

@ET What non-material aspects of computers might you be referring to?critical rationalist_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

I’ll ask again, why does the non-material aspect of us serve any purposes at all, or every purpose, if it’s not well adapted to serve some purposes but not others?
Why does the non-material aspect of computers serve any purpose at all, or every purpose, if it's not well adapted to serve some purposes and not others?ET_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

I'll ask again, why does the non-material aspect of us serve any purposes at all, or every purpose, if it's not well adapted to serve some purposes but not others? The best you can say is, "it's not supposed to". Right? But that is the equivalent of saying "Zeus rules" here.critical rationalist_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

@gpuccio You're effectively asking me to explain how a non-authorative source of knowledge can be an authoritative source of knowledge. Of course, I can't explain that. Nor will anyone else. This is because, knowledge doesn't come from authoritative sources. You're fundamentally mistaken about that. If that is your criteria then, of course, I haven't addressed that. It's an unreasonable expectation.critical rationalist_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

@gpuccio
“well adapted to serve a purpose” = an object which has high functional information (the specific information which is necessary to implement the define function).
?I’m referring to something more fundamental and unifiyng. To make a distinction, do you considerer a watch something that contains information? The watch is well adapted, in that varying it would significantly impact it’s ability to serve that purpose nearly as well, if at all. It’s hard to vary.
The rock has low functional information in relation to the function of “being used as a sundial”, because many different rocks in the search space of rocks can be used for that.
It doesn’t matter if there were a trillion rocks or just one. The rock in question could be significantly modified and still serve the purpose of a sun-dial just as well. It’s easily varied. It can be used to tell time at at all because the knowledge of how to tell time is in us, like the knowledge of how to tell time is in the watch. If you made a 10 inch rock very flat, you could still turn it on it’s long side and it would tell time, as a sundial, just as well. Modify it so it is much thinner? It still cast a shadow just as well for the purpose of telling time. Cut it’s size in half proportionally? Still works just as well. But the watch? it’s a rare configuration of matter. You cannot modify the aspect of it that performs the task of telling time while retaining its ability to do so just as well. It’s hard to vary.
Of course. In all my definitions, the function is objectively defined by some conscious agent.
Except. With the exception of changing its orientation, we’re not varying the rock to better adapt it for the purpose of telling time. The knowledge of how to use a rock to tell time is in us and remains there, throughout the process. We’re well adapted, not the rock.
This is an important point. The only “non-material” concept I have used here is consciousness. I treat consciousness empirically, and I do not try to explain what it is. It is an observable.
I’m not following you. You’re using the concept of a different kind of thing (“non-material”), then presented consciousness as being supposedly an example of that kind of thing. Furthermore, are you suggesting that you can empirically observe something non-material? How would that work? Please be specific. If that’s the case, you’re a shoe in for a Nobel prize. Nor do I see how your your lack of an attempt to explain conciseness relevant.
Consciousness, as far as we can observe, is a simple property: a single subjective “I” which refers to itself a multitude of different formal perceptions.
First, you’re getting ahead of yourself, because it’s unclear how we can observe consciousness to know it’s simple. And there’s the thing about how conciseness ends integrates all of the pre-processed input from my brain, as opposed to the pre-processed input from your brain, etc. Is that simple too? But, if we take you seriously, this same non-material aspect supposedly can serve the same purpose that our brains, nerves and eyes serve as well, during a NDE. Is it still simple then? Why wasn’t it capable of doing so before if not being unwell adapted to serve that purpose?
In that sense, the point is not really that it is “non-material”. The important point is not what it is (which is probably beyond the inderstanding of science, at least at present), but the simple fact that it cannot be explained in terms of configurations of material objects.
First, I would again point out, there are no non-material computers. Yet, the explanation for the universality of computation is not found at the level of atoms. It represents a disproportional leap to universality from a specific repertoire of computations. Second, if you’re suggesting the means by something works is beyond the understanding of science, then it’s unclear how you know what it is or is not capable of. Are you assuming our experiences in the future will be like experiences we’ve had in the past? But what does that have to say about anything other than what human beings will experience, as opposed to what reality, or non-material things are like?
That should already answer your “points”. Consciousness has no functional information, because functional information is a property of material objects, indeed of their configuration.
?First, you’re begging the question, in that your assuming your conclusion. Second, then why does it serve a any function? Why doesn’t it serve all functions simultaneously? Can a watch serve the same purpose as, say, a flame thrower? A watch is well adapted for the purpose of telling time, not covering fuel into long streams of flaming liquid. It cannot serve that purpose because it is not well adapted to serve that purpose. However, if you took a clock the size of, say, Big Ben, you could well adapt it to serve the purpose of a flame thrower. Right? But in the process, it’s no longer well adapted for the purpose of telling time. It’s just as well adapted for that purpose as the rock, because it cast a shadow. Right? The key point here is that well adaptedness goes both ways. There are purposes a watch cannot serve, including that of a flame thrower because it’s not well adapted to serve those purposes. This leads me to my statement that things in our bubble only appear to be explicable if we careful avoid asking specific questions, because they supposedly depend on some inexplicable sea. If conciseness cannot be well adapted to serve the specific purse is supposedly serves, then, in turn, it cannot be unwell adapted to prevent it from serving other purposes as well, right? In fact, you seem to suggest that, during an NDE, this non-material aspect can suddenly serve the very purposes it previously could not, (the purpose that our nervous system serves), despite not changing (becoming well adapted to serve those same purposes) The best explanation we can have as to why human beings have brains is because “Zeus rules” here too.critical rationalist_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

@Barry
He will be completely unfazed after you have destroyed his argument with logic and evidence. Instead, he will simply repeat his argument over and over and over and over as if you never said anything.
Funny you should mention this, as I have several arguments that you have yet to refute. Example? How have you managed to infallibly identify and infallibly interpret a source of objective moral values? Reason always comes first. Your response is to say this question confuses ontological with epistemology. But, my response is to say this is parochial in that is assumes morality isn’t about solving concrete moral problems. What’s the point of arguing over the ontological status of x if you can’t solve for x? How does this actually solve the problem? Specifically, to say “there must be some objectivity morally true duty or value that would be applicable in this concrete scenario and I believe it is x”, doesn’t actually solve the problem of providing guidance when faced with actual concrete moral problems. It’s not even clear that any objectively true source prescribes anything in particular. That too is an assumption. Not to mention that the entire idea of sources in general is parochial. Again, in the context of solving a moral problem, what’s the difference, in practice, between “I believe x is the morally correct duty or value” and “there could be some objectively morally true duty or value, I believe there is one and I believe it is x”? Reason always comes first. From this article...
And indeed, you did realize this; and as a result, you reinterpreted your “direct experience,” which was identical to that of witnessing an ex cathedra declaration, as not being one. Precisely by reasoning that the content of the declaration was absurd, you concluded that you didn’t have to believe it. Which is also what you would have done if you hadn’t believed the infallibility doctrine. You remain a believer, serious about giving your faith absolute priority over your own “unaided” reason (as reason is called in these contexts). But that very seriousness has forced you to decide first on the substance of the issue, using reason, and only then whether to defer to the infallible authority. This is neither fluke nor paradox. It is simply that if you take ideas seriously, there is no escape, even in dogma and faith, from the obligation to use reason and to give it priority over dogma, faith, and obedience.
This is just as applicable in the case of moral knowledge and concrete moral problems. So, I’ll ask yet again: If morally isn’t about concrete moral problems, in the form of moral knowledge we can use to solve them, then what is it for? Please be specific. Your response? To just repeat the same argument, over and over as if I had not said anything.critical rationalist_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist: By the way, you could also try to address my old challenge, that nobody has ever tried to answer:
Will anyone on the other side answer the following two simple questions? 1) Is there any conceptual reason why we should believe that complex protein functions can be deconstructed into simpler, naturally selectable steps? That such a ladder exists, in general, or even in specific cases? 2) Is there any evidence from facts that supports the hypothesis that complex protein functions can be deconstructed into simpler, naturally selectable steps? That such a ladder exists, in general, or even in specific cases?
gpuccio_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist at #134: Your long discourse quoted here simply repeats the same old and unconvincing ideas. However, it does not address in any way the problem I have stated at #131: “By the way, you have never explained how, in your brilliant opinion, complex functional information (yes, the prescriptive type, what you call “non explicatory knowledge”) can arise without any intervention of beings capable of generating descriptive information (what you call “explicatory knowledge”).” Your coconut example does not even start to address the problem. First of all, you make some basic philosphical errors: for example, the simple "rule of thumb" derived from seeing the coconut falling and cracking open is, in itself, explanatory knowledge: indeed, it relies heavily on: a) Projecting a cuase - effect relationship to the sequence coconut falling - coconut cracking open b) Inferring that other coconuts will crck open if they fall from the same tree c) Desiring coconuts to crack open and d) Therefore attempting to establish a procedure based on the inference at b) and the desire at c). All that can only be done by conscious intelligent agents, capable of explanatory knowledge, as you call it. But that is not the real problem. The real problem is that you completely ignore the role of complexity in your "rules of thumb" (prescriptive information). Functional complexity is the whole point of ID, and you never address it. A coconut falling from a tree is a common event. That the coconut cracks open when falling is a rather common event too. The problem is when the prescriptive information to implement a function is extremely complex, and could never happen spontaneously in a non design system. For example, the code for Excel would never occur spontaneously. It is prescriptive information (a very complex "rule of thumb": if I click on the icon, a window appears, and I can do things with it). But how do you explain that the icon is there, and that it starts a very complex software which works? This is what you should address. Instead of building silly and abstract theories about why ID is false, please explain your ideas about how complex functional information, prescriptive information, can originate, unless it is created by conscious intelligent beings, capable of descriptive information (explanatory knowledge, in your language). That is the explanation that I have requested, and that you have not given.gpuccio_{February 10, 2018
February
02
Feb
10
10
2018
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

J-Mac, you have presented virtually no evidence to support your position against Christianity and the one piece of empirical evidence that you did present, against the reality of the soul, actually supported my position instead of your position as you had falsely believed. Your ineptitude with evidence would be absolutely hilarious for me if the consequences for your soul, in rejecting Christianity, were not so dire. You also rail on and on about your particular interpretation of certain scriptures (an interpretation which holds that man has no soul) (an interpretation which I have, contrary to your accusation, addressed in post 111 and especially post 119), number 1, as if your interpretation were authoritative instead of just your personal, and peculiar, interpretation of scripture that is out of sync with the mainstream opinion of Christian scholars and laymen that has been held throughout history, number 2, as if your particular, and peculiar, interpretation of scripture is authoritative in refuting the empirical evidence from Quantum Biology, Biological Form, and Near Death Experiences that has been presented against your position. Given how out of sync your interpretation of scripture is (i,e, again you hold that man has no soul, according to scripture), one would think that you would be a bit more humble in presenting your case, but alas, scant humbleness is to be found on your part. Then, to top it all off, you accuse me of the very same thing that you yourself are repeatedly guilty of. (i.e. repeating unsubstantiated claims over and over again as if they should be accepted without question.) Sorry J-Mac, despite such bad habits that you may have picked up from Darwinists, that is just not how science, (nor Biblical hermeneutics), works. Like I said before, I am very happy with the current state of evidence from modern science as it fits with my presuppositions as a Christian. Frankly, I could not think of a better fit, and have been pleasantly surprised over and over again by what our best science reveals to us about reality and how it all fits into a cohesive structure for reality that fits hand in glove with my Christian presuppositions, For instance:
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKggH8jO0pk Paper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nRZECqs8Iqeqv0GzP5lV6et_K9_rYrz06Tchoa4U0Rw/edit Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77_{February 9, 2018
February
02
Feb
9
09
2018
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

J Mac:
Is it me, or is BA77 afraid to answer the question about God not telling Adam and Eve about the soul thingy?
It's a straw man.ET_{February 9, 2018
February
02
Feb
9
09
2018
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

critical rationalist: So, if I understand you well: "well adapted to serve a purpose" = an object which has high functional information (the specific information which is necessary to implement the define function). The rock has low functional information in relation to the function of "being used as a sundial", because many different rocks in the search space of rocks can be used for that. A watch, of course, has high functional specificity. Like a protein. OK, let's go on. You say:
The knowledge of how to use the rock to tell time is in us.
Of course. In all my definitions, the function is objectively defined by some conscious agent. But, once defined, it can be used objectively to measure the linked information.
On the other hand non-material things could be neither because they are, well, supposedly non-material. Specially, they cannot be well adapted to serve any purpose, like the watch, nor can they not well adapted to serve a purpose like the rock.
This is an important point. The only "non-material" concept I have used here is consciousness. I treat consciousness empirically, and I do not try to explain what it is. It is an observable. In that sense, the point is not really that it is "non-material". The important point is not what it is (which is probably beyond the inderstanding of science, at least at present), but the simple fact that it cannot be explained in terms of configurations of material objects. That should already answer your "points". Consciousness has no functional information, because functional information is a property of material objects, indeed of their configuration. Consciousness, as far as we can observe, is a simple property: a single subjective "I" which refers to itself a multitude of different formal perceptions. So, the concept of functional information (what you call "being well adapted") cannot be applied to consciousness, because consciousness cannot be explained as a configuration of material objects. You say:
Yet, you still seem to think the non-material aspect of us serves specific purpose, then suddenly some other purpose.
Consciousness experiences purposes. Purposes are conscious experiences, nothing else. We can ask ourselves what is the purpose of our personal consciousness. That is a correct philosophical question, but not at present, I am afraid, one that can be approached scientifically. You say:
It’s unclear why it serves some purposes, but not others and why it’s capable of somethings, but not others.
As I have said, you cannot analyze consciousness in terms of functional information. We can observe that it can do some things (for example, represent subjectively the inputs from our senses and brain) and not others (for example, represent subjectively the inputs from the senses and brain of another person). Your error is that you imagine, I don't know why, that we should have some definite model of what consciousness can or cannot do, and then go on with top down reasonings from that model. But that is not true. The only things that we know of cosnciousness are the things we observe. Our approach to it must be bottom-up, not top down. We can only describe the behaviour of cosnciousness, and its connection with objects and matter. All your way of reasoning is anti-scientific, and completely upside down.
How can something non-material have any physical location, let alone a location that is “in us”? How can it be “tied” to anything?
I would not say that it has a "location", but a connection with a speficic physical reality, our body. I don't see the problem in that. Why are you so stubborn that something which is not "physical" cannot interact with physical things? There is nothing unreasonable in that idea. It would be like saying that something that is liquid cannot interact with solid bodies. You say:
Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that some quantum spooky at a distance is going on, material things are entangled with other material things, like particles. How can our brains get entangled to something non-material?
The interface is most likely at quantum level. Consciousness probably interacts at quantum level with cells, in particular neurons. What's the problem? You say:
So it’s impossible for this non-material aspect of ourselves to process raw photons ….
You mean our personal consciousness? Yes, you are right. Our personal consciousness, in its human condition with a physical body, cannot as a rule directly process raw photons. It needs the eyes and the brain to do that. And so?
But, how can something non-material change to become well adapted to serve a purpose? Or was it capable of that all along? In either case, because if it’s possible to perform the purpose that our brains play at any point in time, then it was possible to “supposed” to work that way in the first place. Right?
It's not clear at all what you mean here. In the transition form life to death, what happens is probably that the physical vehicle, and the brain, become gradually no more appropriate to serve their role. IOWs, they are no more so "well adapted". Which is a correct idea here, because we are speaking of physical objects. That fact changes the condition of consciousness, which cannot any more express itself through the old connection, and is forced to do something else. It's not cosnciousness which changes, but its condition, because its physical vehicle changes. Consciousness does not change, but its representations can certainly change, as they do all the time during our life here. More in next post.gpuccio_{February 9, 2018
February
02
Feb
9
09
2018
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: I know, I know... However, until he expresses some new aspects of his personal thought, I can try to go on with the discussion. But I hate mere repetitions of the same things.gpuccio_{February 9, 2018
February
02
Feb
9
09
2018
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

BA77 Your related note or semi related doesn't cut it, including the Shroud from Torino. You have created an illusion and keep looking for anything to support it while rejecting anything that contradicts your illusion... By overwhelming people with irrelevant information repeating it many times you are actually trying to confirm Goebbels' theory that "a lie repeated often enough becomes true..J-Mac_{February 9, 2018
February
02
Feb
9
09
2018
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

Is it me, or is BA77 afraid to answer the question about God not telling Adam and Eve about the soul thingy? I personally have come across many people who would do anything to support their preconceived ideas in both science and religion but most of them were doing it for one reason; money. I absolutely can't understand why someone would support an idea to deceive himself... I truly don't get it... If the evidence is pointing in the direction other then the immortal soul, why would anybody in the right frame of mind keep supporting it? If it is not true, it's not going to happen... It is going to affect you! Why would you support it?!J-Mac_{February 9, 2018
February
02
Feb
9
09
2018
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

of related note: The main flaw with Hameroff's contention for the Eastern philosophy of pantheism, which holds that consciousness is an integral part of the universe, which Hammeroff stated as such
"I think that consciousness, or to me a precursor, let's call it 'protoconsciouness' has been in the universe all along, perhaps from the big bang, Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – Stuart Hameroff – video (4:21 minute mark) https://youtu.be/jjpEc98o_Oo?t=261
The main flaw with Hameroff's contention that consciousness is integral to the universe is that, according to the delayed choice experiments of quantum mechanics, the universe itself simply does not exist until a conscious observation is made of it.
“No phenomenon is a physical phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.” — John Wheeler Quoted in Robert J. Scully, The Demon and the Quantum (2007), 191 Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness - May 27, 2015 Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured. Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler's experiment then asks - at which point does the object decide? Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips. The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler's original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light. "Quantum physics' predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness," said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation - Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables
Simply put, quantum mechanics, although Hameroff appeals to quantum entanglement and quantum computation in microtubles to try to explain consciousness,,, quantum mechanics itself, in the big picture of quantum mechanics, supports a Theistic view of reality which holds that the infinite Mind of God upholds this universe in its continual existence rather than supporting Hameroff's pantheistic view of reality which holds consciousness to be merely integral with the universe.
A Short Survey Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Excerpt: Putting all the lines of evidence together the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect) Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: 5 Experiments – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5qphmi8gYE
Although I respect Hameroff's work on quantum consciousness very much, I have to say that his preferred Pantheistic view of reality comes up extremely short when looking at the big picture of what quantum mechanics is really revealing to us about reality. A few more related notes:
Einstein's denial of free will as well as his denial of 'the experience of 'the now' is refuted by quantum mechanics https://uncommondescent.com/humor/ba77-links-on-the-consequences-of-mind-brain-ideologies/#comment-650844 https://uncommondescent.com/humor/ba77-links-on-the-consequences-of-mind-brain-ideologies/#comment-650853 A Cosmological Argument for God's Existence, pt. 4 - Stephen Meyer on pantheism at the 3:52 minute mark https://youtu.be/hCfSgw_yCsU?t=232
bornagain77_{February 9, 2018
February
02
Feb
9
09
2018
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, Welcome to the wonderful world of arguing with Critical Rationalist. We keep him around to demonstrate both the moral and intellectual poverty of the materialist project. And -- amazingly -- he never ceases to oblige. But keep one thing in mind when dealing with CR. He will be completely unfazed after you have destroyed his argument with logic and evidence. Instead, he will simply repeat his argument over and over and over and over as if you never said anything.Barry Arrington_{February 9, 2018
February
02
Feb
9
09
2018
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

“By the way, you have never explained how, in your brilliant opinion, complex functional information (yes, the prescriptive type, what you call “non explicatory knowledge”) can arise without any intervention of beings capable of generating descriptive information (what you call “explicatory knowledge”).”
You have confused the absence of an explanation with one you happen to disagree with or do not understand. From elsewhere....
For example, imagine I’ve been shipwrecked on a deserted island and I have partial amnesia due to the wreck. I remember that coconuts are edible so climb a tree to pick them. While attempting to pick a coconut, the one next to it falls, lands of a rock and splits open. Note that I did not intend for the coconut to fall, let alone plan for it to fall because I conjectured (guessed) that if a coconut falls on a rocks, it might crack open. The coconut falling was random in respect to the problem I hadn’t yet even tried to solve. Furthermore, due to my amnesia, I’ve hypothetically forgotten what I know about physics, including mass, inertia, etc. Specifically, I lack an explanation as to why the coconut landing on the rock causes it to open. As such, my knowledge of how to open coconuts is merely a useful rule of thumb, which is limited in reach. For example, in the absence of an explanation, I might collect coconuts picked from other trees, carry them to this same tree, climb it, then drop them on the rocks to open them. However, explanatory knowledge has significant reach. Specifically, if my explanatory knowledge of physics, including inertia, mass, etc. returned, I could use that explanation to strike a coconut with any similar sized rock, rather than vice versa. Furthermore, I could exchange the rock with another object with significant mass, such as an anchor and open objects other than coconuts, such as the skull of an animal, which is useful in protecting myself from attacking wildlife, etc. So, to summarize, explanatory knowledge comes from intentional conjectures made by people and have significant reach. Non-explanatory knowledge (useful rules of thumb) represent unintentional conjectures and have limited reach. Knowledge can be created without intent in the form of useful rules of thumb. The knowledge of how to build biological adaptations is not explanatory in nature but represents useful rules of thumb that have limited reach. (which also explains why a great majority of species that have ever existed have gone extinct.) Whether one would think the creation of this knowledge in non-explanatory form "defies reason" would depend on how one explains the creation of knowledge in general, how they defined knowledge or if they think this sort of knowledge could be created at all. However, creationism, as well as the current crop of ID, suffers from the same flaw as all pre-enlightenment conceptions of human knowledge. In both cases, the origin of knowledge is irrational, supernatural or completely absent. As such, creationism is misleadingly named in that it is a means of denying that creation actually took place. And one of the implications of this denial is that the genuine creation of knowledge would be absurd. If the designer is God, having always been all knowing, would have always had the knowledge to build anything logically possible, including the every organism that has existed and those he decided not to create, but could have. And ID's abstract intelligent designer supposedly has no defined limitations as to what it knows, when it knew it, which would prevent it from having known how to build every organism logically possible. In other words, before one could consider this absurd, one must first have in mind some kind of "theory" regarding how knowledge *is* created, or that it *was not* created in the first place. This is what I meant when I said we cannot extrapolate observations without first putting them into some explanatory theory. But as I've pointed out, no such explanation is given beyond "that's just what a designer must have wanted", which does not actually any problems beyond how to reconcile one's faith in a supernatural being with empirical observations. So, what's in contention here isn't that the genome contains the knowledge of how to build chickens. Rather, what is in contention here is epistemological in nature. Darwinism is the theory that this knowledge is genuinely created as non-explanatory knowledge via a form of conjecture and refutation. Specifically conjecture, in the form of genetic variation that is random to any problem to be solved, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. While people can also create non-explanatory knowledge, only people can create explanatory knowledge by conjecturing explanatory theories of how to solve a specific problem, and refutation, in the form of criticism, which includes empirical tests. Both fall under our best, current universal theory for the growth of knowledge. Evolution isn't random, but random to any specific problem to solve. Amebas have problems, but cannot conceive of them as as such as we do. Nor can they conceive of explanatory theories that might solve them. Only people have made the leap to universal explainers. So, the idea that everything is one astronomically unlikely outcome represents a misconception of evolutionary theory. For example, If I had a genetic disease, I would expect my doctor to base my treatment on a good explanation, in that changing specific genes in my genome in a specific way would result in specific biological changes that could improve my condition. On the other hand, a doctor could base my treatment on a useful rule of thumb: changing any of my genes in any way could result in some biological change that could improve my condition. In the case of the former treatment, if my condition improves, we attribute that improvement to changing specific genes in my genome in a specific way resulted in specific biological changes. This results in explanatory knowledge. In the latter case, we we have no explanation for why changing those genes caused my improvement. Specifically, let's say the the former treatment was hypothetically based on the explanation that three genes enable biological function x, which when degraded causes symptom Y. And, In my case, the third gene was deactivated. So, the treatment to activate that one specific gene was based on a specific explanation. If I actually did improve, this would result in explanatory knowledge. On the other hand, in the case of former treatment, there was no explanatory basis for changing that one gene. So my improvement, or lack there of, did not offer an opportunity to falsify any new conjectured explanation. This results in non-explanatory knowledge. In this same sense, I'm unaware of any such universal definition of knowledge or an explanation for its growth in the case of creationism. In fact, creationism seems to deny that such knowledge was created in the first place. To illustrate this, “Consider this: if a supernatural creator were to have created the universe at the moment when Einstein or Darwin or any great scientist (appeared to have) just completed their major discovery, then the true creator of that discovery (and of all earlier discoveries) would have been not that scientist but the supernatural being. So such a theory would deny the existence of the only creation that really did take place in the genesis of that scientist’s discoveries.” Note how this represents a variation of the same general purpose way to deny that any sort of creation actually took place. In the case of the biosphere, the designer supposedly always possessed the knowledge of how to build every biological organism that existed or that could possibly exist but, for some reason we cannot comprehend, chose to implement only the particular organisms we happen to observe, in the particular order we observe. So this essentially represents a claim that nothing genuinely new was actually created, either. As such, the reason why we see some organisms, rather than others, is beyond human reassigning and problem solving. However, one could make the same appeal, in that we cannot positively prove a designer did not create the universe 150 years ago, or even last Thursday, for some reason we cannot comprehend, either. So, one could appeal to the same logical-possibility to deny that you created the email I originally responded to. However, as with all fields of science, all we have is criticism. We cannot positive prove anything.
critical rationalist_{February 9, 2018
February
02
Feb
9
09
2018
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply