Upright Biped Explains Emergence

_{Barry Arrington

February 22, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

In a comment to a prior post Tom quotes a Darwinist article regarding the source of information at the origin of life: “The idea is to give them enough information wherewithal [genetic building blocks] so they can start inventing their own solutions rather than just optimizing existing solutions,”

To which Tom responds:

The key word here is information. The key issue is how does a philosophy (naturalism) explain the existence of information within the confines of its explanatory resources? Since the very definition of naturalism includes the idea that the universe is causally closed (that is all causes ultimately resolve in physical laws – NOT mind) and therefore that the laws of physics ONLY have explanatory power, how then do they account for information?

They cannot. Information requires language. All languages are comprised of symbols and rules for the arrangement of those symbols. It is impossible to have information apart from a language. It is equally impossible for the laws of physics to explain either symbols or the rules that govern the use of those symbols. Therefore, naturalism can never, ever, explain information, and thus life. When darwinism succumbs to the next naturalist explanation of life (evo-devo or whatever) the new explanation will face the same insurmountable challenge. How to explain information in terms of physics and time? The game is over but we seem to still be playing. Why is that? I think it must be rebellion against Reason.

To which Upright Biped replies (tongue in cheek)

Emergence, Tom. Emergence.
Information is an emergent property of matter. Mind is an emergent property of matter. Free will is an emergent property of matter. Irreducible complexity is an emergent property of matter. Specification is an emergent property of matter. Semiosis is an emergent property of matter. Homeostasis is an emergent property of matter. Functionality is an emergent property of matter. Discontinuous coordination is an emergent property of matter. Algorithms are an emergent property of matter.

Now, exactly how this all happens, no one has even a conceptual clue, but that is precisly the beauty of its explanatory power.

Emergence is an emergent property of matter.

It’s just the kind of powerful empiricism that the unsophisticated God-of-the-Gaps crowd is literally too dense to appreciate.

Both Tom and Upright are, of course, correct. The search for a materialist source of information is futile. Undirected natural processes do not have the “right stuff” to generate the complex specified information necessary for life to exist. And the materialists’ increasingly frequent resort to the concept of “emergence” is laughable. Emergence = Materialist miracle. See my “Materialist Poofery” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/materialist-poofery/ for an extended discussion on the topic.

Bottom line: When materialists resort to “magic” by another name, we need to call them on it.

Comments

New age thinking is not at all anti science. The mainstream scientific world is biased and closed minded in several areas. Many new age scientists and those who follow their thought are often on the cutting edge of scientific thinking. Furthermore, these types are almost always interested in a worldview that integrates scientific knowledge with spirituality.avocationist_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT}

uoflcard, Excellent!Upright BiPed_{February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

Lock @26,
Toronto: I think that assuming that words have an objective meaning leads to misunderstanding.”
Yet you agree that they do? And we work out any misunderstanding by once again, using words and being reasonable?
I'll try once more. We shouldn't assume words have an objective meaning. I agree they have a subjective meaning. That means you may use a word differently than I. If I realize that could be the case, I can try using more neutral terms to begin with.Toronto_{February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

uoflcard @25 I agree that starting with the pressuposition that everything is reducible to matter (or 'physicality') is biased to the highest degree. It is an ecclesiastical proclamation, not a scientific proposition. It would be like saying everything is reducible to spirit or mind (the immaterial) before even investigating. Who does that? Excepting perhaps the occasional atheist scientist after investigating the quantum who was referenced in another thread. :)Lock_{February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Toronto: I think that assuming that words have an objective meaning leads to misunderstanding." Yet you agree that they do? And we work out any misunderstanding by once again, using words and being reasonable?Lock_{February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Can someone explain the existence of information ? Does information exist as an independant thing ? Can it be destroyed ?Graham_{February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

#20 - Lock:
Toronto:
“But it’s not logic that gets us into trouble, it’s defining the inputs.”
I agree wholeheartedly. That is most often the problem. I think most often they are called presuppositions or assumptions. They are the beliefs we bring to the issue beforehand.
This is the problem with most naturalists' thinking. They bring to the table the assumption that everything is reducible. Natural evolution was a solidified "fact" long before the argument from the other side was even available (complex, specified information, etc.). I believe the proper thought should be that it is possible for something to not be reducible to chemistry and physics and we should accept the more favorable theory based on logic. Example: There is dead tree laying across a stream of water. There is both a natural and intelligent explanation. Naturally, it could have fallen there. Intelligently, it could have been placed there by people. If there is a stump right next to it (or even still partially attached) and there is no sign of human activity in the immediate vicinity, the natural solution would be the more reasonable choice. But if there is no stump next to it, there is a path leading to the tree where it appeared to be dragged and there are footprints all around it, including on the tree, it appears to have been intelligently placed for use as a bridge. If biological origins are in fact not reducible to natural law, this viewpoint is open to it. Naturalists eliminate this possibility from their philosophical starting point. Therefore, if there is an irreducible source of mind, they are logically incapable of accounting for it within their current worldview. So when statistics like "95% of the NAS are atheists" are claimed, it is no wonder that natural evolution is still accepted as fact "by most reputable scientists". "95%" are logically incapable of any other possibility as determined by their worldview filter. That is why natural evolution has had an existence as a theory unlike any other in the history of science. Contradiction after contradiction, problem after problem have led not to rejection of the theory but to unique interpretations of the data at each step along the way. The result is a complex theory incapable of explaining complex, specified information. But while they have yet to account for this, rest assured, natural evolution is fact. We just need to figure out why.uoflcard_{February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Lock @20,
I’ll give you another… we are told by many that language cannot capture reality, or that words have no objective meaning. Those are pressupositions…
I think that assuming that words have an objective meaning leads to misunderstanding. Walk into any American restaurant and scream "duck". Almost every single person will react by putting their hands over their heads and crouching down. Try that in a restaurant in China. People will look at you blankly. So you quickly ask someone around you for the Chinese word for duck. You scream it out and watch as people stare at you blankly again. A waiter walks toward you and in perfect English says, "Sir, you'll just have to wait your turn to order food." Say any sentence at all to an American while rolling your eyes up and you've just called him an idiot. Either that or you're indicating sarcasm which means take anything I just said and assume I meant the opposite. If you smile at the same time, it means we're laughing at them, but if it's a smirk, it means I'm laughing at you. That's a lot of communication for not knowing any of the words in the message.Toronto_{February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Hmmm... the assumptions with additions are... 1) Matter emerges to lower life forms 2) then Higher life forms ----------- Additions... 3) Higher Life forms manipulate matter 4) Higher life forms create lower life forms 5) Higher life forms create emergent matter? Matter -> Information -> Perception -> Language, Communication -> Mind -> Mind maniuplates matter -> etc. This would make Allen happy I think from his cyclical perspective of life(if thats what he believes). But, we do not know what is outside of our own universe. If you remove the Mind, do you have information? I think so. The matter is still there, therefore properties to be discovered by a mind are still resident. Language and communication disappears. But can "emergence" continue in a loop without a mind? Just through collisions in a universe or "multi-verse"? If the magical emergent property exist is it cyclical? Otherwise, its a one time event without a Mind. This would tie in that our universe is a cycle of boom and bust. But again, what is outside our known universe? Another Mind or more "emergent" matter? Is there any logic that can help determine this? Can a mind create an emergent object that recreates itself and accumulates information? We do this in software today. How far behind is hardware?DATCG_{February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT}

William J Murray, "And thus we have come to the real meaning of post-modern langauge, where words are used only as a means to trigger emotive and instinctive responses that get readers and listeners psychologicallly “positioned” for whatever ends one has in mind. What a word means doesn’t matter; the reaction it creates in listeners is what matters." Indeed. Recently I was reading up on Oprah Winfrey's 'theology,' which she gets mainly from a new age guru named Tolle. She stated on her show that belief in Jesus is not important, what's important is that we have 'Christ consciousness,' and then she proceeded to not explain exactly what she means, while the audience members nodded their heads in approval. It's astonishing that they could be so ignorant as to escape the realization that 'Christ consciousness' also requires some element of belief. I think you hit the nail on the head with your statement. New age thinking (which is anti-science) seems to be everywhere, even (sadly) among thinking people. The belief that ID does not deal with science for example, is more an emotional appeal than a statement that is carefully squared with science itself. We need to continue being like the pesky child who repeatedly asks 'but why?' when faced with the Darwinists' refusal to seek a solution to their infinite regress problem, while giving us tautological solutions that don't work. Emergence doesn't solve it, it only makes the problem more obvious.CannuckianYankee_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

Emergence appears to be tautological along the lines of "It is what it is." In other words, information is an emergent property of matter simply because, well.... that's what matter does.CannuckianYankee_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

Toronto: "But it’s not logic that gets us into trouble, it’s defining the inputs." I agree wholeheartedly. That is most often the problem. I think most often they are called presuppositions or assumptions. They are the beliefs we bring to the issue beforehand. Your analogy was a very simple one, but it works beautifully: Ford or Chevy? So it seems to me that we need to use logic to examine our assumptions. If we agree that logic is the objective arbitor, then it ought to serve us in examining our own beliefs as well. If logic is valid, and truely reveals objective reality, then our pressupositions about it must also be logical or naturally they will never fit. Science begins with a pressuposition too. A pressumption that reason is valid. And that is a self sustaining proposition so we can trust it. However, if I believe there is no objective absolute truth, then I cannot logically believe the very thing I believe. It is plainly and very visibly illogical. But many do not apply logic there because that is their pressuposition. Methodological naturalism has the same difficulty. We are told that empirical evidence is of primary importance. That is just nonsense! Facts tell us nothing apart from logic. Of primary importance is that the evidence be arranged and complied in a logical pattern. So, the very definition of science itself (since the revolution) has a deep logical flaw. I'll give you another... we are told by many that language cannot capture reality, or that words have no objective meaning. Those are pressupositions... And yetthey use words and language to catch us up to speed on the reality of that. If you really believe in logic, then you have to reject all of those contradictory beliefs and pressupositions.Lock_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

The problem with "emergent" is not that it serves as a placeholder, but rather it assumes that the phenomena it stands in for are reducible to properties of matter. It's handwaving in regards to the difficult aspects of materialist reductionism.Apollos_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

Seversky: "As for emergent properties, I see it, not as an explanation in itself, but as a placeholder for a detailed explanation that we don’t yet have." Yes of course you are correct. Another name for this is "emergence of the gaps."Barry Arrington_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Lock @13,
It’s like I basically just said to Toronto in the thread that spawned this one… logic is the one thing none of us can question.
But it's not logic that gets us into trouble, it's defining the inputs. Here's an example. A: "Chevy Camaros are better than Ford Mustangs." B: "Prove it!" A: "Okay. Since GM makes better cars than Ford, it logically follows that Camaros are better than Mustangs." It's the data we supply to our truth tables that is important.Toronto_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

And lets remember we do it ourselves far more often than we should.Lock_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

They can say whatever they wish. It is the fact they demand it of you and your responses that reveals the truth. ----------------- None of us at bottom really questions whether the dots (or tree rings) should match the rest of the pattern without contradiction or the least possible contradiction. There is no other way for our reasoning to be valid. That is why we do experiments. To see if what we think, actually works in the world external to our own theories and mind. Fortunately, our satellites do make it to their target once we truely understand better how things 'really' are. The problem we (as a species) seem to have, is that we have an idea (philosphy) that we are truely invested in. When evidence does not agree, it 'seems' illogical (unreasonable) to us only because there is a contradiction between genuine external reality and our theory. But notice that that is not the same thing as a contradiction in the external reality itself. What it does show, is the universal belief that contradiction equals a problem. And by extention, how much we really believe in and rely upon logic and coherence as our only objective light by whcih to see reality.Lock_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

"If there is one universal, (if I may ‘Holy’), and objective format by which to cut through any subjectivity, it is logic." The problem is that many ID critics that frequent this forum reject logic when it suites them. Just ask StephenB Vividvividbleau_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

Seversky: "There is a widespread assumption that information is a property of physical systems like the molecules of DNA but there is also a minority opinion, to which I tend to subscribe, that information is more a property of the models we construct to try and understand the world...." Unfortunately that is itself just another model. ..."I will quote again the example of tree-rings. A dendrochronologist can study them and extract information about the tree’s history and the climate in which it grew. I look at tree-rings and see tree-rings. So is there information in the tree-rings or is it what emerges when they are added to what the scientist already knows. In other words, is it in the mind of the observer rather than in the tree-rings themselves?" If it is only in the mind of the observer, then the scientist knows nothing. There are many ways to point out the problem. I like the way C.S. Lewis put it... "…Unless human reasoning is valid, no science can be true. It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory itself would have been arrived at by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved no argument was sound -a proof that there are no such things as proofs- which is nonsense.” ( C.S. Lewis / Miracles / Chap 3 The Cardinal difficulty of Naturalism pgs 21,22 ) It's like I basically just said to Toronto in the thread that spawned this one... logic is the one thing none of us can question. By what means would we presume to do so? If there is one universal, (if I may 'Holy'), and objective format by which to cut through any subjectivity, it is logic.Lock_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

The key word here is information.
As it always has been in these discussions, but which version? We talk blithely about information as if we are all in agreement about what it means. But is that the case? Need I remind you that Dr Dembski quoted Seth Shostak as listing some forty separate definitions of information and complexity. Which one of those are we talking about? There is a widespread assumption that information is a property of physical systems like the molecules of DNA but there is also a minority opinion, to which I tend to subscribe, that information is more a property of the models we construct to try and understand the world. I will quote again the example of tree-rings. A dendrochronologist can study them and extract information about the tree's history and the climate in which it grew. I look at tree-rings and see tree-rings. So is there information in the tree-rings or is it what emerges when they are added to what the scientist already knows. In other words, is it in the mind of the observer rather than in the tree-rings themselves? As for emergent properties, I see it, not as an explanation in itself, but as a placeholder for a detailed explanation that we don't yet have. We cannot deduce the many strange properties of water from a knowledge of the chemistry of hydrogen and oxygen. That does not necessarily mean an explanation does not exist. We assume that it does but we have not yet been able to string together all the links in the chain of cause and effect linking the elements to the properties of the compound.Seversky_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

If the ID side wants to see this ID/Evo debate get in front of a judge or any like authority, we need to define some solid terms.Toronto_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

And thus we have come to the real meaning of post-modern langauge, where words are used only as a means to trigger emotive and instinctive responses that get readers and listeners psychologicallly "positioned" for whatever ends one has in mind. What a word means doesn't matter; the reaction it creates in listeners is what matters.William J. Murray_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

SCheesman $@7 It gets better...I mean, the faith of this whole emergent movement is quite revealing. Taken to it's extreme far implications, the multiverse is just an emergent property of something (material, of course), that we have absolutely no evidence for. Anyone who resorts to appealing to the multiverse (which is emergent) and all that is emergent within the multiverse, is demonstrating emergent faith.Bantay_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

SCheesman, Nature herself was naturally selected for against all other unnatural natures! She herself won out against competing natures and then began the multiverse! Haha. This is fun.Clive Hayden_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Oh, this is fun. In the multiverse, only those universes in which natural selection operated managed to survive produced beings capable of comprehending it. Hence natural selection was naturally selected for.SCheesman_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

I think, but cannot be quite sure, that meaning and purpose are also emergent properties of matter. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/design-operates-at-multiple-levels/#comment-348411Charlie_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

If I count the fingers on my hand I get the value '5'. Is that 'information' ? I presume it is. So, does this value '5' have some sort of independant existence ? The 2 questions I have are: 1. Did this information exist before I did the count ? 2. Will it exist after I die ?Graham_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

Information storage and processing capabilities of the cell exist because they were selected for. Back in the day, organisms that contained massively complex and specified information processing systems had a survival advantage over those that didn't, and won out in the end. After all, that's what we see today.Apollos_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Dignity, freedom, all value judgments, are "emergent" properties from material. What does emergent mean? No one knows. Because, presumably, that explanation hasn't emerged yet. ;)Clive Hayden_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

absolutist @1,
Emergence is another name for the problem we are trying to solve, not a solution.
I’ll repeat it here. I think that may be the best description for the entire ID/Evo debate that I have ever seen.Toronto_{February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply