Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Materialist Poofery

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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.

Comments
Thank you all for the discussion.Barry Arrington
April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
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.)kairosfocus
April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
PT: Joseph has been put on serious warning. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
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.dpackard
April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT
"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!Allen_MacNeill
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
Joseph @ 191:
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
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?PaulT
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
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.David Kellogg
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
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 TKIkairosfocus
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
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.StephenB
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
If I wanted to simulate Stonehenge do I have to include Stonehenge’s designers?
Most theories about the design, purpose and construction of Stonehenge start with the assumption that the constructors were humans.
That is meaningless and it doesn't address my question.
have you overlooked my previous queries about where you studied marine biology?
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 babiesJoseph
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
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.]kairosfocus
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
If I wanted to simulate Stonehenge do I have to include Stonehenge’s designers?
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?Alan Fox
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
BL Harville:
On the other hand, if you wanted to simulate Intelligent Design you’d have to include God (or the Intelligent Designer(s)).
If I wanted to simulate Stonehenge do I have to include Stonehenge's designers? Are you totally clue-less?Joseph
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
B l Harville:
By novelty I was referring to the evolution of new forms and functions a bit more dramatic than resistance in bacteria - the sort of evolution that cdesign proponentists refuse to believe can happen. For example, the development of wrist bones and fingers in Tiktaalik.
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.Joseph
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
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.Joseph
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
Evolution's magical mystery mutations = POOFJoseph
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
#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.eligoodwin
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT
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.Nakashima
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT
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.Nakashima
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
eligoodwin:
#173 Care to demonstrate the MIND you speak of?
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? ;)Phinehas
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
In #165 Barry Arrington posted an excerpt from a Wikipedia article on Johannes Kepler that, to my mind at least, convincingly refuted Benjamin Lee Harville's assertion in #159 that "Kepler was not invoking an Intelligent Designer in his work." That should have been sufficient, and had Mr. Arrington left it at that, I suspect that, if Mr. Harville had been a gentleman and had been convinced (as I was) that Barry had made his point well (and supported it with evidence), he might have conceded the point and moved on. However, Mr. Arrington chose to end his comment with this:
"BL, when you say something so outrageously and obviously false, I am compelled to believe one of two things: (1) you are intentionally distorting the historical record to score cheap rhetorical points in this debate; or (2) you are deeply stupid and don’t know better. Charity compels me to conclude the latter, but either way, I will not allow commenters to post such outrageous falsehoods on this site with impugnity. You are in the moderation sandbox.
This was precisely my point when earlier I noted that allowing people to post arguments that can either be easily refuted and/or shown to be deliberately false is generally more valuable to both the participants and onlookers in a debate such as this than simply summarily banning the person posting the comment. Furthermore, in rereading Mr. Harville's comment at #159, I cannot find anything in the comment that would constitute a personal attack against either Barry or anyone else participating in this debate. Ergo, it seems to me as if Mr. Harville was placed on moderation for the "sin" of posting an easily refuted argument, and not for breaking any of the rules of civil discussion for which moderation rules are generally instituted. Under the circumstance, I can sympathize with Mr. Harville in his stated intention not to participate further in this venue. And he has what appears to me to be a valid point: how is one expected to learn from one's mistakes if they are construed as originating in a mens rea rather than a mistaken intellectual position? Indeed, it appears to me that the only person to have attacked another person's character, rather than their argument in this case was Mr. Arrington, rather than Mr. Harville. I recommend that everyone who is interested in pursuing this debate with some modicum of civility and respect read the comments and follow the links posted here: http://designparadigm.blogsome.com/2006/06/13/broken-windows-and-civility/ My good friend and colleague (and dedicated intellectual opponent and ID supporter) Hannah Maxson wrote this about the problem of "broken windows" and civility in the course of intellectual debates:
"It’s easy when you’re arguing passionately about something to feel the other person is stupid, dumb or just plain idiotic. Maybe in other places on or off-line insults and ridicule have been the usual coin of trade. However, here it’s different. We in the IDEA club have consistently felt that’s it very important to argue logically without resorting to ad hominem attacks or other insulting jibes."
She then quoted part of an article on the subject of the "broken window" theory of social dysfunction: ...What we’re seeing in the marketplace of ideas today is a disturbing growth of incivility that follows and confirms the broken windows theory. Alas, this breakdown of civil norms is not a failing of either the political left or the right exclusively. It spreads across the political spectrum from one end to the other.... ...This is how the broken windows theory plays out in the marketplace of ideas. If you want to see it working in real time, try the following: Log on to AOL, and go to one of the live chat rooms reserved for political chat. Someone will post a civil comment on some political topic. Almost immediately, someone else will swing the verbal hammer of incivility, and from there the chat degrades into a food fight, with invective and insult as the main course... ...Incivility is not a social blunder to be compared with using the wrong fork. Rather, it betrays a defect of character. Incivility is dangerous graffiti, regardless of whether it is spray-painted on a subway car, or embossed on the title page of a book. The broken windows theory shows us the dangers in both cases. [Emphasis in original] Hannah ended her post with this:
"Therefore, let us argue passionately about ideas, but in the heat of an argument let’s remember to respect each other’s (and our own) dignity. Let us remember the difference between an insult and an argument. Let us lay our hammers down."
Here's what I wrote then, in response to her post:
"I find it odd (but somehow satisfying) to come to the defense of someone with who’s ideas I generally disagree, but I find [Hannah]’s habit of sticking to logical arguments much more interesting and productive than constant ad hominem attacks. After all, I believe that most of us are ultimately motivated by curiosity about the natural world and a desire to understand more about how it works and came to be the way it is. That certainly has been my experience with [Hannah], and so I will do my duty and come to her defense despite our differences." [Emphasis added]
To which I might only add at this point, AmenAllen_MacNeill
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
Missed the same point with 6a (got tired and in too much of a hurry to finish): "Moving in the other direction, it is trivial for the materialist to explain how the mind can affect the body and through it, the world. Mind, nerve, muscle and world are all physical (to the materialist), so their interactions are all physical.” This again ignores the evidence of parapsychology, that minds can remotely influence the world through nonmaterial means as in psychokinesis and directed telepathy. So since 6b is a combination of irrelevant and wrong this changes 6 to: "advantage nonmaterialist". This makes the final count: on 5 out of 7 issues, the advantage is with the nonmaterialist. On 0 out of the 7 issues, the advantage is with the materialists. Nonmaterialist metaphysics fits the facts better.magnan
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
I missed something, on 5a. "5a. For the materialist, it is trivial to explain how the physical world can affect the mind through our senses. After all, the world, our sense organs, our nerves and our minds are all physical, so the interactions between them are just normal physical interactions.” This isn't OK, because these are not all the known interactions. It again ignores the evidence of parapsychology, that minds are indeed affected by other minds and by remote places and events through phenomena such as telepathy and clairvoyance. These interactions are not explainable by the materialist. 5b is a combination of irrelevant and wrong, so the assessment on 5 is "Advantage: nonmaterialists" . This makes the final count: on 4 out of 7 issues, the advantage is with the nonmaterialist. On 0 out of the 7 issues, the advantage is with the materialists. Nonmaterialist metaphysics fits the facts better.magnan
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
Kris_Censored writes: "In other words, the exciting point was knowing how God did what he did. Knowing that he did it simply wasn’t enough. This is true of many scientists, including Newton, another common icon of the “God did it” scientist here on UD because of his strong religious beliefs. Newton knew that God did it. There was no question at all on that point. However, that simply wasn’t a good enough answer. Newton’s science was actually effective because he was trying to figure out exactly how God did it." How very odd. We are in complete agreement on this point, yet you think I disagree. Why is that?Barry Arrington
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
As far as I can tell, there was no response to mauka's "tallying up the score" on materialist theories of consciousness in #20. I see that now he has added three more issues in #175. Like John Davison, I think my point of view on this will be either ignored, or rejected by simple assertion (in some cases insultingly). Most here, even the ID advocates, appear to ascribe to the conviction that psi and psychical phenomena do not really exist, either due to scientism or viewing it as contradictory to Scripture. It is the obstinate refusal to accept the validity of the evidence, implying that thousands of witnesses, experiencers and research investigators have been deluded or lying over the last century or more. It is too bad, because this excludes an extremely important area relevant to some of these debates. mauka (#20): "Let’s tally up the score: 1a. Materialists haven’t (adequately) explained how consciousness can arise from a physical brain." Yes, though of course there have been a lot of proposed "explanations" that hold no water whatsoever. "1b. Nonmaterialists haven’t explained how consciousness can arise from an immaterial entity." Yes, though again there are number of proposed explanations. "Result: Tie" I suppose, but this is an unimportant straw man issue, since the absence of a viable hypothesis or theory explaining it has nothing to do with the reality or truth of the proposed entity or phenomenon itself. "2a. We know that the brain exists, and we know that messing with the brain can affect consciousness or make it disappear altogether." Of course. But we don't know for a fact that human consciousness is one with and identical with the brain in some way. This is just one explanation for these facts, and one which ignores the data outlined below. "2b. We don’t know that the putative immaterial entity exists, and if it does exist, we don’t know if it is involved with or has any effect on consciousness." Depends on what you mean by "know" - another debate in itself. We do know that there is a huge body of evidence in psi and psychical phenomena that clearly points to the mind being some sort of mobile center of consciousness that inhabits the physical brain and body in order to express in the physical world (interactive dualism). Examples are telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis and precognition. Other examples include many types of psychical phenomena that demonstrate the apparent action of discrete discarnate self-aware personalities, clearly trying to communicate. Other psychical phenomena like NDEs usually involve reporting a self of some sort leaving the body and experiencing the apparent initial stages of physical death. Other data like reincarnation birthmark evidence clearly makes a link between the deceased and the present person. All of these phenomena and more involving a lot of "veridical information" (that is, independently verified). The only viable hypotheses to explain this data are either "super psi" or survival. Super psi is proposing that the phenomena arise from an almost unlimited psychic and data integration capacity, invented or imagined ad hoc to attempt to explain each particular case. Survival of the personality is a better explanation - it encompasses all the data very well. Even the super psi hypothesis requires the human mind to be much more than the physical brain as is believed by materialist neuroscience. "Advantage: materialist" As per the above, it is much closer to "advantage: nonmaterialists" "3a. We know that reasoning can be mechanized, as in theorem-proving systems." Yes. But this is not the issue. Of course logical processes are mechanized via computer systems. We don't really know that computer systems and computation of any speed and complexity will ever be able to actually achieve consciousness and self-awareness. That is another big debate, not a "known". "3b. We don’t know that immaterial entities can reason." Again, depends on what you mean by "know". The evidence in 2b above clearly points to some nonmaterial entities in fact being able to reason, in their actions as apparent discarnate minds. "Advantage: materialist" 3a is irrelevant. The important issue is computer consciousness. We don't know the answer conclusively, but there are many good reasons to suspect the nonmaterialist position. 3a and 3b are actually a straw man argument. As per 2a and b, the final assessment is a lot closer to "advantage: nonmaterialists". "4a. Natural selection gives the materialist a plausible basis for the reliability of brain-based reasoning." This is shaky. Presupposes the plausibility of random variation + natural selection being the sole mechanism bringing about consciousness and therefore reasoning ability. This is a fundamental debate in this blog, not an assumption. "4b. Nonmaterialists have no plausible basis for arguing that their reason is reliable." Really? Logic is a fundamental aspect of existence, and therefore it would have to be a fundamental aspect of immaterial consciousness. 2 + 2 = 4 for a mind whether it is ultimately nonmaterial or material. Nonmaterialists and materialists both use reason and logic in dealing with the world, and it works. Empirically, it is reliable regardless of metaphysics, regardless of its origin, and there is no requirement that its origin be known. "Advantage: materialist" More of a tie. mauka, #175: "5a. For the materialist, it is trivial to explain how the physical world can affect the mind through our senses. After all, the world, our sense organs, our nerves and our minds are all physical, so the interactions between them are just normal physical interactions." OK "5b. The nonmaterialist has no explanation for how the physical world can bridge the gap in order to affect the immaterial mind." Irrelevant for all the empirical reasons enumerated in 2b. And a hypothesis may be the case whether or not there is a good mechanism known for it within the existing paradigm. Or no advances would have ever been made in science. "Advantage: materialist" This more of a tie. "6a. Moving in the other direction, it is trivial for the materialist to explain how the mind can affect the body and through it, the world. Mind, nerve, muscle and world are all physical (to the materialist), so their interactions are all physical." OK "6b. The nonmaterialist, however, has no explanation for how the immaterial mind can bridge the gap to influence the physical body, move the muscles and affect the physical world." Good point, though there are a number of explanatory models for various versions of interactive dualism. However, this is irrelevant for all the empirical reasons enumerated in 2b. And again, a hypothesis may be the case whether or not there is a good mechanism known for it within the existing paradigm. Or no advances would have ever been made in science. "Advantage: materialist" More a tie. "7a. Looking at the spectrum of human abilities and flaws, we find that the mind has the sort of characteristics you would expect it to have if it were the product of a long and kludgy evolutionary process." Please explain. The actual capacities of the human brain are way beyond any abilities that could have been selected for in evolution. Consider creative genius. This relates to the creative flights of fancy indulged in by the evolutionary psychologists, who imagine that all human values, emotions, and creative capacities were somehow selected for over vast ages. This subissue is a separate debate not an arguing point of fact. "7b. The nonmaterialist has no reason to expect any particular pattern of strengths and flaws in the human mind." Really? Nonmaterialists of many types have plenty of reasons for such expectations. Let's postulate a sort of dualistic Darwinism (not that I espouse it), where the same predictions are made as materialistic Darwinism; the sole difference is that the dualistic version presumes that what these brains have evolved to do (at least in part) is to access independently existing consciousness, rather than generate it. Of course it would be surprising if mind had not physically influenced the evolutionary process in the direction of an intentionality to manifest in physical bodies, rather than just waiting around and hoping the blind walk might just happen to produce the requisite brains and bodies. Such a process would be partially constrained by natural selection, but the human mind's characteristics would not be entirely its result. "Advantage: materialist" For the reasons explained, more "advantage: nonmaterialism" "The current tally? The materialist has the advantage on 6 of the 7 issues. The nonmaterialist has the advantage on none. There is one tie." I count: On 3 out of 7 issues, the advantage is with the nonmaterialist. On 0 out of the 7 issues, the advantage is with the materialists. Nonmaterialist metaphysics fits the facts better.magnan
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
#173 Care to demonstrate the MIND you speak of?eligoodwin
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington @165 I think there is a common mistake made when comparing a scientists religious beliefs and their scientific findings. Basically it should be understood that there is a separation of the following two ideas: that God did something and how God did something. Look at the Keplar quote and notice that Keplar's excitement stemmed from the fact that he had seen "God's geometrical plan for the universe." In other words, the exciting point was knowing how God did what he did. Knowing that he did it simply wasn't enough. This is true of many scientists, including Newton, another common icon of the "God did it" scientist here on UD because of his strong religious beliefs. Newton knew that God did it. There was no question at all on that point. However, that simply wasn't a good enough answer. Newton's science was actually effective because he was trying to figure out exactly how God did it.KRiS_Censored
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
mauka said:
Now think about the materialist’s position. 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. [emphasis mine]
Having apparently missed KF's point about MIND always coming from MIND, makua goes on to crow:
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.
Perhaps those intelligently designed computers you mention can be said to be thinking our thoughts after us in the same way Kepler saw his own thoughts in relation to God's. In any case, you've strengthened the claim that MIND comes from MIND, which can hardly be said to advance the materialist claim far ahead of the nonmaterialist.Phinehas
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
David Kellogg: "From StephenB’s and Barry’s comments I get the sense that there’s no step particular to ID after the design inference: that is, once design is concluded, the ID researcher does everything the same (with a different attitude, perhaps, and while excluding evolution). Yes, I think that is probably true in many if not all cases. Science is always about "sussing out the details," whether one starts from a materialist or an ID position. Since the ID theorist's explanatory paradigm is more robust than the materialist's, he will probably be more open minded and not go up as many blind alleys. Barry Arrington
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington, If you were to write a computer program to simulate the solar system with Kepler's laws of planetary motion, nowhere in that program would you find God. On the other hand, if you wanted to simulate Intelligent Design you'd have to include God (or the Intelligent Designer(s)). There is a categorical difference. This will be my last comment at UD after your nasty comment above. Sincerely, Benjamin Lee HarvilleB L Harville
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
1 2 3 7

Leave a Reply