Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Remedial Logic for Materialists

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Materialists have a lot of stock responses they use to distract themselves from the explanatory poverty of the “answers” their faith commitments require them to spew out in response to obvious objections.  Consider the materialist responses to my last post, Quashing Materialist Appeals to Magic (Again).

Briefly, I argued that unless materialists can provide some sort of an explanation of the process by which the physical electro-chemical properties of the brain result in the mental properties of the mind, then merely invoking “emergence” has exactly the same explanatory power as invoking “magic.”  I quoted atheists Thomas Nagel and Elizabeth Liddle, who concur.

Now to the materialist’s stock answer (courtesy of Popperian):  Barry, you have committed the Fallacy of Composition.  The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something must be true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.  For example, hydrogen atoms are not “wet” and oxygen atoms are not “wet,” but if one inferred from the non-wetness of individual hydrogen and oxygen atoms that a particular way of combining and organizing those atoms would also be non-wet, one would be wrong.  Organize the atoms in a particular way and you get water, which is wet in a way that none of its constituent parts are.  In other words, “wetness” is an emergent property of the whole that is not a property of any of its parts, and if you had drawn an inference about the wetness of the whole from the non-wetness of the parts you would have been wrong.  In the same way, carbon atoms and the other physical components of the brain are not conscious, but when those parts are organized in a certain way, consciousness emerges.

No Popperian.  I have not committed the fallacy of composition.  Instead, you have committed the fallacy of false analogy.  The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property.  The structure or form may be generalized like so:

  1. P and Q are similar in respect to properties a and b.
  2. P has been observed to have further property c.
  3. Therefore, Q probably has property c also.

A person commits the fallacy of false analogy when he makes a faulty inference from analogy.  And Popperian’s inference is faulty.  Let’s see why this is so.  Here is Popparian’s argument from analogy:

  1. Water and the brain are similar as to the following properties:

(a) Water molecules are made of parts; the brain is made of parts.

(b) The constituent parts of water molecules are organized in a particular way; the constituent parts of the brain are organized in a particular way.

  1. Water molecules have been observed to have a further property, namely the emergent property “wetness” resulting from the organization of its parts even though none of those parts exhibits that property.
  1. Therefore, the brain probably also has an emergent property, namely consciousness, resulting from the organization of its parts even though none of its parts exhibits that property.

An analogy is false if the similarities are not relevant to the conclusion.  In this case, the similarities are completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant to the conclusion.

We know why water is wet.  From Wikipedia:

Water is the chemical substance with chemical formula H 2O one molecule of water has two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to a single oxygen atom.  Water is a tasteless, odorless liquid at ambient temperature and pressure, and appears colorless in small quantities, although it has its own intrinsic very light blue hue. Ice also appears colorless, and water vapor is essentially invisible as a gas.

Water is primarily a liquid under standard conditions, which is not predicted from its relationship to other analogous hydrides of the oxygen family in the periodic table, which are gases such as hydrogen sulfide. The elements surrounding oxygen in the periodic table, nitrogen, fluorine, phosphorus, sulfur and chlorine, all combine with hydrogen to produce gases under standard conditions. The reason that water forms a liquid is that oxygen is more electronegative than all of these elements with the exception of fluorine. Oxygen attracts electrons much more strongly than hydrogen, resulting in a net positive charge on the hydrogen atoms, and a net negative charge on the oxygen atom. The presence of a charge on each of these atoms gives each water molecule a net dipole moment. Electrical attraction between water molecules due to this dipole pulls individual molecules closer together, making it more difficult to separate the molecules and therefore raising the boiling point. This attraction is known as hydrogen bonding.

In summary, we know why water has the emergent property of wetness (i.e., it is a liquid at certain temperatures even though its constituent parts would not be a liquid at those same temperatures).  We know, that is, that the parts of water are causally adequate to account for the properties of the whole, including the emergent property “wetness,” and we know exactly why that is the case.   If we had reason to know that the parts of the brain were causally adequate to result in consciousness, then that analogy would be apt.  But we don’t.  In fact, just exactly the opposite is true.   We don’t have the first idea how, even in principle, the physical properties of the brain are causally adequate to account for the mental properties of the mind.

Therefore, the analogy to the wetness of water gets us exactly nowhere, because we simply have no reason (other than materialist metaphysical faith commitments) to believe that the wetness of the water is similar in relevant respects to the consciousness of the brain.  In fact, we have good reason to believe that the physical can ever be, even in principal, causally adequate to result in the mental, far less actual knowledge of how that is the case, as we do with water.

Popperian’s analogy gets us no further than demonstrating that that emergence is possible under certain conditions for certain systems.  But no one disputes that.  The question is not whether emergence is possible.  Of course it is.  The question is whether emergence occurred.  And merely pointing out that emergence is possible gets us nowhere with respect to the question of whether emergence actually occurred.  With respect to that question, Popperian has not given us the slightest hint of a nod toward an explanation of how that could have happened, and there are good reasons to believe it could not.

Not only has Popperian committed the fallacy of false analogy, but he also has committed the fallacy of “affirming the consequent.” This error takes the following form:

If P, then Q.

Q.

Therefore, P.

The reason this is false is because there may be other causes of P besides Q, as the following example demonstrates.

If it is raining the streets are wet.

The streets are wet.

Therefore it is raining.

Why is this reasoning invalid?  Because while it is certainly the case that if it is raining the streets will be wet; the converse is not also true.  The streets can be wet when there is not a cloud in the sky (as for example when a fire hydrant breaks).

Here is how Popperain affirms the consequent when he invokes emergence to account for consciousness:

If there are emergent properties, the whole has properties that cannot be reduced to the properties of its individual physical components.

The mind/brain system has properties that cannot be reduced to the properties of its individual physical components (i.e., consciousness).

Therefore, the mind/brain system exhibits emergent properties.

Why is this affirming the consequent?  Because there could be another reason besides emergence to account for consciousness, namely, the existence of an immaterial mind.

Popperian, the streets are wet.  That does not necessarily mean it is raining.  Write that down.

Comments
Trolling, obfuscation, dishonesty, sophistry -- all in the cause of nihilistic irrationality (and amorality). I'd be surprised if he'd still be permitted to peddle his wares here.Silver Asiatic
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
Has Zachriel been banned?Daniel King
August 23, 2015
August
08
Aug
23
23
2015
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
bornagain77- Ask Zachriel for a link to the theory of evolution. :cool:Virgil Cain
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Zach, my invitation for you to go soak your obfuscating head stands. This is my last reply to your baiting.bornagain77
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
bornagain77: I am quite satisfied that readers can clearly understand my post You used the term "neo-Darwinian evolution". You have refused to say how you are using the term. Your argument is moot if you can't define what it is you are arguing against.Zachriel
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Zachriel, you are not a 'we'. Since you can't even master the proper use of pronouns, I certainly don't want to tax you any further. Moreover, I am quite satisfied that readers can clearly understand my post without your, ahem, 'help'. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/remedial-logic-for-materialists/#comment-576907bornagain77
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
bornagain77: Do you need help ... Yes. We want to know how you are using the term neo-darwinian evolution in order to better understand your position.Zachriel
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Do you need help soaking your obfuscating head? I've got the perfect guy in mind: http://pre00.deviantart.net/e221/th/pre/i/2013/104/0/9/executioner_concept_by_fed0t-d61orny.jpg Let me know how it goes for you. And if he finally convinces you to discuss a topic without trying to render it obscure, unclear, and/or unintelligible.bornagain77
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Well, you might start with a succinct definition of “neo-Darwinian evolution”. bornagain77, You commented, but didn't answer.Zachriel
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
podcast - "Dr. Cornelius Hunter: False Predictions of Darwinian Evolution, pt. 1" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2015-08-20T15_41_41-07_00bornagain77
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
Zachriel, you might go soak your obfuscating head.bornagain77
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
bornagain77: And in that regards, neo-Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a real science in the first place but is more realistically qualified as a pseudo-science. Well, you might start with a succinct definition of "neo-Darwinian evolution".Zachriel
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
Zach states:
In science, all claims are considered tentative, though some are “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”
Actually, it would be better to say that in science a theory can only be considered scientific to the degree that it is falsifiable. And in that regards, neo-Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a real science in the first place but is more realistically qualified as a pseudo-science.
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge
neo-Darwinism simply has no rigid mathematical basis, as other overarching theories of science have, to test against to potentially falsify the supposed 'theory':
“In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history’s inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike “harder” scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.” - Jerry A. Coyne – Of Vice and Men, The New Republic April 3, 2000 p.27 - professor of Darwinian evolution at the University of Chicago “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.,, Consistent with the laws of conservation of information, natural selection can only work using the guidance of active information, which can be provided only by a designer. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science - Harald Atmanspacher Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/paulijcs8.pdf
Imre Lakatos tipped toed around the fact that Darwinism does not have rigid demarcation criteria to test against so as to potentially falsify Darwinisn and to separate it from pseudo-science,,,
A Philosophical Question...Does Evolution have a Hard Core ? Some Concluding Food for Thought In my research on the demarcation problem, I have noticed philosophers of science attempting to balance (usually unconsciously) a consistent demarcation criteria against the the disruptive effects that it’s application might have with regard to the academic status quo (and evolution in particular)… Few philosophers of science will even touch such matters, but (perhaps unintentionally) Imre Lakatos does offer us a peek at how one might go about balancing these schizophrenic demands (in Motterlini1999: 24) “Let us call the first school militant positivism; you will understand why later on. The problem of this school was to find certain demarcation criteria similar to those I have outlined, but these also had to satisfy certain boundary conditions, as a mathematician would say. I am referring to a definite set of people to which most scientists as well as Popper and Carnap would belong. These people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with (but this is just my supposition) Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.” So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off… http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htm
Lakatos, although he tipped toed around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria as other overarching theories of science have, he was at least brave enough to state that a good scientific theory will make successful predictions in science whereas a bad theory will generate ‘epicyclic theories’ to cover up embarrassing failed predictions:
Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) - “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[12] he also claimed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”. Almost 20 years after Lakatos's 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that “our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts...Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.” ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Darwin.27s_theory
And in regards to making false predictions, neo-Darwinism is now revealed to be, in Lakatos's words, a 'degenerating programme'.
Darwin's (failed) Predictions - Cornelius G. Hunter - 2015 This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory. *Introduction Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Responses to common objections *Early evolution predictions The DNA code is not unique The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal *Evolutionary causes predictions Mutations are not adaptive Embryology and common descent Competition is greatest between neighbors *Molecular evolution predictions Protein evolution Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time *Common descent predictions The pentadactyl pattern and common descent Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships Biology is not lineage specific Similar species share similar genes MicroRNA *Evolutionary phylogenies predictions Genomic features are not sporadically distributed Gene and host phylogenies are congruent Gene phylogenies are congruent The species should form an evolutionary tree *Evolutionary pathways predictions Complex structures evolved from simpler structures Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved Nature does not make leaps *Behavior Altruism Cell death *Conclusions What false predictions tell us about evolution https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
A few more related quotes:
"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter "When their expectations turn out to be false, evolutionists respond by adding more epicycles to their theory that the species arose spontaneously from chance events. But that doesn’t mean the science has confirmed evolution as Velasco suggests. True, evolutionists have remained steadfast in their certainty, but that says more about evolutionists than about the empirical science." ~ Cornelius Hunter Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition - June 17, 2014 Excerpt: "With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony." - Cornelius Hunter http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/heres-that-algae-study-that-decouples.html
bornagain77
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Ray Martinez: You mean in Naturalism “science” nothing is provable, not even your own existence. Isn’t that true? In science, all claims are considered tentative, though some are "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."Zachriel
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT
A women's right to control her person ends upon conception. Then she becomes the guardian and lifeline to another human being. Upon conception, she has every RESPONSIBILITY to see that the unborn child has all that is requires to come to physical maturity, and that includes AFTER birth as well. That is what a just, moral, rational society does. Anything else is just playing the lame victimization game to find an out to an undesirable situation. Moral, just, rational people take responsibility for their actions. They especially do not take their life's frustrations out on helpless, unborn children!
Same thing with abortion. It’s not something I would personally choose, or advocate as a course of action, but I fully support the liberty of others to choose as they see fit. So long as it doesn’t impinge on the rights of other persons, and I don’t see that it does, they should be free to proceed as they choose. To deny that choice to woman, on the other hand, WOULD be impinging on her right to privacy and liberty, to control her own person.
Steve
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
As well, though not nearly as dramatic as the mindfulness within the body is, it has now been established that consciousness can reach outside the body to have marked effects on the double slit experiment. Dean Radin, who spent years at Princeton testing different aspects of consciousness, recently performed experiments testing the possible role of consciousness in the double slit. His results were, not so surprisingly, very supportive of consciousness’s central role in the experiment:
Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: six experiments – Radin – 2012 Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s(seconds). Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4:36, p = 6·10^-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0:43, p = 0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem. http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%20Essays%20Radin%20final.pdf Psychophysical (i.e., mind–matter) interactions with a double-slit interference pattern - Dean Radin, Leena Michel, James Johnston, and Arnaud Delorme - December 2013 Abstract: Previously reported experiments suggested that interference patterns generated by a double-slit optical system were perturbed by a psychophysical (i.e., mind–matter) interaction. Three new experiments were conducted to further investigate this phenomenon. The first study consisted of 50 half-hour test sessions where participants concentrated their attention-toward or -away from a double-slit system located 3 m away. The spectral magnitude and phase associated with the double-slit component of the interference pattern were compared between the two attention conditions, and the combined results provided evidence for an interaction,,,. One hundred control sessions using the same equipment, protocol and analysis, but without participants present, showed no effect,,,. The second experiment used a duplicate double-slit system and similar test protocol, but it was conducted over the Internet by streaming data to participants’ web browsers. Some 685 people from six continents contributed 2089 experimental sessions. Results were similar to those observed in the first experiment, but smaller in magnitude,,,. Data from 2303 control sessions, conducted automatically every 2 h using the same equipment but without observers showed no effect. Distance between participants and the optical system, ranging from 1 km to 18,000 km, showed no correlation with experimental effect size. The third experiment used a newly designed double-slit system, a revised test protocol, and a simpler method of statistical analysis. Twenty sessions contributed by 10 participants successfully replicated the interaction effect observed in the first two studies. http://deanradin.com/evidence/RadinPhysicsEssays2013.pdf
Thus, it is not as if there is no evidence whatsoever that mind can effect matter as you pretend Daniel. There is plenty of evidence for within body control by the mind, and there is even evidence for outside the body control by the mind, though admittedly not nearly as pronounced as within body control. All in all, especially considering the epistemological failure that atheists wind up in when they deny that they have free will, I consider the case for agent causality to be a slam dunk for Theists:
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain. (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. per Box UD
Verse and Music:
Matthew 16:26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? Brandon Heath - No Turning Back (Official Lyric Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_TGh9-iabM
bornagain77
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
Daniel King you ask
"Does the immaterial mind interact at all with anything material? How does your immaterial mind communicate with your typing fingers?"
And exactly why should agent causality more mysterious to you than the blind causality that you believe in as an atheist? If anything the blind causality of atheists is far more mysterious, even far more illogical, than the agent causality of theists. Professor J. Budziszewski puts the situation like this for atheists
A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - University of Wyoming - J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: "There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don't know. "But there is gravity," you say. No, "gravity" is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. "But there are laws of gravity," you say. No, the "laws" are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term "laws"; they prefer "lawlike regularities." To call the equations of gravity "laws" and speak of the apple as "obeying" them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the "laws" of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn't trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn't have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place." http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - 2012 talk University of Wyoming J. Budziszewski http://veritas.org/talks/professors-journey-out-nihilism-why-i-am-not-atheist/?view=presenters&speaker_id=2231
Daniel King you wanted to know, "How does your immaterial mind communicate with your typing fingers?". But I want to know if it is not the personal agent of me freely writing my post with my own typing fingers, then exactly what laws of physics are writing my letter for me if it is not the personal agent of me doing it? As far as I know Illusions of physical processes can't freely choose to write letters. At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that:
"consciousness is an illusion"
A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins
”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. Dawkins vs Williams - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s
at 37:51 minute mark of following video, according to the law of identity, Richard Dawkins does not exist as a person: (the unity of Aristotelian Form is also discussed) i.e. ironically, in atheists denying that God really exists, they end up denying that they themselves really exist as real persons.
Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s
In the following, Richard Dawkins admits that it impossible for him to live consistently within his atheistic worldview
Who wrote Richard Dawkins's new book? - October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html
In the following article, Dr. Nelson clearly articulates the irreconcilable difficulty that engulfs atheistic materialism in their denial of agent causality
Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let's Dump Methodological Naturalism - Paul Nelson - September 24, 2014 Excerpt: "Epistemology -- how we know -- and ontology -- what exists -- are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, "We cannot know that a mind caused x," laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won't include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn't write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. "That's crazy," you reply, "I certainly did write my email." Okay, then -- to what does the pronoun "I" in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse -- i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss -- we haven't the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world -- such as your email, a real pattern -- we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,, some feature of "intelligence" must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we're back to physics versus physics, and there's nothing for SETI to look for.",,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set090071.html
And although Dr. Nelson alluded to writing an e-mail, (i.e. creating information), to tie his ‘personal agent’ argument into intelligent design, Dr. Nelson’s ‘personal agent’ argument can easily be amended to any action that ‘you’, as a personal agent, choose to take:
“You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t open the door. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t raise your hand. Physics did, and informed the illusion you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t etc.. etc.. etc… Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.”
Dr. Craig Hazen, in the following video at the 12:26 minute mark, relates how he performed, for an audience full of academics at a college, a ‘miracle’ simply by raising his arm,,
The Intersection of Science and Religion – Craig Hazen, PhD – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xVByFjV0qlE#t=746s
What should be needless to say, if freely raising your arm whenever you freely choose to do so is enough to refute your supposedly ‘scientific’ worldview of atheistic materialism, then perhaps it is time for you to seriously consider getting a new scientific worldview? Moreover, it is not as if agent causality is limited to any action that I may freely choose to take with my body, i.e. raise my hand, open a door, etc... There is now evidence that mind can also have pronounced effects on the brain itself. 'Brain Plasticity' to a person's focused intention has now been established by Jeffrey Schwartz, as well as has been established among other researchers.
The Case for the Soul - InspiringPhilosophy - (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Schwartz's work) - Oct. 2014 - video The Mind is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity). Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism cannot explain mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
Moreover, completely contrary to materialistic thought, mind has also now been shown to have the ability to reach all the way down and have pronounced effects on the gene expression of our bodies:
Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, - December 10, 2013 Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.,,, the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways. http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes/
bornagain77
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
Ray Martinez, Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy, and is what Peter was talking about above. He described an argument of the form:
If P then Q Q Therefore P
which is obviously invalid. Assuming the conclusion is an informal fallacy where you assume what you are trying to prove, usually in a nonobvious way.daveS
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
How to derail your own thread, ostensibly about the illogic of persons who question the existence of immaterial minds: @20:
eigenstate is evil...abortion, etc.
@23:
I’m curious Zachriel. Are you, like eigenstate, in favor of chopping up little unborn babies and selling their parts like meat?
If there's any chance of getting back on topic, I'd still like to know if the expert on immaterialism can answer:
Does the immaterial mind interact at all with anything material? How does your immaterial mind communicate with your typing fingers?
Daniel King
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Ray, I don't accept common descent. Although "immutable” is a loose term within Darwinian hands, I do hold creatures to 'reproduce after their kind'. For instance, although their is tremendous variation within the dog kind, I hold that you will never get a transformation to say a cat from the dog kind. (to the relief of cats everywhere) :) None of the evidences, (i.e. laboratory, genetic and fossil evidences), support unlimited plasticity as Darwinists claim they do. In fact there is much evidence supporting hard limits. For instance, Behe's two protein-protein binding site 'Edge of Evolution'
Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that 'for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years' (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.,,, The difficulty with models such as Durrett and Schmidt’s is that their biological relevance is often uncertain, and unknown factors that are quite important to cellular evolution may be unintentionally left out of the model. That is why experimental or observational data on the evolution of microbes such as P. falciparum are invaluable,,, http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 "The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146
In the following video Dr. Behe talks of the 2014 verification of his 1 in 10^20 limit by experiment
Michael Behe – Observed Limits of Evolution – video – Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA
bornagain77
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
Zachriel (msg #42): "In science, one doesn’t prove a hypothesis, but supports it." You mean in Naturalism "science" nothing is provable, not even your own existence. Isn't that true?Ray Martinez
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
bornagain77 (msg #73): Whatever daveS. Darwinism is a evidence free, mathematical proof free, pseudo-science and I’m sure Darwinists, since they have no real empirical evidence to back up their grandiose claims, have used every logical fallacy in the book to try to support their preposterous theory.
. So does that mean you accept species immutability (which is my position)? "I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained—namely, that each species has been independently created—is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable" (Darwin "On The Origin" 1859:6; London: John Murray). Before 1859 science held "each species" immutable, created independently. After this date evolution and Materialism rose in science. So you and many others here at Uncommon Descent oppose Materialism and evolution tooth and nail yet all of you accept the MAIN CLAIM of both: species mutability. Tell me I'm wrong? Wouldn't mind one bit.Ray Martinez
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
daveS (msg#72): Affirming the consequent is not the same as assuming the conclusion.
Please explain the difference.Ray Martinez
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington: Which one is the lie Z? It's bad enough you can't accurately read our comments, but now you can't even read your own comments. The first is a question about selling, the latter is a question about distribution. (As already indicated, we ignored the overloading in both cases.)Zachriel
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Zachriel at comment 52:
Q. Are you in favor of chopping up little babies and selling the pieces like meat? A. No.
Zachriel at comment 62:
Q. Are you in favor of allowing Planned Parenthood to chop up little unborn babies and distribute their pieces like meat as part of their fetal tissue donation program? A. When a woman decides on a legal abortion, donating the tissue for medicine is appropriate.
Which one is the lie Z? They can't both be true.Barry Arrington
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Whatever daveS. Darwinism is a evidence free, mathematical proof free, pseudo-science and I'm sure Darwinists, since they have no real empirical evidence to back up their grandiose claims, have used every logical fallacy in the book to try to support their preposterous theory. The Adventures of Fallacy Man - Existential Comics http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9 The Adventures of Fallacy Man part II - Existential Comics http://existentialcomics.com/comic/21bornagain77
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
BA77, Affirming the consequent is not the same as assuming the conclusion.daveS
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
daveS, the fallacy is everywhere! Off the top of my head, both genetic sequencing and cladistics both 'assume the conclusion' of Darwinian evolution in their analysis. So any textbook that mentions those two examples as proof for Darwinism are 'assuming their conclusion' In fact, the empirical findings of ENCODE, findings of widespread functionality in the genome, were challenged by Darwinists with a paper that had 'assumed the conclusion' of common descent in their analysis of genetic sequences.
DNA mostly 'junk?' Only 8.2 percent of human DNA is 'functional', study finds - July 24, 2014 Excerpt: To reach their (8.2%) figure, the Oxford University group took advantage of the ability of evolution to discern which activities matter and which do not. They identified how much of our genome has avoided accumulating changes over 100 million years of mammalian evolution -- a clear indication that this DNA matters, it has some important function that needs to be retained. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140724141608.htm
i.e. So according to these Darwinian critics of the ENCODE study, which found widespread functionality for 'junk' DNA by direct experimental research, functionality does not determine if a sequence is actually functional, only 'conservation of sequence' determines what is functional? So basically, only if Darwinian evolution is assumed as true at the outset will Darwinists be willing to accept that a given sequence of 'junk' DNA may be functional!,, That is called 'assuming your conclusion into your premise' and is absolutely horrible science! I suggest Jonathan Well's 'Icons of Evolution' to find more examples of Darwinists 'assuming their conclusion' and/or grossly misrepresenting evidence:
Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Ape to Man: The Ultimate Icon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzTFeWL19Bs Icons Playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS2RPQAPifs6t__mIAqITpYy
bornagain77
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
BA77, Peter says this fallacy is in the evolution textbooks. Can you help by finding some examples?daveS
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
daveS, before you claim that Darwinists do not 'assume their conclusion', I would urge you to provide just one real time example of Darwinian evolution creating just a single gene and/or protein. That would go a long way towards helping you make your case that they don't. Dr. Behe surveyed four decades of lab work and found no evidence for unguided material processes creating a single novel gene and/or protein. In fact, in direct contradiction to neo-Darwinian claims, he found unguided material processes to overwhelmingly degrade existing information to gain an adaptive advantage rather than ever building information up.
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
bornagain77
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply