Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

WD400 Doubles Down on Dobzhansky’s Maxim

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Readers may recall that in a recent post I quoted molecular biologist wd400 undermining Theodosius Dobzhansky’s silly maxim that “nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution” when he asserted that a lot of molecular biologists, including world-famous leader of the human genome project Francis Collins, “don’t understand much about evolution.”

I noted that it follows as a matter of simple logic that Dobzhansky was wrong if one of the world’s leading biologists can do his job perfectly well without even understanding evolution, far less depending on it to make sense of everything.

Today wd400 doubled down when he asserted that not only does Collins not understand evolution, but in fact he is dead wrong about key aspects of the theory, such as junk DNA, HGT and gene counts.

Simple logic again:  One can be dead wrong about key aspects of modern evolutionary theory and still lead to a successful conclusion one of greatest undertakings in applied biology in the history of the world.

That swirling sound you hear is Dobzhansky’s maxim circling the drain.

UPDATE:

I pointed out to wd400 that if Collins does not understand evolution and in fact is dead wrong about key aspects of the theory, Dobzhansky’s maxim implies that Collins can’t “make sense” of the human genome, even though he was the head of the human genome project.

Frankly, I expected wd400 to back down in the face of this reductio ad absurdum argument.  He did not.  He tripled down on his claim and said: “I also very much doubt Collins himself would say the genome ‘makes sense’ to him.”

Yet again we have an example of someone willing to sacrifice rationality itself for the sake of their creation myth.  wd400 please do us all a favor.  Never poke fun at those religious “fundies.”  It would be hypocritical.

 

Comments
bornagain @ 27
In the preceding debate Dr Craig states that atheist Dr. Rosenberg blurs together Epistemological Naturalism, which holds that science is the only source of knowledge and, Metaphysical Naturalism, which holds that only physical things exist. As to, Epistemological Naturalism, which holds that science is the only source of knowledge, Dr. Craig states it is a false theory of knowledge since,,,
a). it is overly restrictive and b) it is self refuting
If you were interested in giving a fair account of this debate you really should have presented Dr Rosenberg’s side of the argument as well. As for Dr Craig’s assertion that epistemological naturalism is a false theory, that is his opinion. He is not an arbiter in such matters and I say he is wrong on both counts. If naturalism is a claim about everything that is or can be then it is absurd to call it overly restrictive and I deny that it is self-refuting or that Dr Craig has shown it to be so.
Moreover Dr Craig states, epistemological naturalism does not imply metaphysical naturalism. In fact, Dr. Craig stated that a Epistemological Naturalist can and should be a Theist because Metaphysical Naturalism is reducto ad absurdum on (at least) these eight following points: (8 points which, by the way, Dr. Craig pulled from Dr. Rosenburg’s own book on atheism. In other words, Dr. Craig used Dr. Rosenburg’s own 8 conclusions about atheism, which Dr Rosenburg had reasoned out himself in his book, against him in the debate:
Any logical argument can be attacked on two grounds. First, is it valid, in other words, does it follow the prescribed logical form? Second, are the premises sound? Are they acceptable as stated? In the case of the eight arguments quoted, the first premise in each is rejected because in none of the cases is it shown that the alleged consequences follow necessarily from the assumption of naturalism. It’s a neat debating tactic but that’s all it is. As for determinism and free will, I will simply remind you that, if there exists an omniscient God with certain knowledge of our future, then there can be no free will as the future is pre-ordained and we can have no choice in the matter.Seversky
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Box: The letters you are reading right now “act in accordance with reason or logic”, however it is absurd to hold that this fact makes “them” rational. It's certainly a common definition. Were you using the term in a different sense?Zachriel
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
I am 100% sure Zachriel is a young earth creationist that is just taking the mickey out of everyone.Andre
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
Bornagain: computers cannot act rationally, they can only do what they are programmed to do. They may imitate rationality since they are following a program designed by a rational mind, but that is no different than saying water acts rationally when it follows the piping in your house.
Exactly right!
Zach: They act based on or in accordance with reason or logic, that is, rationally.
The letters you are reading right now "act in accordance with reason or logic", however it is absurd to hold that this fact makes "them" rational. // Bornagain #53 I share your sentiments.Box
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Anyway Box, I'm out of here. Zach is a liar and he will never concede your very reasonable point and will constantly lie, and play semantics, in order to try defend his atheism. Frankly, I wish Arrington would boot him. He just repeats the same lies over and over again and it gets old.bornagain
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
bornagain: computers cannot act rationally, they can only do what they are programmed to do. They act based on or in accordance with reason or logic, that is, rationally.Zachriel
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
computers cannot act rationally, they can only do what they are programmed to do. They may imitate rationality since they are following a program designed by a rational mind, but that is no different than saying water acts rationally when it follows the piping in your house. It is doing exactly what it was intelligently designed to do. For a material object to act in a deterministic 'logical' manner and to actually be rational are two very different things. That difference being the concept of 'personhood' itself. Moreover, the computer is accomplishing this 'rationality' under the control of information that was originally imparted by a mind. Information which has never been observed being created by material processes.
The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness
bornagain
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
bornagain: Do you think your computer is a person? Didn't say it was. Rather, a computer can act rationally, which refutes the claim about rationality and naturalism. bornagain: Actually no, besides free will, ‘Context’ must be taken into consideration in the creation of information It's presented as a mathematical proof, but for it to have validity, the computer has to be disembodied. If it has input, even something as simple as a random number generator, or as complex as sensory inputs, then the proof doesn't apply. Box: Pivotal to the argument in post #15 is the assumption “rationality requires control”. Perhaps you wish to argue against it? Computers can act rationally, that is, based on or in accordance with reason or logic.Zachriel
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Zach, you have a standing invitation to my basement!bornagain
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
Zach, Post #15 provides an argument against "deterministic naturalism" and post #20 provides an argument against naturalism that accommodates (also) undetermined events. Okay? Pivotal to the argument in post #15 is the assumption "rationality requires control". Perhaps you wish to argue against it? At the point where it is shown that — given deterministic naturalism — we can not be in control of our thoughts, the assumption 'rationality requires control' is put into place and the case against deterministic naturalism is easy to complete.
Zach: @20 doesn’t address rationality.
I was hoping that everyone would understand that it does. In post #20 Van Inwagen argues that Jane has no control over undetermined events — "There is no way for her to make it go one way rather than the other." So, again, we have reached a point where it is shown that there is no control over thoughts. Here one can proceed in the exact same manner as used in the argument in post #15 : insert the assumption 'rationality requires control' and the case against this version of naturalism is easy to complete in the exact same manner as used in the argument in post #15.Box
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
"Note that a computer that possesses a genuine random number generator, one that exploits quantum uncertainty or the thermal voltage fluctuations in a resistor, for example, would get around the immediate difficulty by rendering Chaitin’s theorem inapplicable" Actually no, besides free will, 'Context' must be taken into consideration in the creation of information: since a computer has no free will to invent information, nor a conscious mind so as to take overall context into consideration, then one simple way of defeating the Turing test is to simply tell, or to invent, a joke:,,,
“(a computer) lacks the ability to distinguish between language and meta-language.,,, As known, jokes are difficult to understand and even more difficult to invent, given their subtle semantic traps and their complex linguistic squirms. The judge can reliably tell the human (from the computer)” Per niwrad https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/artificial-intelligence-or-intelligent-artifices/
Such as this joke:
Turing Test Extra Credit – Convince The Examiner That He’s The Computer – cartoon http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/turing_test.png
or perhaps this one:
Turing Test - cartoon http://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/turingTest.jpg For Artificial Intelligence, Humor Is a Bridge Too Far - November 13, 2014 Excerpt: The article reminded me of an exercise in one of my first programming books that made me aware of the limits of computers and AI. I've forgotten the author of the book, but the problem was something like the following: "Write a program that takes in a stream of characters that represent a joke, reads the input and decides whether it's funny or not." It's a perfect illustration of Erik's statement, "Interestingly, where brute computation and big data fail is in surprisingly routine situations that give humans no difficulty at all." Even when my grandchildren were very young I marveled at how they grasped the humor of a joke, even a subtle one. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/11/for_artificial_091211.html
Of related note:
What Is a Mind? More Hype from Big Data - Erik J. Larson - May 6, 2014 Excerpt: In 1979, University of Pittsburgh philosopher John Haugeland wrote an interesting article in the Journal of Philosophy, "Understanding Natural Language," about Artificial Intelligence. At that time, philosophy and AI were still paired, if uncomfortably. Haugeland's article is one of my all time favorite expositions of the deep mystery of how we interpret language. He gave a number of examples of sentences and longer narratives that, because of ambiguities at the lexical (word) level, he said required "holistic interpretation." That is, the ambiguities weren't resolvable except by taking a broader context into account. The words by themselves weren't enough. Well, I took the old 1979 examples Haugeland claimed were difficult for MT, and submitted them to Google Translate, as an informal "test" to see if his claims were still valid today.,,, ,,,Translation must account for context, so the fact that Google Translate generates the same phrase in radically different contexts is simply Haugeland's point about machine translation made afresh, in 2014. Erik J. Larson - Founder and CEO of a software company in Austin, Texas http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/what_is_a_mind085251.html
bornagain
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Do you think your computer is a person?bornagain
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
bornagain: Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test So you've abandoned the rationality test. bornagain: For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. The vast majority of people would fail that test.
Note that a computer that possesses a genuine random number generator, one that exploits quantum uncertainty or the thermal voltage fluctuations in a resistor, for example, would get around the immediate difficulty by rendering Chaitin’s theorem inapplicable
So much for that "proof".Zachriel
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
A lot of 'naturalists' would disagree. And a lot of naturalists are either ignorant, deceived, or pathological liars.
Your Computer Doesn't Know Anything - Michael Egnor - January 23, 2015 Excerpt: Your computer doesn't know a binary string from a ham sandwich. Your math book doesn't know algebra. Your Rolodex doesn't know your cousin's address. Your watch doesn't know what time it is. Your car doesn't know where you're driving. Your television doesn't know who won the football game last night. Your cell phone doesn't know what you said to your girlfriend this morning. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/your_computer_d_1092981.html Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test - Douglas G. Robertson - 1999 Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomenon: the creation of new information. “… no operation performed by a computer can create new information.” http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence - June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search -- unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with "natural evolution." ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab's website states, "The principal theme of the lab's research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems." So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can't prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can't derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html
bornagain
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
bornagain: It only matters that, given naturalism/materialism/atheism, there truly is no such thing as a real mind and/or person. A lot of naturalists would disagree. bornagain: (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. Computers can act rationally, that is, based on or in accordance with reason or logic.Zachriel
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Zachriel, it matters not one iota that you personally deny the truth of what naturalism entails. In fact, being the pathological liar that you have proven yourself to be, I fully expect 'you' to deny what naturalism truly entails. It only matters that, given naturalism/materialism/atheism, there truly is no such thing as a real mind and/or a real person. There is only an 'illusion' of a real mind and/or a real person. The truth of that fact is not dependent on whether 'you', (if there were a 'you'), agree with it or not. The truth is derived from the premises of naturalism/materialism/atheism itself.
"that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick - "The Astonishing Hypothesis" 1994 “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor "What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/eagleton-on-baggini-on-free-will/ The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0 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 The Waning of Materialism Edited by Robert C. Koons and George Bealer Description: Twenty-three philosophers examine the doctrine of materialism and find it wanting. The case against materialism comprises arguments from conscious experience, from the unity and identity of the person, from intentionality, mental causation, and knowledge. The contributors include leaders in the fields of philosophy of mind, metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, who respond ably to the most recent versions and defenses of materialism. The modal arguments of Kripke and Chalmers, Jackson’s knowledge argument, Kim’s exclusion problem, and Burge’s anti-individualism all play a part in the building of a powerful cumulative case against the materialist research program. Several papers address the implications of contemporary brain and cognitive research (the psychophysics of color perception, blindsight, and the effects of commissurotomies), adding a posteriori arguments to the classical a priori critique of reductionism. All of the current versions of materialism–reductive and non-reductive, functionalist, eliminativist, and new wave materialism–come under sustained and trenchant attack. http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/Metaphysics/?view=usa&ci=9780199556199 "Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face. Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God In order to deny Him." - Cornelius Hunter Photo – an atheist contemplating his mind http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-kjiGN_9Fw/URkPboX5l2I/AAAAAAAAATw/yN18NZgMJ-4/s1600/rob4.jpg
bornagain
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
bornagain: Perhaps you should actually watch the debate between Rosenberg and Craig? We read the transcript from the point you marked. There's nothing new or definitive in the arguments. Rosenberg doesn't represent the views of all naturalists, so refuting his position only refutes his position, not all naturalistic philosophies. bornagain: Both the Jews in Nazi Germany, and the humans in their mother’s womb in present day America, are denied the status of ‘personhood’ Oh yes, and Hitler.Zachriel
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
Perhaps you should actually watch the debate between Rosenberg and Craig? But then again, it was never you intention, (as if molecules in a skull could possess 'intention'), to be honest, being the pathological liar that you are, it was just your intention to throw whatever you could on the wall and hoped it sticks. You are pathetic. Since, given materialism, you are not really a 'person', is it legal to kill you Zach? Of note to the atheist’s inability to ground ‘personhood’. Both the Jews in Nazi Germany, and the humans in their mother’s womb in present day America, are denied the status of ‘personhood’
in no case in its history has the Court declared that a fetus—a developing infant in the womb—is a person. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any legal “right to life.” http://www.phschool.com/curriculum_support/interactive_constitution/scc/scc35.htm The introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws in 1935 saw Jews declared non-persons, stripped of their rights, robbed of their property and isolated. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1399798/Hitlers-murderous-obsession-to-annihilate-the-Jews.html 8 Horrific Times People Groups Were Denied Their Humanity - July 02, 2014 Excerpt: According to Ernst Fraenkel, a German legal scholar, the Reichsgericht, the highest court in Germany, was instrumental in depriving Jewish people of their legal rights. In a 1936 Supreme Court decision, “the Reichsgericht refused to recognize Jews living in Germany as persons in the legal sense.” Nazis described Jews as Untermenschen, or subhumans to justify exterminating them. http://www.personhood.com/8_horrific_times_people_groups_were_denied_their_humanity
Want to come over to my basement and debate the status of your 'personhood' Zach?
Cruel Logic | Written and Directed by Brian Godawa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE6jemqjyfw
bornagain
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
Box: Did you read the part of Bornagain’s post #27 which explains that all 8 premises stem from Rosenberg’s book? So? Did he properly represent Rosenberg's view? Does Rosenberg represent the only view of naturalism? Regardless, bornagain's syllogisms are still assuming the conclusion. He thinks the premise is obvious and needs no justification. The syllogism is just window dressing.Zachriel
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Box: So, in this sense, there are two versions of naturalism; a purely deterministic version and one that also accommodates undetermined events. So you've abandoned your syllogism @15. Box: Unfortunately for them the arguments provided in #15 & #20 show that such views are incoherent. The syllogism @15 fails because #1 is false. @20 doesn't address rationality.Zachriel
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Zachriel #34, Did you read the part of Bornagain's post #27 which explains that all 8 premises stem from Rosenberg's book? This part:
(...) 8 points which, by the way, Dr. Craig pulled from Dr. Rosenburg’s own book on atheism. In other words, Dr. Craig used Dr. Rosenburg’s own 8 conclusions about atheism, which Dr Rosenburg had reasoned out himself in his book, against him in the debate (...)
Box
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Zach:
Box: Naturalism — purely deterministic or accommodating undetermined events — fails to ground rationality.
Then you no longer defend your previous statement that naturalism implies determinism?
Some naturalists will hold that all events are determined by natural law. And then there are naturalists who will hold that, next to determined events, there are (also) undetermined events. You described the latter group like this: “many metaphysical naturalists recognize that chance may be a fundamental property of the universe.” So, in this sense, there are two versions of naturalism; a purely deterministic version and one that also accommodates undetermined events. Again, my point is that both versions of naturalism fail to ground rationality; for reasons outlined in #15 & #20.
Zach: As for naturalism and rationality, most naturalists see rationality as a function of the brain — or computers, for that matter.
Yes, they do. Unfortunately for them the arguments provided in #15 & #20 show that such views are incoherent.Box
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
There has hardly been a more clueless statement about biology than Dobzhansky’s statement. The vast majority of biological study depends not one whit on evolutionary theory's historical claims. And many solid scientists would dispute how much evolutionary theory brings to the table anyway. Furthermore, much of evolutionary theory is laughably wrong. It would be much more accurate to say that "not much in biology makes sense in light of evolution."Eric Anderson
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
bornagain: 1. If naturalism is true, I cannot think about anything. Assuming the conclusion. bornagain: 1. If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning. Assuming the conclusion. bornagain: 1. If naturalism is true, I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions. Assuming the conclusion. bornagain: 1. If naturalism is true, I do not do anything freely. Assuming the conclusion. bornagain: 1. If naturalism is true, I do not plan to do anything. Assuming the conclusion. bornagain: 1. If naturalism is true, I do not endure for two moments of time. Assuming the conclusion. bornagain: 1. If naturalism is true, I do not exist. Assuming the conclusion.Zachriel
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Box: Naturalism — purely deterministic or accommodating undetermined events — fails to ground rationality. Then you no longer defend your previous statement that naturalism implies determinism? As for naturalism and rationality, most naturalists see rationality as a function of the brain — or computers, for that matter.Zachriel
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Zachriel: Box did first speak to determinism and the objection was what about chance. He cited the philosopher in response to that. It may be fun to divert to side issues but the fundamental incoherence of evolutionary materialism remains. Blind forces, of chance and/or necessity simply are not a good foundation for responsible rational freedom, which is foundational to intellectual enterprises. Here is how I put the issue:
a: Evolutionary materialism argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature; from hydrogen to humans by undirected chance and necessity. b: Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws of chance and/or mechanical necessity acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of happenstance initial circumstances. (This is physicalism. This view covers both the forms where (a) the mind and the brain are seen as one and the same thing, and those where (b) somehow mind emerges from and/or "supervenes" on brain, perhaps as a result of sophisticated and complex software looping. The key point, though is as already noted: physical causal closure -- the phenomena that play out across time, without residue, are in principle deducible or at least explainable up to various random statistical distributions and/or mechanical laws, from prior physical states. Such physical causal closure, clearly, implicitly discounts or even dismisses the causal effect of concept formation and reasoning then responsibly deciding, in favour of specifically physical interactions in the brain-body control loop; indeed, some mock the idea of -- in their view -- an "obviously" imaginary "ghost" in the meat-machine. [[There is also some evidence from simulation exercises, that accuracy of even sensory perceptions may lose out to utilitarian but inaccurate ones in an evolutionary competition. "It works" does not warrant the inference to "it is true."] ) c: But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this meat-machine picture. So, we rapidly arrive at Crick's claim in his The Astonishing Hypothesis (1994): what we subjectively experience as "thoughts," "reasoning" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as the unintended by-products of the blind natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains that (as the Smith Model illustrates) serve as cybernetic controllers for our bodies. d: These underlying driving forces are viewed as being ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance shaped by forces of selection [["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning [["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [[i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism]. And, remember, the focal issue to such minds -- notice, this is a conceptual analysis made and believed by the materialists! -- is the physical causal chains in a control loop, not the internalised "mouth-noises" that may somehow sit on them and come along for the ride. (Save, insofar as such "mouth noises" somehow associate with or become embedded as physically instantiated signals or maybe codes in such a loop. [[How signals, languages and codes originate and function in systems in our observation of such origin -- i.e by design -- tends to be pushed to the back-burner and conveniently forgotten. So does the point that a signal or code takes its significance precisely from being an intelligently focused on, observed or chosen and significant alternative from a range of possibilities that then can guide decisive action.]) e: For instance, Marxists commonly derided opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismissed qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? Should we not ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is little more than yet another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? And -- as we saw above -- would the writings of a Crick be any more than the firing of neurons in networks in his own brain? f: For further instance, we may take the favourite whipping-boy of materialists: religion. Notoriously, they often hold that belief in God is not merely cognitive, conceptual error, but delusion. Borderline lunacy, in short. But, if such a patent "delusion" is so utterly widespread, even among the highly educated, then it "must" -- by the principles of evolution -- somehow be adaptive to survival, whether in nature or in society. And so, this would be a major illustration of the unreliability of our conceptual reasoning ability, on the assumption of evolutionary materialism. g: Turning the materialist dismissal of theism around, evolutionary materialism itself would be in the same leaky boat. For, the sauce for the goose is notoriously just as good a sauce for the gander, too. h: That is, on its own premises [[and following Dawkins in A Devil's Chaplain, 2004, p. 46], the cause of the belief system of evolutionary materialism, "must" also be reducible to forces of blind chance and mechanical necessity that are sufficiently adaptive to spread this "meme" in populations of jumped- up apes from the savannahs of East Africa scrambling for survival in a Malthusian world of struggle for existence. Reppert brings the underlying point sharply home, in commenting on the "internalised mouth-noise signals riding on the physical cause-effect chain in a cybernetic loop" view:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
i: The famous geneticist and evolutionary biologist (as well as Socialist) J. B. S. Haldane made much the same point in a famous 1932 remark:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
. . . . j: Therefore, though materialists will often try to pointedly ignore or angrily brush aside the issue, we may freely argue: if such evolutionary materialism is true, then (i) our consciousness, (ii) the "thoughts" we have, (iii) the conceptualised beliefs we hold, (iv) the reasonings we attempt based on such and (v) the "conclusions" and "choices" (a.k.a. "decisions") we reach -- without residue -- must be produced and controlled by blind forces of chance happenstance and mechanical necessity that are irrelevant to "mere" ill-defined abstractions such as: purpose or truth, or even logical validity. (NB: The conclusions of such "arguments" may still happen to be true, by astonishingly lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” or "warranted" them. It seems that rationality itself has thus been undermined fatally on evolutionary materialistic premises. Including that of Crick et al. Through, self-reference leading to incoherence and utter inability to provide a cogent explanation of our commonplace, first-person experience of reasoning and rational warrant for beliefs, conclusions and chosen paths of action. Reduction to absurdity and explanatory failure in short.) k: And, if materialists then object: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must immediately note that -- as the fate of Newtonian Dynamics between 1880 and 1930 shows -- empirical support is not equivalent to establishing the truth of a scientific theory. For, at any time, one newly discovered countering fact can in principle overturn the hitherto most reliable of theories. (And as well, we must not lose sight of this: in science, one is relying on the legitimacy of the reasoning process to make the case that scientific evidence provides reasonable albeit provisional warrant for one's beliefs etc. Scientific reasoning is not independent of reasoning.)
So, whether or no some naturalism supporters are or are not determinists is immaterial to the crux of the matter. Though it may make a convenient rhetorical diversion. KFkairosfocus
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
@26 Seversky Your position is that humans are nothing more than matter in motion right? Matter can be reduced to chemical elements that are listed on the periodic table. Can you tell me which chemical elements are free? is Iron free? What about Lead?Jack Jones
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
@box Naturalism, materialism, physicalism etc. are pseudo-philosophies which are really just an expression of original sin. Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, making what is good and evil into a fact. Only creationism validates both fact and opinion, each in their own domain, so what is good is distinct from what is fact. About van Inwagen. How choosing works is to make a possibility, which is in the future, the present or not. So choosing is anticipatory, in regards to the really existing future. What naturalists etc. don't understand is that agency is a subjective issue. The question about what makes the decision in regards to the pulse in Jane's brain turn out the way it does, can only be answered by choosing the answer, resulting in an opinion. It is then simply a matter of belief to posit Jane's soul which decided the way the pulse turns out. You could also say there is nothing there, that the agency of the decision is empty. The validity of the answer just depends on that it is chosen, and that subjective terminology is used like love, hate, emptiness, soul etc.mohammadnursyamsu
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
Box:
Are you saying that naturalism should be defined differently?
I can't stand the term 'naturalism'. It wrongly assumes that those who preach the religion know what nature is. Why would it be against nature if God and spirits exist? If something exists, it is natural, no? I think atheists should stick to 'materialism' instead but, even then, that would not solve the conundrum that's already in the definition of word. Why can't there be a different form of matter than physical particles? Indeed, there are an infinite number of ways to combine energy and properties to create particles that have little in common with neutrons, protons, electrons and photons. Materialism is a religion of cretins, IMO.Mapou
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Seversky #26, By "naturalism" I refer to materialism or physicalism.
Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. [Stanford.edu]
Are you saying that naturalism should be defined differently? From your quote: "They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, (...)." To me this seems like an elaborate way of saying that everything is physical. The quotation marks enclosing "human spirit" have the same message. Well naturalists, materialists and physicalists, if everything is physical then rationality necessarily goes out the window — see #15 & #20.Box
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply