Quote of the Day

_{Barry Arrington

April 14, 2017

Intelligent Design}

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

From our WJM:

When one is asked to support the view that the most highly complex and sophisticated, precise, self-correcting, multi-level & interdependent software-controlled hardware machinery known to exist most likely did not come into existence by happenstance interactions of chemistry, you know that we are in an age of rampant, self-imposed, ignorant idiocy.

Happenstance physical interactions are not up to the task of creating such sophisticated, information-driven nanotechnology. There is no rational contrary position. You simply cannot argue such willful idiocy out of its self-imposed state. Thankfully, such exchanges are useful for other onlookers with more reasonable perspectives.

Comments

Jdk, this may be an interesting read: excerpt:
Do Reflexes Exist? ... Goldstein remarks, If you jump down a steep incline in such a way that you always touch the ground first with your heel, then the muscles located on the anterior [front] part of the lower segment of the leg and the quadriceps are first passively stretched and then contracted reflexively. This very sensible reaction seems to take place without any voluntary innervation and to be the consequence of a reflex process. It seems to happen without any relation to the organism as a whole. "But," he goes on, "correct and plausible as such an explanation seems to be, it is not really so." This is to be seen by the fact that, under other conditions of the whole organism, we observe a totally different phenomenon during the same kind of abnormal tension of these muscles. If, as one walks, let us say, through a forest, one's foot sticks fast behind an object, say a stone, the muscles we mentioned before are stretched. They do not contract, however, in response to that tension. On the contrary, they relax, and the opposite muscles—those of the back of the leg—contract, for only so can the foot be released and a fall be avoided. This reaction, too, takes place...reflexively; yet it is certainly not an innervation caused by the abnormal tension alone, but one determined rather by the condition of the organism as a whole. (2, p. 124f. Emphasis in original.) If the reflex were truly an independently functioning mechanism as it is commonly portrayed, then the latter reaction would not have occurred. There is reflexive activity in our actions, but it is determined just as much by the state and needs of the whole organism as by the specific stimulation. Only in the context of the isolated experimental situation is the reflex an isolated, automatic, and stereotypic behavior.
Origenes_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

jdk: @56 you have provided a series of examples of things that seem to lie on a continuum, from purely involuntary physical responses to thoughts. If your point is that our knowledge of biology is still incomplete, that our understanding of how intelligence and consciousness work is still quite limited, that there are some interesting corner cases in which it might be difficult to tell whether something is voluntary or involuntary -- if this is your point, then I think you would find few who would disagree. Certainly I would wholeheartedly agree. There is much we still have to learn, there are interesting corner cases that are hard to pin down. However, if you are trying to claim that because some things are involuntary and because there are some difficult corner cases, then we should conclude that everything is involuntary or that everything is simply driven by biochemistry, then I think you will find many who will disagree with your claim. When proposing a broad theory (such as the claim that it is all just chemistry and physics), it is extremely helpful to not only look at the difficult and tricky corner cases, but to examine the obvious and clear-cut cases. That is why several commenters (including Phineas @104, Origines elsewhere, and others) have drawn attention to the very decisions you have made in even being here and producing comments. And when we look at some of these clear-cut cases, it becomes clear that the materialistic explanation undercuts itself. And from a logical standpoint we have no basis for accepting or believing in a theory that undercuts itself. So, if you are looking for someone to answer all the interesting corner cases @56, you are right, probably no-one can satisfactorily explain all of them at this stage of our knowledge. But the question of whether free will is an illusion and is all just a result of biochemistry has been answered multiple times. ----- I would take your final request @56 for an exact demarcation (you seem to want a bright-line test that can be applied across the board), and ask you to respond to a related question: Do you think there are any clear examples in which you do exercise free will?Eric Anderson_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

jdk @103, I did respond to some of your questions in #91. BTW Phinehas' post #104 is elucidating and would like to add that (obviously) running is an acquired skill as well, something that we (thankfully) somehow firmly control, but which has been automatized and has, for the better part, drifted away from the center of our conscious experience. Of course after serious injury one may have to start all over again. This whole automatization process which involves learning, effort and attention, automization and 'distant' control and newly acquired freedom is very interesting. It has the potential to learn us a thing or two about consciousness, control and freedom. There may be some striking similarities with cell/organ differentiation in organisms. Also here we see special skills being 'automatized' into distinct organs. But also here there is no real independence from 'central control', so to speak. I freely admit that my contribution is very sketchy.Origenes_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

jdk @56:
Do I control my heart beating? Is that an action of free will? I would say no. ... If these all are also not actions of free will, want do we call them?
We typically call them involuntary. How much of what you wrote @56 should we take as originating from these sorts of involuntary processes? Do you have any expectation that other entities will respond to your involuntary processes? Will you next share the pattern of heartbeats and hope others will respond to that?
So where exactly is the free will [in running]? What part of our experience is willful as opposed to the parts that seem to flow biologically beyond our control? Is there a distinction between what I “control” more or less automatically via my biology and those things that I control via free will. If I control my choices via free will, is it wrong to say “I” control my running? Do I say “I” choose to run, and then my body runs? Does “my body” belong to “me”, or is “my body” part of “me”.
How much of what you wrote @56 should we take as analogous to you running? Did you write it more or less automatically via your biology? Why would you expect other entities to respond to things you do more or less automatically via your biology? Will you next share the details or your running gait and expect that it will make some sort of salient debate point that we should respond to?
So where are these thoughts coming from: they seem to arise unbidden from my subconscious. But am I in control of my subconscious? Or is the production of thoughts by my subconscious more like the movement of my muscles when I run: something biologically produced by my body?
How much of what you wrote @56 arose unbidden from your subconscious? Will you next write out in detail you last dream and submit it as a crucial point in a logical argument?
So, to summarize: where exactly is the demarcation between what we control via our will and what we don’t. Where does will actually manifest itself?
What kind of response do you expect to your heartbeat? What kind of response do you expect to your running gait? What kind of response do you expect to things that arise unbidden from your subconscious? What kind of response did you expect to your post @56? Is the point of demarcation becoming any clearer to you?Phinehas_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

I was hoping someone would respond to 56, and no one did.jdk_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

jdk, sorry to see you leaving, I was hoping you would comment on post #86.Origenes_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Thanks, Eric, for the cordial conversation.jdk_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

jdk @98:
Or perhaps you are meaning something more rarified by “intelligence” than the kinds of behaviors I listed above.
We would probably get many different ideas of intelligence, if we were to ask many different people. At the heart of it, though, I think we have to go back to the etymology of the word, which means "to choose between." Thus, real intelligence ultimately involves an ability to choose between contingent possibilities, not just to be automatically driven to a particular outcome by physics and chemistry, no matter how intricate or appropriate such an automatic response may seem.
I just see that you have now written intelligence/consciousness.
I'm not necessarily trying to equate them (although I would say they are extremely closely related), so I apologize if that was confusing. You used the word "intelligence". Armand Jacks referred to "consciousness". I was responding to both of your comments, so I just wrote both words, since the same principles I was discussing apply to both.
Look at a cat surveying its surroundings while stalking a mouse. Do you or do you not think it is having an internal, conscious experience of the world it is watching?
Yes, I think at some level it is. There is a danger in assuming that human thought and experience is just an extension of what we see in the animal world; that it is just "more" of the same thing. However, I think some animals are conscious of their experience and are even making choices, which is a key aspect of intelligence. -----
And last point: I’m not quite sure why you’re continuing to discuss emergence, as it seems most, or all, of the people in this discussion have agreed that the word does not explain anything.
Well, you are the one who stated @51 that "intelligence is an emergent property that arises from the integrated organization of biological organisms." And also that "life on earth is itself an emergent property of matter . . ." Yes, I appreciate that you and Armand Jacks have accepted my point that emergence cannot be an explanation. And yet . . . you keep coming back to the claim that intelligence evolved (this means, we must remember, through a purely natural and material process) in order to support your conclusion that intelligence (and in your 2nd-to-last paragraph, "consciousness") is solely the result of purely natural and material processes. I apologize if it seems that I am beating a dead horse, but it is well worth noting and pointing out that this continues to be a circular argument, notwithstanding the acceptance of my point about the lack of explanatory power. What seems to be happening is that you and Armand Jacks accept my point on logical grounds, but then slip back into viewing whatever emerged as some kind of explanation. You rightly note that it shouldn't be used that way, but then it isn't so easy to avoid the circularity in practice. In any event, enough on that. Thanks for sticking with the discussion long enough for us to delve into the nuances. I don't know if you want to go forward to consider how this might impact your other points about freedom and choice and so on, but it is always valuable to step back a bit to look at our assumptions, so I trust the discussion at least this far has been worthwhile.Eric Anderson_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

@ your 97, Eric Anderson A pungently amusing expose' concerning the reagents and 'emergentism', Eric, because so obviously, devastatingly true, once the contorted flim-flam has been succinctly broken down. That has normally been William J Murray's genius, albeit in a more prolific way. Not to detract from your observations, since you can only expose what is in front of you.Axel_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Hmmm re 96. Perhaps we aren't talking about the same thing when I say "various cognitive skills", or perhaps you don't accept any of evolution as happening through natural causes: I don't know where you stand on that. The simplest organisms have simple stimulus-response systems, such as reacting towards or away from a light source. If one studies the comparative anatomy and physiology of the nervous system, along with associated behaviors, of existing life and match it with the evolution of various life forms over time, it is obvious that intelligent behaviors have evolved over time: organisms to various degrees can react to situations in the environment based on knowledge from past experience, they can solve certain kinds of problems, they can respond flexibly and appropriately to circumstances as they change, etc. These changes in skills can be correlated with changes in the nervous systems of organisms, including that of mammals and eventually human beings. Now if you don't accept that this evolution of life forms over time has happened, including the evolution of different species all connected by common descent, then we have different beliefs and we'll have to leave it at that. Or perhaps you are meaning something more rarified by "intelligence" than the kinds of behaviors I listed above. Added after 97: I just see that you have now written intelligence/consciousness. Those are two different, although related, things. I assume (and this an assumption) that other animals are conscious of the world. Look at a cat surveying its surroundings while stalking a mouse. Do you or do you not think it is having an internal, conscious experience of the world it is watching? So I think that this internal experience we have of consciousness has evolved, also, along with intelligence. But intelligence and consciousness are not synonyms. I personally am agnostic about the nature of consciousness, but I think that whatever it is is embedded in the physical world, that it is dependent on brain states, and that its presence in organisms has evolved in conjunction with the evolution of the nervous system. And last point: I'm not quite sure why you're continuing to discuss emergence, as it seems most, or all, of the people in this discussion have agreed that the word does not explain anything.jdk_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

Folks, let's put this "emergence" business into plain English. It has been noted that the properties of some things are different than the properties of the components. This is quite true. In the case that was brought up of chemical reactions producing water, for example, the product of the reaction has properties that were not there in the reactants. Some individuals apparently view this as a significant observation, as an unexpected circumstance, as something that might mean that all sorts of unexpected and amazing things can happen when particles of matter come together. But the observation does not support the claim. The fact that a product has different properties than the reactants is true, yes. But it is true to the point of being utterly trivial. It is true of every reaction. Otherwise, we would not have a reaction. Rather, we would have an inert substance. Pointing to the fact that a product has different properties than its reactants is neither here nor there. And it doesn't help to apply a label like "emergence" to the result of such a process. It is really quite simple: either a series of chemical reactions can produce something like intelligence and consciousness on its own or it can't. But pointing to the facts that (a) the product of a reaction has different properties than the reactants, and (b) the properties of the product might be "unexpected" to the untrained eye, in no way allows us to conclude that the so-called "emergence" of this product might lead to intelligence or consciousness or that such a process has anything whatsoever to do with intelligence or consciousness. ----- Here is the bottom line: When we strip away the fancy rhetoric surrounding this concept of "emergence" we see that the claim is really this: An unknown quantity and type of matter might have come together in an undefined way through some unspecified series of natural processes at some unspecified point in time to produce the unexpected result of intelligence/consciousness. That's it. That is the claim. There is utterly no logical or empirical support for such a claim. And calling it "emergence" does not provide any additional information or support. Worse, applying the label tends to mask the lack of evidence, giving the false impression that the concept of "emergence" can somehow help explain the existence of intelligence and consciousness.Eric Anderson_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

jdk: It doesn't matter how strongly you hold your belief or what you call it. If you use the claim that "various internal cognitive skills have also evolved" (meaning, of course, that they came about through purely natural and physical processes), as one of the bases to support the further conclusion that cognitive skills can come about through purely natural processes, then it is circular. The first claim may be a belief, a guess, a wild idea, whatever. But in terms of logic it functions as an "assumption" in support of the subsequent argument. Logically, we are just following the simple structure: Assumption A + Assumption B . . . => Conclusion X. So you can never use the idea that "various cognitive skills" came about through a purely natural process to support the claim that . . . cognitive skills came about through a purely natural process. It will always be circular and will fail as a matter of logic. Instead, what you need to do is show -- with actual evidence -- that various cognitive skills can indeed (a) arise through a certain configuration of matter, and (b) arise through natural processes, like random mutations and natural selection. Neither of those have ever been demonstrated. Not even close. AI researchers have been working on this feverishly for decades. (b) is utterly unsupported. And even (a) is very much an open question.Eric Anderson_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Hi Eric. Earlier you wrote,
We can’t just assume that intelligence evolved through natural processes (such as random mutations + natural selection, or whatever other evolutionary mechanism we posit) and then conclude that intelligence can arise from matter through purely natural processes. That is circular and begs the question.
I agree with that. However, in 94 you wrote,
Just make sure you don’t (as you did in your previous comment, which was why I reiterated my point), rely on your belief in evolution to support your assumption that intelligence arises through purely natural processes. That is where it becomes circular and a logical fallacy.
That is different, as beliefs are different than assumptions. I don't think it's a logical fallacy to accept the basic history of life as evolved, and therefore to draw the conclusion that various internal cognitive skills have also evolved. I know many here who would want to argue that my acceptance of evolution is unwarranted, but my beliefs are definitely more than just assumptions.jdk_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

jdk @80:
Yes, those are the big questions, and are well stated. I know where I stand on those issues (which goes far beyond the proper use of the concept “emergent” going on here).
That's fine. As long as you have some independent evidence for the purely material nature of intelligence (which I'm sure we would all be interested in hearing). Just make sure you don't (as you did in your previous comment, which was why I reiterated my point), rely on your belief in evolution to support your assumption that intelligence arises through purely natural processes. That is where it becomes circular and a logical fallacy.Eric Anderson_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

The reason people invoke the term "supernatural" is to distinguish one kind of phenomena (one caused by physical interactions) from another (one that is uncaused by any physical interactions, and thus "free"). It has nothing to do with some "intrinsic" or "lofty" purpose.William J Murray_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Armand Jacks @83:
Consciousness is another example. We cannot yet explain how it “emerged” from examining the component parts. But we are as certain as we can be that it is dependent on these component parts.
No we aren't "as certain as we can be". You are just drawing materialistic conclusions without support. There is no comparison, logically or practically, between consciousness and something like water.
It may be completely natural or it may require something else. Nobody knows.
Are you claiming that the so-called "emergent" property of water is not completely natural? Of course not. Then why consider the possibility that consciousness is not completely natural? Where is the consistency in your position?
But nobody is insisting that the trillions of other examples of “emergent” properties are the result of the supernatural. Well, almost nobody. As far as I can tell, the only reason people invoke it here, aside from the obvious religious implications, is that it hits very close to home. We would all like to think that our existence has some intrinsic and lofty purpose.
You mean the trillions of other examples of "emergent" properties that we can readily see are the result of physical and material processes? The ones that don't need anything beyond physics and chemistry to provide a full and detailed description of them? Again, your logic fails, as you completely miss the difference between consciousness/intelligence and something like water. ----- You claim you aren't using "emergence" as an explanation. Yet you keep bringing it up as though it explains something, namely that consciousness "emerges" as the result of matter coming together. If you really want to think through the issue clearly and stop falling into intellectual knots, stop using the unhelpful term "emergence" for your next several comments and instead try offering a real explanation for consciousness/intelligence based solely on material and physical processes. Then you will more clearly see that there is no relationship between those remarkable characteristics of intelligent beings and something like water forming from hydrogen and oxygen.Eric Anderson_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

jdk 88 A few comments: There is a very good reason to believe that self-causation exists: the idea that everything has an external cause is logically incoherent.
Jdk: Just how much, and in what ways, are we in control of ourselves? Are not these interesting questions?
Here is a related idea I'm working on. We learn and next automatize behavior. First some action requires all our effort and attention and next it gets more and more automatic — a skill. Somehow we keep in control, but the learned behavior drifts away from the center of our conscious experience, so to speak. We see this for instance wrt the ability of driving a car. The interesting thing is that automization of behavior increases control and freedom. Perhaps one could say that it takes one's behavior and control to a higher level.Origenes_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

jdk: Acausal intent cannot be described in terms of what causes it or how it works. Do you not see the logical problem in what you are asking for? Don't mistake a "decision" for "intent" or "will". IMO, a decision is what occurs when intent is translated through the particulars of a situation. A situation must exist in order for intent/will to be translatable into action. The intent is not caused by the situation; the intent causes various decisions in various situations - and a "situation" also includes some aspects of personality/mind/brain which, IMO, are part of the interface.William J Murray_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

"Freedom" and "unpredictable" are not synonymous. Just because a physical phenomena is unpredictable from the underlying causal factors does not mean it is free from causal factors. Unpredictability of behavior doesn't provide what is necessary in terms of top-down, free, willful capacity to direct physical phenomena into agreement with conceptual truths or knowledge. Unless we have true top-down power to reorganize physical, biological storage media and processing throughput, we have no rational basis for thinking we can acquire truths and impose them upon our physical states (brain/mind infrastructure). If we exist in a structure where our beliefs and thoughts and reactions and impressions are ultimately caused by unthinking chemistry and physics, then we have no basis by which we can say our views are based on evidence, reason, or truth. The will be based on physical cause alone, not evidence, reason or truth. Logically speaking, the capacity to apprehend and impose true thoughts upon the physical body can only be supernatural; if it were natural, that process would be caused by unthinking physical commodities interacting however they happen to interact. It is an intractable problem for materialism which virtually all major philosophers agree on. There is no true free will under materialism.William J Murray_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

So I'm wondering how the self decides to act based on exclusively internal factors to itself? If the self has constituent parts, are they causally connected among themselves? If the self is an undifferentiated whole, from where does the decision arise. Is every one of our decisions an uncaused act? It is is hard for me to imagine what this means. Obviously it does not mean uncaused in the sense of random (such as the result of a quantum probability) because that would be not be rational in the sense of being appropriate to the situation. Would either of you like to say more about how the self makes decisions by solely relying on factors within itself?jdk_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Origenes @84 - Exactly. Unless our will/intent is ultimately self-moved (causal origination), we run into the existential problem of being caused things.William J Murray_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

*On emergent properties and freedom* The volume, pressure, temperature and the number of molecules of a gas, are “emergent properties” because they are not properties of any of the individual molecules involved. Those emergent properties are indeed not caused by any of the individual molecules but they are certainly constrained by them. Despite the lack of a clear causal relationship, there is no independency of emergent properties from a lower level. Obviously, the volume, pressure, temperature of a gas cannot change itself. The relevant point — wrt freedom — is that those emergent properties fully depend on the properties of those (lower level) molecules and are therefore thoroughly unhelpful if the naturalist attempts to ground freedom. The molecules that underlie the emergent properties are themselves determined by natural law. That determined state of the molecules transpires to the higher level of the (constrained) emergent properties. Emergent properties may not be explainable/predictable from the parts from which they arise, but, to my knowledge, no one has claimed that emergent properties are not fully constrained by what underlies them. Again, emergent properties do arise from a lower level and not on their own. So, if we are, wrt emergent properties, not allowed to say that those properties are caused by the underlying lower level, then, at the very least, we are allowed to say that those emergent properties are fully constrained by the underlying lower level. Logic informs us, that this state of constrainment blocks any conceivable route from emergent properties to freedom.Origenes_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Yes, I think that we are all clear that calling something emergent does not explain it: it just points to something about it (properties which the constituent parts did not have) that needs further explanation. It may be that the further explanation is pretty easy to come by for those that understand the subject, or it may be that at this time the emergent properties are not easy to explain.jdk_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

William J Murray @79
WJM: In my view, we have free will because that will is uncaused – it is an acausal loci of observation and intent.
For clarity, WJM, am I correct that by "uncaused" you mean "externally uncaused" (without an external cause) as opposed to "self-moved" or "self-caused"? Aquinas wrote: ""LIBER EST CAUSA SUI" — the free is the cause of itself.Origenes_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Having read Jdk's and Eric's comments, I see that some may have misinterpreted my use of the term "emergent" as to imply an explanation. I merely meant to say that there are properties of natural "things" that cannot currently be explained by the properties of the individual components. The wetness or hardness of water being an example. This is not to say that the properties are unexplainable. Consciousness is another example. We cannot yet explain how it "emerged" from examining the component parts. But we are as certain as we can be that it is dependent on these component parts. It may be completely natural or it may require something else. Nobody knows. But nobody is insisting that the trillions of other examples of "emergent" properties are the result of the supernatural. Well, almost nobody. As far as I can tell, the only reason people invoke it here, aside from the obvious religious implications, is that it hits very close to home. We would all like to think that our existence has some intrinsic and lofty purpose.Armand Jacks_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Hmmm. I assumed that your argument that material causes couldn't ground freedom et al was an argument that true freedom must have a non-material cause, as that is the usual argument. If that is not your position, I apologize for my assumptions. Can you explain your position? What are your thoughts on a "third kind of causation"?jdk_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

jdk: No, but we are caught in a vicious circle in our discussion that I don’t think we can get out of. I want to explore the possibility that we have a freedom, control, and rationality that is grounded in material processes, although obviously not exactly the same things as freedom, control, and rationality grounded in non-material processes.
Can you show me where (in post #66) I argue for freedom control and rationality grounded in non-material processes? You have made a similar claim in #68, and in #69 I have replied that this is not part of the argument as presented in #66. So, do show me where (in #66) I argue for freedom control and rationality grounded in non-material processes. The argument, in post #66, shows that if reality is solely caused by determined and/or undetermined physical events, then we — whether we are physical or not — are not in control over our actions and thoughts. Perhaps you can agree with me. Perhaps you can say: "I agree, but there is a third kind of causation in a physical universe, namely, the causation that stems from emergent properties." If so, we can proceed our discussion and break the "vicious circle."Origenes_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Hi Eric. It seems like you repeated some things in 77 that I agreed with you about in 76: the concept of emergent may be a good adjective for certain kinds of situations, but it is certainly not itself an explanation. You write,
The very issue on the table is: (1) whether intelligence can arise from a particular arrangement of matter, and (2) whether such arrangement can arise through purely natural processes. If we are to think clearly about the issue, if we are to avoid falling into an intellectual trap, we cannot, we must not, adopt as an assumption the very conclusion we are trying to reach. On either one of these open questions.
Yes, those are the big questions, and are well stated. I know where I stand on those issues (which goes far beyond the proper use of the concept "emergent" going on here). I also agree that one should not explicitly or implicitly embed one's conclusions in one's assumptions. Also, to wjm, my post at 51 was about intelligence. I didn't say anything about free will. I did discuss will at 56, and invite you to respond to some of the questions I asked there.jdk_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

jdk: Are emergent behaviors physically caused by the properties of the physically interacting elements and natural laws involved? If not, then what causes such behaviors? If so, then in what sense can a human with emergent intelligence, will and consciousness be "free"? What is it "free" from? What justifies the use of the term "free"? In my view, we have free will because that will is uncaused - it is an acausal loci of observation and intent. While it may act on influencing information, it cannot be caused to act by that influence. In my view, that is the only reason to use the term "free will" because, otherwise, one's will is physically caused by preceding and current physical states and conditions, whether one refers to it as "emergent" or not. Now, surely you understand the existential problem that we face if our will is caused by physical conditions and states? If our consciousness and intelligence and all other mental states are "emergent properties" caused by underlying physics and chemistry? Surely you realize what this does to our concept of truth and knowledge? Surely you realize what such a state of affairs would with regards to an attempt to make a rational argument?William J Murray_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

F/N: Physical-chemical "emergence" involves components, their arrangement, coupling and interaction. NaCl involves ions migrating to a minimum potential equilibrium that leads to crystal unit cells. Random tars come together through precipitation and uncontrolled chaining reactions. Functionally specific complex organisation and associated information reflect contrivance towards a coherent purpose. Orgel and Wicken knew that 40+ years ago. Indeed, the former noted that trying to conflate crystalisation or random tars etc with biofunctional complex organisation would have little future. Save, I suppose, as handy rhetoric. KFkairosfocus_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply