|
Author
|
Topic: The Immaterial Cause for Complexity in Nature
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 22. February 2007 12:34
AnaxagorasRules, I think you've given the best response yet to Matt's argument. Thank you.
IP: Logged
|
|
AnaxagorasRules
Member
Member # 4079
|
posted 22. February 2007 16:41
Actually, one way to set a naturalist back on his heels is to ask for an accounting for something that they normally do not consider - a moving cause. Since he has probably spent his life shielding himself from this idea, you can bait him. Ask him why do things move? Why is there motion? What are you talking about, he'll likely say. So couch the question in a way that he can understand, and thus draw him in. Why is walking possible, why is physical movement possible? By this tactic, you will actually be leading the naturalist into the metaphysical realm, using as the bait something they spend their lives observing - behavior, specifically movement in this case.
The naturalist will respond in some way. He will probably say that motion is necessary for survival. Things move because they have to, in consonance with the Darwinian tenant of Survival of the Fittest.
Whatever his response is, ask him why do inanimate objects move? Why does air move? why does rain fall?
Perhaps he'll say because of chemical reactions and the interplay of gravity. The one thing you can bet he won't say is that it's because of God (unless you are talking to one of those rare religious evolutionists, and then the debate would really be only about the merits of the science).
Now tighten the screws and collapse the scope of the debate. Ask him why does a single nitrogen atom at room temperature whiz around at a speed of 515 meters per second? Ask him to imagine that. In the very air he is breathing, there are nitrogen atoms whizing around at a speed of 515 meters per second.
You will probably witness a play of some interesting expressions come over his face. In a fit of desperation, he might say because of gravity, that is, if he has not yet reached his threshold of uncomfortability. At this point he might bug out of the conversation altogether, and go swishing away like a little bedraggled mole in search of his warm hole.
Gravity, of course, cannot explain that nitrogen atom's movement, because gravity does not work at the atomic level. Yet that atom moves. The naturalist will say it moves because it just does. But the proponent of ID will postulate a moving cause, which is distinct and apart from matter, what Anaxagoras 2500 years ago called nous, and which is responsible for the changes and the motion that matter undergoes.
And that is the crux of the disagreement between many evolutionists and IDers. The debate between the two sides is deeply philosophical at its core, and predates Christianity and Darwin both. There is a God versus there is not a God. For these metaphsical opponents, science is the tool used by each side to advance their respective causes.
The IDer is in the camp of Anaxagoras, who preached that matter was composed of infinitesimal, qualitatively different "seeds", and that nous, or intelligence, distinct and separate from matter, that was behind the motion and changes.
The evolutionist is not so easy to pinpoint to a common ancient philosophy, because the members are an amalgam. You have Christians who believe that God caused evolution (probably put them in Anaxagoras's camp). Very difficult to place is the athiest. Perhaps they are best fit into the philosophies of the atomists Leucippus and Democritus, who ignored motion altogether, but who did not explicitly deny it. Then there are agnostic evolutionists who are extremely difficult to place, since they are undecided about God (by God I personally mean God in the pre-Christian sense...an Intelligence.)
Evolution really has nothing to do with the debate about God. Many evolutionists do not understand this. By using sound reasoning and carefully constructing a sound metaphysical argument, and using science as a secondary tool, you might even be able to turn some of the agnostics into believers of an external Intelligence. They are sitting on the fence, as it is anyway, just needing a persuasive nudge.
[ 22. February 2007, 18:12: Message edited by: AnaxagorasRules ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 23. February 2007 00:32
AnaxagorusRules, LifeEngineer, & 2ndclass,
I truly appreciate the dialogue but with all due respect I don’t really think either of you are disagreeing with me; instead it seems more like you’re giving reasons why not to directly address the question. I challenge you to just tell me I am flat wrong. This is an extraordinarily significant issue because Evolutionary Theory, as the quote from Gould illustrates, very much depends upon competition.
quote:
Matt, I think that I now understand what you are driving at regarding competition. I don't think you'll get far by stressing its lack of physical properties, however. A naturalist would jump all over that because competition is a behavior, and that's what a naturalist does, observe behavior.
Oh come on, naturalism does much more than study behavior. Naturalism assumes materialism and absolutely cannot tolerate anything but materialism. After all, Evolutionary Theory completely evaporates if we are spiritual beings, for it cannot even address how something nonphysical might evolve, etc. (Suddenly the door would swing wide open for Intelligent Design.) Within the context of Evolutionary Theory, even if there is/are god(s), he/she/it/they either had nothing to do with the design of life or made it look like they had nothing to do with it—both of which are completely meaningless beyond some therapeutic escapism.
So naturalists want very much to take things like competition and mathematics (a main topic of that other thread) for granted. In my experience most will just pretend to sweep all this discussion under the rug of philosophy (usually some kind of Platonism) and declare it is interesting but not really relevant.
But that is simply changing the subject and avoiding the issue. I just keep saying no, these are extremely significant phenomenon to take for granted—again, in principle indistinguishable from taking spirituality for granted. For I are not talking about philosophy; I am talking about being able to observe the complete absence of physical qualities in an objective reality of nature, a reality that existed long before humans came on the scene.
I still think my 3 suggestions for disagreement are valid. (1) Declare the meaning of the word “competition” is purely subjective and only exists inside the human brain, not in nature; (2) Argue that competition is a physical thing, which is really the same as the 1st one because you’d be saying that competition is actually a clump of neurons; (3) Argue that organisms and machines are capable of perceiving nonphysical phenomena.
It sure looks like I’m stacking the deck here because Evolutionary Theory cannot tolerate those first two options, and the third one is all but incoherent. But then I think spirituality is, literally, a no-brainer.
Here’s Wikepedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition):
quote:
Many evolutionary biologists view inter-species and intra-species competition as the driving force of adaptation and ultimately, evolution. However, some biologists, most famously Richard Dawkins, prefer to think of evolution in terms of competition between single genes, which have the welfare of the organism 'in mind' only insofar as that welfare furthers their own selfish drives for replication. Some social Darwinists claim (controversially) that competition also serves as a mechanism for determining the best-suited group, politically, economically, and ecologically.
Competition (see also biological competition in Wikepedia) is as objective as a chunk of granite yet it has no physical qualities. Therefore, the human brain cannot perceive it. Tell me I’m wrong.
[ 23. February 2007, 00:50: Message edited by: Matt Connally ]
IP: Logged
|
|
AnaxagorasRules
Member
Member # 4079
|
posted 23. February 2007 05:15
Okay, Matt, one by one:
quote:
Oh come on, naturalism does much more than study behavior. Naturalism assumes materialism and absolutely cannot tolerate anything but materialism. After all, Evolutionary Theory completely evaporates if we are spiritual beings, for it cannot even address how something nonphysical might evolve, etc. (Suddenly the door would swing wide open for Intelligent Design.) Within the context of Evolutionary Theory, even if there is/are god(s), he/she/it/they either had nothing to do with the design of life or made it look like they had nothing to do with it—both of which are completely meaningless beyond some therapeutic escapism.
A Naturalist in the Darwinian mold observes behavior. And he will hypothesize on what he observes. Seriously, competition is the crux of the survival of the fittest tenant. He will simply write it off as a behavior that is observable in living animals.
quote:
Here’s Wikepedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition):
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many evolutionary biologists view inter-species and intra-species competition as the driving force of adaptation and ultimately, evolution. However, some biologists, most famously Richard Dawkins, prefer to think of evolution in terms of competition between single genes, which have the welfare of the organism 'in mind' only insofar as that welfare furthers their own selfish drives for replication. Some social Darwinists claim (controversially) that competition also serves as a mechanism for determining the best-suited group, politically, economically, and ecologically.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is precisely why competition will not work in the argument. Competition is an behavior, and ironically one that is the naturalist's bread and butter. A behavior simply cannot be quantitatively measured in the way that a physical object can.
quote:
Competition (see also biological competition in Wikepedia) is as objective as a chunk of granite yet it has no physical qualities. Therefore, the human brain cannot perceive it. Tell me I’m wrong.
You're wrong ![[Wink]](wink.gif) Seriously, competition is most assuredly not as objective as a chunk of granite. You can taste, see, and touch a specific piece of granite. That piece of granite can exist on its own. It is substantially real. In order for you to perceive competition, however, you need particpants to engage in a specific competitive event. A behavior is not in the same class as a material thing. It is objective only in the sense that you can observe the event. Say you are watching a boxing match, getting back to that example. The boxing match is external to you. It exists, and you know it does because you are watching it. However, the boxing match is a temporary event. It begins and ends. That particular competitive event only ever existed as an action on the part of the participants. You cannot quantitatively measure a competitive event like you can quantitatively measure a rock. They are different classes of things.
If you don't agree with this, then we are at an impasse, because I don't know how else to explain this without getting redundant. If you still think that a generic competition exists all by itself, outside of any participants, just there all the time, but unperceivable because it can't be measured like a rock, then you are claiming that something is and something isn't at the same time. And there's a Platonic cast to the claim. Asking to see competition is like asking to see goodness, beauty, war, or laughing. These things can only be observed as behaviors or qualities of real material things. They don't exist on their own.
Incidentally, it was just this sort of difficulty, with the Platonic forms, that caused Aristotle to devise his classification of things that exist in such a way that took the forms out of the transcendal realm. He still posits forms, but he put them inside material objects. That's why I keep saying that a behavior (like competition) needs participants to be observed. All things, in the Aristotlean world exist ONLY in primary substances...ie in real material objects. He worked out a complete classification scheme that put every type of thing, material and immaterial, that was defined by a word, and determined its category by class. Many words are abstractions, and as such do not exist in reality. For example, Man does not exist. Four-legged and warm-blooded Animal does not exist. Cat does not exist. Only real, material, observable instances of these abstractions can exist. Socrates can exist. Lucy the cat can exist. Lucy the four-legged warm-blooded animal can exist, because a cat is a four-legged, warm-blooded animal. The same exact structural scheme is given to the abstraction competition, with the additional requirement that the specific instance of a competitive event must have particpants in order to exist, because actions do not exist outside of participants.
This was a tremendous intellectual feat that Aristotle accomplished, because Plato's forms were not understandable. Even Plato realized, later in life, that there were difficulties with his transcendental forms.
Finally,
I agree that competition is not a material object, and cannot be quantified like a material object. Now suppose that two animals are fighting over a piece of meat. They are engaged in a competitive act. The two animals exist and they are fighting, right? Are you also saying that the fighting is immaterial? If so, you've got yourself one heck of a conundrum. Suppose you went over to the two animals (suppose they are dogs) and broke up the fight, getting bit in the process. Did the fighting suddenly become material when you touched one of the animals? Or would the fighting still be immaterial because you had really only touched an animal and not a thing called fighting, in essence meaning that you were bit by a dog for trying to stop it from doing an immaterial thing? So an immaterial fighting event led to the reality of you getting bit, with the wound being materially real because it is measurable?
So we have really real things and immaterially real things. I won't disagree with that. But if I were to nit pick, I'd also say that everything that we are aware of is immaterial, because every act of cognition and perception comes to us through our consciousness, and that includes the "physical" acts of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching. Since our consciousness cannot be measured, then all that we are aware of is immaterial. So, to be completely consistent, everything is either an immaterial material thing, or an immaterial immaterial thing...i.e. we think that something is material, or we think that something is immaterial. Either way, we reduce ourselves to pure immaterial consciousness. So, maybe a strict reliance that objects have to be measureable in order to be material is a little too constraining? Personally, I prefer Aristotles classification of existence, for day to day activities. It's a workable system, and doesn't necessitate me wondering if the people I see on my daily travels are real mental constructions or only imagined ones.
What naturalists will not discuss is a moving cause (i.e. God). They are getting so nervous now that they are even beginning to put quotes around words that connotate "design". But I still say that raising the issue of competition to them will not even make them blink. They have cohorts to deal with that issue. Evolutionary psychologists' specialty is dreaming up motivations for the behavior and customs in people and animals that they observe. They fit it under the big tent of adaption. The other day, I read an article on Scientific American online where an evolutionary psycholigist posited the theory that the taboo against people having sex with close relations is biologically based, adapted so that we are more likely to parent healthy children. It's laughable.
[ 23. February 2007, 05:25: Message edited by: AnaxagorasRules ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 23. February 2007 08:51
Quote: I still think my 3 suggestions for disagreement are valid. (1) Declare the meaning of the word “competition” is purely subjective and only exists inside the human brain, not in nature; (2) Argue that competition is a physical thing, which is really the same as the 1st one because you’d be saying that competition is actually a clump of neurons; (3) Argue that organisms and machines are capable of perceiving nonphysical phenomena.
You are probably never going to get to the point of understanding the issue of survival of the fittest versus altruistic survival, because you seem unwilling or unable to understand how science uses abstract concepts. Competition, as used formally in scientific analysis, is an abstract concept that exists in the minds of scientists and can be clearly communicated between competent scientists. This is very different from being subjective. An abstract concept that is well defined and that can be clearly communicated between scientists is objectively defined, not subjectively defined.
Physical is not logically equivalent to objective and mental or abstract is not equivalent to subjective. Competition as used in formal scientific analysis is objectively defined abstract concept. Objectively defined means, in part, consistent with objective observations.
Now just because competition is a clearly defined, objective concept does not mean it is a concept or component of a theory that explains evolutionary change. We can clearly and objectively define competition, but when we look at actual data, we find that it is not a concept or force responsible for evolution.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 23. February 2007 11:54
Matt: quote:
Oh come on, naturalism does much more than study behavior.
Matt, you admit that naturalism includes the study of behavior, and yet behavior is immaterial. I think that if you try to resolve that apparent contradiction, you'll come to see what AnaxagorasRules is talking about.
IP: Logged
|
|
AnaxagorasRules
Member
Member # 4079
|
posted 23. February 2007 13:04
Matt, there is something about this discussion that has just occurred to me.
Ironically, there was a anti-Platonic system of belief called Naturalism that has nothing to do with Naturalists. The adherents of Naturalism were foes of forms like Beauty, Goodness, Evil, Virtue, arguing that these things were ideas that did not exist in nature, and therefore not real. They actually did use physical properties as a litmus test for reality, and denied the existance of anything that could not be measured. Their target was the platonic forms that embodied the universals that covered morality, ethics, and quality (for example, Good, Beauty, Virtue, etc). Even as little as a few hundred years ago, Plato's Forms were still being taught and defended. Naturalism was a materialist construction to defeat Plato. The movement died out as a working organization because their goal was achieved. No one advances Plato's transendental forms anymore.
Plato came up with the idea of transcendental forms specifically to counter the original naturalists of his day, who, in the form of the sophists were increasingly denying the existence of eternal, unchanging things like Virtue and Goodness, saying that virtue was in the eye of the beholder. For the major part of his life, Plato defended the teachings of his mentor, Socrates. And Socrates fought to the teeth the sophists of his day, trying with all his intellectual might to create high moral standards. Plato took the standards and put them out of the reach of men.
In this particular discussion, when you advance the idea that competition is immaterially real, you are getting very close to the same methodology of Naturalism, only your target, instead of being universal moral ideals, is instead universal behavior. However, where Naturalism sought to kill the universal ideals outright, you are only transmuting your target, not killing it. You still claim that competition exists, but in a different way from a rock. It is immaterially real.
To advance your argument, let's say that you are right in everything you propose. Competition is immaterially real, different from a rock because competition is not quantifiable using physical properties. The naturalist (in the Darwinian sense now) will simply shrug and say, so? Even you say that competition still does exist. So you say aha, but it's immaterial! And again he says, so? After all, he is not trying to measure the competition. He's only observing it, taking down notes, and his evolutionary phychologist buddy will dream up motivations. Immaterial competition still fits nicely into the Darwinian world.
[ 23. February 2007, 14:34: Message edited by: AnaxagorasRules ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 24. February 2007 09:59
It may be useful to divide the issues being discussed here into two subtopics. The first is the 'sceintific' issue of the nature of the selection processes associated with evolutionary change. The second issue is the type of arguments and logic and behavior that are to be used to address and hopefully resolve the issue.
PART ONE: THE SCIENTIFIC ISSUE
Essentially everyone agrees that evolution involves or can be viewed as involving some type of selection. The scientiific debate centers on the question of nature of the selection process.
The various forms of Darwinism assert that evolutionary selection is based on the consequences of exhibited traits. This suggests that evolutionary selection involves competition or survival of the fittest.
The alternative intelligence based or ID concept of selection suggests that selection is based on some type of intelligent knowledge of the long term general benefits. Also, the ID or intelligent concept of selection suggests/predicts that harmful variations can be eliminated or selected out before they are ever expressed as traits that could be subjected to natural selection.
The basic scientific test of these two competing theories of selection involves determining if the selection that occurs is based on the short term benefits of the individuals and its descendants, or does actual selection look past short term benefits to the individual and 'select' for forms that have long term benefits to life forms in general.
PART TWO: THE BEHAVIORAL ISSUE
The behavioral issue, or the "How are scientific issues to be resolved?" issue is basically a choice between hard science and soft science. Id supporters like Matt can follow the soft science approach where they can rely on their own idiosyncratic views of abstract or mental concepts. Using their own personal views and ideas, they can argue endlessly with soft science practioners from the dominant Darwinian ideology.
The Darwinian supporters may never by able to force Matt to change his views, but he will never be able to really win an argument because 'win or lose' is always ultimately decided by dominant or majority beliefs.
Alternatively, Matt and other ID supporters can learn to structure their arguments in terms of hard science standards. This is a far more difficult approach that requires a great deal of effort to learn the techniques and skills required to perform hard science analysis.
If Matt or other ID supporters decide to follow hard science methodologies, the validity of their positions will be determined by hard science testing, not by the political or ideological opinions of a dominant political structure.
ID supporters really have a choice. They can follow soft science standards and know they will ultimately always loose their arguments. Or, they can spend the time and effort to learn hard science standards and techniques, knowing that while their ideas may not always win, at least they will be objectively evaluated.
IP: Logged
|
|
AnaxagorasRules
Member
Member # 4079
|
posted 24. February 2007 14:21
Another important thing is that in any discussion at all, science or otherwise, there has to be a consensus where we can at least agree on the meaning of the terms being used. That is one of the problems here.
quote:
Hot by convention, cold by convention; sweet by convention, bitter by convention. In reality, the atoms and the empty. (Democritus)
Even physical is by convention.
Color has been designated by convention a physical property, but how physical is it really? If I ask you to show me red, how will you do it? If you show me a piece of red paper, I will tell you that what you are showing me is a piece of paper. Perhaps then you will take a red ink pen and draw a red line on a piece of white paper. I will say that you are only showing me ink. This can go on and on, and though you can spend the rest of your life trying to, you will never be able to show me something that is red in and of itself.
However, this poses no problems for scientists or anyone else because by convention we understand what we mean when we say something is a certain color.
The standard units such as length, time, temperature, mass, etc, will fall prey to the same problem. None of these things exist in and of themselves. Again, that is okay because by convention scientists have reached an agreement about what these terms mean. Off the top of my head, I can think of no case where an attribute, quality, or action of any kind exists in and of itself as a disembodied thing. In our language, that includes all adjectives, abstract nouns, and verbs. The only things that are material in the sense that most people mean it are specific instances of objects. All of the attributes and qualities and behaviors of these instances are immaterial. The ontology of being is not a trivial thing. By convention we have worked around our ignorance of what being actually is, by agreeing on the meaning of words.
In this specific discussion, to move forward we are going to have to agree that people can observe specific behaviors, and that incudes specific competitive behaviors. If you do not agree to that, then there can't be a meaningful discussion because we do not agree on the terms used. If you ultimately want to put forth the argument that comptetition has been Designed as a means to ensure survival, and that it is immaterial, then that's fine, but you are going to have to allow that competition can be observed. Observing actions and behaviors is one of those agreed upon conventions...there can be no debate about our ability to do this, unless you want to change the nature of the discussion, where linguistics and the meaning of words becomes the issue.
If I were to go at it with a Darwinian proponent, I would use absurdity as my tool. In my arsenal I would have all of nature, and the fact that wherever we look we see indications of design and structure, from the large to the small. Exhibit A, the periodic table of elements. There is not a single thing (in the material sense that you mean) that is not structured. There can be no denying this. How absurd is it to hold that structure on such a wide and divergent scale was the result of random processes? A common sense argument can reduce a Darwinian to something tantamount to an idiot. And in doing that, you will win the argument. After all, you aren't trying to disprove or prove Darwin, because you can't. Only God can do that.
Of course, on my side of the argument, I'm not going to be invoking Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc. Because then I could be made to look like the idiot. I would postulate a Designer, period, and that's all I'd postulate. Based on the structure of nature, that is a reasonable belief. Also, evolution really is not the issue. A Designer does not mean that evolution didn't happen. Evolution is a process, not a first cause or a final cause. A seed becomes a tree. A human embryo becomes an adult. And so the universe will become whatever it was meant to be. There is no reason why evolution can't be the process by which the universe will eventually reach its final cause.
Ultimately, between an ID propronent and a Darwinian, the argument is not about evolution. It is about whether there is an Intelligent Designer or not.
[ 24. February 2007, 14:27: Message edited by: AnaxagorasRules ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. February 2007 00:50
The real argument is about whether there WAS a designer or not. My position is of course there WAS and there may HAVE BEEN several for all we know. There is not a shred of tangible evidence for a living God nor is there need for one.
"God is dead."
Nietzche
That which is dead once lived.
"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166, his emphasis.
"Those who consider that all the strange course of evolution is the result of an accident, or a series of accidents, are quite at liberty to think so. I believe there is a Plan, and though in the slow course of evolution there have been ups and downs, and what look like mistakes, the plan has gone on; and we may feel sure that it cannot fail to reach its goal."
Robert Broom, Finding the Missing Link, page 101.
I believe that goal WAS reached with the appearance of Homo sapiens, the youngest mammal on the planet.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 25. February 2007 10:21
anax,
Quote: In this specific discussion, to move forward we are going to have to agree that people can observe specific behaviors, and that incudes specific competitive behaviors.
You are seriously misrepresenting the processes scientists use to define abstract concepts like competition. Scientists do not define terms by convention or by reaching general public agreement. As is frequently noted, scientific terms have precise meanings that are often different from conventional terms.
You don't produce a scientific meaning by lengthy unproductive discussions about the conventional or politically acceptable meaning of a term. In science, terms like competition are defined by scientists in the context of non-trivial predictive theories. Formal scientific definitions are developed by scientists formulating and testing predictive theories. Such definitions must satisfy formal scientific requirements and they must make it possible for serious competent scientists to communicate reliably.
General acceptability to 'the peanut gallery' is not a criteria for defining scientific concepts.
Darwinian type theories predict/assert that selection in evolutionary processes is based on competition or survival of the fittest or short term advantage. ID theories of evolution predict/assert that selection is based on the prediction/assertion that selection involves goal directed intelligence or 'the long term general benefit of all life forms'. Within the context of these two groups of competing theories, the scientific concept of competition is well defined and there is no need to waste time arguing about the definition.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 25. February 2007 14:50
AnaxagorusRules,
Ayah, this is a terribly slippery issue and it’s difficult to identify the common denominators. I really appreciate the talk about Aristotle as I am very uneducated regarding philosophy. I’ll try to keep this reasonably short.
One of the trickiest words I think is the word “real”, and so I’m fond of saying that something, like competition, is “just as ‘real’ as the meaning of the word ‘real’ is real, and ‘exists’ as much as the meaning of the word ‘exist’ exists.” When I say that competition is as objective as a chunk of granite that certainly doesn’t mean it’s as easy to objectify. It just means it exists apart from humans. Which Darwinism absolutely assumes and cannot tolerate the alternative. I think we agree on that. But then it gets much trickier:
quote:
So we have really real things and immaterially real things. I won't disagree with that. But if I were to nit pick, I'd also say that everything that we are aware of is immaterial, because every act of cognition and perception comes to us through our consciousness, and that includes the "physical" acts of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching. Since our consciousness cannot be measured, then all that we are aware of is immaterial.
I’d say no, it means our awareness is immaterial. This was the main discussion in the previous thread. It is entirely coherent to distinguish between the material and the immaterial, and to say that the former is a medium for the later: physical phenomena (whether matter or energy) are mediums for nonphysical information. Our fives senses take in information that is translated in a variety of ways. As I stare at this computer screen all the patterns on it (from its dimensions to the symbols comprising English) are being translated into the patterns of light waves, which then presumably are translated into neural patterns in my brain. What exactly is being translated? Pure meaning—as coherent and infinite as mathematics.
quote:
The standard units such as length, time, temperature, mass, etc, will fall prey to the same problem. None of these things exist in and of themselves.
Of course they do; would not the alternative render all of science null and void? For example, at any one time does the moon have an exact, objective mass regardless of whether we are able to translate that mass into English and into kilograms? Yes, of course it does. The information is simply there (not unlike a book sitting on a shelf), available to be perceived, translated, and used. Now this is still a matter of faith—a rock solid faith (dependable enough to use to send men to the moon), but faith nonetheless.
What exactly would be translated? What ever it is (rational, creative information), it is not material. Furthermore, that is evidence of not just an intelligent Designer but an intelligent Author.
So likewise with competition. It is much more difficult to objectify than, say, the mass of a chunk of granite; but it is still objective. Can it exist apart from any medium—any fighting dogs or racing runners, etc.? Absolutely, just as all the information (at least in theory though we could get into trouble with uncertainty) in a chunk of granite could be translated into English and then that piece of granite be vaporized. Interestingly though, the alternative does not compute: physical phenomena cannot exist without being a medium for information.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. February 2007 15:30
I continue to let others speak for me.
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
Albert Einstein
"The idea of a personal god is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
ibid
"To assume the existence if an unperceivable being...does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
ibid
"God is dead."
Friedrich Nietzche
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 25. February 2007 15:45
LifeEngineer,
quote:
You are probably never going to get to the point of understanding the issue of survival of the fittest versus altruistic survival, because you seem unwilling or unable to understand how science uses abstract concepts. Competition, as used formally in scientific analysis, is an abstract concept that exists in the minds of scientists and can be clearly communicated between competent scientists. This is very different from being subjective. An abstract concept that is well defined and that can be clearly communicated between scientists is objectively defined, not subjectively defined.
Well I think I understand quite well how science uses abstract concepts, and I think it is fantastic. Again and again in the past century scientists kept being awed by how amazingly abstract math explained the universe. My only point is that it is absurd, even incoherent, to assume that this is a material process. Naturalists want to take this process for granted (they have no choice) without acknowledging that it transcends the physical world.
quote:
Physical is not logically equivalent to objective and mental or abstract is not equivalent to subjective. Competition as used in formal scientific analysis is objectively defined abstract concept. Objectively defined means, in part, consistent with objective observations.
I totally agree; in fact, that’s half my argument and I think you put it well. But I also think it could be clarified more by saying that competition is an objectively translated abstract concept.
quote:
Now just because competition is a clearly defined, objective concept does not mean it is a concept or component of a theory that explains evolutionary change. We can clearly and objectively define competition, but when we look at actual data, we find that it is not a concept or force responsible for evolution.
I’m not following you here. Is not competition is a fundamental aspect of Evolutionary Theory? According to that theory, if organisms did not compete they would not evolve.
On that note let me suggest a definition of the verb compete: using all resources available in the struggle to create. Organisms strive to create life; governments strive to create peace and justice; athletes strive to create joy; etc.
Again it is a very, very simple verb. Yet it is objective, real, and immaterial--not one to just assume we can take for granted without acknowledging its transcendent nature.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 25. February 2007 16:06
John,
From the Catholic Catechism Part One Section One Chapter 1 number 29 and number 35:
quote:
But this "intimate and vital bond of man to God" (GS 19,1) can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man. Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.
Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.
I only include this because you said you were Catholic.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic