While scientific topics tied to AI are a main current focus — I will shortly add another headlined comment on why — there are several philosophical and theological topics that keep on coming up in and around UD. So, pardon a quick note on those wider themes. Here, on the soul and linked ideas from the thoughts on justice thread:
JM, 155 to BA77: >>If you think I have not provided any evidence against the immortality of the soul, why don’t you answer my questions regarding the Adam and Eve scriptures?>>
I picked this point up and responded:
KF, 161: >>J-Mac, consider the scriptural definition of physical death: “as the body without the spirit is dead . . . ” and likewise spiritual death is about alienated separation of the creature’s spirit from God: “Your sins have separated . . .” Thus, we need to appreciate that death has a sense of violation of wholeness akin to severing a branch from a vine leading to decay or manifested in decay and of course fruitlessness. By contrast, redemption, regeneration and spiritual rebirth have to do with restoration of relationship with God, and eschatological resurrection of not mere restoration of mortal life but transformation of body to a spiritualised immortal form: “as in Adam all die so also in Christ shall all be made alive . . . ” From this, we see that there is an implied understanding that humans are trans-dimensional amphibians, embodied living souls. I suggest that the human soul is best understood as a bridging interface between spirit [the transdimensional inner self and core of identity] and body [the readily observable outer man].
A typical, tripartite man Christian viewpoint. Note, heart and mind sometimes stand in for the inner man. The body is the outer man, on this frame. Hindus and those influenced by hindu thought will have a rather different view. The classic Greek view talks about body and soul. There are many, diverse perspectives.Clarence Larkin’s tripartite man illustration, amplifying on key texts (again, as documenting a typical Christian tripartite view)
In this context, the spiritual aspect [often called soul by the Greeks] is not subject to disintegration and loss of existence once created. However, it can be alienated from its true source and object and fulfillment through alienation from our Creator, both in time and in eternity, the latter being spoken of as the second death. Perhaps, these thoughts may help?>>
All of this is connected to the emerging theme on embodied, self-aware, enconscienced, morally governed rational, responsible freedom and linked contemplation vs computation on material substrates including neural networks. Memristors etc being a current rising star of the latter.
So, perhaps, we can reflect? END
PS: Let me add today (Feb. 15th) a simplified picture of the Smith two-tier controller cybernetic Model:
The Derek Smith two-tier controller cybernetic model
Comments
J Mac loves his strawmen...ET
February 18, 2018
February
02
Feb
18
18
2018
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
J-Mac,
what does "death" mean, in the biblical context?
Not, cessation of life or disintegration of existence or annihilation, but loss of a sustaining relationship due to severing or alienation.
Sin leads to radical alienation from God and the bondage of corruption. It also leads to physical degradation and physical death, understood as separation of spirit and body. One who has been reconciled with God during his bodily life is given spiritual rebirth thus eternal life here and now; and, s/he will enjoy the resurrection of eternal felicity.
However, if one has sustained an alienation, that continues eternally.
A specific relevant text is Daniel 12: "2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above;[a] and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever." [ESV]
Likewise, Heb 9: "27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."
Similarly, 1 Cor 15: "20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death."
Just to excerpt and outline.
The warrant regarding truth is the resurrection of Jesus as prophesied Messiah, with 500 eyewitnesses.
KFkairosfocus
February 18, 2018
February
02
Feb
18
18
2018
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Gen 2:16-17
“16 God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”
Gen 3:4
The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
So, if humans were given the immortal soul and God failed to tell them about it, then serpent/satan must have been right by saying:
"You surely will not die! "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
This obviously makes things looking even more complicated than just the issue of the immortality of the soul one would think...J-Mac
February 16, 2018
February
02
Feb
16
16
2018
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
PPS: I have added just now, on the Smith model.
PPPS: Kindly note, Scott Calef in IEP:
Keith Campbell writes, “The indeterminacy of quantum laws means that any one of a range of outcomes of atomic events in the brain is equally compatible with known physical laws. And differences on the quantum scale can accumulate into very great differences in overall brain condition. So there is some room for spiritual activity even within the limits set by physical law. There could be, without violation of physical law, a general spiritual constraint upon what occurs inside the head.” (p.54). Mind could act upon physical processes by “affecting their course but not breaking in upon them.” (p.54). If this is true, the dualist could maintain the conservation principle but deny a fluctuation in energy because the mind serves to “guide” or control neural events by choosing one set of quantum outcomes rather than another. Further, it should be remembered that the conservation of energy is designed around material interaction; it is mute on how mind might interact with matter. After all, a Cartesian rationalist might insist, if God exists we surely wouldn’t say that He couldn’t do miracles just because that would violate the first law of thermodynamics, would we? [Article, "Dualism and Mind," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.]
kairosfocus
February 15, 2018
February
02
Feb
15
15
2018
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
LocMin (& MB):
I suggest, I was not describing biology in general but our experience of ourselves as embodied, self-aware, morally governed reasoning, responsibly deciding creatures.
This is the first fact, through which we access other facts, including scientific observations.
So, it would be useful to introspect on such an extraordinary thing.
In the context in which I suggested such, the issue is that computation on a substrate is a cause-effect blind chain, not an insightful, ground and consequent logical, meaning-based inference. Further to this, if we are strongly aware of being under moral government, but regard such as delusional, it is inextricably entangled with logic: duties to truth, sound reasoning, fair-mindedness and more. Such a premise of delusion would let loose delusion across the domain of mindedness, leading to degradation of rationality into little more than clever, amoral manipulation.
Nihilistic absurdity in short.
Therefore, we need to consider carefully the alternative that we transcend blind computation and actually experience rational, responsible, morally governed freedom. Such points to reality being far more than evolutionary materialistic scientism dreams of.
In that world, it makes sense to conceive of ourselves as trans-dimensional hybrids, embodied spiritual beings where the soul can be viewed as the interface between the two.
The brain, in particular, serving as an i/o interface machine with storage and ability to use neural network programming. I have often pointed to Eng. Derek Smith's model with a cybernetic entity that has a two-tier controller.
Others have put quantum influence on the table to address interfaces.
When a paradigm has collapsed -- and evolutionary materialism's self-referential incoherence marks such a collapse, it may be time to think again on alternatives.
KF
PS: Recall, too, the OP was answering questions on specifically Christian views.kairosfocus
February 15, 2018
February
02
Feb
15
15
2018
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
MB
Just as a car, after it is designed and built, functions according to the interaction of its component parts (matter) and energy.
ID doesn't explain the operation of the car's function. It explains the existence of the car's function.
ID would still be the best explanation for life on earth even if there were no humans with consciousness and souls, or even any animals with brains. ID does not require these and it does not predict them.
ID requires a conscious agent to explain the existence of organisms on earth and it requires a conscious agent to explain the existence of artifacts on earth.StephenB
February 14, 2018
February
02
Feb
14
14
2018
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
I have been very clear on this. But, after the initial design, this informational content and its functioning can proceed as nothing more than the interaction of this designed matter and energy.
There isn't any evidence to support that position.
Again, what we observe going on in living organisms transcends matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions. At a minimum a BIOS is needed. Mindless matter and energy do not just transcribe, edit, splice, process and translate. Chaperones that ferry other proteins to the right spot. The ribosome is a genetic compiler that can detect errors and stop the translation process.
Just as a car, after it is designed and built, functions according to the interaction of its component parts (matter) and energy.
And the interactions of intelligent driver.
ID would still be the best explanation for life on earth even if there were no humans with consciousness and souls, or even any animals with brains.
Best explanation for who by who?
We can design the chemistry of living organisms. We can put all of those parts together. Yet we cannot create a living organism. That is about as much "proof" as you are going to get that Molson Bleu is wrong- the functioning cannot proceed as nothing more than the interaction of this designed matter and energy.ET
February 14, 2018
February
02
Feb
14
14
2018
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
“I’m thinking MB isn’t disputing informational content so much as disputing that biology can be shown to be a “trans-dimensional hybrid” system.”
I was never disputing informational content. I have been very clear on this. But, after the initial design, this informational content and its functioning can proceed as nothing more than the interaction of this designed matter and energy. Just as a car, after it is designed and built, functions according to the interaction of its component parts (matter) and energy.
ID would still be the best explanation for life on earth even if there were no humans with consciousness and souls, or even any animals with brains. ID does not require these and it does not predict them.Molson Bleu
February 14, 2018
February
02
Feb
14
14
2018
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
MB @ 31:
What I meant by held in that case was conceptually, by an observer, theoretically.
That was my shot at settling the dispute.
ET:
I'm thinking MB isn't disputing informational content so much as disputing that biology can be shown to be a "trans-dimensional hybrid" system.LocalMinimum
February 14, 2018
February
02
Feb
14
14
2018
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
In the next re-write of ID theory I will see if I can get that thrown in:
ID predicts that there is more to living organisms than matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions can account for. This something more is, at a minimum is the information required for transcription, translation, proof-reading, error-correction, editing, processing and splicing, along with the translation of a source code (nucleotides) into an object code (functioning protein).
:cool:ET
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
I've thrown in my 2 cents, but that's enough. Good luck, MB.jdk
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
Yes, DNA is a highly complex alphanumeric code, but it is my understanding that it functions (protein production, etc.) following the interaction of matter and energy (chemical processes).
Your understanding is without evidentiary support. If it functioned as you say then we should be able to produce at least a simple living organism. Or do we need a special Jedi hand-wave to get it all going and only then it becomes self-sustaining?
There isn't anything about transcription, editing, processing, splicing, error correction and translation that says it is just a chemical process. All of that requires knowledge, ie information of what to do and when to do it, at a minimum. How it splices and edits are well known chemical processes. That is does requires something more.ET
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
Molson Bleu
By my reading of this, there is no requirement in the theory for organisms to be anything more that the interaction of a designed arrangement of matter and energy. I realize that this is just a high level description of the theory, but I have not been able to find anything on-line that contradicts this. Maybe I have just missed it. Any assistance would be appreciated.
Among other things, the organism (or artifact) must also be the effect of an antecedent cause. Science is a search for causes.
It must also contain design indicators, such as Irreducible complexity and specified complexity. If the indicators don't exist, the inference cannot be made.StephenB
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
"Note: a car is a very carefully organised, functionally coherent, information-rich whole. No it is not merely matter and energy. It is organised and chock full of FSCO/I, this points, of course, to the significance of intelligently directed configuration for such an entity.
The living cell is all of that and more: it is a metabolic automaton with an included integral von Neumann self-replication facility. In that context, it uses alphanumeric code with associated molecular nanotech execution machinery. And all of this has to be explained as foundational to reproduction, antecedent therefore to Darwin-style mechanisms"
I think that you are completely misinterpreting what I have been saying. I am not arguing that both a car and a cell are not information rich designed artifacts. They obviously are. But ID theory does not require that their day-to-day functioning be anything more than the interaction of this highly complex and designed arrangement of matter and energy. Yes, DNA is a highly complex alphanumeric code, but it is my understanding that it functions (protein production, etc.) following the interaction of matter and energy (chemical processes). It is a highly complex and flexible process, but it is still a chemical process.Molson Bleu
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Editing, splicing, and error correction all require knowledge, ie information on what and how to edit, splice and correct. That information is beyond matter, energy and what emerges from their interactionsET
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
MB, do you not see the self-referential issue connected to the premise of rational discussion? We may not choose to highlight it at a given time but it is absolutely critical -- BTW, as is discussed in the parallel Op here: https://uncommondescent.com/design-inference/why-look-at-ai-linked-themes-what-is-the-relevance-to-id-as-a-scientific-enterprise/ . KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Note: a car is a very carefully organised, functionally coherent, information-rich whole. No it is not merely matter and energy. It is organised and chock full of FSCO/I, this points, of course, to the significance of intelligently directed configuration for such an entity. The living cell is all of that and more: it is a metabolic automaton with an included integral von Neumann self-replication facility. In that context, it uses alphanumeric code with associated molecular nanotech execution machinery. And all of this has to be explained as foundational to reproduction, antecedent therefore to Darwin-style mechanisms. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Just so that I don’t misunderstand what you are saying, are you suggesting that cell reproduction and protein production needs continuous intervention of an intelligent agent?
Did your computer come with programmers that have to continuously intervene so you can use it?
If the latter, I am afraid that I would need more support than your say so.
It isn't my say so. Why is it that we cannot design living organisms? We know the chemistry. And yet even given the correct chemistry we don't get transcription and translation.
If it was a mere matter of getting the right matter and energy together to bring forth life then we would have done so by now.ET
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Good questions. Is a bacteria more than matter and energy; or if it is just matter and energy, does it require, as MB asks, the continual or occasional input of something that is not matter and energy in order to keep living and produce other bacteria?
And, more on the limited topic of ID theory, does the hypothesis that a bacteria is just matter and energy, albeit designed and created in the beginning by a non-material intelligence, contradict anything in ID theory?jdk
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
"The genetic code doesn’t run itself."
Just so that I don't misunderstand what you are saying, are you suggesting that cell reproduction and protein production needs continuous intervention of an intelligent agent? Or are you saying that protein production and cell devision are more than an the interaction of designed matter and energy? If the latter, I am afraid that I would need more support than your say so.Molson Bleu
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
But a car is quite obviously not more than the interaction of its designed arrangement of matter and energy.
And a living organism is clearly not a car nor anything similar. Living organisms are more than matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions because observations demand it. The genetic code doesn't run itself.ET
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
"The definition of ID as a scientific endeavour implicitly but undeniably assumes that there are responsibly and rationally free, morally governed reasoning and observing conscious agents to carry out the required investigation."
With respect, you are not answering the question. The fact that in order to investigate ID we must be more than the interaction of design, matter and energy is irrelevant to the question of whether this is a specific requirement of ID. It is certainly an outcome of the design in the case of humans, but that does not mean that it is inherent in ID theory.
We both agree that life requires an intelligent agent. The sheer complexity of biological structures in even the simplest cells makes this conclusion impossible to dismiss. Just like it would be absurd to look at the car in my garage and conclude that it wasn't the result of an intelligent agent. But a car is quite obviously not more than the interaction of its designed arrangement of matter and energy. But it is not a valid extrapolation to say that all life must be more than the interactions of the designed arrangement of matter and energy just because humans are. That would be like arguing that all cars must be electric because the Tesla is.Molson Bleu
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
Everything about ID says that information is beyond matter and energy. And yes information is a huge part of the evidence for ID in biology. That isn't just about the information it took to design and produce living organisms.ET
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
From above,
"conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution..."
ID is about how things came to be what they are: notice the words "origins" and "evolution."
The hypothesis that a non-material intelligence is responsible for the origin and evolution of life is a different statement than saying that living things are composed of more than matter and energy.
Do you see the difference in those two statements?jdk
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
JDK, kindly see the just above. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
MB,
The definition of ID as a scientific endeavour implicitly but undeniably assumes that there are responsibly and rationally free, morally governed reasoning and observing conscious agents to carry out the required investigation.
This is in fact a premise, typically unstated, of essentially all serious discussion.
The matters at stake pivot on a wider, deeper question: in what sort of world must we be, to be this sort of creature. That is not a scientific question, it is a worldviews one, and it is addressed on comparative difficulties across live option alternatives.
Over the years at UD, we have observed that many seemingly scientific disputes over ID in fact turn on much deeper issues. If those issues were not there, something as undeniable as the presence of functionally specific, complex alphanumeric codes and linked nanotech molecular execution machinery in the heart of the living cell would have long since been utterly decisive.
That is the context in which you will find this also under UD's tab bar, under About:
Uncommon Descent holds that…
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution — an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.
Sobering and sadly well-warranted words.
But then, you have already been adequately informed on this; I speak for record for those standing by now and in time to come.
KF
PS: It seems that I need to again point out the cat-out-of-the-bag remark by Lewontin:
. . . to put a correct [--> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people's heads
[==> as in, "we" the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . where of course "view" is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]
we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> "explanations of the world" is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised "demon[ic]" "supernatural" being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
kairosfocus
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
J-Mac,
Passed by, saw:
My phone without the battery is dead…too
Fallacy of equivocation, drawn from taking utterly out of context. A "dead" phone, or say a "dead centre" [vs a live one] in machining or a dead/live power line have nothing whatsoever to do with the context that was requested.
All I did was to report what the definition offered in the relevant tradition is.
if you want to understand what is offered to anchor that, I suggest you may wish to start here. When you can make a similar achievement and report with the same level of witnesses, you will have something to say.
Meanwhile, I will take seriously what happened before my eyes a few months ago.
KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
MB @ 34: "In the absence of such a link, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is not a requirement of ID theory."
Have you sent the question to Discovery Institute?Truth Will Set You Free
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
I support Molson Bleu in this line of questioning. There is nothing in ID theory that says that something beyond matter and energy is a part of life: the theory says that something beyond matter and energy caused life to to be organized as it is, but those are different things.
By analogy, a material thing, such as a fishing reel, is composed of merely matter and energy, even though the designer (and implementer) of the reel may have other properties.
ET may think it is obvious that life is more than matter and energy, and he may even be right, but that fact is not a fundamental requirement or conclusion of the ID hypothesis.jdk
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
OK MB, you choose willful ignorance. Good luck with that.ET
