Home » Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design » Reasons people debate ID on the Internet, particularly UD, TSZ, PandasThumb, TelicThoughts, ARN

Reasons people debate ID on the Internet, particularly UD, TSZ, PandasThumb, TelicThoughts, ARN

The ID debate takes place among a relatively small number people on the internet. I guess maybe there are 50 or so regular viewers of UD. Most threads have views around 300 views, which are not all unique. So why is time invested in these debates? Surely the UD and TSZ blogs aren’t reaching and extremely wide audience, and the other blogs and forums are relatively quiet. So why is there so much time spent in debate? I list here Mark Frank’s viewpoint and mine. Readers may offer their reasons.

Mark Frank in response to my query wrote:

Just noticed this from Sal

If its not too personal, and because I want to understand, not condemn, if you believe there is no God, why spend time debating ID proponents? For myself, if I believed there was no God, I’d probably be out there partying or something more enjoyable than the shouting matches on the net, spending time arguing with people (ID proponents and creationists) who are presumably deluded.

Good question! I often think I should spend time doing something more constructive but it is fun and slightly addictive. I find the arguments for ID intellectually interesting – much more so than the arguments for astrology. I am convinced they are faulty, but not obviously so, and it is interesting to understand why.

Also it is interesting to study online debate – how people behave in ways they would never contemplate were they face to face.

Finally there is an element among many IDists here I find slightly threatening and maybe I can contribute a little bit by publically confronting it from time to time. It is not actually to do with ID. I am concerned about the absolute certainty that many in this community have that their religion means that they know what is morally correct. In my view the very worst of the things to happen in this world have arisen from people who felt they had discovered some principle or other which means they know what is right. The principle is not necessarily religious – communism was another such principle, so was the French revolution. It is particularly dangerous when it is mixed with a fear that others are threatening that certainty. I absolutely don’t include you in this. You seem very able to think pragmatically and for yourself.

I am not very good at this. Lizzie is brilliant. Unfailingly polite, takes (almost) everyone seriously, – yet clear, logical and determined in making her case. Just by being a model debater I suspect she is winning over many lurkers.

My reasons:

If someone asked me why I spend time on the net arguing ID, it is in part because I’ve had doubt about its truthfulness. The process of debate has reassured me of some ideas, cast doubt on others, and falsified still others.

The net has been a public diary of my search for truth…

Right now, I find it personally difficult to think the universe and life were mindless accidents. I don’t think Darwinian evolution is true, and I don’t have reason to believe OOL will ever be solved.

Comment 5: Holy Rollers

[posted by scordova to assist News desk for 1 week with news and commentary]

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

59 Responses to Reasons people debate ID on the Internet, particularly UD, TSZ, PandasThumb, TelicThoughts, ARN

  1. 1
    Christian-apologetics.org

    I almost never visit this UD website, however I read all the posts every day either by RSS or more recently using Feedly on my mobile device. I doubt the site stats are picking up people connecting to UD in this way.

  2. Sal, Is ID’s audience really that small? I thought it was much larger. How did you arrive at that number?

  3. StephenB,

    There is a meter that says:

    (Visited 74 times, 74 visits today)

    or something to that effect. Can you see it? Just look a few lines below the end of the OP.

    It’s easy to get the illusion that we’re widely read because the critics pounce on us so quickly.

    The visit meter goes up when we’re having shouting matches, so I know that can’t be the number of people viewing, just the number of visits.

    I’m amazed that Mike Elzinga at TSZ thinks this some sort of celebrity contest. The numbers are small. Astonishing given there are 7+ billion people in the world, something so important to us is non-existent to the other 7 Billion! :shock:

  4. Mark Frank,
    What you wrote about why you are interested in these sites could not be a more accurate description of my reasons. Every single point was true for me – and in particular the fear of dogmatic ideological certainty.
    -aiguy

  5. SalC:

    I hear your concerns. I think however that in addition to feeds, you may be missing other effects.

    E.g, it seems — from statistics — the cumulative daily total of views is far more than the numbers you suggest would imply.

    Next, one of the functions of UD is as a reference base that comes up in searches and explorations by people who we simply may not notice. For instance, one of the most visited pages in UD seems to be something that rarely comes up in threads, the weak argument correctives. There is no way a circle of 50 people would reasonably account for those kinds of numbers.

    Active commenters in threads is a whole other story, but given the controversial nature and what happens to pro design commenters elsewhere, that is not really surprising.

    And to imagine that pro ID supporters in that context are seeking celebrity, is simply silly and yet another ad hominem.

    There is an issue, it is of great importance and has consequences with serious impacts on our civilisation. That is more than enough to explain interest and willingness to put up with the tactics so often used against design supporters.

    And don’t overlook, this is where there can be a protest against the sort of bully boy tactics that are again playing out in the academy as we speak. So to be able to speak for record in the teeth of abusive steamroller tactics is important.

    (I should note that I once stood on a city corner in my native city as a lone protester for 1/2 hr until I was joined by a few concerned folks, on an important point of principle. And I did not give 50c for whoever may have thought that absent hundreds, a protest is of no account. Oddly, I also stood on the same general area as a part of a much larger protest, on a related subject, some years prior. I strongly suspect the site was chosen for the act that led to my later protest, in part in reaction to the larger protest.)

    KF

  6. Oh for the days of honest atheists such as Nietzsche.

    Friedrich Nietzsche – The Parable of the Madman – Read by Ravi Zacharias
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVPjWyMgStc

    The Absurdity of Life Without God by William Lane Craig
    Excerpt: First, there is no ultimate meaning without immortality and God. If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies, then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life? Does it really matter whether he ever existed or not? It might be said that his life was important because it influenced others or affected the course of history. But that shows only a relative significance to his life, not an ultimate significance. His life may be important relative to certain other events. But what is the ultimate significance to any of those events? If all of the events are meaningless, then what can be the ultimate significance of influencing any of them? Ultimately it makes no difference.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....9706/posts
    video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJqkpI1W75c

    It is ironic that you can point out to an atheist that their worldview allows for no true meaning, value, and/or purpose in life and sometimes they, in those rare moments when they are honest, will even admit as much,,,

    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
    Richard Dawkins

    But as soon as you press them on the matter of why they are even debating theists since there is no true meaning, inherent value, and/or greater purpose in life, they, as we have two examples of already, always sneak a greater purpose in the back door as if their actions really do matter in the grand scheme of things. It is this type of blatant and insane denialism that is continually confronted by Theists.,, A refreshing moment of honesty by an atheist was recently displayed by Alex Rosenberg, in which he honestly admitted, in his book, the deep nihilistic implications of Metaphysical Naturalism, (i.e. atheism), and in which Dr. Craig, in a debate with him, dutifully called him on the sheer incoherency of his worldview:

    Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ

    Notes:

    “If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.”
    - William J Murray

    Do the New Atheists Own the Market on Reason? – On the terms of the New Atheists, the very concept of rationality becomes nonsensical – By R. Scott Smith, May 03, 2012
    Excerpt: If atheistic evolution by NS were true, we’d be in a beginningless series of interpretations, without any knowledge. Yet, we do know many things. So, naturalism & atheistic evolution by NS are false — non-physical essences exist. But, what’s their best explanation? Being non-physical, it can’t be evolution by NS. Plus, we use our experiences, form concepts and beliefs, and even modify or reject them. Yet, if we’re just physical beings, how could we interact with and use these non-physical things? Perhaps we have non-physical souls too. In all, it seems likely the best explanation for these non-physical things is that there exists a Creator after all.
    http://www.patheos.com/Evangel.....#038;max=1

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

    It is deeply ironic that information should be found bursting at the seams in the DNA of life, and even in the proteins of life, for neo-Darwinian atheists have insisted for many years that life on earth has no ultimate meaning or purpose, yet to find information in life is equivalent to finding meaning in life, for information itself requires meaning to exist, and even purpose to exist, before information can exist since meaning must be imparted onto a arbitrary symbolic system in order for information to arise.

    “The mechanical brain does not secrete thought “as the liver does bile,” as the earlier materialists claimed, nor does it put it out in the form of energy, as the muscle puts out its activity. Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.”
    Norbert Wiener created the modern field of control and communication systems, utilizing concepts like negative feedback. His seminal 1948 book Cybernetics both defined and named the new field.

    Verse and music:

    Ecclesiastes 1:2
    “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.”

    Mandy Moore – Only Hope
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Ez9eASvTQ

  7. RDF: I trust you include this sort of dogmatic ideological “certainty”:

    The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts . . . .

    [[S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products . . . .

    Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work . . . .

    Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge. [[NSTA, Board of Directors, July 2000. Emphases added.]

    This dogmatic distortion of science in the false name of education should be corrected forthwith.

    And when it comes to the pivotal design inference on say FSCO/I, FYI this is an inductive inference to best current explanation, on empirically grounded shown reliable sign; which is close to say the rationale for the laws of thermodynamics.

    It seems to me that a reminder from Newton in Opticks, Query 31 is in order on methods and warrant in science:

    As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover’d, and establish’d as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations.

    KF

  8. I’ll post a longer list later, but two of my reasons for debating ID on the Internet are:

    1. It’s fun! I don’t watch TV, so much of my entertainment comes via the Internet. ID debates can be very entertaining.

    2. I was a Christian and a creationist in my youth, long before the advent of the Web. I think my deconversion would have happened sooner and gone much more smoothly if I had had access to arguments, pro and con, on the Web.

    (More on that subject in this thread.)

    When I am posting, I think about my younger self and the possibility that some young gal or guy out there, growing up in similar circumstances and beginning to have doubts, might — just might — benefit from from what I am writing.

  9. 9
    Charles B. Dumas

    Good one ‘Sal’: I am not very good at this. Lizzie is brilliant. Unfailingly polite, takes (almost) everyone seriously,

    Funny one, is this The Liddle that got destroy by upright Bipedal?

  10. In further reflection, I find that a stronger argument for ascertaining whether humans have any true purpose in the universe can be made from modern science. The basic contention from atheists has been the Copernican principle, (mediocrity principle), which perhaps reached its zenith in Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’, in which it is held the earth and by default humans, have no special significance in the universe:

    “Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.”
    - Carl Sagan
    http://www.goodreads.com/work/.....e-in-space

    And indeed when one looks out onto the vastness of space, without that sure knowledge of the pretense of God abiding with them, one can be overcome with despair. But that was yesterday. Today advances in science have overcome this belief that we have no privileged place in the universe.

    The Privileged Planet – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnWyPIzTOTw

    The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole.
    - Jay Richards

    besides this evidence, in what I consider an absolutely fascinating discovery, Einstein’s General Relativity has shown that 4-dimensional (4D) space-time, along with all energy and matter, was created in the ‘Big Bang’ and continues to ‘expand equally in all places’ (to a precision of 1 in 1^120):

    There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a “Big Bang” about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.

    I find the best way to get this ‘centrality of the Earth in the universe” point across is to visualize it first hand. Thus I reference the first few minutes of this following video to clearly get this ‘centrality’ point across:

    Centrality of The Earth Within The 4-Dimensional Space-Time of General Relativity – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/8421879

    Moreover, this ‘circle’ of the CMBR that is found by modern science to encompass the Earth, from the remnant of the creation event that brought the entire universe instantaneously into being, was actually predicted in the Bible centuries earlier:

    Proverbs 8:27 (King James Version)
    “When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he drew a circle upon the face of the depth:”

    Proverbs 8:27 (New International Version)
    “I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,”

    But as compelling as it is to use the privileged planet principle, in conjunction with the centrality of the Earth in the 4-Dimensional (4D) space-time of General Relativity, to establish the centrality of the Earth in the universe, this method of establishing centrality for the earth falls short of explaining ‘true centrality’ in the universe and still does not fully explain exactly why the CMBR forms an ‘almost’ perfect sphere around the Earth. The primary reason for why the higher dimensional 4D space-time, governing the expansion of this 3-Dimensional universe, is insufficient to maintain 3D symmetry, all by itself, becomes clear if one tries to imagine radically different points of observation in the universe. Since the universe is shown to have only (approximately) 10^80 sub-atomic particles to work with, once a person tries to imagine keeping perfect 3D symmetry, from radically different points of observation within the CMBR sphere, then a person quickly finds that it is geometrically impossible to maintain such 3D symmetry of centrality within the CMBR sphere with finite 3D material particles to work with. As well, fairly exhaustive examination of the General Relativity equations themselves, at least from as far as I can follow the math, mathematically prove the insufficiency of General Relativity to account for the ‘completeness’ of 4D space-time within the sphere of the CMBR from differing points of observation in the universe.[13] But if the 4D space-time of General Relativity is insufficient to explain ‘true 3D centrality’ in the universe, what else is since we certainly observe centrality for ourselves within the sphere of the CMBR? Quantum Mechanics gives us the reason why. ‘True centrality’ in the universe is achieved by ‘universal quantum wave collapse of photons’, to each point of ‘conscious observation’ in the universe, and is the only answer that has adequate sufficiency to explain ‘true 3D centrality’ that we witness for ourselves within the CMBR of the universe. Moreover because of advances in Quantum Mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. [14]
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3D state is centered on each individual conscious observer in the universe, whereas, 4D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism, Christian Theism in particular, offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe. [15]
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit

    Psalm 33:13-15
    The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.

    Footnote:

    It is also interesting to note that ‘higher dimensional’ mathematics had to be developed before Einstein could elucidate General Relativity, or even before Quantum Mechanics could be elucidated;

    The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality – Gauss and Riemann – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6199520/

    3D to 4D shift – Carl Sagan – video with notes
    Excerpt from Notes: The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VS1mwEV9wA

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space,
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

  11. You have the Google analytics script on your web pages. Why doesn’t someone post these numbers by page and country. That would tell everyone just what is happening on the site in terms of numbers and the range on interest by country.

    As far as why I have returned here briefly after 4 1/2 years of posting that ended 3 years ago. It was to explore a couple topics, namely the theodicy issue and Meyer’s new book. Every few weeks I peruse the posts to see what is being covered.

    I have found the same basic inane pissing contests that made it uninteresting 3 years ago. I find a lot of disingenuous behavior on this site but that is probably true for nearly every site that tries to covers political debates. I have never found a serious anti-ID person here except one. It would be nice if there were more and I would come here again more frequently just to explore why they held their positions. The anti-ID people are all posturing and trying to appear clever but essentially they are dishonest so it get boring real quick dealing with such people.

    Meyer just published his book and no pro ID person here is interested in discussing it. The book will change the debate completely and yet no one seems to care. What everyone seems to care about is the pissing contests. Funny.

    Meyer’s book is a more difficult read in places because it is covering territory I never knew existed. Apparently the commenters here are not aware either or else I would have thought there would have been some discussions.

  12. bornagain,

    I hesitate to point this out for fear that it will derail the thread, but your idea that the earth is at the center of the universe is massively wrong.

    The truth is that

    1. An observer at any location in the universe would appear to be at the center of a spherical shell of cosmic microwave background radiation. There is nothing special about Earth’s location.

    2. The figure you quote of approximately 10^80 particles applies to the observable universe, not the entire universe, so your geometric argument for centrality is completely wrong.

    Your error is as silly as a sailor saying “I must be at the center of the earth’s surface, because the horizon is the same distance from my ship in all directions.”

  13. 13
    Charles B. Dumas

    Again I ask you ‘Sal’…

    ‘I am not very good at this. Lizzie is brilliant. Unfailingly polite, takes (almost) everyone seriously,’

    Is this the same ‘brilliant’ Liddle that was taken to task, ‘destroyed’, by the Upright Bipedal?

  14. Actually keiths, I pointed out that ANY location would be central, but why would you dishonestly say that I did’nt point that out? Moreover why should ‘higher dimensional’ 4-D space time behave as such as to give every 3-D place a central position? It is simply fascinating to behold and contemplate! Of course you will shrug your shoulders and insist that it is nothing special, but that is your loss.,,, Since you purposely misrepresented my first point, ie. LIED, why should I waste my time any further with you?,, Apologize and I will reconsider.

  15. Come on, BA. It’s right there in your comment. Everyone can see it.

    You argue that the earth is central, but that other “points of observation” are not, because “it is geometrically impossible to maintain such 3D symmetry of centrality within the CMBR sphere with finite 3D material particles to work with.”

  16. jerry,

    You have the Google analytics script on your web pages. Why doesn’t someone post these numbers by page and country. That would tell everyone just what is happening on the site in terms of numbers and the range on interest by country.

    That would be interesting. DaveScot used to do that when he was the chief mod here, at least until the numbers started dwindling.

  17. The Cauchy Problem In General Relativity – Igor Rodnianski
    Excerpt: 2.2 Large Data Problem In General Relativity – While the result of Choquet-Bruhat and its subsequent refinements guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a (maximal) Cauchy development, they provide no information about its geodesic completeness and thus, in the language of partial differential equations, constitutes a local existence. ,,, More generally, there are a number of conditions that will guarantee the space-time will be geodesically incomplete.,,, In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity.,,,
    http://www.icm2006.org/proceed.....l_3_22.pdf

  18. moreover, The following article speaks of a proof developed by legendary mathematician/logician Kurt Gödel, from a thought experiment, in which Gödel showed General Relativity could not be a complete description of the universe:

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
    Excerpt: Gödel’s personal God is under no obligation to behave in a predictable orderly fashion, and Gödel produced what may be the most damaging critique of general relativity. In a Festschrift, (a book honoring Einstein), for Einstein’s seventieth birthday in 1949, Gödel demonstrated the possibility of a special case in which, as Palle Yourgrau described the result, “the large-scale geometry of the world is so warped that there exist space-time curves that bend back on themselves so far that they close; that is, they return to their starting point.” This means that “a highly accelerated spaceship journey along such a closed path, or world line, could only be described as time travel.” In fact, “Gödel worked out the length and time for the journey, as well as the exact speed and fuel requirements.” Gödel, of course, did not actually believe in time travel, but he understood his paper to undermine the Einsteinian worldview from within.
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

    Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space – April 2012
    Excerpt: “Our research confirms Gödel’s vision: time is not a physical dimension of space through which one could travel into the past or future.”
    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-p.....space.html

    supplemental notes;

    Divinely Planted Quantum States – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCTBygadaM4#t=156s

    Macrorealism Emerging from Quantum Physics – Brukner, Caslav; Kofler, Johannes
    American Physical Society, APS March Meeting, – March 5-9, 2007
    Excerpt: for unrestricted measurement accuracy a violation of macrorealism (i.e., a violation of the Leggett-Garg inequalities) is possible for arbitrary large systems.,,
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007APS..MARB33005B

  19. 19
    Kantian Naturalist

    Oh for the days of honest atheists such as Nietzsche.

    “For the record,” as Kairosfocus likes to say . . . “the parable of the madman” (The Gay Science 125) is Nietzsche’s critique of ‘atheism’ — it does not express Nietzsche’s own views about what “the death of God” really means and what it entails.

    In fact — contrary to ‘popular’ belief — Nietzsche is not really an “atheist” at all. In my considered judgment, he’s best regarded as a nature-mystic with strong influences from Greek polytheism (esp. the cult of Dionysus) and German Romantic pantheism.

    Nietzsche does think that naturalism leads to nihilism — though not in the sense that it logically entails nihilism — better to say that, in his view, the cultural dominance of naturalism causes nihilism. At many points Nietzsche says that his project is to overcome nihilism by going through it and beyond it. Though Nietzsche has, shall we say, a rather unusual view of nihilism — after all, on his view, Christianity itself is implicitly nihilistic, and therefore culminates in fully-fledged nihilism.

  20. KN, thanks for the heads up. OK to amend my statement a bit:

    ‘Oh for the days of honest atheists such as Anthony Flew.’

    “I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite intelligence. I believe that the universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.”
    Anthony Flew – world’s leading intellectual atheist for most of his adult life until a few years shortly before his death
    The Case for a Creator – Lee Strobel (Nov. 25, 2012) – video
    http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/ee32d/

    supplemental note:

    Where are the honest atheists? – March 2013
    http://theweek.com/article/ind.....t-atheists

  21. 22
    Kantian Naturalist

    Bertrand Russell stands out in my mind as a good example of an “honest atheist.”

  22. Bertrand Russell???

    Solipsist Humor from Plantinga
    ,,,At a recent Lecture I attended by Philosopher Alvin Plantinga, he warmed up the crowd with a few solipsist jokes.,,,
    FYI, solipsism is the rather odd idea that there is only one individual in the universe and that you are it. Everyone else is just a figment of your imagination.
    1. British philosopher Bertrand Russell was a solipsist for a time (why does that not surprise me?), and he once received a letter from a woman who found his arguments very convincing. Well, I suppose it’s not so hard to convince a figment of your imagination that your arguments are brilliant. Anyway, the woman commented in her letter that his description of solipsism made a lot of sense and that, “I’m surprised there aren’t more of us.”
    2. Plantinga also told of an accomplished academic who was a well-known solipsist (I forget the guys name). And Plantinga thought it would be fun to meet a real life solipsist, so he went to visit him. He was treated fairly well considering he was only figment. I mean, it’s not a given that a solipsist would feel the need to be polite to his imaginary friends. After a brief conversation, Plantinga left and on the way out one of the man’s assistants said, “We take good care of the professor because when he goes we all go.”
    http://www.fellowtravelerblog......plantinga/

    But to more rigorously establish the ‘common sense’ point of view that Atheism is a religion of hopelessness and despair since it cannot truly ground any true meaning or purpose for life,,,

    Are Religious People Happier Than Atheists? – 2000
    Excerpt: there does indeed appear to be a link between religion and happiness. Several studies have been done, but to give an example, one study found that the more frequently people attended religious events, the happier they were; 47% of people who attended several types a week reported that they were ‘very happy’, as opposed to 28% who attended less than monthly.
    In practical terms, religious people have the upper hand on atheists in several other areas. They drink and smoke less, are less likely to abuse drugs, and they stay married longer. After a stressful event like bereavement, unemployment, or illness, those who worship don’t take it as hard and recover faster. All of the above are likely to be beneficial to a person’s happiness. Additionally, religious people, as a result of their beliefs, have a greater sense of meaning, purpose and hope in their lives.
    http://generallythinking.com/a.....-atheists/

    There is much more that can be said as to Atheists literally ‘losing their minds’ as the result of denying their minds, but suffice it to say, aside from the overwhelming scientific evidence that has come forth for Theism, from a practical point of view as to which worldview will most benefit you, Theism is the clear choice!

  23. 24

    its not the number but the quality of the folks that matters eh!
    Origin subjects and conclusions always moved in small circles as far as serious thinkers go. Even though the conclusions are known and famous by the world.
    For all intents and purposes online discussion is and counts as published papers in scientific enquiry.
    If the discussions can be made excellent enough in making ones points or criticizing the others points then they can become famous points used by millions.
    Darwins first book, I think, sold only in the thousands but quickly was famous.
    ID authors sell well but its too entry level audiences.
    I’m sure the ID authors get ideas or are forced to handle criticisms they bump into with the folks who use the internet.
    The officer corp that runs armies talk amongst themselves without the armies paying attention.
    then the armies move based on the small circles discussions.
    Any cause that became famous or successful in the past first moved in small circles. Never did any cause start with lots of people.
    I insist that internet discussions are the premier discussions on these matters.
    There is not another crowd doing better.
    Creationist internet things are rightly seen as cells of threats to the establishment.
    Newspapers are written by few. Yet reach many. Yet its the madzines etc that always mattered more despite only reaching thousands.
    Its ideas that are important. Godd ones or bad ones, done well, will find a hugh audience in time.
    The internet shows the great serious interest in origin subjects.
    Tip of the iceberg.
    Origin discussions are very dangerous to the side that is wrong. (possibly a tiny bit dangerous to the side that is right) the world doesn’t work well.
    Inperfect design. After the fall of coarse.!

  24. I follow UD because of a specific comment Sal made back in August 2005. I had been referred to ID websites by a commenter on a site unrelated to ID and up until that point I was blissfully unaware of “intelligent design”. He said (I’m paraphrasing -I might try and find the original threads and comments when I have more time) in a comment addressed to Bill Dembski that he had posted a comment at Pandas Thumb and there was the implication that a good rhetorical point had been made. Interested to compare the claim with actuality, visited Pandas Thumb for the first time (when the Dover furore was building momentum), my addiction kicked in and resistance as been futile ever since!

    That was also the incentive (along with being unable to post at UD at the time – half a dozen attempts to leave a comment failed) fot my staring that thread at ARN where you claimed Genetic-ID use the “explanatory filter” method to spot GM material. Do you stick to that BTW?

    I see ARN is now moribund and closed to new commenters. Telic Thoughts has gone belly-up, too. Like ISCD and “Overwhelming Evidence”. (Not to mention “Young Cosmos) Do you see a pattern forming?

  25. @ KN

    Was Russell agnostic or atheist? What Russell said himself.

  26. Uncommondescent.com is 8 Years, 2 Months, 23 Days old. UNCOMMONDESCENT.COM has #488 027 rank on the internet. This rank shows site’s popularity. Lower rank means more visitors that site gets. This website is estimated to get 2029 unique visitors per day. These unique visitors make 3652 pageviews. We estimate that this website earns at least $11 USD per day with advertising revenues so it can be valued at least $10 380 USD. This site has a 6/10 PageRank. It has 184 523 backward links from 2 239 domains, 114 backward links from .edu domains and 10 links from .gov domains. IP address of this site is 216.70.69.190. We detected that the average page load time of this website is 2.43 seconds.
    We give this domain a SEO score of 70/100. Last update: Friday 28th of June 2013
    http://digsitesvalue.net/s/uncommondescent.com

  27. Jerry, I am out in the boondocks, and am waiting on my copy. It is going in a container to be shipped from Miami. I just lost yet another book sent by mail. I have effectively given up on mailed books from the US. I think the UK will still work. I will not comment seriously until I have it in hand. Look, SITC is very close to my own views and has for just one striking instance great config space-zone of interest diags and a great discussion of what is effectively FSCO/I, set in the context of the relevant physics and chemistry. It is roundly ignored and substantially the same general points and evidence are routinely strawmannised, derided and dismissed by ideologues. I have drawn some conclusions, including the appropriate one when I saw one of our supposedly “nice” critics harbouring disgusting slander at her blog, TSZ, then when I drew it to her attention, denying it and latterly trying to justify it or pretend that nothing is wrong. We are dealing with an ideological agenda, and it will only be exposed and broken, it will not entertain reasonable discussion. Look, we just had dismissal of self evident first principles of right reason and of the blatant implications of seeing a box of 500 coins, all H. If people are unwilling to acknowledge that case, they cannot be viewed as open to reasonable give and take. Beyond this point, they can only be exposed while we work to inform those who genuinely want to think through the ID issues. KF

  28. BA77:

    Interesting work.

    In short the best strategy here is to write for maybe 1800 onlookers per day and when swarms of darwinist ideologues try to pile on to tangle up matters and push objections by repeating the same tired talking points and smears over and over again, expose them for the benefit of onlookers and keep going. (For instance it is plain that the darwinist objectors are ignorant of the links between thermodynamics and information.)

    For instance, onlookers, AF just above has been here at UD almost from the beginning. He still will not get basic design concepts straight, i.e. he is in the main here to detract, distort and distract. I suspect that after years of being swarmed down, a lot of people have become weary and discouraged.

    The answer to that is to speak to the 1800/day and seek to build it.

    I have long advocated a separate news feature and a significant reference section with in a nutshells for newbies. That will keep daily interest up and gives backgrounders for those who need it.

    Posts that entertain discussions and for record posts then round out.

    Some educational series will help too.

    I think I am going to do some formal FYI-FTR (for the record) posts from now on and link the threads to it for benefit of serious onlookers.

    And ideologues XX and co, you will have been thereby answered for record, so filibustering in threads through drumbeat repetition will only further expose you.

    And we need a good video channel over at Youtube or the like.

    Podcasts are now being done weekly by Medved, these should be featured.

    KF

  29. Uncommondescent.com is 8 Years, 2 Months, 23 Days old. UNCOMMONDESCENT.COM has #488 027 rank on the internet. This rank shows site’s popularity. Lower rank means more visitors that site gets. This website is estimated to get 2029 unique visitors per day. These unique visitors make 3652 pageviews. We estimate that this website earns at least $11 USD per day with advertising revenues so it can be valued at least $10 380 USD. This site has a 6/10 PageRank. It has 184 523 backward links from 2 239 domains, 114 backward links from .edu domains and 10 links from .gov domains. IP address of this site is 216.70.69.190. We detected that the average page load time of this website is 2.43 seconds.
    We give this domain a SEO score of 70/100. Last update: Friday 28th of June 2013
    http://digsitesvalue.net/s/uncommondescent.com

    Thanks BA77!

  30. I like these debates because it exposes the ignorance of evolutionists as well as the total emptiness of their position.

    It’s fun to continually expose all of that and watch them flail away in an attempt to distract from those facts.

    The most hilarious part was when keiths sed that unguided evolution has the evidence to support it and then presented evidence that has nothing to do with unguided evolution!

  31. 32
    Kantian Naturalist

    I’ll echo Mark Frank’s and RDFish’s reasons for participating in these discussions.

    In addition, I take a morbid interest in “the culture wars” — I find them fascinating, but also a monumental distraction from the really important political and economic issues — so the relation between the “Darwinism”/”intelligent design” meta-debate and “the culture wars” intrigues me — perhaps to an unhealthy degree.

    Alan — I knew that Russell’s position was “theoretically, agnosticism; practically, atheism,” though I hadn’t read that specific essay. I think that makes for a perfectly fine example of an honest atheism.

  32. For the news feature maybe one of those cycling panels?

  33. KN: You seem to be choosing the company you wish to be associated with. KF

  34. 36
    Kantian Naturalist

    KN: You seem to be choosing the company you wish to be associated with. KF

    It’s better than being associated with company I haven’t chosen!

  35. It’s better than being associated with company I haven’t chosen!

    Speaking of being associated with company I haven’t chosen:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....mmitation/

  36. 38

    KF,
    I think the FYI-FTR posts would be a great addition that help bring together multiple lines of argumentation that sometimes get spread across multiple posts.

  37. KF,

    For the news feature maybe one of those cycling panels?

    Excellent idea. That way, active discussion threads wouldn’t be pushed off the front page so quickly.

  38. I suspect that there are rather more than just 50 regular viewers – just that most don’t post (probably because they, like me, haven’t time to get drawn into long discussions,or possibly because they find the process discouraging: this is my third post ever on this site – my first was 24 hours ago, [2.19pm, blog time, on 5th July], and I’m still waiting for it to be moderated!)

  39. The reason I participate in ID decisions is actually two fold.

    1. I sincerely apologize to everyone who holds that materialism and atheism are viable positions, but I just don’t see it. One may argue that many intelligent ( whatever that means ) people are atheist and/or materialist, but my thinking on that is that this is not necessarily a point in A/M’s favor. It seems to me that it takes some amount of cleverness to be able to cover up the self contradictions that allow one to believe in the absurdity that is materialism. I realize however, that I am a flawed human being, and sometimes I don’t see the obvious things right in front of me. I keep looking for a belief in A/M that is internally consistent. The closest I have found is Will Provine. No one else I have read is honest about the ramifications of a) the belief that one can’t really believe, b) the choice that one really can’t choose or c) the proposition that one really can’t really propose anything. IMHO A/M is hopelessly self-contraditiory and I have only read foolish arguments and obfuscation counter to this despite participating in several discussions.

    2. I really want people who IMHO decide to be honest about the ramifications of atheism/materialism and come to the again IMHO conclusion that they can no longer keep up the facade to consider my Lord Jesus Christ.

    Again, I apologize for the harsh sounding language. I just have never ever seen a logical argument for atheism/materialism.

  40. JDH

    No one else I have read is honest about the ramifications of a) the belief that one can’t really believe, b) the choice that one really can’t choose or c) the proposition that one really can’t really propose anything.

    While you may think the arguments for materialism/atheism are wrong, it is tough to assume that we are being dishonest. What would be the motive? It would be so nice if there was a father figure watching over us and eternal life. I think that those who believe that some kind of theism/dualism is necessary to explain belief, free will and morality just haven’t thought it through – but I don’t for a moment suppose they are being dishonest.

  41. Mark,

    I apologize profusely for the way I phrased that. I don’t think you are being dishonest as in telling a lie. Please notice that I did not say that believers in A/M are lying. What I mean by being dishonest is that believers in A/M allow contradictions to exist in their basic thinking that they can not logically solve. So please accept my apology I do not want anyone to think I was accusing them of lying.

    BTW – You could turn the tables and make the same argument to me. You could say I am dishonest in that I allow seeming contradictions ( like how can we have free will and yet God is omniscient). The problem is that if you believe in materialism being all that there is, you can’t appeal to there being a God who, due to something beyond our grasp, is able to make sense of the apparent contradictions. I can believe that because that is consistent with my stated belief.

  42. For my part, I very much enjoy the articles here!

    The discussions that follow are also often interesting (however, the really long posts are tedious). I like to read the challenges, arguments (as long as the participants are fair), and to follow the links that people include.

    I post a comment when I want to question a statement or conclusion, have something to add from my experience or thinking, or want to add a little fun or humor to the exchanges.

    I value posts that are cogent, relevant, and terse by people who are insightful, well-informed, and respectful.

    Conversely, I distain posts that employ techniques to “win” such as ad hominem attacks (“Obviously you don’t know anything about Science”), browbeating, word avalanches, demands for trivial definitions, and so on.

    Querius

  43. One more thing.

    I’d rather be proved wrong or educated than to “win” an argument. In fact, I don’t remember EVER seeing a response by anyone that reads anything like, “Gee, I think you’re right. Thanks for clearing up my misconception.” Have you?

    But isn’t this how we learn?

    When I was a kid, I always wondered about artists’ conceptions and museum displays of saber-toothed cats. Their jaws were always wide open (I mean the cats’ jaws, of course) to the point of dislocation, and even with their mouths improbably wide, it would seem as though they would be unable to bite anything much larger than a gerbil.

    Is it possible that their canines could be simply decorative or used for intimidation? Was there any evidence that these large cats used their canines for digging or maybe peeling bark off a tree? Did you ever wonder about this too?

    Then, many years later, I stumbled across the web site of a university project looking into exactly this question! I was amazed at what they found and the evidences for their conclusions about saber-tooth cat behavior, including skeletal stress fractures, and broken canines.

    If you’re interested, here’s one of many interesting links on the subject:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16010.long

  44. JDH #43

    Understood – thanks for apologising.

  45. Querius,

    In fact, I don’t remember EVER seeing a response by anyone that reads anything like, “Gee, I think you’re right. Thanks for clearing up my misconception.” Have you?

    It happened to me just a couple of days ago.

    keiths:

    Lizzie,

    One correction. You wrote:

    People form at the cost of increased entropy in the food they consume, which themselves are local entropy decrease gained by virtue of the steadily increasing entropy in the sun.

    It’s not the entropy increase of the sun that compensates for the entropy decrease of food production. Rather, it’s the entropy increase of Earth’s surroundings.

    I explained this to Eric here.

    Lizzie:

    Thanks, keiths :)

    And:

    I am always open to counter-argument. Indeed, keiths pointed out an important error I had made, which was to think that any local thermodynamic entropy increase on earth was “paid for” by decreased solar entropy. This is not the case – even if we consider the earth a closed system, local increases in entropy are “paid for” by entropy decreases in the immediate surroundings on earth.

  46. Charles B. Dumas:

    Funny one, is this The Liddle that got destroy by upright Bipedal?

    Not in this universe. Did you make a wrong turn at the wormhole?

  47. My longer list of reasons for participating in these debates, including a couple from an earlier comment:

    I’ll post a longer list later, but two of my reasons for debating ID on the Internet are:

    1. It’s fun! I don’t watch TV, so much of my entertainment comes via the Internet. ID debates can be very entertaining.

    2. I was a Christian and a creationist in my youth, long before the advent of the Web. I think my deconversion would have happened sooner and gone much more smoothly if I had had access to arguments, pro and con, on the Web.

    (More on that subject in this thread.)

    When I am posting, I think about my younger self and the possibility that some young gal or guy out there, growing up in similar circumstances and beginning to have doubts, might — just might — benefit from from what I am writing.

    3. I’ve done some fun sleuthing, such as

    a) exposing Bill Dembski as the frequency-shifted voice of Judge Jones in the infamous and infantile fart animation (link: Dembski confesses), and

    b) exposing the content of Caroline Crocker’s classroom slides when she complained of being unjustly terminated by her employer.

    4. They say that the best way to learn a subject is to teach it, and I think this is also true of debating. I’ve clarified my thinking and learned a tremendous amount by participating in these debates.

    5. It’s made my writing better. The ability to craft a persuasive argument improves with practice.

    6. After Dover and the Wedge Document, I think it’s important to keep an eye on creationists and IDers and to publicly discredit their ideas.

    7. The psychology of creationists and IDers is fascinating. Bornagain77, Joe G, kairosfocus, DaveScot, Eric Anderson, Sal Cordova, Barry Arrington — who wouldn’t be fascinated by these folks?

  48. Sal,

    My guess that the web analytics you quoted are wrong and underestimate the actual values for the web site. I have my own business site and did a similar analysis and the information from http://digsitesvalue.net was about 1/4 of what Google tells me is happening.

    Also it does not include one key measure and that is new visitors to the site which can be gotten on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. That would be an interesting statistics given the discussion and someone who has control of the site should post the information. They must be using Google Analytics since they set up the script in the source code to do this.

  49. Kairosfocus,

    I was able to get the ebook version of Meyer’s book the first day. It was fairly inexpensive. I know you live outside the US and also know that Amazon, Apple and Barnes and Noble charge a lot more for ebooks in most countries so it may not be economical to do it in certain places.

    I also bought the physical copy since for certain books I want to be able to see the charts more closely and to show it to other people. Hope your copy arrives soon.

    Meyer discusses the non coding information in several places and I am a little bit fuzzy on it. It is a new topic for me and was one of the eye opening parts of the book. Most of the book is a thorough review of information that I have seen before but the different types of epigenetic information is new and comes from developmental biology. It is apparently more complex than the information in the genome and resides in various places in the egg. A lot of the information resides in the membrane of the egg and is composed of various types of molecules, and some of the most prevalent are sugar molecules.

    So sugar molecules may be acting like nucleotides and these molecules don’t seem to be coding for something like proteins but are acting as forces that drive the gestation process. Actually more incredible sounding then the encoding process. As I say my understanding is very fuzzy but it looks like this is where a lot of the discussion on evolution is headed.

  50. Moderator -

    Re “discouragement” (my previous post at #40): how does this site work? You’ve moderated my third ever post (#40, above), for which many thanks, but my first and second posts (on 3rd July’s “Where is the difference here?”, at 2.19pm and 2.39pm on 5th July) are *still* awaiting moderation! More than 70 posts have been published on that thread since I put my first comment/enquiry up, and the questions they raise could now be somewhat stale.

  51. I’ll append another reason to my list:

    8. If you care about the truth, then one of the best things you can do is to take your ideas to a venue where most people disagree with you and are highly motivated to find fault with your arguments.

    If they succeed, then you’ve learned something. If they fail, then you gain confidence in your position.

    Granville’s thread and the immaterial soul thread are two good examples of the latter.

    The immaterial soul thread is particularly remarkable. It amazes me that so many commenters here believe in an immaterial soul of the kind being discussed, yet no one has been able to defend it against the split-brain evidence.

  52. keiths:

    It amazes me that so many commenters here believe in an immaterial soul of the kind being discussed…

    That is not true. Not one commenter- other than you and perhaps other ignorant atheists- here believe in the immaterial soul of the kind being discussed. many commenters here have told you that. You are just a pathological liar.

    8. If you care about the truth, then one of the best things you can do is to take your ideas to a venue where most people disagree with you and are highly motivated to find fault with your arguments.

    And your “arguments” wrt the soul and unguided evolution have been shredded and yet you still persist.

    Who wouldn’t be fascinated by your pathological nonsense?

  53. I’ll append another reason to my list:

    8. If you care about the truth, then one of the best things you can do is to take your ideas to a venue where most people disagree with you and are highly motivated to find fault with your arguments.

    If they succeed, then you’ve learned something. If they fail, then you gain confidence in your position.

    Well said. :-)

  54. I don’t consider the activity most of these so-called-critics engage in to be debating.

  55. keiths

    Could you please change the statement

    It amazes me that so many commenters here believe in an immaterial soul of the kind being discussed, yet no one has been able to defend it against the split-brain evidence.

    to “.. no one has been able to [ convince keiths there is any flaw in the argument of ] the split-brain evidence.”

    I can easily defeat the split-brain evidence, it’s not even hard. The question is, as always, will you accept the evidence presented. My inclination is that you will not.

    1. The problem with contradictions: A big deal was made of the contradictions between right side and left side thinking. That sometimes they contradicted. Yet we don’t even need to cut the brain to see that.
    a) Try telling your body not to breathe.
    b) Try telling a cut not to heal itself.
    c) Try telling your immune system not to produce histamine ( without using a OTC medicine )
    d) Try telling your leg not to go up when the doctor hits just below the patella with a hammer.

    We already know that the body is hard wired to give certain responses and the soul can not control these. As a matter of fact, a sick person can be brain-washed to make their body give responses that contradict their very core beliefs. When we injure a brain, why should we not get some responses which the soul can not control, and that contradict the beliefs of the soul.

    2. The problem with words.

    In the video – a big deal is made about the fact that the right brain has no ability to use words. Then how in the world is an abstract concept like atheism even communicated to the RHS. It is interesting if I viewed the video correctly, that the LHS continued to state the truth and the RHS that lost its ability to use words gave the contradictory answers. This only shows that the brain injury in this particular case left the left hand side in control and the RHS in a strange state. This is consistent with God’s judgment. God says it is by our words that we will be judged. It is no surprise that the soul is integrated with the ability to use words.

    Nothing I have presented here gives positive evidence for a soul. There is enough of that already in the fact that I can create information. ( Like this response to you ). But what it does do is show you that what you think, because of your confirmation bias, is an iron clad argument for the non-existence in the soul, is in reality just another inconclusive experimental finding.

  56. JDH

    a big deal is made about the fact that the right brain has no ability to use words. Then how in the world is an abstract concept like atheism even communicated to the RHS

    Speech production is certainly fairly left-lateralised, as are the phonological aspects of reading, but verbal comprehension is quite strongly bilateral, as is the semantic component of reading – i.e. meaning. In fact patients with right hemisphere deficits often have quite serious verbal comprehension difficulties, including rather over-literal understanding of language – the RH seems to be important for seeing the “big picture”, the LH for getting things in the right order.

    But most functions are strongly bilateral, which is why people can recover function after quite serious lesions. In fact one reason proposed to explain why women do rather better after strokes than men is that their (our) brains tend to be rather less strongly lateralized.

  57. JDH,

    Could you post your comment on the soul thread itself?

    I’ll respond to it there. I almost missed it, because I wasn’t expecting anyone to respond here.

Leave a Reply