Materialist Poofery
| April 25, 2009 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
From time to time we see materialists raising the “poof objection” against ID. The poof objection goes something like this: An ID theorist claims that a given organic system (the bacterial flagellum perhaps) is irreducibly complex or that it displays functional complex specified information. In a sneering and condescending tone the materialist dismisses the claim, saying something like “Your claim amounts to nothing more than ‘Poof! the designer did it.’”
I have always thought the poof objection coming from a materialist is particularly ironic, because materialists have “poofery” built into their science at a very basic level. Of course, they don’t use the term “poof.” They use a functional synonym of poof – the word “emergent.”
What do I mean? Consider the hard problem of consciousness. We all believe we are conscious, and consciousness must be accounted for. For the ID theorists, this is easy. The mind is a real phenomenon that cannot be reduced to the properties of the brain. Obviously, this is not so easy for the materialist who, by definition, must come up with a theory that reduces the mind to an epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical processes of the brain. What do they do? They say the mind is an “emergent property” of the brain. Huh? Wazzat? That means that the brain system has properties that cannot be reduced to its individual components. The system is said to “supervene” (I’m not making this up) on its components causing the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts.
And what evidence do we have that “emergence” is a real phenomenon? Absolutely none. Emergence is materialist poofery. Take the mind-brain problem again. The materialist knows that his claim that the mind does not exist is patently absurd. Yet, given his premises it simply cannot exist. So what is a materialist to do? Easy. Poof – the mind is an emergent property of the brain system that otherwise cannot be accounted for on materialist grounds.
200 Responses to Materialist Poofery
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
eligoodwin:
MIND is pretty clearly demonstrated in the composition of (nearly all?) the posts on this thread, including, if I may say so, #173.
Or did you suppose #173 to be the product of random, purposeless, yet incredibly coincidental forces?
Mr Arrington,
Don’t you think that people in positions of authority should be even more careful in obeying the law than others? How can you justify calling someone deeply stupid under the UD moderation policy?
What about option 3 – unaware of the facts? You want to say “I put someone in moderation to give them time to check their facts.” Fine. “I’m calling you deeply stupid to avoid calling you a liar.” Better to just keep your mouth shut. That is what my mother taught me.
Mr StephenB,
So as not to re-enter the Shermer thread, let’s just talk about fine tuning for a while.
Due to cosmic inflation, the Big Bang could have had a wide variety of properties, and we still would have wound up with a universe similar to the one we have today. So in one sense, you are better off asking why inflation than why fine tuning.
At another level, there have been studies of different sets of physical laws to see if our universe really is fine tuned for life. If the prime condition for life is long lived stars that cook heavy elements, the answer is no. Long lived stars that cook heavy elements can happen in up to 25% of examined ratios of physical constants.
With over 350 exoplanets already found, and now one in a stellar habitable zone, I’m willing to wait for more data on whether life is common in the galaxy. However, I do agree that we are unlikely to find more than “pond scum” unless the planet it occupies also has plate tectonics, tides, an axial tilt, a strong magnetic field, all properties of Earth which I think have been important to allowing our brand of pond scum to get a little “jumped up”.
And under all these possibilities for other laws of nature, and on other worlds, there will be emergent properties. Temperature, turbulence, and quite probably, evolution.
#181
I know what human intelligence is because I am able to observe the actions of human minds. I can’t same about the “intelligence/MIND/God (albeit the christian one)” advocated on this site.
And magman, put up the studies demonstrating the immaterial properties of the brain. I would prefer peer reviewed journal articles on the subject. Secondly, you may wish to contact James Randi, he has a check waiting for you.
Evolution’s magical mystery mutations = POOF
Note to David Kellogg:
ID is the detection design AND then study of said design.
We study it so that we may come to understand it.
Did arhaeologists stop looking at Stonehenge once they determined it to be an artifact? No, they pressed on so that they may hopefully understand more about it.
But thank you for once again demonstrating your ID ignorance.
B l Harville:
1- ID is OK with universal common descent.
2- There isn’t any genetic data which demonstrates such novelty can be accomplished via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
There isn’t even a way to test the premise.
BL Harville:
If I wanted to simulate Stonehenge do I have to include Stonehenge’s designers?
Are you totally clue-less?
Most theories about the design, purpose and construction of Stonehenge start with the assumption that the constructors were humans.
have you overlooked my previous queries about where you studied marine biology?
Magnan (and otehres)
Just a quick note — thanks on some impressive heavy lifting. (I may have odd points of concurrence or disagreement, but the overall argument is such an excellent point of departure that I must commend it. [Saved me some heavy lifting this morning, for sure . . . ])
GEM of TKI
PS: Re Mauka et al — there is still a major issue that evolutionary materialism is self referential and runs into serious self undermining once it tries to address the minds we must use to even think evo mat thoughts. And, REASONING is a conscious process — as opposed to physical manipulation of signals in accord with preset rules per logic gates or programs, tracing in the known cases to . . . minds.
PPS: on emergence. In physical systems, holistic behaviour emerges from the properties, organisation/ architecture and interactions of parts one with the other and the environment beyond the system boundary. Such complex organisation is usually riddled with irreducible complexity, and with functionally specific complex information. [Ever designed a computer-embedded system and had to build it and get it to work? One of the headaches with such is that you are in a multi-fault environment where just one error is often enough to bring all grinding to a halt. the critical success factor concept from management is quite related.]
If I wanted to simulate Stonehenge do I have to include Stonehenge’s designers?
That is meaningless and it doesn’t address my question.
Have YOU overlooked my previous queries about nested hierarchies being formed without additive characteristics?
It appears you ahve. You have also overlooked several other questions asked of you.
So if you want answers from me perhaps you should step up and start answering my questions.
And if you don’t want to answer my questions then the only way I will answer your query is when we meet.
Now I have already told you that and you continue to act like a little cry-baby.
Oops- you are a little cry-baby…
No disrespect meant to little babies
Allen @180. In that spirit, I would like to express my regret for injecting a personal comment in response to your descriptions of the Tao on another thread. I usually reward commentators for disclosing information like that, since many come here only to scrutinize and never be scrutinized. So, for what it is worth, it will not happen again.
Now, re Mauka at 128:
M, here, tries to address an issue on the merits. This is to be commended.
However, we also need to look at the matter on the merits too. So, let’s take a few points, step by step:
1] [On the evo mat view] brains are physical systems composed ultimately of fundamental particles. Thus, the operation of the brain is just the end result of a large number of fundamental particles mindlessly obeying the laws of physics. How can this mindless process give rise to rational thought? If the underlying physics is mindless, then we have no way of guaranteeing that the resulting thoughts are rational, according to Lewis and Reppert. Thus, naturalism undercuts itself.
A bit clumsy as the issue is that chance + necessity are challenged to get to ground-consequent relationships with any credibility, on the context of a conscious REASONING being — not just an i/p/o entity that has signals input and transformed to o/ps under rules imposed by a designer that sets up a system. [Which observe, M does not immediately address -- a warning that we are off on a side track heading for a strawman.]
2] If thinking is carried out not by the brain, but by some unknown immaterial entity, then KF has no way of guaranteeing that this immaterial entity operates reliably, and thus no way of guaranteeing that his thoughts are reliable.
Interesting when you reverse the terms of an argument, nuh? [Strawman alert.]
As was discussed above, we EXPERIENCE ourselves as thinking entities, who get things right at least some of the time. Fact, to be accounted for.
What the stuff is that does that is not in that question of fact — precisely as I warned above. (In short, I am here reporting a fact not begging a metaphysical question.)
Whatever “stuff” mind is [to be decided per inference to best explanation on available evidence], it per experience works reasonably well; and we know — on serious argument [not addressed by M; cf above] that chance + mechanical necessity acting on matter does not credibly get us to reasoned ground-consequent relationships as per logic anchored to facts. At most, in our experience of physical instantiations of logic processing circuits or software implemented in such circuits mechanically manipulate signals coded as symbols to produce logical results. But the ORIGIN of the carefully organised and tested, validated circuits and software in directly known cases is: minds. Surprise — not! [Remember, we are not yet in a position to ask what "stuff" minds are made of, we are just dealing with them as a fact of life.]
And, such info processing entities are replete with irreducibly complex organised elements, networks and systems, as well as functionally specific complex information. Indeed, they are paradigmatic illustrations of how IC and FSCI point per solid induction to design.
So . . . when we look at other entities that show these patterns of complex organisation, we have good reason to infer to design. Which leads through the observed DNA- RNA- ribosome- enzyme- etc cell based life info processing systems and onward to the intricate fine tuning of the cosmos that facilitates such.
Without leaving the empirical realm, we have now got to a point where — as was previously pointed out [and ignored as per usual] we see evidence of extracosmic design. [Cf my always linked sections B - D for the steps. Then look at E for the inference to best current explanation. Appendix 8 discusses rthe issue of mind in more details than I can here, including the key quotes and notes on why I use them.]
Thus, there is again reason to see that Mind beyond material nature could create it and organise it towards purpose. Thus, there is excellent reason to see that minds can interact functionally with matter without having to be material.
3] the flip side of “hyperskeptical” is “hyposkeptical”. Ponder that the next time you’re looking in a mirror.
Already long since done. (M’s argument is mere turnabout rhetoric, long since answered. I would like for him to engage the just linked on the merits.)
4] KF (and Lewis, and Reppert) . . . have no way of addressing this problem short of developing a “science of the soul” that explains how immaterial minds work and proves that they are reliable by construction.
To know that is prior to knowing how, as already discussed just above and previously.
And, to know that per inference to best explanation — a key way of knowing in science — leads step by step to credibly knowing of a mind beyond the observed physical nature capable of creating it; regardless of whether or not we — now — know how.
We should not let what we do not yet know hinder us from seeing the import of what we do credibly know. To not know all is no reason to jump to “we can know nothing.”
5] We already know that it’s possible to construct computers that do arithmetic and logic reliably. We know that it’s possible to write reliable software to run on these computers, including sophisticated reasoning programs like the theorem provers I mentioned earlier in the thread. Thus, we know that reason can be mechanized in a properly constructed system.
Reason, of course is precisely NOT being carried out by networks of logic circuits organised by intelligent designers and functioning under carefully developed algorithms.
And what do we know about these known designers – they are minded.
In short the question is being begged through a failure to recognise that there is self reference at work which assumes the fact of observed experience of mindedness.
6] So the materialist is already far ahead of the nonmaterialist, who doesn’t know if it’s possible for any immaterial mind to operate correctly, much less the one that humans happen to get.
Unsupported conclusion, once we see the logic gaps as highlighted just above.
From this point, M’s argument disintegrates.
7] At this point, we’ve shown that reliable, physically-based reasoning is possible.
We know as observing minds, that signals can be digitally manipulated in intelligently designed circuits and using equally intelligently designed software to carry out signal processing that we assign meanings to that implement logical operations [including arithmetic and extensions thereof].
In short, the question is being begged.
8] The materialist holds that the brain has been shaped by natural selection. Brains that can’t reason reliably get their owners killed. Individuals with better brains tend to survive and reproduce better than those with addled brains, so genetic changes that produce flawed thinking get weeded out of the population.
Not at all, brains — insofar as they process information — are transparent to the process of natural selection.
What is weeded out is populations that are behaviourally non- functional or of sufficiently inferior function.
And, as Plantinga long ago showed, there is no correlation between accuracy of abstract BELIEF or ASSUMPTION and efficacy of behaviour. [Indeed, that is how a lot of modelling and science work -- explanations are empirically adequate not necessarily true beyond revision, or even at the first look.]
Truth is not a criterion of natural selection. Nor is reasoning ability.
9] The nonmaterialist has no corresponding selective process to appeal to. He just has to hope (pray?) that the mind he gets is reliable at the start. Yet again, the materialist has the advantage.
Let’s see, how does a computer get set up right, again?
H’mm: [appealing to the authority of the order of the soldering iron burnt thumb, of which the undersigned is a member] by a designer who draws up a design, implements and tests prototypes and then sees to it that the prototypes work empirically. Often, aided by instrumentation and theories or at least heuristics or crude rules of thumb of getting things right — or at least, effective — to begin with.
Indeed, s/he is not locked up to blind searches of beyond astronomical contingency spaces, but through insight and imagination can put us in the ball park of function, even if not fully there.
10] Looking at the spectrum of human abilities (and flaws), we find that the mind has the kind of flaws you would expect it to have if it were the product of a long and kludgy evolutionary process.
Actually, no one has shown that such a process can get us to the shores of islands of function that require in excess of 1,000 bits of information capacity. And, until you have initial function, you cannot hill climb to better function by differential success across variant forms. (Think aout how much info is embedded in a simple 7400 TTL quad NAND chip . . . the first step of a realistic logic entity; for both combinatorial ckts [BA reduction to NAND form . . . ] and sequential ones [think RS latch]; multiply by the architecture of a simple microprocessor, then by the monitor and OS software and then the applications packages. Compare the information encoded into DNA to get to the body plan of an observed organism with the scale of brain involved in abstract, logical reasoning.]
In short, the big question is again being begged.
11] There is no reason for the nonmaterialist to expect the human mind to have these specific flaws if it is based on an immaterial entity.
So long as minds belong to entities that have choices and have finite knowledge bases, incorrect assumptions and beliefs are possible, as well as errors in reasoning thereform.
this is a false, strawman problem.
12] Conclusion: The argument that KF keeps flogging turns out, ironically, to be a disaster for his own nonmaterialist position, yet it strengthens the case of the materialist!
Utterly unwarranted, as just shown in outline.
GEM of TKI
magnan [178 and 179] refers to “the evidence of parapsychology, that minds can remotely influence the world through nonmaterial means as in psychokinesis and directed telepathy.” Like ID researchers, scientists in this area have been Expelled from the academy, as in the well-known case of Drs. Venkman, Spengler, and Stantz.
Joseph @ 191:
Moderators – I regularly only a lurker here but this leads me to comment. Why is Joseph allowed to continue to get away with personal attacks like this, while others have recently been made no-longer-with-us for what appear to be much milder transgressions?
“Like ID researchers, scientists in this area have been Expelled from the academy, as in the well-known case of Drs. Venkman, Spengler, and Stantz.”
Hey, but the kids loved them!
It really seems to me that much of the time the two sides in this debate are speaking completely different languages and could understand each other much better if they made sure they cleared up what they mean with their words.
A while back one of the IDists said that “emergence” = “poof” and “design” = “we’ll come back to it later” (to paraphrase). This is precisely the opposite of what a scientist (as in the majority of currently practicing scientists) would say the words emergence and design mean with regards to explanatory power.
If we are really just mincing over these labels, what’s the fuss? IDists presume final causes which man can never know, materialists (to use the parlance of this thread) adhere to examining mediate causes. There is no overlap between these two thought processes, except in that it seems to me the IDists want to put a final cause into the middle of a chain of mediate causes that scientists have been investigating for 150 years. That is why scientists get so bristled.
PT:
Joseph has been put on serious warning.
GEM of TKI
Onlookers:
The meat of this thread has been taken over to a successor thread, here.
GEM of TKI
PS: Mr MacNeill, the issue of unjustified career busting etc is far to serious to be dismissed by a reference to the Ghostbusters Movie. (And, the case being made is not critically dependent on the parapsychological information issue; which is why i did not take it up above, other than to note that I have points of difference.)
Thank you all for the discussion.