|
Author
|
Topic: Defining extranatural
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 08. April 2003 21:02
Somebody - maybe a moderator - please fix the long URL which is screwing up the screen. Thanks.
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 09. April 2003 01:41
Micah wrote quote:
Second, immaterial gives the impression that mental realists assume some sort substance dualism. Rather, we can merely note that certain mental features (content, consciousness, intention, experience, goal-oriented causation) require an expanded physical ontology: our current conception of the physical world may not be the whole story, and these mental anomalies give us reason to suspect such. That is all. The mental is perfectly natural. The critical question is whether the physical world of modern science is robust enough to handle certain mental anomalies. I'm not the only one who think not.
My head always starts to throb when I try to think about what this sort of statement means. Let me try this: Micah, do you reckon that such things as the "certain mental features" you mention exist independent of instantiation (or at least localization) in physical (neurons, etc.) brains? (I do not mean Isaac Asimov's positronic brains, just regular old human brains.)
It also hurts when I read something like Stephen's remark that quote:
The energy spent on the thought process is balanced by this non-physical change of complexity in the environment.
Is that meant to be some kind of SLOT balancing, with real energy on one side and ... um ... well, non-physical something or other on the other side of the equation? Rolf Landauer did a bunch of work on the thermodynamics of information, but it was physical instantiations all the way.
RBH
[ 09. April 2003, 01:50: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 09. April 2003 02:46
There is quantum/classical dualism, particle/gas dualism, and so on, throughout physics and other sciences. However, the expanded physical ontology that added to our conception of the physical world was at least still physical.
I do not doubt that very important concepts regarding mental function will be developed. It seems a little early to conclude that these concepts won't even be physical, though.
Also, I should be a little more careful with my terminology. "Material" suggests "matter", which suggests a difference from "energy", "time", and a bunch of other observables. Matter, energy, spin, velocity, etc., are all physical, though. So I must confess that I don't know whether I'd say that causes, events, and abstract concepts are material or not. However, all three fit nicely under the category of physical: events are simply changes in state and thus are obviously physical; causes are our way of predicting later-states from earlier-states and hopefully reflect physical properties and thus are physical if our brains/minds are; and abstract concepts are again physical if our brains/minds are. Hopefully that helps clear up the metaphysical mess caused by my previous terminology.
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 09. April 2003 09:09
quote:
I do not doubt that very important concepts regarding mental function will be developed. It seems a little early to conclude that these concepts won't even be physical, though.
Rex, agreed. I think we believe the same thing but see different implications. I also feel that new "concepts regarding mental function" are waiting to be developed. My intuition is that these new concepts will involve a different form of energy (mental energy) than we are familiar with and, yet, will fall squarely in the physical domain.
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 09. April 2003 16:35
Nic, yes invoking an entity as supernatural or natural is not what you claimed. That is a completely different claim. Whether an ID theoriest invokes a "supernatural" entity or not with regard to design it is irrelevant to the point you made which was, as you quoted yourself:
quote:
Most IDists seem to advocate extranatural mechanisms.
As theistic evolutionists often point out, a supernatural designer could very well use natural mechanisms to further their end. In fact, one such prominent IDist, Michael Behe, says he is a theistic evolutionist. The only problem is, he doesn't think the designer used mechanisms that are undetectable by design methods (i.e. Darwinism). I actually happen to agree with this view of the history of life (only I don't think bacteria and eukaryotes are related by common descent).
There is no need to assume that aliens suffered from the same problems we did with respect to the origin of life. Very simple alien biology could have lent themselves to the origin of extraterrestrial life.
With respect to lateral gene transfer, Yersinia writes to me in response:
quote:
No, it's exactly analogous to seeing evidence of a rainfall event in the geologic record and saying "hey, this is evidence of ID because humans make it rain by seeding clouds, and further advanced technology would allow even greater control over rain".
Wrong. Invoking lateral gene transfer is not equivalent to a rain drop, or other simple naturalistic phenomenon. This shows a gross misrepresentation of the complexity of lateral gene transfer. In fact, lateral gene transfer is as complex as the bacterial flagellum if not more. Heck, the entire field of genetic engineering is in essence, lateral gene transfer. And it isn't easy.
Yersinia writes:
quote:
The severe problem with Nelson's kind of reasoning is that in science we don't conjure up extra, flagrantly unparsimonious explanations when the simple one, namely "known natural process X did it" works as well or better.
The unparsimonious explanation here is exactly "known natural process x did it" when you plug in x with natural selection and random mutation when in fact the route to the system in question involves unselectable steps and pure chance events (which are basically equivalent). The fact that we have actually evidence for what you call the "unparsimonous explanation" helps too.
[ 09. April 2003, 18:18: Message edited by: Nelson_Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 09. April 2003 21:49
Nelson writes,
quote:
Wrong. Invoking lateral gene transfer is not equivalent to a rain drop, or other simple naturalistic phenomenon. This shows a gross misrepresentation of the complexity of lateral gene transfer. In fact, lateral gene transfer is as complex as the bacterial flagellum if not more. Heck, the entire field of genetic engineering is in essence, lateral gene transfer. And it isn't easy.
So then, when Barbara McClintock observed transposition events in her corn, she was observing the intervention of intelligent agent? She should have gotten two Nobels, not just one...
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 09. April 2003 22:51
Back on page 1, in discussing the difference between "extranatural" and "supernatural," yersinia wrote quote:
The reason I think they [IDists] go for extranatural designers for biology is that if you invoke natural designers like aliens then you're just moving the problem backwards, because then you have to explain where alien biology came from, and by your own ID arguments, they must have been designed as well. An a unembodied designer is supposed to escape this although things get very murky here as not even the laws of physics give us any guidance anymore.
Responding to that remark, Nelson wrote quote:
There is no need to assume that aliens suffered from the same problems we did with respect to the origin of life. Very simple alien biology could have lent themselves to the origin of extraterrestrial life.
And then, I presume, that ultra-simple alien biological system, simple enough to emerge naturally, evolved itself (naturalistically) up to some state of 'complexity' sufficient to allow it to conceive, design, and actually build life on earth? And that's supposed to be a more plausible story than the one that says life on earth originated and evolved here (possibly with some extraterrestrial organics thrown into the soup for flavour)? C'mon.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 10. April 2003 00:57
But any "proposition" that one would have taken seriously must be one that has at least some possible test to distinguish it from other cases.
What would distinguish Alonso's case of "design" from a case where the aliens came to observe our world, accidentially left some of their own bacteria, and then left to return no more. (Presumably that bacteria has a natural history on their world in which type III secretory systems preceeded the flagella or something, not "suffer[ing] from the same problems we did with respect to the origin of life"). The problem is that there is no “design” in this scenario, yet it is equally plausible (or implausible).
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 10. April 2003 13:17
One of these replies are short so I'm combining replies.
Yersinia,
Intelligently designed things don't require direct intelligent intervention all the time. That bacterial flagella arise without direct intelligent intervention points to programmed design. The mechanism itself warrants an ID inference. When I run programs I run them without having to reprogram them every time they run.
RBH,
My incredulity for random processes conserved by natural selection is worse for the origin of life on earth then your incredulity for this naturalistic design scenario. Alternative forms of life that didn't have those problems we do (there are alternative forms of life). By the way RBH, are you saying that a simpler form of life is inaccessable to evolution on another planet? Such that an ooze would in fact give rise to complex beings? If so, why do you think it can happen with complex form of life? I don't get your logic here.
There is no need to "push-back" the problem to anything. Francis Crick attempted a similar hypothesis but never bothered to discuss how the aliens got there, it's irrelevant. If evidence that aliens designed the first cell types gets so overwhelming it wouldn't matter if we never know how the aliens got there in the first place.
Ged,
My scenario is quite different from the same form of life being accidently left here to proliferate, and a different, alternative form of life being engineered on another planet. If we had a simpler form of life, we would know how it evolved, since it didn't have all the hurldes that our current form of life has. On the other hand, even if they accidently left a cyanobacteria that they engineered, here on earth, we would still be left with with design, even if we were still the product of an accident. Although I don't necessarily think that life just needs cyanobacteria and then evolution from there. You need a whole lot more than that.
[ 10. April 2003, 15:39: Message edited by: Nelson_Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 15. April 2003 13:49
Rex Kerr wrote,
quote:
“Why are we justified in assuming an extra immaterial component of our thoughts?”
I am not promoting an assumption and saying it is fact. I suggest to you, this matter can be viewed as two simple choices of viewpoint. Thoughts are either wholly contained in physical processes or they are influential in two interactive domains: one material and one informational. The one you support says that thoughts and material brain manifestations are 100% synonymous; that the thinker and the thought are one. This is sensible and widely accepted in modern times. However, many widely accepted ideas have been replaced with ones of greater complexity as more comprehensive and predictive explanations of process events emerge. Looking at the opposing possibility of the common sense viewpoint should be helpful, if only to gain perspective. There should be justification in reviewing “what ifs” as enlightening.
This other viewpoint, regarding a descriptive model of cognitive causality, would be: there are aspects of thought that are not measurable with devices attuned to physical and tangible events, but are none the less real and constructive in terms of complexity. Measurement of entropy and of communicated information may be a step in this direction. It seems we cannot directly detect semantic meaning attributes, although we can quantify their effects in complex systems. Brain signal measurements do not reveal the code with which ideas obtain results in shaping an organism’s knowledgeable behavior.
Electronic signals are measurable, materially. However, the signal activity and the simultaneous thoughts occurring in a mind do not seem to be complete equals. We know that symbolic representation and forms of coding are needed to translate the semantic instructions. Where this comes to rest within material and unintentional physical processes remains to be seen. Codes can have physical representations, but messages don’t organize themselves from purely material circumstances. Observe and respond functioning is fully in the domain of the living and, simply, may be transcendent to matter/energy. If true, then a domain where information events can take place becomes logical enough for pragmatic scrutiny.
Like the actor portraying Mozart saying: that there is exactly the right amount of notes - not one more or one less - in the music, I suggest that to explore conscious information as real, as well as having structure and form, may model reality more accurately than the common tune. I see this as extra-material and not as extra-natural. Information is surely a part of universal reality. Brain signal analysis is not robust in exposing the sheer volume of intellectual or emotional meaning as can be inferred from human experience. If a model could be delineated where interconnected material events and information events more accurately predict and explain phenomena, then it should be examined.
In my view, there is nothing tangible or material about information or thoughts. There are material signals that indicate information manipulation and transfer, but the signals are not organized complexity in itself. This is what is seen in artificial intelligence. There are signals that indicated the transfer of messages and there are separate event functions that decode and manipulate them.
Thoughts qualify as having information, in terms of specified instructions, which achieve quantitative standards of utility when applied to systems. An aspect of information capable of occurring as an event that does not immediately show tangible effect is a reasonable model for examination. Ideas may be wholly tied to physical laws when in a materialized state, but still be actual when in an state not yet realized in matter/energy sequenced by the forward arrow of time. “Ideas have consequence” and “an idea whose time has come” may have more actual bearing in reality then presumed by the current view. This perspective would take the mystery out of consciousness, as the brain could be seen not as generating thoughts, but as a detector of information. This would make the brain, as an organ, consistent with all other sense organs' evolutionary development.
I find the current model of: “events are simply changes in state and thus are obviously physical” not able to include the causal scope of organic applied information. Life solves problems by binding facts into answers and embodies those answers into physical forms. There should be a clear and understandable pathway tracing how this is done. Ideas having actual form and shape that is detectable by the neural network of a brain would do this straightforwardly.
PS. thanks for correcting me on C60. I have also learned that it has been found created by natural means since it was first man made in 1985.
[ 15. April 2003, 17:21: Message edited by: Stephen Wright ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 15. April 2003 17:07
quote:
On the other hand, even if they accidently left a cyanobacteria that they engineered, here on earth, we would still be left with with design, even if we were still the product of an accident.
Yes, but what if the "cyanobacteria" was not "designed", and furthermore on that world the Type III secretory system predated the flagellum. Additionally all objections to evolution of the flagellum were met on that world by historical record easily viewable of a pathway in which the flagellum developed naturally. In that case, how would there be a distinction in what we observe here in our world between an "engineered" cyanobacteria being left by "design" and a natural one left by accident?
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 15. April 2003 23:49
Nelson wrote quote:
My incredulity for random processes conserved by natural selection is worse for the origin of life on earth then your incredulity for this naturalistic design scenario. Alternative forms of life that didn't have those problems we do (there are alternative forms of life). By the way RBH, are you saying that a simpler form of life is inaccessable to evolution on another planet? Such that an ooze would in fact give rise to complex beings? If so, why do you think it can happen with complex form of life? I don't get your logic here.
There is no need to "push-back" the problem to anything. Francis Crick attempted a similar hypothesis but never bothered to discuss how the aliens got there, it's irrelevant. If evidence that aliens designed the first cell types gets so overwhelming it wouldn't matter if we never know how the aliens got there in the first place.
I scarcely know how to respond. "Irrelevant"? Not a chance!
No, I am not saying "that a simpler form of life is inaccessable (sic) to evolution on another planet." My own opinion, based on as little evidence as you offer for SAH, is that life is and has been accessible to evolution on a large number of planets. What I do not see is any affirmative reason to invoke that alien life to explain the genesis of life on earth. In particular, I don't see any reason to suppose it was simpler there than here, that the problem of abiogenesis was any different there than here. What I find interesting is your reference to "our current form of life." That's not what originally emerged from the "ooze, as I understand the various OOL So it's not what must be accounted for in an OOL scenario.
RBH
[ 15. April 2003, 23:54: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 16. April 2003 15:49
Ged,
On that planet I'm talking about a completely different form of life that evolved. A simpler one that subsequently designed different carbon-based cell types and accidently left one here or purposely left one here. (But of course leaving "one" here may not be enough).
RBH,
Well, here's the affirmative evidence, no life has been found to date in our universe, although most calculations taking Darwinian evolution as a given suggests the universe should be teeming with life. Abiogenesis itself is stuck in a rut and has been for quite some time. The complexity undergirding even the most primitive organism is so complex as to make no difference.
You write:
quote:
What I find interesting is your reference to "our current form of life." That's not what originally emerged from the "ooze, as I understand the various OOL So it's not what must be accounted for in an OOL scenario.(sic)
Well, we don't know what formed from an "ooze", there is no evidence that anything formed out of an "ooze". They can't even get started even if they start with RNA. But sure we can start with something simpler. For example, Cairns-Smith suggested that we start out with silicon. He wanted to say that it was used as a scaffold to get our carbon-based life, but one can use that assumption on another planet. One could say that life thereafter evolved as silicon-based extraterrestrials and designed the more complex carbon-based terrestrials.
[ 16. April 2003, 15:52: Message edited by: Nelson_Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 16. April 2003 17:38
Right, Alonso. But that was not what I was talking about. You did not answer my question about how you tell the difference.
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 16. April 2003 18:01
Alonso wrote quote:
Cairns-Smith suggested that we start out with silicon. He wanted to say that it was used as a scaffold to get our carbon-based life, but one can use that assumption on another planet. One could say that life thereafter evolved as silicon-based extraterrestrials and designed the more complex carbon-based terrestrials.
Not quite. Cairns-Smith suggested (as I recall - I haven't read his Seven Clues for a decade or more) that clay crystals formed the scaffolding for organic molecules. That the scaffolding might have been silicates is irrelevant (to use your favorite word) to his argument. Actually, as I recall clays run around roughly half or a bit more silicon, with liberal infusions of aluminum and then a bunch of other stuff - is there a geologist in the crowd? In any case, as I recall Cairns-Smith's hypothesis, it's the physical scaffolding that counts, not the chemistry of the scaffolding. To call it "silicon-based" life in the same sense that we are "carbon-based" life is to distort Cairns-Smith. I reckon silicon-based life might be barely possible, though not real plausible. Organics really like the 4-fold bonds carbon can form. I remember reading science fiction about silicon life, but that's all.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic