Quote of the Day

_{Barry Arrington
April 14, 2017

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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 @76: Thanks for your thoughts. Couple of follow-up items:
To go back to water, as an example. . . . But in case, I think saying those are emergent properties is a good adjective, as the first paragraph above seems to say, but that merely saying that emergent properties exist does not in itself explain why those properties have the form they do: that is a further question.
There are two issues here, so we need to be careful we do not conflate them. As you say, calling something emergent does not tell us why its resultant properties are as they are. Moreover, and more relevant to the question of where something came from, calling something emergent does not tell us where the properties came from. In the case of intelligence, for example, we can probably all acknowledge that there are things about intelligence that we do not understand, such as precisely how it works. And we can agree that calling it an emergent property of matter does not tell us anything useful about the properties of intelligence. But more importantly, calling intelligence "emergent" does not tell us anything about how it came about in the first place. -----
However, over the course of time, organisms with the ability to behave more “intelligently” in respect to the environment have evolved . . .
Well, that's precisely the question, isn't it? 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. 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. ----- What typically happens in these discussions about emergence -- what you also seem to be doing to some degree, if you'll permit me to make the observation -- is that people say something like, "Well, intelligence (or any other capability) is an emergent property, because, after all, it developed over time through the purely natural processes of evolution." But whether that in fact occurred is precisely the issue at question. And if someone uses "emergence" to describe how this capability came about, or to explain its origin, then they have committed a logical fallacy and are fooling themselves. Thus we see the primary practical problem with the popular "emergence" term: it doesn't explain anything, but it is often put forward as though it were an explanation. We need to keep in mind that "emergence" is really just a convenience label, a placeholder for our current ignorance and lack of understanding of the underlying processes. And if we slip up and offer "emergence" as an explanation, then the term actually does more harm than good by masking our ignorance. In that case it becomes a kind of anti-knowledge, giving the false impression that an explanation is at hand (and, of course, tacitly hinting it is a purely natural and physical one), when in fact no explanation has been provided.Eric Anderson_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PST}

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Eric. I don't think I mean to use the term emergent for the chemical process by which, for instance, hydrogen and oxygen unite to form water. I mean that once that process is complete, the result has properties, to quote myself, "that aren’t in any obvious way contained in those constituent parts." The properties emerge as a result of the process. "Emergence" doesn't explain how salt or water form – as you say, they form by basic chemical processes, but I don't think it's a bad adjective for the fact that the result has properties that the original parts didn't have. I don't mean to use the word to imply some mystery, and I don't believe I used the phrase "emergent process". I looked at some of the article you wrote last year. I agree, I think, with what you wrote.
Emergence itself is not necessarily controversial, at least not in its simple, observationally-based definition. Wikipedia describes it as “a process whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties.” Fine. Nothing particularly controversial there. I’m willing to accept that as a reasonable working definition for purposes of discussion. The problem arises when researchers or theorists imagine that emergence is an explanation for a particular phenomenon...
To go back to water, as an example. It may be (I don't know) that chemists have a pretty good understanding of why two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen is a liquid, has the freezing and boiling points it does, etc., knowing what they do about the properties of the two elements separately. Or maybe chemists don't know very much about that. But in case, I think saying those are emergent properties is a good adjective, as the first paragraph above seems to say, but that merely saying that emergent properties exist does not in itself explain why those properties have the form they do: that is a further question. So it seems like I am in agreement with you on this distinction. Then you wrote some interesting replies to my statement that "my view is that intelligence is an emergent property that arises from the integrated organization of biological organisms. I think that, given the discussion above, that "evolved" property might be a better descriptor than "emergent." Very simple organisms have very simple stimulus-response system, with very little "internal" processing between the stimulus and the response. However, over the course of time, organisms with the ability to behave more "intelligently" in respect to the environment have evolved, with that ability fostered greatly by the ability to store and process information internally as a middleman, so to speak, between stimulus and response. I'm not sure there are any emergent properties in this evolutionary history. at least not dramatically analogous to that of salt or water. As you write,
There are lot of people, believers, theists, Christians, and so on who ... implicitly, if not explicitly, accept the idea that matter can be organized in such a way as to create intelligence.
I agree that matter can be organized, and is, in such a way to create intelligence, although, as a non-theist I would disagree with how matter got that way and about whether our intelligence depends on any non-material aspect of our being. But I appreciate your comments about "emergence", and will keep them in mind as I think about these things.jdk_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PST}

jdk @51:
Hi AJ. I think emergent is a perfectly good term: in this world, things form from constituent parts so as to have properties that aren’t in any obvious way contained in those constituent parts. The iconic example is table salt, although water is another good example. Going further, stars, galaxies, and planets are emergent objects, as well as many features of the weather dynamics of our planet.
But such "emergent" things are well explained by the parts and how they come together, purely on the basis of chemistry and physics. There is no mystery about how table salt and water form, for example. We don't need to invoke "emergence" to explain their existence. And, by the way, it is completely unhelpful to call a chemical reaction an "emergent" process. It is a chemical reaction that proceeds according to well-known principles. Let's use the right scientific terminology and not try to pretend some mysterious process is at work. Indeed, the whole concept of "emergence" is largely unhelpful when it is used as an attempted "explanation" for something's existence. See, for example, this OP as it relates to living systems: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/emergence-as-an-explanation-for-living-systems/ -----
This view involves accepting that life on earth is itself an emergent property of matter . . .
Which again, doesn't mean anything beyond the claim that a series of law-like, as well as happenstance, physical interactions somehow stumbled upon life. The reason most people reject that idea is not because there is an inability to comprehend this great principle of emergence. It is because people can see through the smoke and mirrors of emergence and realize it is just a word that masks ignorance. It is like invoking a miracle. It is like saying something unexpected happens. It is just another surrogate for claiming that life came about either by force of chemistry and physics or by pure dumb luck. ----- Now, circling back to the more interesting question in your comment:
Going even further, my view is that intelligence is an emergent property that arises from the integrated organization of biological organisms.
There are lot of people, believers, theists, Christians, and so on who -- at least in my assessment -- implicitly, if not explicitly, accept the idea that matter can be organized in such a way as to create intelligence. Many would balk at this characterization, but when pressed, would have to admit that this is essentially their position. Specifically, anyone who thinks that God has the ability to create a knowledgable, sentient, physical being, implicitly believes it is possible for matter to be organized in such a way as to produce such a being. So there is actually an interesting open question in many theological and philosophical circles about whether matter can indeed be organized in such a way, or whether "intelligence" (mind, soul, spirit, whatever you want to call it) is inherently independent of matter and must be viewed as existing separately and independently from the matter. ----- Regardless, for purposes of intelligent design, it is certainly possible for someone to believe that matter can be organized in such a way as to produce an intelligent being. But such an intelligent design proponent would point out that there is no evidence such organization can come about on its own, or "emerge" from the largely random and stochastic interactions of physics and chemistry. Rather, they would argue that such a creative process itself requires a creative intelligence.Eric Anderson_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PST}

Armand Jacks @72:
By stimulating different parts of the brain we can certainly trigger different feelings, senses and actions. Which would suggest no free will but may simply be the physical pathways that are used to act on free will.
Two things that are rather obvious on a quick read through your comment: (1) To what extent can we trigger different feelings, senses and actions by stimulating the brain? To the same extent that you have the ability to make decisions in your day-to-day life? Not even close. (2) It certainly doesn't "suggest no free will". It suggests that the brain is closely involved in actions and interactions, even discerning, storing, reacting to our experiences. No-one is disputing that the brain is critical and has remarkable capabilities of helping us interface with the world. But a few brain-sensory stimulations most certainly does not "suggest no free will."
We also know that activity in the brain precedes any action or thought.
What is your basis for this claim, specifically as it relates to thought, not physical action?Eric Anderson_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PST}

WJM (a former nihilistic materialist) has the better of the exchange, we deal with someone who routinely tries to dismiss the man through manipulation of moral and logical constructs and concepts his scheme of thought forbids to have any serious reality. See my own discussion here: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/fft-charles-unmasks-the-anti-id-trollish-tactic-of-attacking-god-christian-values-and-worldview-themes/#comment-629418 KFkairosfocus_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PST}

I think the concept of free will is an interesting but I also think that it is an intractable one. We certainly have the perception of free will but I don't think that it is possible to prove one way or the other. By stimulating different parts of the brain we can certainly trigger different feelings, senses and actions. Which would suggest no free will but may simply be the physical pathways that are used to act on free will. We also know that activity in the brain precedes any action or thought. But, again, what does that mean. It would be nice to be able to do controlled studies to see if we are really capable of making decisions other than the ones we do, but it would be impossible to control the millions (if not billions) of factors that may affect a decision. It may simply be that the number of inputs (stimuli, chemical, physical) that go into any action might be so large that our perception of free will is just that, a perception.Armand Jacks_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PST}

Ooops - fixing 70 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. If you insist, and I think many here do, that only freedom, control, and rationality grounded in non-material processes are really, truly freedom, control, and rationality, then further discussion is impossible. That is why I am asking to leave aside metaphysics for a bit. Assume a couple of people with slightly different metaphysical perspectives, but none a materialist, are talking about freedom and will. Wouldn’t the questions I ask be of interest? Just how much, and in what ways, are we in control of ourselves? Are not these interesting questions?jdk_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PST}

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. If you insist, and I think many here do, that the only freedom, control, and rationality grounded in non-material processes are really, truly freedom, control, and rationality, then further discussion is impossible.No, but I think 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 those would obviously not be exactly the same things as freedom, control, and rationality grounded in non-material processes. If you insist, and I think many here do, that only freedom, control, and rationality grounded in non-material processes are really, truly freedom, control, and rationality, then further discussion is impossible. That is why I am asking to leave aside metaphysics for a bit. Assume a couple of people with slightly different metaphysical perspectives, but none a materialist, are talking about freedom and will. Wouldn't the questions I ask be of interest? Just how much, and in what ways, are we in control of ourselves? Are not these interesting questions?jdk_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PST}

Jdk @68
jdk: I understand, and have heard quite a few times, the argument you offer, Origenes. It basically is a kind of tautology: chains of physical causation can’t account for a kind of freedom that requires causes that are free from physical causation.
That’s not the point of the argument. The point of the argument is that, given materialism (which offers only determinism or indeterminism), we are not in control of our actions and thoughts — irrespective of questions wrt our physicality. Therefore materialism fails to ground freedom, responsibility, rationality and personhood.
jdk: But it leaves unanswered the question of whether such non-material causes exists.
True.
jdk: If they don’t, then the kind of freedom and rationality that you would like to exist doesn’t in fact exist.
True again.
jdk: That is why I think examining our experience of will would be useful …
Not so fast! Wait. This is a crucial moment. Please. Before we start, must we not assume that we are free to do so? Must we not assume that we are rational? Must we not assume that we have control over our thoughts and behavior? And if so, what does that tell us about materialism which only offers determinism and/or indeterminism? Must we not, before we proceed, assume that materialism is false?Origenes_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PST}

I understand, and have heard quite a few times, the argument you offer, Origenes. It basically is a kind of tautology: chains of physical causation can’t account for a kind of freedom that requires causes that are free from physical causation. That is true, by definition. But it leaves unanswered the question of whether such non-material causes exists. If they don’t, then the kind of freedom and rationality that you would like to exist doesn’t in fact exist. That is why I think examining our experience of will would be useful: let the metaphysical questions be unanswered for a bit, and just look at the question of what things clearly seem to be uncontrolled by will, freedom, and rationality, and which do. So would you be willing to go back to my questions at 56 above, and,addressing your original question of “what is freedom,” consider the reality of what we're talking about. Do we control out heart beating? In what sense do we control our running? In what sense do we control our thoughts? (Could you freely choose to quit having thoughts?" Can you comment on some of those questions?jdk_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PST}

O, thank you for actually engaging in discussion and not resorting to the childish antics of WJM.
His second argument seems to rest on notions of parsimony. This is unconvincing in this case, to say the least, so it all hings on his first argument.
How is this unconvincing? Science has long gained better understanding of how things work by interfering with their function or breaking them down. We know that we can temporarily disrupt consciousness threw chemical and physical means. We know that we can permanently disrupt consciousness, again through chemical and physical means. We know that we can alter a person's personality through chemical and physical means. Much of the "evidence" for something outside the affects of the physical brain is near death experience. The same experience that has been replicated through the modifying physical parameters. This certainly does not rule out the existance of something else, but that "something else" does not appear to be necessary. As I mentioned, I think that "emergent" is an often misused term, but there are plenty of examples. I used the example of water as it is a very simple one (3 atoms) and one everyone can understand. You can dive into a pond but I wouldn't advise diving into a block of ice. At the biological level, a single skin cell does very little for you. However, as a group they provide a good protective layer. Got to go stuff the turkey.Armand Jacks_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PST}

jdk @64 By "sufficient" I meant to say that there is no need for anything else than A to get B. A is a sufficient cause for B. I did not mean to say that only A can cause B. A car accident is a sufficient cause of death, but not the only cause of death. Okay without further ado, here comes: - - - - - Materialism cannot ground freedom, responsibility, rationality and/or personhood. If materialism is true, then either determinism is true or there are (sporadic) undetermined events. 1. If determinism is true, then all our actions and thoughts are consequences of events and laws of nature in the remote past before we were born. 3. We have no control over circumstances that existed in the remote past before we were born, nor do we have any control over the laws of nature. 4. If A causes B, and we have no control over A, and A is sufficient for B, then we have no control over B. Therefore 5. If determinism is true, then we have no control over our own actions and thoughts. Therefore, assuming that rationality requires control, 6. If determinism is true, we are not rational. Regarding undetermined events, here is Van Inwagen, who argues that undetermined events (also) fail to ground freedom, control and rationality:
“Let us look carefully at the consequences of supposing that human behavior is undetermined … Let us suppose that there is a certain current-pulse that is proceeding along one of the neural pathways in Jane’s brain and that it is about to come to a fork. And let us suppose that if it goes to the left, she will make her confession;, and that if it goes to the right, she will remain silent. And let us suppose that it is undetermined which way the pulse goes when it comes to the fork: even an omniscient being with a complete knowledge of the state of Jane’s brain and a complete knowledge of the laws of physics and unlimited powers of calculation could say no more than: ‘The laws and present state of her brain would allow the pulse to go either way; consequently, no prediction of what the pulse will do when it comes to the fork is possible; it might go to the left, and it might go to the right, and that’s all there is to be said.’ Now let us ask: does Jane have any choice about whether the pulse goes to the left or to the right? If we think about this question for a moment, we shall see that it is very hard to see how she could have any choice about that. …There is no way for her to make it go one way rather than the other. Or, at least, there is no way for her to make it go one way rather than the other and leave the ‘choice’ it makes an undetermined event.” [Van Inwagen]
Origenes_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PST}

JaD:
Based on materialism how can someone like Armand even talk about honesty?
I see that you opt to use WJM's childish tactics rather than discuss the actual issues. If using these childish antics against me brings meaning to your otherwise dreary existence, I am glad to be of help. :)Armand Jacks_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PST}

Ok, Origenes, let's stay with your point rather then addressing mine. You write, "If A causes B, and we have no control (causative influence) over A, and A is sufficient for B, then we have no control over B." I believe you might mean necessary, not sufficient. The way you have written this, we might still have control over B even without control over A, because we might have control over B directly through some other means than A. But, would this restatement, which I would agree with, be equivalent to your point. If A is the necessary cause of B and if we can't control A, then we can't control B."? If this is an OK restatement, what conclusion do you then reach?jdk_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PST}

jdk @62
jdk: The reason I find your italicized question not helpful is that it still leaves aside the question of “control”, and for that matter, “we” (or “I”.)
Control implies causative influence, that's all we need to know in order to agree with the statement. Indeed "we" or "I" are not defined, but it is up to you to show a scenario in which you cannot agree with the statement. For instance if by "we" is meant "aliens" or "trees", then the statement still holds.
jdk: It leaves unanswered the question of whether we can or cannot have control over A, whatever A may be, ...
Also here I see no problem, if we cannot (in principle) have control over A, then the statement still holds (we have no control over B).Origenes_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PST}

The reason I find your italicized question not helpful is that it still leaves aside the question of "control", and for that matter, "we" (or "I".) Essentially, your statement is just a statement of causation, throwing in the very question under consideration at A. It leaves unanswered the question of whether we can or cannot have control over A, whatever A may be, and thus returns to the question of control itself. So, as I said above,
The question is not whether there are chains of causation – I think there have to be – but whether we have a will which can initiate chains of material causes-and-effects without itself being a material thing and without being subject to a prior chain of causes. So, I’ll return to all the questions I asked. Let’s leave metaphysics aside for a bit, and try to identify in ourselves exactly what constitutes an act of will as opposed to a relatively obvious bit of material biology, such as a neurotransmitter being created and used at a nerve synapse.
jdk_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PST}

And beside the moral questions that the materialist apparently cannot answer (see #57 above) there are the epistemological questions. How do I know materialism is true? Is it self-evidently true? Can you prove it to me? If you can’t prove it to me, why should I accept it? Why should I even consider it? Because you believe it? Again, those are more questions our atheist interlocutors for some reason never answer. Is that what they mean by honesty?john_a_designer_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PST}

jdk @59
jdk: I’m not sure I find this very helpful.
I am sorry but I have to insist. Without agreement I cannot make my point.
jdk: Freedom may not be possible without causative influence ...
Whence cometh the doubt?
jdk: ... but neither are purely material effects possible without causative influence.
I absolutely agree. - - - - Again, this is what I want you to agree on: If A causes B, and we have no control (causative influence) over A, and A is sufficient for B, then we have no control over B.Origenes_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PST}

to Origenes: I'm not sure I find this very helpful. Freedom may not be possible without causative influence, but neither are purely material effects possible without causative influence. The question is not whether there are chains of causation - I think there have to be - but whether we have a will which can initiate chains of material causes-and-effects without itself being a material thing and without being subject to a prior chain of causes. So, I'll return to all the questions I asked. Let's leave metaphysics aside for a bit, and try to identify in ourselves exactly what constitutes an act of will as opposed to a relatively obvious bit of material biology, such as a neurotransmitter being created and used at a nerve synapse.jdk_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PST}

jdk @56
jdk: Origenes then asks, “Can we agree on this: a person cannot be free if he is not in control of his thoughts and actions.” I don’t think that helps too much, because then the question is what does it mean to be “in control of” one’s thoughts and actions.
You are correct. But in order to understand freedom one has to have an understanding of control. For one thing, controlling something implies having causative influence on something. Maybe this helps: If A causes B, and we have no control (causative influence) over A, and A is sufficient for B, then we have no control over B. Summarizing: freedom implies control, which, in turn, implies causative influence. Do we agree that freedom and controlling something is not possible without causative influence on something?Origenes_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PST}

Armand wrote,
O, thank you for engaging in an honest discussion. I do not get that from WJM or KF.
Based on materialism how can someone like Armand even talk about honesty? Honesty based on what standard? Whose standard? Some of our other atheist interlocutors insist that moral values and obligations are totally subjective. But how do they know this? How can they prove this? But if they are subjective, whose moral standard is everyone else obligated to follow? Ironically, we can’t even have an honest discussion about honesty with these people.john_a_designer_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PST}

Origenes asks, "How would you define ‘freedom’?" That's a good question: I like the idea of trying to get clearer about what we are actually talking about. Origenes then asks, "Can we agree on this: a person cannot be free if he is not in control of his thoughts and actions." I don't think that helps too much, because then the question is what does it mean to be "in control of" one's thoughts and actions. Rather than start with definitions, it might be better to start with observations. Both looking at ourself, from the inside, so to speak, and looking at others from the outside, what does the exercise of "free will" look like. Here are some questions, the answers to which might illuminate what we think. Do I control my heart beating? Is that an action of free will? I would say no. In general, do I control, as an act of free will, the vast array of physiological processes that are taking place in me all the time: oxygen exchange in the lungs, digestion, the production of neurotransmitters at the nerve synapses, etc.? If these all are also not actions of free will, want do we call them? Now lets think about movement, which is more often thought of as something we can control. Yesterday I decided (which most of us would consider an act of free will) to go to the gym and walk. But as I walked, to what extent, and of what, was I in control. I certainly don't will each movement: walking appears to happen somewhat like the heart beating in that all the myriad muscular movements appear to be biologically integrated below the level of conscious choice. If I decide to run for a bit, that is a choice, but once I have that intent, again a huge set of actions beyond my conscious control start to happen. So where exactly is the free will here? 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". And now, on to thoughts. Our conscious thoughts are, I think, the place where we most center our concept of free will. However, how do thoughts arise? Here's an experiment. Lie quietly and pay attention to the stream of thoughts occupying your mind. Imagine them as streaming somewhat linearly from one side of your head to the other. Now, pay attention to the start of a thought: perhaps an idea you have stimulated by this topic. What I have noticed for myself is that when the thought starts most of the time I can "feel", holistically, that I know what the whole thought is: I don't have to let it spin out linearly in language. Therefore, I can let that thought go, and wait for the next thought to start. I use this technique to help quiet my mind, especially in going to sleep. 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? 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? As kf would say, FFTjdk_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PST}

WJM: Armand insists he is entirely the product of cause-and-effect physical processes; that every word and act is governed by such physical cause-and-effect. Armand insists he (and everyone) has no top-down supernatural power over those processes; he is entirely the puppet of physical cause-and-effect.
In defense of Armand Jacks, he did claim that matter can ground freedom responsibility rationality and personhood (see post #17). So far AJ has provided us with two arguments in favor of his view: (1) Like water and crystals, we are more than the sum of our parts. (2) Freedom (and so forth) can be destroyed by matter, therefor it is reasonable to assume that it can be constructed by matter. His second argument seems to rest on notions of parsimony. This is unconvincing in this case, to say the least, so it all hings on his first argument. Obviously, pointing to water and table salt crystals, doesn't get us to freedom responsibility rationality and personhood. Therefor AJ needs to present his case for emergentism.Origenes_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PST}

Armand the meatbot says:
O, thank you for engaging in an honest discussion. I do not get that from WJM or KF.
Armand insists he is entirely the product of cause-and-effect physical processes; that every word and act is governed by such physical cause-and-effect. Armand insists he (and everyone) has no top-down supernatural power over those processes; he is entirely the puppet of physical cause-and-effect. So, to keep the debate honest, I use the designation "meatbot" in deference to Armand's position that he is, in fact, a biological automaton that is entirely governed by physical programming and cause-and-effect. It is not only an honest designation, it is one I use in deference to Armand's insistence even though I disagree with his view of what he is. I then respond to Armand in the manner I would respond to (or about) a biological automaton. What would be dishonest of me would be to assume (for the sake of argument) that Armand is what he claims to be and then interact with him as if he possessed a free will power over his physical processes, or possessed some magical ability to acquire/discern universal truths and force it upon his physical nature. IOW, Armand wants others to treat him as if everything he claims about his existential nature is false. That's not honest interaction; Armand wants to be treated as if he has libertarian free will and supernatural capacities while he denies those things exist. He doesn't want honesty; he wants us to enable his mad denialism by ignoring the self-refuting nature of his contributions.William J Murray_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PST}

Armand Jacks and JDK How would you define 'freedom'? Water, table salt crystals have to do with freedom in what sense? In my book freedom is a property of persons. It makes no sense to speak of a 'free chemical process' — unless that chemical process is a person. It may be difficult to reach agreement on a definition of freedom. However I think we can agree upon what it is not. Can we agree on this: a person cannot be free if he is not in control of his thoughts and actions.Origenes_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PST}

Seversky said:
You know as well as I do that neither Darwin nor any other evolutionist has argued that the evolution of life on Earth was due entirely to happenstance. That’s a tired old creationist canard. The mutations on which natural selection acts are caused by something, whether radiation or viruses or chemicals.
Try reading a thread before rushing headlong into foolishness, Seversky. Find where I defined "happenstance", then continue. Armandbot tries to draw a rather bizarrre equivalence:
Or are you denying that in a materialist/physicalist environment the end product can be greater than the sum of the parts? Otherwise, how do you explain water, crystals, etc.?
Water crystals are the product of physics and chemistry. Nothing more. Is Armand attempting to say that a water crystal has some sort of top-down control over the physical processes generating it? Do Snowflakes design their patterns, manipulating the physical commodities involved to create a desired pattern? See how easily meatbots throw around phrases like "greater than the sum of its parts" and "emergence" as if something can be magically manifested by physical things into a state free of the binding of physics and chemistry, able to magically plan and design and understand beyond the physical cause-and-effect of that which is generating this "emergent" property? Unless these physical interactions have manifested an emergence of supernatural will and power above and over the cause-and-effect sequences and patterns of chemistry and physics, all the meatbot is doing is waving its hands, spouting some words and having no idea what those words actually must mean. Perhaps they say them as an incantation to ward off the discomfort of realizing they have no room, in atheistic materialism, for being anything other than a meatbot no matter what terms and phrases they hide behind. But, we can't blame them. It would be like holding a river accountable for its pathway. Yes, turbulence and flow are greater than the sum of the parts and must be expressed with formulas beyond simple patterning, but the patterns of those emergent properties are still governed by the patterns of physics and chemistry. They're not magical or supernatural, are they?William J Murray_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PST}

Hi AJ. I think emergent is a perfectly good term: in this world, things form from constituent parts so as to have properties that aren't in any obvious way contained in those constituent parts. The iconic example is table salt, although water is another good example. Going further, stars, galaxies, and planets are emergent objects, as well as many features of the weather dynamics of our planet. Going even further, my view is that intelligence is an emergent property that arises from the integrated organization of biological organisms. This view involves accepting that life on earth is itself an emergent property of matter; that it has evolved through the vast diversity of life forms and features up to what exists today, including human beings; and that the parts of biological organisms are integrated such that they act in concert for the benefit of the organism as a whole. I also know that all I just said in that last paragraph is strenuously denied as possible by most of the people here, but I thought I'd share this very quick summary of my thoughts with you.jdk_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PST}

Seversky @47 Among other things you say "But neither do we have any compelling evidence of a designer capable of such things as life and universes nor any better idea, if such exists, of how it might have accomplished its purposes. Only human hubris would insist that it must be design in the face of a lack of evidence to decide the matter either way." _________ Consider the following: Some of the fundamentals of Darwinian Evolution, as I understand it are: The complexities of life we see all around us, and within us are assembled from the bottom up in a Natural Selection process which chooses beneficial mutations among a long series of such changes, while allowing less beneficial changes to wither away, or perhaps allowed to remain as flotsam or “junk.” The resulting “designs” we see from such a process are merely illusions, the appearance of design … not actual design as we see in all of the human artifacts we dwell among such as the automobile and computers. Evolution is said to be without purpose, without direction and without goals. What we may see as purpose, direction and goals are simply the result of the workings of natural processes – simply illusions of and the appearance of design, ------- So then why do we see purpose, direction and goals at every level of life – from the cellular level, to the systems level to the completed body plan? We see purpose in the various machines and structures within each of several trillion cells in our bodies. We see the Kinesin motor transporting cargo from one place on the cell to another. We see the marvel of DNA which, coupled with other cellular components, represents not only a massive mass storage capability, but also represents a type of blueprint package defining all aspects of the end product body. This DNA package also contains what can be described as a complete set of “shop travelers” which, much like a manufacturing process, provides step by step instructions and bills of materials for the manufacture of the myriad parts making up the completed human body – bones, hair, brain, liver, eye, nose … and more. And each of these subunits exhibits purpose — specific purpose. What is finally assembled as an arm and hand for example, takes on a myriad of functional purposes such as accurately throwing a baseball, playing a musical instrument such as a violin and cradling a new born baby. Each of our vital organs play specific and necessary roles in keeping our body alive and functioning – there are goals and purpose expressed in each and every one of our body parts. What we see and experience in the finished goal directed and purposeful human body is beautifully expressed in many ways, such as when we witness a magnificent choral and orchestral performance such as Handel’s Messiah. What we experience in that concert hall is not an illusion — it is real and is the culmination of a multitude of designs, both in the natural as well as the realm of human intelligence and ingenuity. ________ Folks like me see the compelling evidence all around and within us. ayearningforpublius_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PST}

O, thank you for engaging in an honest discussion. I do not get that from WJM or KF. The big question is whether the "soul" uses the brain, or whether the brain produces the "soul". Since there is absolutely no evidence of the "soul" existing without the brain, the most parsimonious answer is the latter.Armand Jacks_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PST}

AJ @46 Freedom isn't quite clear in your example (post #44). Maybe you can improve? On the difference between correlation and causation I would like to quote William Lane Craig:
A dualist-interactionist does not take the soul to operate independently of the brain like a ghost in a machine. Rather, as the Nobel Prize-winning neurologist Sir John Eccles emphasizes, the soul uses the brain as an instrument to think, just as a musician uses a piano as an instrument to make music. If his piano is out of tune or damaged, then the pianist’s ability to produce music will be impaired or even nullified. In the same way, says Eccles, if the soul’s instrument of thought, the brain, is damaged or adversely affected, then the soul’s ability to think will be impaired or nullified.
I'm not saying that I share Eccles/Craig's view, but he presents a valid counter-argument.Origenes_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply