Foundational Philosophical Alternatives

_{David L. Hagen

February 26, 2016

Atheism, Big Bang, Books of interest, Cosmology, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life, Philosophy, worldview}

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

Criminologist and former atheist Mike Adams summarizes the three foundational philosophical alternatives to the Cosmos:

First, we can say that it came into being spontaneously – in other words, that it came to be without a cause. Second, we can say that it has always been. Third, we can posit some cause outside the physical universe to explain its existence. The second option is no longer reasonable. Science has been leading inexorably to the conclusion that the universe is not infinite but instead had a beginning. . . . Reasonable people grasp intuitively that it makes far more sense to say that something came from something than to say that something came from nothing. Of course, admitting that the universe was caused by something rather than nothing comes with a price. Any cause predating the physical universe must therefore be non-physical in nature.

Adams further explores Non Death Experiences (NDE). Adam’s discuses these in his review Imagine Heaven by John Burke.

Comments

Gary Gaulin:
I have to say that you now sound like a Darwinian loyalist who is trying to get the ID movement to unknowingly shame itself by singing praises to the rival evolution by natural selection model(s).
I have to say that you are a moron for even suggesting such a thing given the evidence.
In my opinion EA’s and GA’s are toys in comparison to the detail obtained by using a multiple intelligence level IA.
So what? That doesn't even address the point of discussion.
But you embrace the now antiquated algorithms. I certainly want no part in that.
LoL! It isn't that I embrace them. I just call them what they really are. And you are too dim to grasp that simple concept.Virgil Cain_{February 29, 2016
February
02
Feb
29
29
2016
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Virgil advertises:
And yet my model has intelligent cause all over it. It shows the power of intelligent cause given the computational resources of today’s programs and computers. My model shows the power of directed evolution, ie evolution with a purpose. So yes, GAs model intelligent causation. Do you think the GA that found a very original design for an antenna did so without the specifications that had to be met and being actively driven to meet them?
I have to say that you now sound like a Darwinian loyalist who is trying to get the ID movement to unknowingly shame itself by singing praises to the rival evolution by natural selection model(s). In my opinion EA's and GA's are toys in comparison to the detail obtained by using a multiple intelligence level IA. But you embrace the now antiquated algorithms. I certainly want no part in that.GaryGaulin_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

Gary Gaulin:
Regardless of your justifications: if the only thing you have to show is an already existing model for “evolution” then you only made it more obvious to everyone else that you never really had a scientific model for “intelligent cause”.
And yet my model has intelligent cause all over it. It shows the power of intelligent cause given the computational resources of today's programs and computers. My model shows the power of directed evolution, ie evolution with a purpose. So yes, GAs model intelligent causation. Do you think the GA that found a very original design for an antenna did so without the specifications that had to be met and being actively driven to meet them?Virgil Cain_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

To the issue of scientifically understanding self-aware intelligences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science
Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the mind and its processes. It examines what cognition is, what it does and how it works.
That is what I see being dismissed.GaryGaulin_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

GG, I pointed out that you are a member of the class of intelligences and in fact self aware ones. That speaks to the issue of understanding such. It also focuses the phil you seem to wish to dismiss. KFkairosfocus_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Regardless of your justifications: if the only thing you have to show is an already existing model for "evolution" then you only made it more obvious to everyone else that you never really had a scientific model for "intelligent cause".GaryGaulin_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Gary Gaulin- Thank you for proving that you are unable to understand a simple concept and you have to erect a strawman to refute. Only a fool would equate what I said with saying all the models used to model “evolution by natural selection” are not “Darwinian models”, and here you are. Is evolution by natural selection a goal-oriented targeted search? No. Is a GA a goal-oriented targeted search. Yes. What I am saying is that only the scientifically lost would argue that GAs model evolution by natural selection. And here you are. Again.Virgil Cain_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Virgil, only the scientifically lost would waste their time arguing that all the models used to model "evolution by natural selection" are not "Darwinian models". The only thing you are saying is that you do not have a model of your own, and what you do have came from "evolution by natural selection" theory therefore ID is scientifically redundant, not needed and irrelevant.GaryGaulin_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

GG:
Then you are saying that your “theory of intelligent design” is tested using Darwinian models.
LoL! They are not Darwinian models. Obviously you have reading comprehension issues.
Does your plan include crossing out Charles Darwin’s name on everything he wrote then put your name there instead?
Darwin proposed blind and mindless processes. EAs and GAs are the opposite of that. As I said you obviously have reading comprehension issues.Virgil Cain_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

Origenes, from theory:
For computer modeling purposes the behavior of matter can be thought of as being “all-knowing” in the sense that the behavior is inherent, does not have to learn its responses. A computer model then starts off with this behavior already in memory and has no GUESS or CONFIDENCE included in the algorithm, as does intelligence. Memory contents then never changes. Only a GUESS can write new data to memory and GUESS must here be taken out of the algorithm. But it is possible to leave the CONFIDENCE in the algorithm, it will still work the exact same way. Where this in time proves to be true for real matter it would be a valuable clue as to how consciousness works and possibly how to model it, which may in turn help answer the “big questions” including those pertaining to afterlife. Reciprocal cause/causation between levels goes in both the forward and reverse direction. These communicative behavioral pathways cause all of our complex intelligence related behaviors to connect back to the behavior of matter, which does not necessarily need to be intelligent to be the fundamental source of consciousness. Multicellular and cellular level individuals are born then die while the genetic molecular level lives on, by this self-replication of itself.

The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Motherly alligators and crocodiles gently carry their well guarded hatchlings to the water. If the babies are scared then they will call and she will be quick to come to their aid and let them ride on her head and body, as they learn what they need to know to succeed in life. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from a conscious loving "spirit" our multicellular intelligence level may be able to sense coming from the other intelligence levels, though we cannot directly experience being a single one of our cells or the intelligent cause that created all cells, which has for billions of years been alive and a part inside us too. It is possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the love we need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...
GaryGaulin_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

GaryGaulin, Do you hold that consciousness, which is obviously foundational to science, belongs to the realm of "religious assumptions" and is excluded from scientific research? Gpuccio does not agree with you:
How does the consciousness-matter interface work? We don’t know. But it certainly works very well in human brains. So, that is a perfectly reasonable scientific problem, quite open to inquiry. Personally, I believe that the answer should be sought at quantum level.
Such a scientific inquiry might shed light on "how the intelligent cause of living things works."Origenes_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Origenes:
In this post Gpuccio offers his opinion on this topic.
This part of it is clearly a religious assumption, not scientific theory:
Well, he still needs a consciousness-matter interface, if he is to design anything.
Considering how the designer has to be a "he" who needs some unknown or unknowable "consciousness-matter interface" all I can honestly say is that I'm glad I don't have to attempt to scientifically defend that speculation filled mess.GaryGaulin_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

what you said did not explain how the “intelligent cause” of living things works. [GaryGaulin]
In this post Gpuccio offers his opinion on this topic.Origenes_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Of course they are and I have already explained why. GAs are search heuristics actively searching for solutions to the problems they were designed to solve. They are evolution by design from the get-go. OTOH Darwinian evolution is not a search and survival is the only “goal”.
Then you are saying that your "theory of intelligent design" is tested using Darwinian models. Does your plan include crossing out Charles Darwin's name on everything he wrote then put your name there instead? At this point you might as well make your unscientific intentions more clear to everyone.GaryGaulin_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

GG:
EA’s and GA’s are not a model for “Intelligent Design evolution” or “evolution by intelligent design”.
Of course they are and I have already explained why. GAs are search heuristics actively searching for solutions to the problems they were designed to solve. They are evolution by design from the get-go. OTOH Darwinian evolution is not a search and survival is the only "goal".Virgil Cain_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Virgil Cain:
LoL! EAs and GAs are exemplify evolution by intelligent design. So there you have it- EAs and GAs are my model for Intelligent Design evolution.
Study the illustration for an IA that is at the top of the page here: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/ EA's and GA's are not a model for "Intelligent Design evolution" or "evolution by intelligent design".GaryGaulin_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

GG:
Darwinian theory uses EA’s and GA’s...
LoL! EAs and GAs are exemplify evolution by intelligent design. So there you have it- EAs and GAs are my model for Intelligent Design evolution.Virgil Cain_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

Virgil Cain:
By manipulating nature for a purpose.
Generalization filled hypotheses only lead to evermore ambiguous questions. Just show me your testable "model" of the process. Darwinian theory uses EA's and GA's now show me your IA, or whatever you called it.GaryGaulin_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

GG:
what you said did not explain how the “intelligent cause” of living things works.
By manipulating nature for a purpose.Virgil Cain_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

KF, what you said did not explain how the "intelligent cause" of living things works. You moved the goalposts to explaining something else, a human typing information on a keyboard. The most important thing of them all for you to explain was left up to the reader's imagination. Please try again.GaryGaulin_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

GG, you know how an intelligent cause works from the inside, per the work you carried out to type the above. You exerted choice based on intention as a reflexive, self moved being with knowledge, skill and intent, all of which though not directly observable -- so for a great many entities in science -- leave distinct empirical markers. If what you meant was how blind mechanical and/or chance forces act in intelligent ways, empirically, they do not. But there is a philosophical tendency to impose such an expectation, only to end in self referential incoherence thus self falsification. And those are logical-philosophical issues. KFkairosfocus_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

KF, I am clearly seeing philosophy being used as an excuse to ignore the "hard questions" from science. If you don't believe me then without saying a word about philosophy scientifically answer the most important scientific question of them all. This is the very first question you should have answered: How does "intelligent cause" work?GaryGaulin_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

GG, philosophy is distinct from both religion/theology and science. It is in fact the prior intellectual discipline, that asks the hard first questions and seeks to answer them. How known to be hard -- there are no easy answers. Prior, our answers set up our distinct worldviews which are of quite varied character. And evolutionary materialist scientism is just as much a worldview as is ethical theism. KFkairosfocus_{February 28, 2016
February
02
Feb
28
28
2016
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

The third only suggests that there is more to the Cosmos than what can be seen through telescopes:
Third, we can posit some cause outside the physical universe to explain its existence.
Coherently explaining how a "cause outside the physical universe" works would require a tremendous amount of scientific evidence. Philosophical answers are a religious alternative, not a scientific alternative.GaryGaulin_{February 27, 2016
February
02
Feb
27
27
2016
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Criminologist and former atheist Mike Adams says:
First, we can say that it came into being spontaneously – in other words, that it came to be without a cause.
The first rules out "intelligent cause" as the origin of the Cosmos.GaryGaulin_{February 27, 2016
February
02
Feb
27
27
2016
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

In other words – I am right because I am obviously right and anyone who disagrees is unreasonable. Where the heck that come from Mark? You want to try and tie that in to something said here? We get it from your past posts that you are either believing in a stupid universe that can produce brilliant pieces of music, scientific papers, languages natural and computational, machines, and staggering beauty. Or maybe wanting to believe something similar which might guarantee your obliteration when all is said and done and your life is over. It's just that your logic on why something stupid can produce something brilliant hasn't awakened us from our supposed wrongheadedness here.groovamos_{February 27, 2016
February
02
Feb
27
27
2016
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Non-being (not matter, energy, space, time, mind or whatever) has no causal capacity. Were there ever utter nothing . . . what rocks dream of, that would forever obtain. If a cosmos now is, something always was, a root of the reality we experience. The question is, what. KFkairosfocus_{February 27, 2016
February
02
Feb
27
27
2016
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

I love the spontaneously generated posts from nothing that had no cause that occasionally appear here at UD.Mung_{February 27, 2016
February
02
Feb
27
27
2016
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Reasonable people grasp intuitively that it makes far more sense to say that something came from something than to say that something came from nothing. In other words - I am right because I am obviously right and anyone who disagrees is unreasonable.markf_{February 27, 2016
February
02
Feb
27
27
2016
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply