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
Further to 34. The Discovery Institute describes ID as:
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."
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.Molson Bleu
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
OK so you don't have anything. That is what I thought.
Thank you but you should have said so before.
ID theory is about explaining what we observe. And what we observe demonstrates that living organisms are more than matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions. And only ID can explain that.
Theories in general are about explaining observations.ET
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
"Evidence, please."
I have been asking for links to the part of ID theory that states that something other than the interaction of a designed arrangement of matter and energy is a requirement of the theory. In the absence of such a link, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is not a requirement of ID theory. But if I am mistaken, please point me to where this is stated in the theory.Molson Bleu
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
ID theory does not require that any life form be anything more than the interaction between the designed arrangement of matter and energy
Evidence, please.ET
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
"The idea of a real—and yet illusory self—is easily understood if we think of this metaphor: there is a river, broad and flowing. Near the edges of the river, nearer to the shore where the flow of the water is slower, eddies sometimes form. These little whirlpools gather into themselves the flotsam and jetsam of the river’s life: bits of twig and leaf, a whirl of foam, all slowed down enough to form by a bend in the river. The addition of this material to the small whirlpool actually helps the whirlpool maintain is twirling organization better. It becomes ballast and the energy of the river, still feeding into this small portion near the shore, helps the eddy—which, as we know is doomed to disappear—maintain its individuality a little while longer. "
:)kurx78
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
"Information can be held separate from matter and energy, but its interactions with matter and energy may be modulated through matter and energy."
I'm not sure that this is correct. I am not aware of any way to hold information that is not based on matter and energy. Do you have any examples?
"ID deals with the origin of information, but I don’t see how it can be used to demand that the information inherent in life processes can not be entirely modulated through matter and energy."
This is what I have been trying to convince KF of. The fact that consciousness may be something above and beyond the interaction of the designed arrangement of matter and energy is not evidence of ID. ID theory does not require that any life form be anything more than the interaction between the designed arrangement of matter and energy. It doesn't preclude it, but it does not require it. It is not a testable prediction of the ID theory.Molson Bleu
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Information can be held separate from matter and energy, but its interactions with matter and energy may be modulated through matter and energy.
ID deals with the origin of information, but I don't see how it can be used to demand that the information inherent in life processes can not be entirely modulated through matter and energy.
Declaring the insufficiency of material life to explain observed function is something like the evolutionists' arguments of "suboptimality"; making arguments on the basis of an ignorance of function; and is subject to pretty much the same general refutation.
The evolutionists have been drawing lines on the street against an oncoming truck. Why mirror them in the other lane?LocalMinimum
February 13, 2018
February
02
Feb
13
13
2018
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
"...the body without the spirit is dead..."
My phone without the battery is dead...too, but it doesn't mean it has an immortal soul... does it? ;-)J-Mac
February 12, 2018
February
02
Feb
12
12
2018
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
Does ID require that designed organisms be more than the interactions of their designed arrangement of matter and energy?
Reality does. And only ID can explain that reality. There isn't anything about any living organism that says they are no more than matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions.ET
February 12, 2018
February
02
Feb
12
12
2018
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
"Despite that, you have continued the pattern. I therefore now conclude for cause that you have little to contribute to serious and relevant discussion, save to provide distractive objections on what are important factors in the situation we face."
Simply because I disagree with you, I have little to contribute? I have asked a very specific question with regard to ID theory which you have not answered. If you think that it is off topic, just say so and I won't ask it again on this thread. But given that the OP is about the soul, something that is more than the designed arrangement of matter and energy, I don't see how it is off topic. I will try to get an answer one more time and then leave it alone.
Does ID require that designed organisms be more than the interactions of their designed arrangement of matter and energy? I am not asking whether you think human life is more than this, I am asking if ID theory requires this? Arguing that humans have to be more than this just to be able to have this discussion, which I agree with, does not answer the question. Does ID theory require a bacteria, or starfish, or a sponge, to be more than their designed arrangement of matter and energy?Molson Bleu
February 12, 2018
February
02
Feb
12
12
2018
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
F/N: Refocussing, let us note that "soul" often stands in for the whole inner man or self that we are directly aware of by way of being self-aware . . . our first fact, and that "mind" often stands in for "soul." The issues implied in the OP and in the clip from Plato in The Laws Bk X are tied closely to the mind-brain and problem of consciousness as well as intentionality debates out there. Just, the usual games of labelling and dismissing "religion" [actually, philosophy] have been applied. KFkairosfocus
February 12, 2018
February
02
Feb
12
12
2018
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT
MB, your onward response leads me to note a pattern. I have long since pointed out the declared purpose of UD and why it is fully within that purpose to address the range of worldview, sci-tech and similar issues, not just the narrowly scientific focussed on the design inference on the world of life or the cosmos. I and others have also pointed out on long experience and observation that the roots of many objections do not pivot on issues of empirical evidence and scientific analysis but on ideological matters tied to the wider issues. Also, in certain cases, on breakdowns on logic and first principles of reasoning, warrant and knowing. Where, those set aside, simply the importance of alphanumeric code and algorithmic machinery in the cell would already have been utterly decisive. Despite that, you have continued the pattern. I therefore now conclude for cause that you have little to contribute to serious and relevant discussion, save to provide distractive objections on what are important factors in the situation we face. KFkairosfocus
February 12, 2018
February
02
Feb
12
12
2018
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT
“And BTW, you are still missing on the AI thread — which is about why the focus not deep technical details. Which tells us something.”
Yes. It tells us that I don’t waste my time participating in discussions on subjects that I have no competence in. I have found that to be a wise strategy.Molson Bleu
February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
F/N: Let us get specific, kindly, let us know what is readily dismissible as utterly illogical superstition [--> "theology"] in:
when one thing changes [= causally drives] another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second.
When we can deal with the difference between the self-moved and the dynamic-stochastic mechanically causal chain, we can get somewhere. Like, to begin understanding what computing does and does not do. And maybe even why computation -- a signal-processing cause effect process that nowhere depends on meanings to produce outputs -- is utterly distinct from ground and consequent, meaning based logical inference.
Perhaps, Reppert may help us:
. . . 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.
And, more. KFkairosfocus
February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
ET, ID is a field of intelligent, rational investigation and discussion. Such can only be carried out by those who are responsibly, rationally free and self-moved. That is required to reason as opposed to spew forth whatever chain of dynamic-stochastic consequences happen to have been triggered. No computational substrate rises above dynamic-stochastic behaviour. For instance, a memristor is a variable resistor with a memory of past currents which adjusts and can program its value. Then lower level signal currents can be shaped by that stored prior signal etched into the resistance state. This can be used in a classic analogue circuit, or to store digitised information, or as part of a neural network. But in each and every case it is volts and currents, not truth or actual values of a meaningful variable. Self aware insight and understanding are simply not in view. The summed up result may be remarkable as was the old Ford Analogue Computer in the USS Iowas. But that is simply not crossing the gap to self aware agency. KFkairosfocus
February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
MB, pardon but you have overlooked the fallacy of the closed, ideologised mind. We cannot allow the selectively hyperskeptical, who have made a crooked yardstick their standard, to control the issue: especially ideological imposition of naturalism, so called, and of scientism. What is straight will never pass the test of conformity to crookedness so the only sensible path is to expose the problem by bringing to bear a plumbline. Then, we get on with the main job. And BTW, you are still missing on the AI thread -- which is about why the focus not deep technical details. Which tells us something. KFkairosfocus
February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
ET at 13 and 14, so you can’t provide a link to the portion of the ID theory that requires the designed organism to be more than the interaction of the designed arrangement of matter and energy.
Reality requires that living organisms to be more than matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions. And only ID explains that reality.ET
February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
“We need to recognise what we are, before we can have a fruitful discussion . . . as has been demonstrated again and again for years here at UD.”
No, we have to convince those opposed to ID what we are before we can have a fruitful discussion. Otherwise we are just preaching to the choir. And we don’t get there by repeatedly talking about immortal souls, objective morality and the like. We get there by sticking to ID concepts that can be demonstrated empirically. That is why I asked the question about whether ID theory requires organisms to be more than the interaction of their designed arrangement of matter and energy.
“Repeatedly, the root problems lie in evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers, not the strength of ID-supportive arguments.”
No, the root problems lie in the arguments we are presenting, and the way we present them. We keep telling everyone that ID is not about religion, and then keep talking about religion and other theological subjects on what is supposed to be an ID web site. To be completely honest, if I believed in evolution and came to this web site, or the other web sites that support ID, I would not take the arguments very seriously. ‘You are judged by the company you keep.’
“PS: What are your thoughts on the AI focus and where I think it points?”
I have not read them in any detail. AI is well beyond my area of competence.Molson Bleu
February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
MB, no. You are conflating the fact that soul is commonly used in a theological context with it being a theological construct to be walled off from general discussion given the prejudices of our time. I pointed out instead the actual history of ideas context, i.e. that soul speaks to the inner, self-aware, rationally contemplative, deciding, conscience guided morally governed individual. One with duties to truth, responsible logic, warrant, fairness and more, just to have a serious discussion. Including regarding ID. Where, the evolutionary materialistic ideology which is often imposed is self-referentially incoherent, self-falsifying and necessarily false. As we can see from the sad case of Sir Francis Crick. We need to recognise what we are, before we can have a fruitful discussion . . . as has been demonstrated again and again for years here at UD. Repeatedly, the root problems lie in evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers, not the strength of ID-supportive arguments. As I have long pointed out, the simple fact of alphanumeric code and algorithm implementing nanotech in the cell should be decisive. That it has not long since won the day speaks volumes on how we have bent science away from seeking the empirical evidence based truth about our world to redefining it as in effect applied atheism dressed up in a lab coat. KF
PS: What are your thoughts on the AI focus and where I think it points?
PPS: Plato, speaking in the voice of the Athenian Stranger, in The Laws, Bk X:
Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second.
[[ . . . .]
Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it?
Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life?
Ath. I do.
Cle. Certainly we should.
Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life?
[[ . . . . ]
Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul?
Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things?
Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things.
Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer?
Cle. Exactly.
Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler?
[[ . . . . ]
Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]
kairosfocus
February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
“This is already to be enconscienced and ensouled. This is an implicit premise of any serious discussion.“
Yes, we are clearly conscious. This cannot be disputed. But whether or not we have a soul, immortal or not, is a theological discussion, not an ID one. As I have mentioned, I believe that we have immortal souls, but this is something I base on faith, not on empirical evidence, because there is none. There are plenty of anecdotal accounts such as seances, ghost sightings, and more. But most of these crumble under the light of scrutiny.
But the question I am looking for an answer to, and I apologize for it being a little off topic, is whether ID requires that designed organism be more than the interactions of the designed arrangement of matter and energy. I accept that our faiths conclude this, but does ID theory? It certainly does not hold true for any artifact that we can irrefutably confirm design (eg. Man made designs), so I would conclude that we cannot establish this as a requirement for design in biology. Your thoughts?Molson Bleu
February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
ET at 13 and 14, so you can’t provide a link to the portion of the ID theory that requires the designed organism to be more than the interaction of the designed arrangement of matter and energy. Thank you for confirming what I already thought was the case.Molson Bleu
February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
J-Mac: kindly look at the OP above, where you will see an in-brief discussion of the senses of the term death as used in foundational Christian documents. Death of the body, a physical, composite entity that uses C-Chem, aqueous medium chemicals and requires minute-by-minute oxygen, daily water and food, and more, leads to its degradation per the decay processes. Death in the spiritual sense [death of the soul] is not about material disintegration, but moral breakdown due to alienation from the fount of good. The comparison made is to cutting or breaking off a branch, leading to withering and failure to be fruitful. On other points, I would suggest to you that physical computational substrates, if properly arranged to process signals or codes, can do just that, mechanically compute. There is no evidence that they can rise above that to self-aware contemplation, insight and judgement. If you know otherwise, kindly inform us as to what: _____, when shown, by whom: ______, and when they won Nobel or equivalent prizes: _______ . KFkairosfocus
February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Again, the question is, does ID require that the finished product of design (car, flagellum, life form) be anything more than the interactions of its specifically arranged matter and energy?
Yes, because living organisms are more than just matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions. You cannot produce a living organism from just matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions. Living organisms are not reducible to matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions.ET
February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
As I have already mentioned, the information is provided by the designer.
So you agree with me, then. Good.
I was just saying that the theory of ID does not require the living organism that is the result of the design to be anything more than the interaction of its designed arrangement of matter and energy.
So living organisms don't require any codes? Why is it that we cannot produce living organisms then? We know the matter and energy involved.ET
February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
MB, just to have a real discussion, we need to be responsibly and rationally free, thus also self-moved initiating causal agents who are morally governed by duties to truth, sound logic, fairness (and even charity or forbearance) etc. This is already to be enconscienced and ensouled. This is an implicit premise of any serious discussion. Including science, philosophy of science, epistemology, philosophy. So, no, this is a key and relevant background question -- see Sir Francis Crick's blunder as was noted in the OP. This answers to why such a subject is legitimate, even Nobel Prize winners get this badly wrong. The real question is the nature of the soul, and that is the context of J-Mac's issue on immortality, thus also what death is. He asked this in a specifically Christian context and I took advantage of the possibilities of an OP to give a more rounded answer. And, I am a little surprised to see how much commentary has developed on this as opposed to the other OP that went up today on why, having dealt with background issues, I have put such an emphasis on AI-linked themes. Strangely, the two are related. KFkairosfocus
February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
“ID, as a theory, requires information and said information is not reducible to matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions.
As I have already mentioned, the information is provided by the designer. You should try reading my entire comment before you respond. It makes for a more intelligable conversation.
I was just saying that the theory of ID does not require the living organism that is the result of the design to be anything more than the interaction of its designed arrangement of matter and energy. If I am wrong, please link to the part of the theory which requires this. If you can’t, I will take my claim as being correct and that what you are saying is just your opinion.Molson Bleu
February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
I didn’t say that there could not be more, I just said that ID, as a theory, doesn’t require it.
ID, as a theory, requires information and said information is not reducible to matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions.
“Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism which disregards this, will not survive one day.” Norbert Weiner
ET
February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
ET,
“That is false as if living organisms are just matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions then why is a designer required?”
Speaking of straw man or the blind support for preconceived ideas rather than truth... ;-)J-Mac
February 11, 2018
February
02
Feb
11
11
2018
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
“That is false as if living organisms are just matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions then why is a designer required?”
Because it is not possible for energy and matter to randomly arrange themselves into what we see as living organisms without a designer. I didn’t say that there could not be more, I just said that ID, as a theory, doesn’t require it.
“Is it? Information is required. Can the interactions of matter and energy produce a car?”
With the proper designs, yes. The human designer produces the information (design) necessary to manufacture a car. The designers design the tools necessary to build the car. The manufacturers build the tools and the car. All through interactions of matter and energy.
Again, the question is, does ID require that the finished product of design (car, flagellum, life form) be anything more than the interactions of its specifically arranged matter and energy? If so, please provide a link to the part of ID theory that states do.Molson Bleu
