Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on September 24, 2020, 03:41:39 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a nice article about the relationship between pattern recognition abilities and belief in God.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200909085942.htm
************
Individuals who can unconsciously predict complex patterns, an ability called implicit pattern learning, are likely to hold stronger beliefs that there is a god who creates patterns of events in the universe, according to neuroscientists at Georgetown University.
Our hypothesis is that people whose brains are good at subconsciously discerning patterns in their environment may ascribe those patterns to the hand of a higher power," he adds.
if children are unconsciously picking up on patterns in the environment, their belief is more likely to increase as they grow up, even if they are in a nonreligious household.
"A brain that is more predisposed to implicit pattern learning may be more inclined to believe in a god no matter where in the world that brain happens to find itself, or in which religious context," Green adds,
************
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I have been convinced for a long time that atheists probably lack some natural faculty that predisposes them to atheism. This is probably it!
-
I have been convinced for a long time that atheists probably lack some natural faculty that predisposes them to atheism. This is probably it!
The research seems entirely plausible to me. I think we all pick up and build whatever biases we have subconsciously as we go through life. Many people are subconsciously racist, for instance, without really realising it. Religious beliefs are very much like that, people don't argue themselves into a religious belief through intellectual enquiry, rather, the beliefs grow in strength over time as their minds continually pick up signals that are interpreted in the light of confirmation bias subconsiously. This research says nothing about which beliefs are correct, it is merely about how minds work, and some people are more disposed to accumulate subliminal patterns whereas other people are more disposed to top down analytical thinking.
-
The research seems entirely plausible to me. I think we all pick up and build whatever biases we have subconsciously as we go through life. Many people are subconsciously racist, for instance, without really realising it. Religious beliefs are very much like that, people don't argue themselves into a religious belief through intellectual enquiry, rather, the beliefs grow in strength over time as their minds continually pick up signals that are interpreted in the light of confirmation bias subconsiously. This research says nothing about which beliefs are correct, it is merely about how minds work, and some people are more disposed to accumulate subliminal patterns whereas other people are more disposed to top down analytical thinking.
This is not about confirmation bias at all. If a person, as he grows up, is able to discern hidden and subtle patterns in his life and environment...he grows to believe that there are unseen forces and causes that are behind it.....even in households without any religious beliefs. People who do not discern such subtle patterns accept only explicit patterns that are seen and sensed externally.
-
The study also says this:
The U.S. section of the study enrolled a predominantly Christian group of 199 participants from Washington, D.C. The Afghanistan section of the study enrolled a group of 149 Muslim participants in Kabul.
This does raise the issue of these cohorts having a pre-existing religious bias for reasons that are wholly separate from their tendency towards pattern recognition. Moreover, presumably the arrangements of dots that appeared (and disappeared) related to the shapes of well known objects and I'd imagine those with a pattern recognition trait might easily identify the shapes of the familiar such as, say, kettles, fish or geometric shapes: but what patterns these people might be 'detecting' that indicates to them at the presence of the divine is clearly a different matter, and isn't addressed.
The study, to be fair, doesn't go this far though by saying:
This is not a study about whether God exists, this is a study about why and how brains come to believe in gods. Our hypothesis is that people whose brains are good at subconsciously discerning patterns in their environment may ascribe those patterns to the hand of a higher power,
It seems to me that the elephant in the room here might be the risk that some have a tendency to see patterns where there are none, which could predispose them towards unfounded beliefs that involve personal traits, cultural patterns and their pre-existing biases and we know that those being studied here may have had a pre-existing religious biases: and nothing is said about there being a control group that have no pre-existing religious biases.
So, that they can discern some patterns that, presumably, relate to known objects/shapes (else how would it be known that they are correctly identifying patterns of dots) says nothing about what patterns might cause them to think they have 'detected' some sort of supernatural agency.
-
I have been convinced for a long time that atheists probably lack some natural faculty that predisposes them to atheism. This is probably it!
The human tendency to identify patterns is well-established, there's a wealth of research to show probable evolutionary benefits to it, and to show that the tendency towards type 1 errors (false positives: identifying a pattern where none exists) is a more successful evolutionary trait in most instances to type 2 errors (false negatives: spotting no pattern when there is one).
As such, it's at least as likely that theists are falling foul of type 1 errors in finding gods which aren't there as it is atheists are somehow 'lacking' something when they fail to believe claims of things for which there is insufficient evidence.
O.
-
This is not about confirmation bias at all. If a person, as he grows up, is able to discern hidden and subtle patterns in his life and environment...he grows to believe that there are unseen forces and causes that are behind it.....even in households without any religious beliefs. People who do not discern such subtle patterns accept only explicit patterns that are seen and sensed externally.
Wot Outrider said, I think. Confirmation bias is a thing, a human universal affecting us all to some or other degree, and it happens largely subliminally. Agent detection is also a thing, a universal cognitive bias that predisposes us to ascribe patterns to some hidden intentionality. We are all subject to these things in some or other degree. People who have a stronger faculty for subliminal pattern detection combined with a stronger disposition to agent detection are the people who will develop religious beliefs, irrespective of their upbringing, education, culture.
-
Sriram,
This is not about confirmation bias at all. If a person, as he grows up, is able to discern hidden and subtle patterns in his life and environment...
Yes it is. “Discerning” “hidden and subtle” patterns tells you nothing about whether those patterns are actually there. Inadequate sample size for example will sometimes indicate an apparent pattern that, when the sample size is increased, turns out to be just noise.
…he grows to believe that there are unseen forces and causes that are behind it....
Yes, people will sometime impute deliberative causal agencies without good reason.
…even in households without any religious beliefs.
Once someone has decided without good reason that there is a deliberative causal agency at play, the religious belief of the household tends to provide the ready-made peg on which to hang that belief: Christians think it’s the Christian god, Amazonian tribespeople think it’s the tree spirits etc
People who do not discern such subtle patterns accept only explicit patterns that are seen and sensed externally.
How would anyone “see and sense” something internally?
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a nice article about the relationship between pattern recognition abilities and belief in God.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200909085942.htm
************
Individuals who can unconsciously predict complex patterns, an ability called implicit pattern learning, are likely to hold stronger beliefs that there is a god who creates patterns of events in the universe, according to neuroscientists at Georgetown University.
Our hypothesis is that people whose brains are good at subconsciously discerning patterns in their environment may ascribe those patterns to the hand of a higher power," he adds.
if children are unconsciously picking up on patterns in the environment, their belief is more likely to increase as they grow up, even if they are in a nonreligious household.
"A brain that is more predisposed to implicit pattern learning may be more inclined to believe in a god no matter where in the world that brain happens to find itself, or in which religious context," Green adds,
************
Cheers.
Sriram
I can only see this post of yours Sriram, is just your good self going off and clutching at straws again.
This is often caused by the tendency present in most cultures where everyday life isn't enough and some have this need to pass on that, there's something more to life out there to be found by a sort of Mr Magic if you like, responsible for all of those as yet unexplained mysteries.
Our brains do work in what seems to me to be remarkable ways, for example, I wear a hearing aids on both ears and due to their size the sound they bang out in the frequency that is inaudible to me is rather a tinny sound that will always sound tinny no matter what but in spite of that the lump of grey stuff residing between my ears does something with the tinny sound and turns it into what sounds to me a fully rounded approximation of whatever it thinks I should be hearing and it does this without any input from myself.
On knowing about the above I've taken note that they do sound tinny for the briefest of moments every morning when I first switch them on, just before Mr Brain takes over.
Could there be something similar going on with your unconscious predictions of complex patterns ability called implicit pattern learning?
I would think this possibility is far more likely than anything magical or supernatural going on?
Regards, ippy.
-
I have been convinced for a long time that atheists probably lack some natural faculty that predisposes them to atheism. This is probably it!
The propensity to discern patterns, both real and imagined, has long been known as a human characteristic, from the conjuring up of patterns seen in the flickering flames of a coal fire to the useful creation of constellations in the night sky and all the way through to the pattern regularity of mathematics such that mathematics has been called a science of patterns. As Outrider clearly states the abilty to discern patterns is clearly of evolutionary value.
However, although interesting, I think it is useful to bear in mind that the research that you link to comes from a source which decribes itself as "The largest, most prominent Catholic medical center in the country", and that the cohorts it relies upon on its research come from two predominately religious groups, one Christian the other Muslim. The aim of its findings therefore is to show if there is a linkage between inherent pattern finding abilities between two disparate religious groups. This says nothing at all about pattern finding abilities in other groups(E.g. mathematicians, atheists, chess players, artists).
Hence I find that your convictions about atheists to be a more than a little presumptive and possibly a sign of your underlying bias.
-
Hi everyone,
Conscious recognition of patterns is one thing and unconscious recognition of patterns is another thing. This involves sensing and discerning subtle causes and patterns in our own lives from childhood to present.
We must remember that unconscious processes are more powerful and overwhelming than conscious ones. In fact, most if not all, conscious processes involve unconscious processes and unconscious decision making.
These unconscious processes themselves constitute hidden forces and hidden motivations beyond our conscious awareness. Combining this phenomenon with the concepts of panpsychism and cosmopsychism....makes the idea of an Agent more intriguing and compulsive.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Conscious recognition of patterns is one thing and unconscious recognition of patterns is another thing. This involves sensing and discerning subtle causes and patterns in our own lives from childhood to present.
We must remember that unconscious processes are more powerful and overwhelming than conscious ones. In fact, most if not all, conscious processes involve unconscious processes and unconscious decision making.
These unconscious processes themselves constitute hidden forces and hidden motivations beyond our conscious awareness. Combining this phenomenon with the concepts of panpsychism and cosmopsychism....makes the idea of an Agent more intriguing and compulsive.
Cheers.
Sriram
The understanding that most of mind is not conscious most of the time does nothing to validate dualism; that is called clutching at straws. Mind would not be viable any other way.
-
The propensity to discern patterns, both real and imagined, has long been known as a human characteristic, from the conjuring up of patterns seen in the flickering flames of a coal fire to the useful creation of constellations in the night sky and all the way through to the pattern regularity of mathematics such that mathematics has been called a science of patterns. As Outrider clearly states the abilty to discern patterns is clearly of evolutionary value.
Absolutely - and I've no doubt that the propensity to see patterns isn't the same in all people, but critically also that a propensity to see patterns involves both real patterns but also imaginary patterns as enki suggests. And typically throughout human existence those 'imaginary' patterns tend to be anthropomorphised - effectively seeing or creating pattern that resonate with, or are useful to humans. So we see the man in the moon, we see a face in a cloud formation - we don't see imaginary patterns that have no relevance to human existence.
So I'm not surprised that those people with a greater propensity to see real or imagined patterns may also have a greater propensity to believe in god. Whether that is merely correlation rather than causation is not demonstrated. Nor is whether this is inherently learned behaviour (one thing that is beyond doubt is that religiosity is learned behaviour as children brought up without being taught to be religious almost never are as adults and very few people stray far from the religion they were brought up in).
-
Absolutely - and I've no doubt that the propensity to see patterns isn't the same in all people, but critically also that a propensity to see patterns involves both real patterns but also imaginary patterns as enki suggests. And typically throughout human existence, those 'imaginary' patterns tend to be anthropomorphised - effectively seeing or creating a pattern that resonates with or are useful to humans. So we see the man in the moon, we see a face in a cloud formation - we don't see imaginary patterns that have no relevance to human existence.
So I'm not surprised that those people with a greater propensity to see real or imagined patterns may also have a greater propensity to believe in god. Whether that is merely correlation rather than causation is not considered. Nor is whether this is inherently learned behaviour (one thing that is beyond doubt is that religiosity is learned behaviour as children brought up without being taught to be religious almost never are as adults and very few people stray far from the religion they were brought up in).
Funny, but in my personal experience, most Pagans are lapsed Christians and the most common reason given is that it, Chritianity, is discredited in its origins and its dognmatic refusal to see the errors in its history as taken from the Bible.
-
Hi everyone,
Conscious recognition of patterns is one thing and unconscious recognition of patterns is another thing. This involves sensing and discerning subtle causes and patterns in our own lives from childhood to present.
We must remember that unconscious processes are more powerful and overwhelming than conscious ones. In fact, most if not all, conscious processes involve unconscious processes and unconscious decision making.
These unconscious processes themselves constitute hidden forces and hidden motivations beyond our conscious awareness. Combining this phenomenon with the concepts of panpsychism and cosmopsychism....makes the idea of an Agent more intriguing and compulsive.
Cheers.
Sriram
Glad to see that you at least accept that the unconscious/sub-conscious mind has a major part to play in defining our thoughts and actions. This, of course, is backed up by a great deal of experimental evidence. It is a moot point as to whether any patterns consciously recognised have already gone through this unconscious/sub-conscious process first of course.
However your last paragraph hints again at your own particular bias as there is no evidence whatever for panpsychism or cosmopsychism, and as the ability to sense patterns(either real or imagined) seems to be a natural evolutionary trait in human beings, the idea that sensing patterns is linked to either of these two 'isms' is pure conjecture on your part. I certainly don't find your idea of an Agent at all intriguing and certainly not 'compulsive'. I'm not sure why you would, unless you had a disposition to find anything, however vague and ill defined, and try to make it fit a deeply held, cherished position.
-
Merely saying that something is an evolutionary trait does not take away the factor of Intelligence and purpose behind it.
-
Merely saying that something is an evolutionary trait does not take away the factor of Intelligence and purpose behind it.
Why is it a factor of intelligence. I think you are presupposing that god exists and therefore that those with heightened pattern recognition are therefore able to discern something real that others aren't.
Of course if god does not exist then extrapolating real pattern recognition to extend to non real patterns is hardly intelligent is it. It is quite the opposite - believing a pattern exists where there is none. I cannot see anything particularly intelligent about perceiving patterns where none exist.
-
Merely saying that something is an evolutionary trait does not take away the factor of Intelligence and purpose behind it.
An essential point about any evolutionary trait is that it can be explained without recourse to the idea of intelligence or purpose behind it. Of course this doesn't rule out the possibility that such a purpose may exist but, unless there is evidence that this is so, it lies squarely in the realm of conjecture, as I have already said.
-
Merely saying that something is an evolutionary trait does not take away the factor of Intelligence and purpose behind it.
The phrase 'evolutionary trait' pretty much does take away any notion of intelligence and purpose behind it. Evolution is an insentient process; like sunlight or metabolism or arithmetic, it doesn't have hopes or ambitions or concerns. You need to be sentient to have these attributes.
-
Evolution does not mean an unintelligent, automatic process. I have already discussed about human made products...all of which evolve from simple models to complex models...but which have intelligence behind them. Evolution is everywhere around us in terms of products, culture, civilization, ideas...and always has intelligence and purpose behind it.
Intelligence and purpose do not mean a Christian God! Most of you have Jehovah sitting in your heads and when I mention Intelligence or purpose, you imagine a old man with a white beard waving his hands and making things happen. ::)
That is not what I mean. Consciousness and Intelligence can be fundamental and an inherent part of the universe. Please read up on Panpsychism and cosmopsychism. These are serious ideas being considered even by neuroscientists. It is not old school science anymore guys!
-
These are serious ideas being considered even by neuroscientists.
Do you understand how patronising that sounds Sriram.
Neuroscientists are the people driving forward our understanding of brain function, cognition, conscious and unconscious thought processes, behaviour and psychology etc etc in leaps and bounds, not you with your mumbo jumbo.
-
https://mindmatters.ai/2020/05/why-is-science-growing-comfortable-with-panpsychism-everything-is-conscious/
***********
A recent article at New Scientist treats panpsychism as a serious idea in science. That’s thanks to the growing popularity of neuroscientist Giulio Tonioni’s Integrated Information Theory (IIT):
But it’s not just New Scientist. In recent years, Scientific American has been sympathetic to panpsychism as well.
if we are to achieve a precise description of consciousness, we may have to ditch our intuitions and accept that all kinds of inanimate matter could be conscious – maybe even the universe as a whole. “This could be the beginning of a scientific revolution,” says Johannes Kleiner, a mathematician at the Munich Centre for Mathematical Philosophy in Germany.
At one time, a science mag’s typical contributors would merely ridicule the conscious universe, convinced that science will shortly explain consciousness away anyhow.
Panpsychists need not be Darwinists, for example. That is, they need not account for human consciousness either as a trait that evolved to help ancestors of humans survive on the savannah or as a byproduct of such a trait. Bernardo Kastrup has argued explicitly, in response to Darwinist Jerry Coyne, that human consciousness cannot be a mere byproduct of human evolution because it cannot even be measured in traditional science terms.
Panpsychists need not reject evolution in principle. But Darwinism, as commonly expressed, is an outgrowth of physicalism (everything is physical). That is why Darwinian accounts of consciousness are frequently restricted to considerations of what traits helped prehuman ancestors survive.
The reasoning seems feeble at best. A life form hardly needs human consciousness to survive and the claim that human consciousness is a mere byproduct of natural selection for other purposes (cf. Coyne) is an assertion without evidence.
If IIT continues to gain a sympathetic hearing, panpsychism could become, over time, a part of normal science.
***********
-
If IIT continues to gain a sympathetic hearing, panpsychism could become, over time, a part of normal science.
Or not.
Influential philosopher John Searle has given a critique of theory saying "The theory implies panpsychism" and "The problem with panpsychism is not that it is false; it does not get up to the level of being false. It is strictly speaking meaningless because no clear notion has been given to the claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory
-
I have been convinced for a long time that atheists probably lack some natural faculty that predisposes them to atheism. This is probably it!
You think the patterns are there and that you are seeing them but atheists aren't. I think the patterns aren't there and you are seeing something which isn't there. Same old same old. Gets us nowhere.
-
WB Maeght :D
-
I have been convinced for a long time that atheists probably lack some natural faculty that predisposes them to atheism. This is probably it!
No. A study found that the missing natural faculty in atheists is gullibility.
-
WB Maeght :D
Thanks :)
-
Merely saying that something is an evolutionary trait does not take away the factor of Intelligence and purpose behind it.
Merely saying that there is an Intelligence and purposes behind something doesn't make it so, either - it's almost like some people can have an overactive pattern-recognition faculty. Someone should probably do a thread on that :)
O.
-
Evolution does not mean an unintelligent, automatic process. I have already discussed about human made products...all of which evolve from simple models to complex models...but which have intelligence behind them. Evolution is everywhere around us in terms of products, culture, civilization, ideas...and always has intelligence and purpose behind it.
Indeed you have discussed evolution before and have shown your total ignorance of the subject, even to the point, if my memory serves me correctly, in suggesting that the chance element of evolution in producing human beings was akin to monkeys typing on a typewriter producing the works of Shakespeare. Also, as you have been told before, intelligent design is derivative, it results from evolution which requires no intelligent design at all.
Intelligence and purpose do not mean a Christian God! Most of you have Jehovah sitting in your heads and when I mention Intelligence or purpose, you imagine a old man with a white beard waving his hands and making things happen. ::)
Putting aside your original post which pointed out research which was concerned with pattern discernment and belief in god, this smacks of your usual stereotyping of those who disagree with you. As I can only speak for myself, this certainly isn't my approach.
That is not what I mean. Consciousness and Intelligence can be fundamental and an inherent part of the universe. Please read up on Panpsychism and cosmopsychism. These are serious ideas being considered even by neuroscientists. It is not old school science anymore guys!
Interesting that you link consciousness and intelligence together. Intelligence is often quantified according to IQ, and this does not necessarily relate to consciousness, which is, above all, an experiential quality. Panpsychism suggests that all things have a degree of consciousness, something which even the originator of the Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness rejects, and cosmopsychism is simply an offshoot of panpsychism which suggests that there is an underlying cosmic consciousness which everything is part of.
Actually there is no evidence at all that evolution has a purpose. If it had, the first question I would ask is what on earth was that purpose?
-
Actually there is no evidence at all that evolution has a purpose. If it had, the first question I would ask is what on earth was that purpose?
If you presume that there was no conscious intent involved in the evolution process, then of course there can be no conceivable purpose - based upon this presumption.
The only conceivable goal in any unguided evolutionary process would be survival, which in itself would be an unintended consequence to naturally occurring events.
Yet we have the concepts of meaning and purpose occurring within our human conscious awareness, together with the means to interact with our world to bring fruition to these concepts of meaning and purpose.
So we can show that meaning and purpose exist in reality, but the big question is this:
Are the concepts of meaning and purpose just an unintended consequence of a blind evolutionary process, or are they an integral part of the reality beyond human understanding.
-
If you presume that there was no conscious intent involved in the evolution process, then of course there can be no conceivable purpose - based upon this presumption.
Nope: the TofE via natural selection has sufficient explanatory value without the need to factor in any intent and, moreover, since there is no evidence of any agent that could supply any intent anyway, then the reasonable and parsimonious provisional conclusion is that the process is unguided.
The only conceivable goal in any unguided evolutionary process would be survival, which in itself would be an unintended consequence to naturally occurring events.
Yet we have the concepts of meaning and purpose occurring within our human conscious awareness, together with the means to interact with our world to bring fruition to these concepts of meaning and purpose.
So we can show that meaning and purpose exist in reality, but the big question is this:
Are the concepts of meaning and purpose just an unintended consequence of a blind evolutionary process, or are they an integral part of the reality beyond human understanding.
The rest of this predictable waffle is just your faith-driven personal incredulity getting the better of you again plus your lack of understanding of the TofE since, if you were correct, then all these evolutionary scientists that are expert in this field are missing something: of these two possibilities I'd plump for the former.
-
AB,
If you presume that there was no conscious intent involved in the evolution process, then of course there can be no conceivable purpose - based upon this presumption.
Wrong again. It’s not a “presumption” - it’s a reasoned observation that rests on logic and evidence.
The only conceivable goal…
Wrong again. “Goal” implies intentionality – intentionality isn’t required by evolutionary theory.
…in any unguided evolutionary process would be survival, which in itself would be an unintended consequence to naturally occurring events.
Your terminology is wrong, but essentially evolution is the cumulative change in a population or a species over time. When the population or species flourishes, then there will be more opportunities for those changes to embed.
Yet we have the concepts of meaning and purpose occurring within our human conscious awareness, together with the means to interact with our world to bring fruition to these concepts of meaning and purpose.
Yes, we do have concepts of meaning and purpose. So what?
So we can show that meaning and purpose exist in reality,…
They exist at a conceptual level. There’s no reason though to think that there’s reason and purpose just “out there” to be discovered.
…but the big question is this:…
Oh-oh, here it comes – the Thought for the Day moment when god makes an appearance…
Are the concepts of meaning and purpose just an unintended consequence of a blind evolutionary process, or are they an integral part of the reality beyond human understanding.
On the basis of the only reason and evidence we have, the former.
Oh, and that’s not a “big question” at all – or at least it’s not unless you think that “are rainbows only natural phenomena or do leprechauns leaves pots of gold at the ends of them” is a big question too.
-
The point is that merely because something gets created through a process of evolution...we cannot assume that there is no intelligence and purpose. Evolution does not automatically preclude purpose and Intelligence.
Intelligence and purpose do not necessarily imply an instantaneous creation. As I have pointed out, human products evolve in spite of having purpose and intelligence behind them.
Many evolutionary processes such as phenotypic plasticity clearly show 'intelligence' built into the process.
So, it is just as reasonable to assume that there is some form of Intelligence and purpose behind biological evolution as not!
-
Sriram,
The point is that merely because something gets created through a process of evolution...we cannot assume that there is no intelligence and purpose. Evolution does not automatically preclude purpose and Intelligence.
In the workaday, colloquial rather than the epistemological sense yes we can assume that – just as we ‘assume” no leprechauns visiting the ends of rainbows without making definitive statements about the categoric non-existence of leprechauns. As evolution neither requires nor provides any evidence for intentionality, why assume otherwise?
Intelligence and purpose do not necessarily imply an instantaneous creation. As I have pointed out, human products evolve in spite of having purpose and intelligence behind them.
Wrongly – you’re conflating the naturalistic process that gives rise to speciation with the co-opted use of that term in manufactured situations – “the car has evolved from the Model T to the Ferrari” for example.
Many evolutionary processes such as phenotypic plasticity clearly show 'intelligence' built into the process.
No they don’t. If you seriously think otherwise, provide some evidence for it. In the meantime, I’ll tell Nature, New Scientist, Scientific American etc to hold their front pages…
So, it is just as reasonable to assume that there is some form of Intelligence and purpose behind biological evolution as not!
Not without reason or evidence to justify the assumption, no.
-
If you presume that there was no conscious intent involved in the evolution process, then of course there can be no conceivable purpose - based upon this presumption.
If you don't come with a preconception and you look at what's been produced - from viruses through various bacteria that survive in an incredible range of disparate environments, through the various kingdoms of algae, plants, fungi, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, birds, reptiles and mammals... what evidence of purpose do you find?
The only conceivable goal in any unguided evolutionary process would be survival, which in itself would be an unintended consequence to naturally occurring events.
Survival sufficient to allow procreation, technically, but broadly yes.
Yet we have the concepts of meaning and purpose occurring within our human conscious awareness, together with the means to interact with our world to bring fruition to these concepts of meaning and purpose.
You can say the same about shoes, that doesn't make shoes some sort of end-goal of creation.
So we can show that meaning and purpose exist in reality, but the big question is this:
If you can, please do... don't claim, and then claim that it can be shown, and then carry on as though it has been shown, you're not the Penn and Teller of philosophy.
Are the concepts of meaning and purpose just an unintended consequence of a blind evolutionary process, or are they an integral part of the reality beyond human understanding.
Well, if you think it can be shown, show us. Otherwise, in the absence of any strong evidence that it's for a particular purpose, it's reasonable to presume that it's just something that happened.
O.
-
If you presume that there was no conscious intent involved in the evolution process, then of course there can be no conceivable purpose - based upon this presumption.
The only conceivable goal in any unguided evolutionary process would be survival, which in itself would be an unintended consequence to naturally occurring events.
Yet we have the concepts of meaning and purpose occurring within our human conscious awareness, together with the means to interact with our world to bring fruition to these concepts of meaning and purpose.
So we can show that meaning and purpose exist in reality, but the big question is this:
Are the concepts of meaning and purpose just an unintended consequence of a blind evolutionary process, or are they an integral part of the reality beyond human understanding.
So, evolution produces mental states, therefore mental states must have produced evolution.
Your penchant for circular thinking strikes again.
-
The point is that merely because something gets created through a process of evolution...we cannot assume that there is no intelligence and purpose. Evolution does not automatically preclude purpose and Intelligence.
Intelligence and purpose do not necessarily imply an instantaneous creation. As I have pointed out, human products evolve in spite of having purpose and intelligence behind them.
Many evolutionary processes such as phenotypic plasticity clearly show 'intelligence' built into the process.
So, it is just as reasonable to assume that there is some form of Intelligence and purpose behind biological evolution as not!
Except that is a circular claim; as well as being without any evidence.
-
So, evolution produces mental states, therefore mental states must have produced evolution.
Your penchant for circular thinking strikes again.
The question I posed was not about what evolution produces, but how and why it produces what it does.
Our human ability to purposely conceive of goals and aim to achieve those goals by whatever means are available, then improve on them, is an obvious example of a purposely guided process of evolution. We do not have any means of detecting whether every event involved in the evolution of life on this planet was intelligently guided to achieve a conceived purpose. Neither do we have any feasible means of assessing the true probability of unguided evolution achieving the unfathomable complexity apparent in the functioning of a human brain. So I feel justified in saying that the evolution of life being driven entirely by unguided events is a presumption rather than a likelihood.
-
The question I posed was not about what evolution produces, but how and why it produces what it does.
We know how it does - asking why it does presupposes some kind of intention. There is no reason to think there is any intention and therefore the notion of why it produces what it does is an irrelevant question.
-
The question I posed was not about what evolution produces, but how and why it produces what it does.
In this context 'how' is a valid question but not 'why': the latter is an example of begging the question, which is something you seem unable to spot even where it is obvious.
Our human ability to purposely conceive of goals and aim to achieve those goals by whatever means are available, then improve on them, is an obvious example of a purposely guided process of evolution.
No: it is just an example of evolution, Alan: you're over-egging the pudding again.
We do not have any means of detecting whether every event involved in the evolution of life on this planet was intelligently guided to achieve a conceived purpose.
Then, in the absence of the method you've just alluded to, your point is utterly redundant - as in pointless.
Neither do we have any feasible means of assessing the true probability of unguided evolution achieving the unfathomable complexity apparent in the functioning of a human brain.
Your begging the question again, with your usual added dash of hyperbolic personal incredulity.
So I feel justified in saying that the evolution of life being driven entirely by unguided events is a presumption rather than a likelihood.
Then your sense of justification is misplaced, since it is so dependent on your fallacy-laden thinking and a denial of the evidence to date.
Tell me, Alan, how many professional evolutionary biologists are actively looking for evidence of 'intent' or 'purpose' and have said so clearly in their publications? Since you are so convinced that there is 'intent' and/or 'purpose' involved I presume you'll have citations to hand that would include details of what methods are being used to confirm that these can be detected.
-
If you presume that there was no conscious intent involved in the evolution process, then of course there can be no conceivable purpose - based upon this presumption.
The only conceivable goal in any unguided evolutionary process would be survival, which in itself would be an unintended consequence to naturally occurring events.
Yet we have the concepts of meaning and purpose occurring within our human conscious awareness, together with the means to interact with our world to bring fruition to these concepts of meaning and purpose.
So we can show that meaning and purpose exist in reality, but the big question is this:
Are the concepts of meaning and purpose just an unintended consequence of a blind evolutionary process, or are they an integral part of the reality beyond human understanding.
If, by 'presume', you mean on the basis of probability and taking into account the lack of evidence and lack of requirement for conscious intent in the explanation of the evolution process then I am guilty as charged. If, by 'presume' you mean take for granted, then absolutely not.
The rest of your post has been answered fully adequately by others.
I note however that my question which you quoted (what on earth was that purpose?) has not been answered by you at all, not even by using your usual deepities. :)
-
The point is that merely because something gets created through a process of evolution...we cannot assume that there is no intelligence and purpose. Evolution does not automatically preclude purpose and Intelligence.
Of course they are not automatically precluded. However, as intelligence and purpose are not necessary for evolution, and as there is no evidence that they do play any part, then it is a perfectly reasonable working assumption to ignore them.
Intelligence and purpose do not necessarily imply an instantaneous creation. As I have pointed out, human products evolve in spite of having purpose and intelligence behind them.
And as I have pointed out, human products are derived from the process of evolution, which does not require intelligence or purpose.
Many evolutionary processes such as phenotypic plasticity clearly show 'intelligence' built into the process.
And yet again you show your ignorance. Phenotypic plasticity shows no such thing, as Prof D, as a mechanobiologist, who has studied PP in detail, patiently explained to you in this thread:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17486.msg800366#msg800366
The fact that you simply rejected what he said, by saying:
Phenotype changes that are generated to fit the environment ...cannot be based on random variations. There has to be an intelligent (responsive) cause for them.
That's all I have to say...
simply illustrated the fact that you seemed simply mired in your convictions and ignorance. It seems that you have not deviated from this blinkered path.
So, it is just as reasonable to assume that there is some form of Intelligence and purpose behind biological evolution as not!
As the evolutionary process has been demonstrated to work successfully without any evidence of sense of purpose or intelligence, I find it much more reasonable not to attribute intelligence and purpose unless or until evidence is produced to the contrary.
-
The question I posed was not about what evolution produces, but how and why it produces what it does.
Our human ability to purposely conceive of goals and aim to achieve those goals by whatever means are available, then improve on them, is an obvious example of a purposely guided process of evolution. We do not have any means of detecting whether every event involved in the evolution of life on this planet was intelligently guided to achieve a conceived purpose. Neither do we have any feasible means of assessing the true probability of unguided evolution achieving the unfathomable complexity apparent in the functioning of a human brain. So I feel justified in saying that the evolution of life being driven entirely by unguided events is a presumption rather than a likelihood.
All this does is paint god as evil and as a liar, and the baffling things is, you don't seem to recognise this. If evolution is a guided intentional process then the guider is responsible for all the bad things as well as all the good things. In this scenario God didn't just create smart people and pretty flowers, he created cancer and malaria and novel coronavirus either because he chose to create them or because he chose not to intervene and allow these things to evolve when he could have intervened to stop them. And this in the context of a guider making trillions upon trillions of interventions over millions of years in the germ lines of millions of individuals to gradually spread human-like characteristics amongst populations of pre-human ancestors. If you have such supernatural powers to create mutations in individuals, why can you not just create humans with a clean slate genome from scratch, and drop all the legacy of our evolutionary backstory; why disguise his interventions under the cloak of natural processes such that he would leave zero evidence of any intervention ? Was he covering his tracks ?
-
All this does is paint god as evil and as a liar, and the baffling things is, you don't seem to recognise this. If evolution is a guided intentional process then the guider is responsible for all the bad things as well as all the good things. In this scenario God didn't just create smart people and pretty flowers, he created cancer and malaria and novel coronavirus either because he chose to create them or because he chose not to intervene and allow these things to evolve when he could have intervened to stop them. And this in the context of a guider making trillions upon trillions of interventions over millions of years in the germ lines of millions of individuals to gradually spread human-like characteristics amongst populations of pre-human ancestors. If you have such supernatural powers to create mutations in individuals, why can you not just create humans with a clean slate genome from scratch, and drop all the legacy of our evolutionary backstory; why disguise his interventions under the cloak of natural processes such that he would leave zero evidence of any intervention ? Was he covering his tracks ?
I did not mention God, or the presumed nature of God.
I am just putting a case that the specific complexity needed for a functioning human brain is indicative of a consciously guided evolutionary process.
The examples of humanly guided evolution show that in addition to the desired end result, there will also be generated unintended by products and unwanted waste material which are an inevitable consequence of the processing.
-
I am just putting a case that the specific complexity needed for a functioning human brain is indicative of a consciously guided evolutionary process.
Where is this "case", then? You appear to be just making one of your usual baseless assertions.
If you think the human mind was an intended outcome, the you're begging the question - otherwise evolution will happen, given the right circumstances, and any result will be diverse and improbable, so there is nothing to explain.
-
I did not mention God, or the presumed nature of God.
I am just putting a case that the specific complexity needed for a functioning human brain is indicative of a consciously guided evolutionary process.
The examples of humanly guided evolution show that in addition to the desired end result, there will also be generated unintended by products and unwanted waste material which are an inevitable consequence of the processing.
Something with supernatural powers would be able to achieve its ends without collateral damage. Collateral damage results from incompetence.
-
AB,
I did not mention God, or the presumed nature of God.
That’s right – you called him “designer” instead. You mean the same thing by it though.
I am just putting a case that the specific complexity needed for a functioning human brain is indicative of a consciously guided evolutionary process.
No you’re not – you’re just asserting it with no reasoning or evidence whatever to support the assertion.
The examples of humanly guided evolution show that in addition to the desired end result, there will also be generated unintended by products and unwanted waste material which are an inevitable consequence of the processing.
Gibberish. “Humanly guided evolution” is just a re-characterisation of the natural phenomenon. Darwin’s famous book is called “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Can you see that word “natural” there?
-
I am just putting a case that the specific complexity needed for a functioning human brain is indicative of a consciously guided evolutionary process.
Which, as ever, demonstrates that you don't understand evolution.
Or maybe that you do but won't admit it as it doesn't not require a designer, creator, god, guide nor any other kind of intelligence, consciousness etc. Consciousness may, or may not be an outcome of evolution, but it is not required.
-
I am just putting a case that the specific complexity needed for a functioning human brain is indicative of a consciously guided evolutionary process.
If that were the case, it would merely raise the question of what process led to sufficient 'specific complexity' as to result in the consciousness that did the guiding? It doesn't resolve anything, it just pushes the question back to an unevidenced progenitor. Of course, that fails to really address the fact that 'specific complexity' is a functionally meaningless term bandied about to try and lend academic credibility to the argument from incredulity: I can't believe this happened 'by accident', so therefore it must not just be my limited imagination, it must be mathematically or scientifically demonstrable that this could not have happened.
O.
-
Funny, but in my personal experience, most Pagans are lapsed Christians and the most common reason given is that it, Chritianity, is discredited in its origins and its dognmatic refusal to see the errors in its history as taken from the Bible.
Most pagans read Dennis Wheatly stories, persistently blow trumpets made of various kinds of animal horn, pagan men run around at weekends wearing whitish smocks, own a D V D of the Wicca Man film, are irresistibly drawn toward stonehenge, at any of the equinoxes or solstices, are always meeting up with Druids, female pagans always wear daisy chains in their hair or a floral garlands, wear long voluminous usually either black or white skirts, do a skipping kind of dance often in circles with all hands joined, of course they dance naked at night in secluded forest clearings acting as extras in the latest recording of a Dennis Wheatly film and always play Carl Orff's Carmina Burana on any device they can find whenever they can, when they're at home.
And you think most of us are far too shallow and don't know anything about paganism or understand paganism Owl?
Reggs, ippy.
-
Funny, but in my personal experience, most Pagans are lapsed Christians and the most common reason given is that it, Chritianity, is discredited in its origins and its dognmatic refusal to see the errors in its history as taken from the Bible.
I don't doubt that, but I'm not sure that is inconsistent with my comment.
Research suggests that religious people as adults tend to have been brought up religious. In most cases they've remained in the same religion, but a few jump to a different religion (not too far from from the religion they were brought up in), so it doesn't surprise me that your experience is that most pagans are lapsed christians rather than former non-religious or atheist etc.
Also I suspect few people in the UK are brought up as pagan, while many are brought up as christian so again unsurprising that lapsed christians are an active pool of potential pagans.
Finally christianity in the UK (and northern europe certainly) has always included a major dollop of pagan elements in many of its festivals and activities, from christmas and easter, through harvest festivals etc. So I can see how paganism may be very attractive to ex-christians, with plenty of familiar elements, but the non-sense stuff taken out.
-
Where is this "case", then? You appear to be just making one of your usual baseless assertions.
If you think the human mind was an intended outcome, the you're begging the question - otherwise evolution will happen, given the right circumstances, and any result will be diverse and improbable, so there is nothing to explain.
You seem to be claiming that any amount of perceived specific complexity needed to enable some form of desirable functionality can be achieved by unguided processes.
We live in a finite world with a finite amount of material and a finite amount of time for things to happen
You cannot claim that any perceived specific complexity is achievable by what can only be seen as a fine tuning process within things which are already complex.
-
You seem to be claiming that any amount of perceived specific complexity needed to enable some form of desirable functionality can be achieved by unguided processes.
That is what the evidence suggests - oh, and 'perceived specific complexity' is a meaningless phrase unless you can unpack it without falling head-first into one of your favourite fallacies.
We live in a finite world with a finite amount of material and a finite amount of time for things yo happen
Do we? How do you know that time is finite?
You cannot claim that any perceived specific complexity is achievable by what can only be seen as a fine tuning process within things which are already complex.
Ignoring the 'perceived specific complexity' nonsense you do realise that; a) more complex things can arise from the less complex, and you've had the phenomenon of emergence explained to you before, and b) to claim 'fine tuning' you'd have to be able to demonstrate a tuner (again sans fallacies).
-
You seem to be claiming that any amount of perceived specific complexity needed to enable some form of desirable functionality can be achieved by unguided processes.
I have no idea what you mean by "any amount of perceived specific complexity" but all the evidence is that what we observe is the result of an unguided process. The theory of evolution explains what we observe and there is no evidence at all that suggests anything else.
You cannot claim that any perceived specific complexity is achievable by what can only be seen as a fine tuning process within things which are already complex.
I see we can safely add the theory of evolution to the (very long) list of things you are totally clueless about...
-
The Theory of Evolution does not in any way automatically preclude an intelligence or Consciousness behind it. Not even a Being such as God.
The Theory just explains a process. Assuming that it is a automatic natural process that arises spontaneously from the basic Laws of Physics, is just that....an assumption!
-
The Theory of Evolution does not in any way automatically preclude an intelligence or Consciousness behind it. Not even a Being such as God.
The Theory just explains a process. Assuming that it is a automatic natural process that arises spontaneously from the basic Laws of Physics, is just that....an assumption!
It is not an assumption, it is an observation. Variation introduced through copying errors appears to be random, for all intents and purpose. Natural Selection merely captures the fact that there will be winners and losers in any competition and successful variants, will, errm, likely succeed. Where does some 'intelligence behind it' manifest in that ?
-
The Theory of Evolution does not in any way automatically preclude an intelligence or Consciousness behind it. Not even a Being such as God.
It doesn't - but to add some kind of intelligent or conscious agent into the mix would require sound reasons to do so that would support investigation, and if so then no doubt evolutionary biologists would be investigating this option - and as far as I know they aren't.
The Theory just explains a process. Assuming that it is a automatic natural process that arises spontaneously from the basic Laws of Physics, is just that....an assumption!
It is more than that, as Torri notes, and the TofE is a theory that is backed by copious supporting evidence whereas there is none for the notion of intelligence of consciousness being involved.
-
It is not an assumption, it is an observation. Variation introduced through copying errors appears to be random, for all intents and purpose. Natural Selection merely captures the fact that there will be winners and losers in any competition and successful variants, will, errm, likely succeed. Where does some 'intelligence behind it' manifest in that ?
It is an assumption. It cannot be an observation. Specific reactions and responses to environmental changes IS Intelligence.
Even the instincts of Survival and reproduction are an indication of purpose and intent.
-
The Theory just explains a process. Assuming that it is a automatic natural process that arises spontaneously from the basic Laws of Physics, is just that....an assumption!
Utter drivel. The process is a logical necessity; given the correct circumstances, it will happen.
Even the instincts of Survival and reproduction are an indication of purpose and intent.
More drivel. The process itself perfectly explains this. Your stubborn refusal to learn anything about it doesn't make it an assumption.
-
Processes explain only how something happens. They don't explain anything else. The existence of the process itself is what needs to be explain.
Saying that it is 'automatic' is an assumption. It is not conclusively established.
Saying that 'things just happen that way'...is a cop out.
-
You seem to be claiming that any amount of perceived specific complexity needed to enable some form of desirable functionality can be achieved by unguided processes.
We live in a finite world with a finite amount of material and a finite amount of time for things to happen
You cannot claim that any perceived specific complexity is achievable by what can only be seen as a fine tuning process within things which are already complex.
That is your incredulity showing again. Yesterday, it was circular thinking; today we are back on incredulity territory. So, today's incredulity is that an unguided natural process born of underlying random variation can result in increases in 'perceived specific complexity' within the time frames. Have you done some maths to arrive at this conclusion ? Do you have expertise in population genetics ? Or is it just some sort of general vague incredulity at the findings of science ? Do you have solid reason to believe for instance that homo sapiens could not have evolved from a chimp/human common ancestor in the timescales suggested by research. How many years are needed by your calculation ? Ask a palaeontologist roughly how far back do we have to go to get to a common ancestor based on the fossil record and comparative anatomy and so forth, we get an answer of around 6 million years. ? If you ask a geneticist to enumerate the number of mutations separating the chimpanzee genome from our genome we get about 35 million. How many mutations do we accumulate per generation - around 60. Divide 35 million by 60 we get a distance of around 300,000 generations. How long would it take to separate 300,000 generations ? Around 6 million years.
This is known as consilience in science, when entirely different fields of study reveal a consensus and it is why evolutionary biology is considered pretty rock solid against which your protestations of vague incredulity are worthless.
-
The existence of the process itself is what needs to be explain.
Saying that it is 'automatic' is an assumption. It is not conclusively established.
You can assert it as often as you want, it's still not an assumption. As I said, it's a direct logical consequence of the right conditions, basically, reproduction with inheritance, (effectively) random variation, and competition for resources (not all offspring survive). Given those conditions, evolution by natural selection will happen. If it didn't happen, that would need to be explained.
-
Processes explain only how something happens. They don't explain anything else. The existence of the process itself is what needs to be explain.
Saying that it is 'automatic' is an assumption. It is not conclusively established.
Saying that 'things just happen that way'...is a cop out.
Nope - the TofE is supported by observation and other evidence and is, therefore, not just an assumption: it is a provisional explanation.
The only assumption is the one you're making: that there is some intelligent or conscious agent influencing the process of evolution via natural selection. There is no credible evidence for such an agent.
-
How can the Survival, reproduction and parental instincts be logically derived from the Laws of physics? It is merely assumed that the former arise naturally from the latter.
-
How can the Survival, reproduction and parental instincts be logically derived from the Laws of physics? It is merely assumed that the former arise naturally from the latter.
Once you have the basic conditions in place, then those variations that result in surviving and reproducing more effectively (in the context of the environment) will (unsurprisingly) survive and reproduce more than those that are less effective at doing so. Hence those traits spread through populations. The most obvious example of which is the instinct to survive you keep on going on about. It's also quite obvious that in a species has young that need nurturing, then it's only those individual who do that (have the "parental instincts") that will pass on their genes.
It really is (at its most basic level) a very simple and powerful idea.
-
You seem to be claiming that any amount of perceived specific complexity needed to enable some form of desirable functionality can be achieved by unguided processes.
You keep using that phrase 'specified complexity' as though it means something...
We live in a finite world with a finite amount of material and a finite amount of time for things to happen.
Which is just one world amongst billions upon billions, in one universe potentially amongst an infinite number of universes.
You cannot claim that any perceived specific complexity is achievable by what can only be seen as a fine tuning process within things which are already complex.
You cannot claim anything about specified complexity because it's jargon used to try and turn personal incredulity into something that sounds technical.
O.
-
Once you have the basic conditions in place, then those variations that result in surviving and reproducing more effectively (in the context of the environment) will (unsurprisingly) survive and reproduce more than those that are less effective at doing so. Hence those traits spread through populations. The most obvious example of which is the instinct to survive you keep on going on about. It's also quite obvious that in a species has young that need nurturing, then it's only those individual who do that (have the "parental instincts") that will pass on their genes.
It really is (at its most basic level) a very simple and powerful idea.
No it isn't. You are just asserting that it is.
You cannot derive logically any feature of Life from the basic laws of physics. Saying that it automatically falls into place.... is to ignore the remarkable factors required for these instincts to exist and to manifest themselves.
I know you people have various 'fallacies' conveniently handy to throw at any argument that questions such 'automatic' arising of complex features of Life from basic laws. But they are just that.... convenient assumptions and nothing more.
-
No it isn't. You are just asserting that it is.
Now you're just being silly. I explained the basic process and there are endless popular accounts of how evolution by natural selection works. Your failure to grasp them does not turn them into assumptions. If you think there is something wrong with the reasoning or evidence, then you need to address it directly. Your lack of understanding does not make something an assumption.
You cannot derive logically any feature of Life from the basic laws of physics.
It isn't even really about the laws of physics. It's a logical consequence of the conditions (reproduction with inheritance and variation in a competitive environment). This is a solid, observable, computer-modellable process.
-
You cannot derive logically any feature of Life from the basic laws of physics.
Of course you can - the basic laws of physics underpin the chemistry that provides that certain configurations and interactions of molecules are most energy efficient. That is the basis for all sorts of features of 'life' with is effectively a self sustaining open system that maintains homeostasis. It is easy to derive those features from the basic laws of physics.
-
No it isn't. You are just asserting that it is.
You cannot derive logically any feature of Life from the basic laws of physics. Saying that it automatically falls into place.... is to ignore the remarkable factors required for these instincts to exist and to manifest themselves.
I know you people have various 'fallacies' conveniently handy to throw at any argument that questions such 'automatic' arising of complex features of Life from basic laws. But they are just that.... convenient assumptions and nothing more.
Fallacies are indeed handy for pointing out where reasoning errors are evident: such as in the above, where your own personal incredulity is evident as well as your use of argument from ignorance.
-
Sriram,
The Theory of Evolution does not in any way automatically preclude an intelligence or Consciousness behind it. Not even a Being such as God.
Oh dear.
The theory of optics does not in any way automatically preclude leprechauns leaving posts of gold at the ends of rainbows.
The theory of childbirth does not in any way automatically preclude hypnotising storks delivering babies.
The theory of germs causing diseases does not in any way automatically preclude Jupiter being angry about man accepting the gift of fire.
The point here is that none of these theories preclude alternative explanations for which there’s no evidence whatsoever. Rather as they're unnecessary assumptions the theories are simply indifferent to them.
The Theory just explains a process. Assuming that it is a automatic natural process that arises spontaneously from the basic Laws of Physics, is just that....an assumption!
No, it’s a reasoned conclusion based on logic, observation and replication in practical applications.
Is reasoning that rainbows, natural childbirth and germs are “automatic natural processes” “just an assumption” too?
Why not?
-
Sriram, just get yourself a copy of 'Isabel Thomas » MOTH: An Evolution Story, it'll save you any further misunderstandings, you and Alan B, obviously have, about how evolution works.
These two might help as well as the above:
The Peppered Moth, Margaret Drabble.
The Peppered Moth - Wikipedia.
Regards Sriram, from ippy.
-
Sriram,
Oh dear.
The theory of optics does not in any way automatically preclude leprechauns leaving posts of gold at the ends of rainbows.
The theory of childbirth does not in any way automatically preclude hypnotising storks delivering babies.
The theory of germs causing diseases does not in any way automatically preclude Jupiter being angry about man accepting the gift of fire.
The point here is that none of these theories preclude alternative explanations for which there’s no evidence whatsoever. Rather as they're unnecessary assumptions the theories are simply indifferent to them.
Actually, in two of your examples, the theory does preclude the supernatural nonsense. For example, our theory of optics tells us that the exact location of the end of a rainbow depends on the observer's position with respect to the Sun.
-
Actually, in two of your examples, the theory does preclude the supernatural nonsense. For example, our theory of optics tells us that the exact location of the end of a rainbow depends on the observer's position with respect to the Sun.
Though there was the poster on the BBC who said he had stood in the end of several rainbows.
-
; a) more complex things can arise from the less complex, .....
It is not natural for more complex things to arise from less complex.
It is demonstrable that naturally occurring events tend to destroy complexity rather than create it.
It is why all living things will eventually die.
It was a miracle that the first living cell was not killed off by natural forces before it reproduced.
The ability of living things to reproduce is evidence of intentional design to combat the natural events which ultimately destroy life and generate ever increasing chaos.
-
jeremy,
Actually, in two of your examples, the theory does preclude the supernatural nonsense. For example, our theory of optics tells us that the exact location of the end of a rainbow depends on the observer's position with respect to the Sun.
Except of course those cunning leprechauns have arranged matters so they just seem that way in order to cover their tracks. I'm surprised that someone of your usual acuity didn't realise that... ;)
-
AB,
It is not natural for more complex thing to arise from less complex.
Of course it is. How on earth can you not know that?
It is demonstrable that naturally occurring events tend to destroy complexity rather than create it.
You're thinking of entropy. Entropy increases in isolated systems - it can decrease in open ones. Try looking up the second law of thermodynamics.
It is why all living things will eventually die.
If you’re thinking of the heat death of the universe, then probably yes. That tells you nothing though about the emergence of life in the meantime.
It was a miracle that the first living cell was not killed off by natural forces before it reproduced.
How do you know that it wasn’t?
The ability of living things to reproduce is evidence of intentional design to combat the natural events which ultimately destroy life and generate ever increasing chaos.
Childish, evidence-denying bollocks. FFS, at least try to read something about this before making a fool of yourself again here.
-
It is not natural for more complex things to arise from less complex.
It is demonstrable that naturally occurring events tend to destroy complexity rather than create it.
It is why all living things will eventually die.
It was a miracle that the first living cell was not killed off by natural forces before it reproduced.
The ability of living things to reproduce is evidence of intentional design to combat the natural events which ultimately destroy life and generate ever increasing chaos.
That's a simplistic misunderstanding of thermodynamic law. Complex things derive from simpler underlying constituents. Complex molecules derive from the bonding together of underlying atomic matter. Spiral arm galaxies derive from billions of individual star systems being drawn into a larger construct under the influence of gravity. You talk as if 2LT were the only principle of physics known, and if that were the case then there would be nothing more complex than flat uniform undifferentiated plasma anywhere. But the universe is not like that; everywhere we look, we see rich, diverse, complexity arising out of simpler underlying constituents and persisting against the entropy gradient.
-
That's a simplistic misunderstanding of thermodynamic law. Complex things derive from simpler underlying constituents. Complex molecules derive from the bonding together of underlying atomic matter. Spiral arm galaxies derive from billions of individual star systems being drawn into a larger construct under the influence of gravity. You talk as if 2LT were the only principle of physics known, and if that were the case then there would be nothing more complex than flat uniform undifferentiated plasma anywhere. But the universe is not like that; everywhere we look, we see rich, diverse, complexity arising out of simpler underlying constituents and persisting against the entropy gradient.
Yes...and that is what shows Intelligence working within the system.
-
Sriram,
Yes...and that is what shows Intelligence working within the system.
It shows no such thing. Why on earth do you think it does?
-
Yes...and that is what shows Intelligence working within the system.
That is what is known as a non-sequitur, in the business.
Just supposing you are right, that the existence of natural laws in the universe is due to some external behind-the-scenes intelligence, then what would be behind the external intelligence that gave rise to our natural laws. A behind the scenes guiding hand implies an infinite regress of guiders.
-
Yes...and that is what shows Intelligence working within the system.
Because the life cycle of the moth is short I had thought it would help with anyone that has difficulty coming to terms with the reality of the well proven T of E, I suppose Wikki would be your best bet for the moment but there are plenty of books available on this subject, you'd best get reading Sriram.
Regards, ippy.
-
That is what is known as a non-sequitur, in the business.
Just supposing you are right, that the existence of natural laws in the universe is due to some external behind-the-scenes intelligence, then what would be behind the external intelligence that gave rise to our natural laws. A behind the scenes guiding hand implies an infinite regress of guiders.
And what is behind the Natural Laws and the Big Bang..? How did they arise? You think there is no Infinite Regress there...!!?
-
You're thinking of entropy. Entropy increases in isolated systems - it can decrease in open ones. Try looking up the second law of thermodynamics.
Outside human perception, there is no differentiation between isolated systems and open systems.
You appear to be using some form of deliberate selectivity to back up your argument.
-
Sriram,
And what is behind the Natural Laws and the Big Bang..? How did they arise? You think there is no Infinite Regress there...!!?
I don't know, and nor do I know if the question even makes sense.
If you want to posit a "something" that's "behind" these things though, what's behind that? That's your infinite regress problem.
-
AB,
Outside human perception, there is no differentiation between isolated systems and open systems.
Your responses are becoming increasingly bizarre. Our planet is a system. It's open to energy from the Sun. Whether or not there happen to be people to perceive that doesn't change the fact of it.
You appear to be using some form of deliberate selectivity to back up your argument.
No, just reason and evidence. You should try it one day. Why not begin with what the second law of thermodynamics actually says to see where you went wrong?
-
And what is behind the Natural Laws and the Big Bang..? How did they arise? You think there is no Infinite Regress there...!!?
That's your claim that there is something 'behind' things, not mine. It's classic agent detection bias, you merely haven't learned to shed it yet.
-
It is not natural for more complex thing to arise from less complex.
Outside human perception, there is no differentiation between isolated systems and open systems.
Snowflakes must be god-magic, then.
Are you really this scientifically illiterate?
-
Snowflakes must be god-magic, then.
Are you really this scientifically illiterate?
Any pattern perceived in a snowflake is just human label.
Outside human perception it is just water molecules - no specific complexity.
Our perception of increased complexity arising from less complexity would only appear to happen in life forms which are already complex.
Outside these life forms there is no apparent growth in the complexity of our material universe.
-
Sriram,
I don't know, and nor do I know if the question even makes sense.
If you want to posit a "something" that's "behind" these things though, what's behind that? That's your infinite regress problem.
Exactly! Everything is caused by something.....whether Intelligent cause or otherwise. Infinite Regress doesn't go away even in science....!
-
AB,
Any pattern perceived in a snowflake is just human label.
No, it’s a set of material properties that exist whether or not there’s anyone there to perceive them.
Outside human perception it is just water molecules - no specific complexity.
Madness. How do you feel about water itself then? After all, water has properties that neither hydrogen nor oxygen have – do you also think that water only behaves as it does because people are looking at it? Why not?
Our perception of increased complexity arising from less complexity would only appear to happen in life forms which are already complex.
Gibberish.
Outside these life forms there is no apparent growth in the complexity of our material universe.
Not of “the universe” as a whole, but there certainly is in parts of it that aren’t isolated. Entropy can measurably decrease in those parts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
I advised you to find out something about the subject before making a fool of yourself again here. Why didn’t you listen?
-
AB,
Exactly! Everything is caused by something.....whether Intelligent cause or otherwise. Infinite Regress doesn't go away even in science....!
Dear god but you struggle. It “goes away” in science because it’s incoherent. Time itself is a property of the universe, and you can’t have a “before” time. If nonetheless you want to posit a “something” to kick of the universe then you just give that something the same infinite regress problem. What would be “behind” that?
-
Any pattern perceived in a snowflake is just human label.
Idiotic drivel. The snowflake has lower entropy than the water droplet from which it formed. It has nothing to do with human labels.
Outside human perception it is just water molecules - no specific complexity.
You keep using this phrase "specific" complexity as if it means something. If you're not referring to entropy, then what the hell are you talking about?
Our perception of increased complexity arising from less complexity would only appear to happen in life forms which are already complex.
Outside these life forms there is no apparent growth in the complexity of our material universe.
Simply false on both counts. It seems your ignorance of science is as comprehensive as your ignorance of logic, and you seem to care just as little about it.
Why is it you seem to want to present your faith as illogical, dishonest, and (now) scientifically illiterate too?
-
Everything is caused by something.....
Firstly, time and causation are internal to the universe (space-time manifold), there is no reason to think that it applies to the manifold as a whole, and good reason to think that it doesn't. Secondly, even within time, quantum mechanics tells us that there are events that don't have specific causes.
-
Any pattern perceived in a snowflake is just human label.
Outside human perception it is just water molecules - no specific complexity.
Our perception of increased complexity arising from less complexity would only appear to happen in life forms which are already complex.
Outside these life forms there is no apparent growth in the complexity of our material universe.
You're not paying attention.
Atoms combine with other atoms to make molecules, more complex structures, and they manage to do this without being alive. Molecules combine with other molecules to make more complex molecules. Long chain carbon compounds form by the bonding together of short chain carbon compounds. And so forth right up until you get giant galaxy clusters hundreds of millions of light years across, and all without being alive.
-
It is not natural for more complex things to arise from less complex.
Yes it is.
It is demonstrable that naturally occurring events tend to destroy complexity rather than create it.
"Tend" does not mean "Always". Some naturally occurring events make complex things out of simple things. Would you say, for example, an acorn is more or less complex than an oak tree?
It was a miracle that the first living cell was not killed off by natural forces before it reproduced.
It probably was.
The ability of living things to reproduce is evidence of intentional design to combat the natural events which ultimately destroy life and generate ever increasing chaos.
It's evidence that the consequences of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are far less predictable than its simplicity would suggest.
-
Outside human perception, there is no differentiation between isolated systems and open systems.
You appear to be using some form of deliberate selectivity to back up your argument.
The Earth is not an isolated system. It is subject to a constant directed stream of low entropy energy from the Sun. It emits high entropy energy in all directions. Viewed as a black box, the Earth increases the entropy of the Sun's rays enormously. All of the processes that are involved in life increase overall entropy.
-
Firstly, time and causation are internal to the universe (space-time manifold), there is no reason to think that it applies to the manifold as a whole, and good reason to think that it doesn't. Secondly, even within time, quantum mechanics tells us that there are events that don't have specific causes.
That's a lot of words with convoluted ideas. The fact is that we don't and perhaps cannot know First Causes. Therefore, Infinite Regress is as relevant to scientific theories as to spiritual ones.
-
That's a lot of words with convoluted ideas.
Not really, they are based on the two most fundamental (well tested) theories of reality we have (general relativity and quantum field theory). Both suggesting (in somewhat different ways) that the question of first cause or infinite regress may not be applicable.
Therefore, Infinite Regress is as relevant to scientific theories as to spiritual ones.
Science is telling us that the question may not be relevant, "spiritual theories" appear to be indistinguishable from blind guesses.
-
Would you say, for example, an acorn is more or less complex than an oak tree?
The example you choose is very specific to this earth and its life forms.
Outside living matter, natural events tend not to create the specific complexity existing within life forms.
Natural events will cause destruction of life forms, which is why things die.
-
Not really, they are based on the two most fundamental (well tested) theories of reality we have (general relativity and quantum field theory). Both suggesting (in somewhat different ways) that the question of first cause or infinite regress may not be applicable.
Science is telling us that the question may not be relevant, "spiritual theories" appear to be indistinguishable from blind guesses.
Scientists say that the questions are not relevant when the possible answers are outside their comfort zone...! ::) Fairly standard response...
-
Scientists say that the questions are not relevant when the possible answers are outside their comfort zone...! ::) Fairly standard response...
Not really: if these 'possible answers' are irrelevant to the scientific method then you'd need an alternative method in order to justify these 'possible answers', and as we've often seen there is no such method.
Of course the other issue here is that if you've already decided these 'possible answers' are valid without a method of investigating them then you are in cart-before-horse territory, as well as begging the question.
-
Scientists say that the questions are not relevant when the possible answers are outside their comfort zone...! ::) Fairly standard response...
Simply wrong. Science is actually the only field that is offering any answers at all. As has already been pointed out, positing an intelligence (or any of the other claims of the religions) doesn't answer the 'problem' of infinite regress or first cause. All they offer are largely unfalsifiable, untestable, often mutually contradictory assertions that, in any event, fail to address the problems.
Neither quantum mechanics nor general relativity were developed to answer these questions, they were both developed to describe the world and produce testable and falsifiable predictions, yet both appear to offer potential answers.
Those working on the problems directly have many other potential answers - all far more credible than any religion merely because they are at least based in what we know and are able to test. I posted the series of videos on the subject here: Before the Big Bang (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17835.0).
-
The example you choose is very specific to this earth and its life forms.
Outside living matter, natural events tend not to create the specific complexity existing within life forms.
Natural events will cause destruction of life forms, which is why things die.
This is just evidence denying drivel. There is no evidence whatsoever that life is not a natural phenomenon, and plentiful evidence that it is. Evolution explains the complexity and diversity.
And you're still using this "specific complexity" phrase as if it means something. Perhaps you mean the long discredited notion of "specified complexity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity)"?
The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, in the theory of complex systems, or in biology.
...
On page 150 of No Free Lunch Dembski claims he can demonstrate his thesis mathematically: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." When Tellgren investigated Dembski's "Law of Conservation of Information” using a more formal approach, he concluded it is mathematically unsubstantiated. Dembski responded in part that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity". Jeffrey Shallit states that Demski's mathematical argument has multiple problems, for example; a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 1065.
Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function cannot gain information. He therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). When information is replicated, some copies can be differently modified while others remain the same, allowing information to increase. These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.
-
The example you choose is very specific to this earth and its life forms.
But it is an example. If the second law of thermodynamics works in the way you suggest, it would be impossible for life forms to manufacture more life forms out of their constituent components and yet, that is exactly what happens.
Outside living matter, natural events tend not to create the specific complexity existing within life forms.
Galaxies are more complex than the clouds of gas out of which they form and there are literally hundreds of billions of them just in the part of the Universe we can see.
Natural events will cause destruction of life forms, which is why things die.
Natural events also cause the creation of new life forms.
-
Simply wrong. Science is actually the only field that is offering any answers at all. As has already been pointed out, positing an intelligence (or any of the other claims of the religions) doesn't answer the 'problem' of infinite regress or first cause. All they offer are largely unfalsifiable, untestable, often mutually contradictory assertions that, in any event, fail to address the problems.
Neither quantum mechanics nor general relativity were developed to answer these questions, they were both developed to describe the world and produce testable and falsifiable predictions, yet both appear to offer potential answers.
Those working on the problems directly have many other potential answers - all far more credible than any religion merely because they are at least based in what we know and are able to test. I posted the series of videos on the subject here: Before the Big Bang (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17835.0).
You are not getting the point. You seem to think that this is some good old 'science vs religion' debate. It isn't. I have no problem with what science is investigating.
The issue is that scientific investigations are like looking through a microscope. That is fine for certain phenomena. But you cannot insist that you should be able to see the stars also with the same microscope...if not the existence of stars is without evidence, according to you!!
How then to explain the things shining n the sky? Since you can see only bacteria through the methods you employ...you try to explain stars in terms of bacteria. That is ridiculous!
Different methods and methodologies need to be employed to study different phenomena.
-
Different methods and methodologies need to be employed to study different phenomena.
Firstly, you totally ignored my point.
Secondly, you haven't actually presented any sort of alternative methodology (except blind guessing based on what you'd like to believe), let alone come up with any answers. Science does use different methods for different phenomena but the methodology of science is what has achieved testable theories from the sub-atomic realm to the whole observable universe and its history.
-
This is just evidence denying drivel. There is no evidence whatsoever that life is not a natural phenomenon, and plentiful evidence that it is. Evolution explains the complexity and diversity.
And you're still using this "specific complexity" phrase as if it means something. Perhaps you mean the long discredited notion of "specified complexity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity)"?
The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, in the theory of complex systems, or in biology.
...
On page 150 of No Free Lunch Dembski claims he can demonstrate his thesis mathematically: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." When Tellgren investigated Dembski's "Law of Conservation of Information” using a more formal approach, he concluded it is mathematically unsubstantiated. Dembski responded in part that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity". Jeffrey Shallit states that Demski's mathematical argument has multiple problems, for example; a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 1065.
Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function cannot gain information. He therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). When information is replicated, some copies can be differently modified while others remain the same, allowing information to increase. These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.
Shallit's argument is entirely dependent on his personal view of what he claims to be "information increase". The random unguided forces of nature will certainly change whatever comprises the information contained in DNA, but truly random forces will invariably destroy useable information rather than increase it. Try adding a few random characters to any piece of computer code and see what happens.
-
... but truly random forces will invariably destroy useable information rather than increase it.
Not if certain configurations are inherently more stable than others - either due to the fundamentals of energetics, or that some configurations increase the chance of being inherited by a new generation due to evolutionary advantage.
-
The issue is that scientific investigations are like looking through a microscope.
You don't understand science. You think it's some sort of arcane art performed by men in white coats in special rooms. That's wrong. This is what science is:
1. You observe some interesting phenomenon
2. You make a guess about how it works.
3. Work out the consequences of your guess.
4. You test the consequences to see if they accord with reality.
5. If your guess does not accord with reality, your guess is wrong. Go back to step 2.
That's fundamentally all there is to science. All the fancy equipment and processes you see are just there to help you do the observations, do the testing and make sure you don't get fooled by the results. That's it.
No other method than the above has ever told us anything concrete about the real world.
Here's Richard Feynman explaining it much better than I can
https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/
-
Shallit's argument is entirely dependent on his personal view of what he claims to be "information increase". The random unguided forces of nature will certainly change whatever comprises the information contained in DNA, but truly random forces will invariably destroy useable information rather than increase it. Try adding a few random characters to any piece of computer code and see what happens.
The forces of nature are not random.
Evolution by natural selection is not analogous to adding random characters to computer code. For one thing, you are totally ignoring the "natural selection" part.
-
Shallit's argument is entirely dependent on his personal view of what he claims to be "information increase". The random unguided forces of nature will certainly change whatever comprises the information contained in DNA, but truly random forces will invariably destroy useable information rather than increase it. Try adding a few random characters to any piece of computer code and see what happens.
Firstly, Shallit is only one of many critics of the idea of specified complexity, which, like irreducible complexity, is considered as nothing but pseudo-science made up by creationists and proponents of intelligent design.
Secondly, it is absurd to say that random variation will always destroy usable information since any mutation is just as likely as its inverse, so if you (somehow) define one as a loss of information, its (equally probable) reverse must increase it.
Thirdly, you are ignoring natural selection. If a change is useful (in the context of survival in the environment), it will reproduce (exactly because it is useful), if it is detrimental, it will die out (because it's detrimental).
Fourthly, variation and selection are actually used in real world design processes, see, for example: Evolutionary algorithm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm).
All this just goes to show that your ignorance of the process of evolution is as complete as your ignorance of logic and sound reasoning. Why is it you never bother to actually do your homework before speaking of things you don't understand?
-
The forces of nature are not random.
Evolution by natural selection is not analogous to adding random characters to computer code. For one thing, you are totally ignoring the "natural selection" part.
Natural selection can only work on things which have gained advantage by some means.
Which from a secular point of view requires random forces to be capable of increasing the usefulness of information rather than corrupting it.
-
Natural selection can only work on things which have gained advantage by some means.
Which from a secular point of view requires random forces to be capable of increasing the usefulness of information rather than corrupting it.
Which is exactly what random variation will do some of the time (otherwise, it wouldn't be random). Most mutations are neutral, some are deleterious and some are useful. The useful are amplified by natural selection.
This is all observable and mathematically modellable.
-
Secondly, it is absurd to say that random variation will always destroy usable information since any mutation is just as likely as its inverse, so if you (somehow) define one as a loss of information, its (equally probable) reverse must increase it.
The absurdity is in your presumption that truly random events are equally probable of increasing information rather than corrupting it.
-
The absurdity is in your presumption that truly random events are equally probable of increasing information rather than corrupting it.
That's not actually what I said. I was saying that you can't claim (no matter how you define 'useful information') that it is always reduced and never increased by random variation because any change that a mutation can make can happen in the other direction too*.
And you're still ignoring natural selection, which ensures that the useful changes survive and the deleterious ones die out - so the fact that most mutations are not useful is irrelevant.
* To be clear, any particular change has a low probability, but a change from (say) GGATCG to AGATCG is just as probable as its inverse, so if one is an decrease in information (however you define it), the other must be an increase, so claiming that all random changes decrease information is nonsensical.
-
You don't understand science. You think it's some sort of arcane art performed by men in white coats in special rooms. That's wrong. This is what science is:
1. You observe some interesting phenomenon
2. You make a guess about how it works.
3. Work out the consequences of your guess.
4. You test the consequences to see if they accord with reality.
5. If your guess does not accord with reality, your guess is wrong. Go back to step 2.
That's fundamentally all there is to science. All the fancy equipment and processes you see are just there to help you do the observations, do the testing and make sure you don't get fooled by the results. That's it.
No other method than the above has ever told us anything concrete about the real world.
Here's Richard Feynman explaining it much better than I can
https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/
That is fine. But first causes cannot be understood using the above steps. Consciousness for example, cannot be understood using that methodology.
-
But first causes cannot be understood using the above steps.
This is obviously false. Causation (or lack thereof) is already part of scientific theories, as I have already pointed out.
Consciousness for example, cannot be understood using that methodology.
A great deal of progress is being made here as well.
And you still have offered no alternative methodology.
-
This is obviously false. Causation (or lack thereof) is already part of scientific theories, as I have already pointed out.
A great deal of progress is being made here as well.
And you still have offered no alternative meyhodology.
I have no methodology in the manner in which you require it. For me, subjective insight and pattern recognition is enough as evidence of subtle forces working in my life. Elaborate methodologies are not required.
-
It is not natural for more complex things to arise from less complex.
There are innumerable instances of this being the case - weather patterns, movements of schools of fish, evolution by natural selection, creation of river deltas by the combination of sedimentation and tidal erosion...
If nothing else, 'nature' appears to be the interaction of five fundamental forces, and yet here you are as a manifestation of those forces deploying 26 letters and a few punctuations marks through a created coding system to convey meaning via a collective electronic reference system around the world whilst still being manifestly, demonstrably, almost painfully wrong.
It is demonstrable that naturally occurring events tend to destroy complexity rather than create it.
Tend to, but not exclusively do. Given enough time. And a closed system.
It is why all living things will eventually die.
It's actually not, but it is why we have a probably heat-death of the universe to look forward to.
It was a miracle that the first living cell was not killed off by natural forces before it reproduced.
We don't know that the first wasn't, and who knows how many others that followed also died off quickly - we only have evidence that one (at least) survived long enough to establish a self-replicating chain that, subject to evolutionary developments, continues to this day.
The ability of living things to reproduce is evidence of intentional design to combat the natural events which ultimately destroy life and generate ever increasing chaos.
It's neither evidence for nor against an intentional design, in and of itself, it's simply evidence of a system that requires reproduction in order to continue. The same fragility of data-units and replication that leads to individual organisms dying is part of the mechanism that leads to variation between generations even in asexual reproduction - to try to divide one into motivation and another into technique in the eye of some overseeing designer is to fail to appreciate that they are facets of the same function.
O.
-
The absurdity is in your presumption that truly random events are equally probable of increasing information rather than corrupting it.
Straight from creationist websites.
-
For me, subjective insight and pattern recognition is enough as evidence of subtle forces working in my life. Elaborate methodologies are not required.
Then you're very likely to be wrong. People are very 'good' as seeing patterns and intention where none actually exist and very bad at dealing with randomness and coincidence.
-
Natural selection can only work on things which have gained advantage by some means.
Which from a secular point of view requires random forces to be capable of increasing the usefulness of information rather than corrupting it.
What on earth has 'secular' to do with evolutionary science?
-
Shallit's argument is entirely dependent on his personal view of what he claims to be "information increase". The random unguided forces of nature will certainly change whatever comprises the information contained in DNA, but truly random forces will invariably destroy useable information rather than increase it. Try adding a few random characters to any piece of computer code and see what happens.
That is the principle upon which some machine learning techniques work. It's also the principle used in computer modelling in theoretical evolutionary biology. As in nature, there is a selection process involved which tends to favour useful variations and discard the un-useful ones.
-
Sriram,
You are not getting the point. You seem to think that this is some good old 'science vs religion' debate. It isn't. I have no problem with what science is investigating.
Why would you?
The issue is that scientific investigations are like looking through a microscope.
No that isn’t the issue and no “scientific investigations” are not like looking through a microscope. Science is a method as well as an accumulation of knowledge, and that method simply requires that there be a meaningful way to investigate and explain the phenomena it observes.
That is fine for certain phenomena.
What makes you think there are other kinds of phenomena for which it’s not “fine”, at least in principle? If not for the methods of science, what other method would you propose to investigate and verify your various claims and assertions?
But you cannot insist that you should be able to see the stars also with the same microscope...if not the existence of stars is without evidence, according to you!!
Using stars for your analogy is called begging the question, a basic mistake in thinking. We already know (ie, “know” using reliable methods of investigation and verification) about stars. Your analogy needed to use, say, unicorns as an example of a fact claim that science cannot investigate, there being no evidence to consider.
How then to explain the things shining n the sky? Since you can see only bacteria through the methods you employ...you try to explain stars in terms of bacteria. That is ridiculous!
And idiotic. See above.
Different methods and methodologies need to be employed to study different phenomena.
No problem with that in principle. Your problem though is that you have no such method or methodology to study the various claims of fact you make. Until and unless you can come up with something to do that job, your claims are epistemologically indistinguishable from just guessing. Remember?
-
Sriram,
In Reply 105 you said:
Different methods and methodologies need to be employed to study different phenomena.
In Reply 118 however, you also said:
I have no methodology in the manner in which you require it.
Which is it?
In Reply 118 you continued:
For me, subjective insight and pattern recognition is enough as evidence of subtle forces working in my life. Elaborate methodologies are not required.
Or any methodologies at all it seems, “elaborate” or otherwise. Fine. For me then, my “subjective insight” tells me that there are tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri. As neither of us have any method at all to investigate our different subjective beliefs, can you think of any good reason for anyone else to take them seriously, let alone to consider them to be objectively true?
Come to think of it, can you think of any good reason for each of us to consider our subjective beliefs to be objectively true also?
Anything?
-
That's not actually what I said. I was saying that you can't claim (no matter how you define 'useful information') that it is always reduced and never increased by random variation because any change that a mutation can make can happen in the other direction too*.
And you're still ignoring natural selection, which ensures that the useful changes survive and the deleterious ones die out - so the fact that most mutations are not useful is irrelevant.
* To be clear, any particular change has a low probability, but a change from (say) GGATCG to AGATCG is just as probable as its inverse, so if one is an decrease in information (however you define it), the other must be an increase, so claiming that all random changes decrease information is nonsensical.
My claim is based upon the vastly greater probability of random events producing corruption rather than increase of useful information.
Imagine your recent post with random words either added or removed. It would most likely result in gobbledygook rather than have discernable meaning, but there is admittedly a slim chance that you would produce a post with a different meaning.
Now imagine the same post being modified by the addition or removal of individual letters. The probability of a different meaningful post would be substantially diminished.
Finally, imagine your post being modified at the binary level where the individual molecules underlying the content of your message get modified. I think you will agree that the prospect of such modifications producing any meaningful result will be so infinitesimal as to be zero.
-
My claim is based upon the vastly greater probability of random events producing corruption rather than increase of useful information.
You're still ignoring natural selection, which is the most important part of the process, and the observed facts about actual mutations, most of which are neutral, some of which are harmful, and some of which are beneficial. Natural selection removes the harmful ones and amplifies the beneficial ones, so they spread through the population.
Nobody is suggesting that random variation by itself will produce evolution. Random variation produces novelty, it's natural selection that sifts out the useful from the useless or harmful.
You're basically putting forward (again) an argument from personal incredulity that goes against the solid evidence and mathematical modelling.
-
AB,
My claim is based upon the vastly greater probability of random events producing corruption rather than increase of useful information.
Depends what you mean by “corruption”, but even if that is true – so what? Provided the probability of this “corruption” isn’t 1, that’s all life would need.
Imagine your recent post with random words either added or removed. It would most likely result in gobbledygook rather than have discernable meaning, but there is admittedly a slim chance that you would produce a post with a different meaning.
Again you’re ignoring the natural selection part. Genetic mutation isn’t inherently “useful/not useful” – it just is. Un/usefulness is defined by the host's relationship to its environment.
Now imagine the same post being modified by the addition or removal of individual letters. The probability of a different meaningful post would be substantially diminished.
You’re still trying a false analogy.
Finally, imagine your post being modified at the binary level where the individual molecules underlying the content of your message get modified. I think you will agree that the prospect of such modifications producing any meaningful result will be so infinitesimal as to be zero.
Finally, let’s not indulge your ignorance any further. Apparently random genetic mutations happen all the time. Sometimes they’re harmful to their host, sometime they’re useful and sometimes they have no significant effect either way. When they’re helpful though, over time increased complexity will often occur with no deity required to make it so.
-
Shallit's argument is entirely dependent on his personal view of what he claims to be "information increase". The random unguided forces of nature will certainly change whatever comprises the information contained in DNA, but truly random forces will invariably destroy useable information rather than increase it. Try adding a few random characters to any piece of computer code and see what happens.
This is confusion by simplistic computing analogy, something Sriram also frequently falls for. A mutation in a germ line cell will not 'destroy' the information in the cell, rather it will potentially alter its functioning. The vast majority of mutations do not get passed on to descendants and of the ones that do, the vast majority will have no net effect on the fitness of descendants. Of the few that do impact on fitness, mutations that confer an advantage are more likely to be conserved down the generations, whilst mutations that confer a disadvantage are correspondingly more likely to be eliminated. This is really just tautological.
-
I think you people are missing the point about the powerful Unconscious mind and its role in running our lives. Recognizing unconscious patterns involves an understanding of the working of the unconscious mind.
Science has established that the persistent influence of the unconscious mind is a very real phenomenon. The conscious mind is said to be just a broom closet in the mansion of the mind.
-
I think you people are missing the point about the powerful Unconscious mind and its role in running our lives. Recognizing unconscious patterns involves an understanding of the working of the unconscious mind.
Science has established that the persistent influence of the unconscious mind is a very real phenomenon. The conscious mind is said to be just a broom closet in the mansion of the mind.
Nonsense, no one disputes that, this has been long understood. There is nothing however to suggest that the subconscious mind is somehow incapable of spurious attribution or free of cognitive biases. All our biases are essentially subconscious and it is when they manifest through consciousness that they become apparent.
-
Nonsense, no one disputes that, this has been long understood. There is nothing however to suggest that the subconscious mind is somehow incapable of spurious attribution or free of cognitive biases. All our biases are essentially subconscious and it is when they manifest through consciousness that they become apparent.
You are missing the point again... You have to stop confusing the powerful Unconscious mind with the subconscious mind that merely stores repressed memories.
The unconscious mind is not just a back office or store room to the conscious mind. It is an independent deciding agency that merely takes its inputs from the conscious mind. This is a new idea that needs to be understood.
When I talk of pattern recognition....it is not about any religious belief. It is about the working of the deeper levels of the Unconscious mind.
-
You are missing the point again... You have to stop confusing the powerful Unconscious mind with the subconscious mind that merely stores repressed memories.
The unconscious mind is not just a back office or store room to the conscious mind. It is an independent deciding agency that merely takes its inputs from the conscious mind. This is a new idea that needs to be understood.
When I talk of pattern recognition....it is not about any religious belief. It is about the working of the deeper levels of the Unconscious mind.
Religious beliefs are a characteristic outcome of subconscious pattern recognition, but they aren't the only ones. All our biases tend to build up subconsciously, and they become manifest through conscious expression.
When you look at an optical illusion or hear an auditory illusion, that is powerful evidence of misdirected non conscious pattern recognition happening.
-
Natural selection can only work on things which have gained advantage by some means.
Which from a secular point of view requires random forces to be capable of increasing the usefulness of information rather than corrupting it.
No. The variation can be random. As long as there is variation, natural selection can act on it. The increase in formation comes from the selection, not the variation.
-
That is fine. But first causes cannot be understood using the above steps.
Why not?
Consciousness for example, cannot be understood using that methodology.
Why not?
-
The unconscious mind is not just a back office or store room to the conscious mind. It is an independent deciding agency that merely takes its inputs from the conscious mind. This is a new idea that needs to be understood.
OK. How have you demonstrated that this unconscious mind exists?
-
The absurdity is in your presumption that truly random events are equally probable of increasing information rather than corrupting it.
The absurdity is that you think this is the claim - random events are significantly more likely to alter data in such a way that the data is corrupted, but there are enough instances of the alterations that the small portion of them that blindly alter the data in such a way that the information is not corrupted lead to variation that sometimes is more complex, sometimes is less, sometimes offers an advantage sometimes doesn't... and then natural forces act upon that variation.
O.
-
Finally, imagine your post being modified at the binary level where the individual molecules underlying the content of your message get modified. I think you will agree that the prospect of such modifications producing any meaningful result will be so infinitesimal as to be zero.
I think you fail to appreciate how many messages are out there, how many times that data gets tiny corruptions. I think also that you forget, for instance, that when you change the data you don't have an equal 1 in 25 chance for the replacement, you have one other option for individual gene expressions, or you get whole chunks of excised data replicated in a different place, but essentially still the same data. You change the rhythm of the message, you change the context of one paragraph, but the words stay the same.
It's not the free-for-all that you depict, nor is it only four or five times in the 3.7 billion years this process has been running.
O.
-
Reply to post 136
Check with google and David Eagleman, Benjamin Libet etc.
-
Religious beliefs are a characteristic outcome of subconscious pattern recognition, but they aren't the only ones. All our biases tend to build up subconsciously, and they become manifest through conscious expression.
When you look at an optical illusion or hear an auditory illusion, that is powerful evidence of misdirected non conscious pattern recognition happening.
You are sticking with religion even after I have told you that what I am talking about has nothing to do with religion. You are carefully avoiding the topic of the Unconscious mind....or repeating that it is a memory bank.
The Unconscious mind is the 'missing link' that will help bridge science and spiritual ideas.
-
Sriram,
You are sticking with religion even after I have told you that what I am talking about has nothing to do with religion.
Yes it has. You make claims of fact with no method of any kind to investigate or to verify them. That makes them faith claims. Religion concerns faith claims. They’re epistemically the same thing.
You are carefully avoiding the topic of the Unconscious mind....or repeating that it is a memory bank.
No he isn’t – he corrected your misunderstanding of it.
The Unconscious mind is the 'missing link' that will help bridge science and spiritual ideas.
You can have all the “spiritual ideas” you like. Your problem though is that your subjective opinions about that are just that – subjective, personal only to you. They have no more objective value than my subjective ideas about unicorns. Until and unless you can find a way to bridge the gap from subjective to objective, that will remain the case.
I explained this to you a few replies ago – why have you just ignored it?
-
Reply to post 136
Check with google and David Eagleman, Benjamin Libet etc.
How will that demonstrate your assertion to be true?
-
You are missing the point again... You have to stop confusing the powerful Unconscious mind with the subconscious mind that merely stores repressed memories.
The unconscious mind is not just a back office or store room to the conscious mind. It is an independent deciding agency that merely takes its inputs from the conscious mind. This is a new idea that needs to be understood.
When I talk of pattern recognition....it is not about any religious belief. It is about the working of the deeper levels of the Unconscious mind.
You've failed to mention using the deeper levels of guess work Sriram?
Reggs, ippy.