Karma

[torridon]

So you lot take it by faith what they (the researchers) say like the theists do with their 'high priests'.....? We know what group think can do and ideologies that become too ingrained. Evolutionary theory had a problem with this with the Modern Synthesis'. And plate tectonics theory was dismissed because of the arrogance of the prevailing views of the scientists of the day.

So you are just trying to make a case for not following evidence, is all.

[Jack Knave]

If one isn't allowed an actual power from which all other powers are derived power then I'm afraid you are proposing that everything has derived power. That is the equivalent of saying everything is contingent and that isn't logical.

The problem for the big bang is that it itself represents change...from nothing into something and is thus itself a good candidate for something with derived power.

Isn't power just potential realized? The whole point about entropy is that the power ends when there is no potential differences - when something moves from high to lower.

[Walter]

But you know what a digestive biscuit is and a quick wank are. I hope you washed your hand afterwards before you started typing, others may have to us that thing.

I licked it clean as usual. you weirdo.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't power just potential realized? The whole point about entropy is that the power ends when there is no potential differences - when something moves from high to lower.

Yes, I think you are right to challenge infinite chains.

In Aristotelian thought power is derived in two ways. Causes in sequential time which some argue can go on infinitely (not so satisfying theory IMHO) and hierarchically i.e. at anyone time where something is dependent at that time which is dependent on something else.

Because we are talking in the second case about what can be observed we can follow the chain down to dependence on quarks and energy. Which because they are changeable (have potential) we have to ask what there power is derived from.

This chain has to be of derived power (that is observed) but you cannot have derived power without actual power...something in the hierarchy must be sustaining the universe...or something like that.

In other words a hierarchical chain is logically not infinite since it must have two ends. If someone proposes there is something higher than us rather than that which is actually propping us up....... that is virtually a religious proposition.

The actual power propping us up from the bottom has the attributes of the classic western definition of God.

 

[torridon]

So you lot take it by faith what they (the researchers) say like the theists do with their 'high priests'.....? We know what group think can do and ideologies that become too ingrained. Evolutionary theory had a problem with this with the Modern Synthesis'. And plate tectonics theory was dismissed because of the arrogance of the prevailing views of the scientists of the day.

The parallel with plate tectonics is hardly appropriate.  When Wegener proposed continental drift he was ridiculed by the orthodoxy of the day but he was being true to evidence. He was ridiculed because his ideas ran so deeply counter to our intuitions just as does a spherical Earth rather than a flat Earth.  The situation with neuroscience is the polar opposite of this, it is neuroscience that is challenging our intuitions about how things are, requiring us to think outside the box, breaking down the naive orthodoxy bequested to us through our judeochristian/greek/cartesian heritage about what it means to be, to exist, to think.  You call neuroscience 'orthodoxy' ? Truth is, it could hardly be more radical.  'High priests', 'ideology', you really gotta be kidding, you could hardly be wronger if you tried, you really need to get to see past this naive obsession with conspiracy thinking

[Alan Burns]

Just taking the liberty of quoting one of Anchorman's posts from another thread:

Were you there on the night of 6 September, 1977, when I surrendered all that I am to Christ?
Were you there when I invited Him into every part of my being to be my Lord and Saviour?
Were you there when I felt a joy beyond words, and His presence which has never left me to this day?

Can the neuroscientists really explain away such profound personal witness stories in terms of unguided deterministic chemical activity in the brain?

[Udayana]

Just taking the liberty of quoting one of Anchorman's posts from another thread:

Were you there on the night of 6 September, 1977, when I surrendered all that I am to Christ?
Were you there when I invited Him into every part of my being to be my Lord and Saviour?
Were you there when I felt a joy beyond words, and His presence which has never left me to this day?

Can the neuroscientists really explain away such profound personal witness stories in terms of unguided deterministic chemical activity in the brain?

Where have they tried to "explain away" such stories?

[ekim]

The parallel with plate tectonics is hardly appropriate.  When Wegener proposed continental drift he was ridiculed by the orthodoxy of the day but he was being true to evidence. He was ridiculed because his ideas ran so deeply counter to our intuitions just as does a spherical Earth rather than a flat Earth.  The situation with neuroscience is the polar opposite of this, it is neuroscience that is challenging our intuitions about how things are, requiring us to think outside the box, breaking down the naive orthodoxy bequested to us through our judeochristian/greek/cartesian heritage about what it means to be, to exist, to think.  You call neuroscience 'orthodoxy' ? Truth is, it could hardly be more radical.  'High priests', 'ideology', you really gotta be kidding, you could hardly be wronger if you tried, you really need to get to see past this naive obsession with conspiracy thinking

I think Jack was making his point in response to the statement:" None of us here are working in the field as far as I know, we merely report on where the science is headed,".  In other words, those who have not actually seen the evidence are basing their opinions on hearsay or second/third hand information i.e. an act of faith and belief or Wikipedia is the new Bible which people quote from.

[Sebastian Toe]

Just taking the liberty of quoting one of Anchorman's posts from another thread:

Were you there on the night of 6 September, 1977, when I surrendered all that I am to Christ?
Were you there when I invited Him into every part of my being to be my Lord and Saviour?
Were you there when I felt a joy beyond words, and His presence which has never left me to this day?

Can the neuroscientists really explain away such profound personal witness stories in terms of unguided deterministic chemical activity in the brain?

If they could, would you believe them?

[Walter]

Just taking the liberty of quoting one of Anchorman's posts from another thread:

Were you there on the night of 6 September, 1977, when I surrendered all that I am to Christ?
Were you there when I invited Him into every part of my being to be my Lord and Saviour?
Were you there when I felt a joy beyond words, and His presence which has never left me to this day?

Can the neuroscientists really explain away such profound personal witness stories in terms of unguided deterministic chemical activity in the brain?

don't drop the soap!

[torridon]

Just taking the liberty of quoting one of Anchorman's posts from another thread:

Were you there on the night of 6 September, 1977, when I surrendered all that I am to Christ?
Were you there when I invited Him into every part of my being to be my Lord and Saviour?
Were you there when I felt a joy beyond words, and His presence which has never left me to this day?

Can the neuroscientists really explain away such profound personal witness stories in terms of unguided deterministic chemical activity in the brain?

Incredulity Alert ! Incredulity Alert !

Such profundity cuts little ice in the overarching narrative sought by science.  Can neuroscience explain away the readiness of the suicide bomber to give up his life in the cause of jihad ? Science hopes to explain everything from the quantum vacuum up to universes and everything in between as far as possible, the doings and beliefs of curious life forms like us are somewhere in the middle of that.

[wigginhall]

Just taking the liberty of quoting one of Anchorman's posts from another thread:

Were you there on the night of 6 September, 1977, when I surrendered all that I am to Christ?
Were you there when I invited Him into every part of my being to be my Lord and Saviour?
Were you there when I felt a joy beyond words, and His presence which has never left me to this day?

Can the neuroscientists really explain away such profound personal witness stories in terms of unguided deterministic chemical activity in the brain?

The interesting word there is 'away', as if that is the task of neuroscience, to dismiss human ideas and experiences.  I have read quite a few summaries of neuroscience research, but I've never seen that.   But presumably you have.

I would like to see a citation where neuroscientists actually do this.    Otherwise, it sounds as if you have made this up, as a straw man.    I wonder what Jesus would think of your dishonest tactics?

[wigginhall]

The parallel with plate tectonics is hardly appropriate.  When Wegener proposed continental drift he was ridiculed by the orthodoxy of the day but he was being true to evidence. He was ridiculed because his ideas ran so deeply counter to our intuitions just as does a spherical Earth rather than a flat Earth.  The situation with neuroscience is the polar opposite of this, it is neuroscience that is challenging our intuitions about how things are, requiring us to think outside the box, breaking down the naive orthodoxy bequested to us through our judeochristian/greek/cartesian heritage about what it means to be, to exist, to think.  You call neuroscience 'orthodoxy' ? Truth is, it could hardly be more radical.  'High priests', 'ideology', you really gotta be kidding, you could hardly be wronger if you tried, you really need to get to see past this naive obsession with conspiracy thinking

Yes, both plate tectonics and neuroscience are counter-intuitive, aren't they?   But then many scientific discoveries have conflicted with 'common sense',  or our intuitions about reality.   

I think Descartes has a lot to answer for, as his version of the soul produced a highly dualistic framework, and the issue of relating soul to body became problematic.   Ironically. the Aristotelian version, where the soul is the form of the body, or the life of the body,  is less dualistic, I say, 'ironic' as it is more ancient. 

Also, the immaterialists rarely cite research findings from any discipline, as far as I can see, but prefer their own opinions, so much cosier really. 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#839

Anyone doing statistics will tell you that extrapolation can be unreliable because behaviour outside the range of observable data cannot be guaranteed.

As someone who used to do statistics (a lot, during my career) I'm curious about how you could know about 'behaviour outside the range of observable' at all if you can't observe or model it, and importantly, get the numeric data you need to do statistics with: where the basis for extrapolation will involve the results. You would at least need demonstrable grounds on which to base a hypothesis and then design an investigation to test this, by collecting and analysing the data (the statistical bit) in order to accept or reject your hypothesis.

From the statistics side, the demonstrable grounds would be any conclusion based on what can be observed. In the context of the discussions here about emergence, that would be what type of emergence is observable.

Extrapolating from that may be correct, correct up to a point or incorrect. So if e.g. I record Usain Bolt running 100m, record his time after every 10m and plot it on a graph, extrapolating to 200m to make predictions may be quite close (in fact, his 200m world record is less than double his 100m world record!). If I extrapolated further to say that he could run 400m in 40 seconds, we know that wouldn't be the case, because of fatigue. Ok, so all of that is testable.

In the context of the discussion here, one hypothesis has life emerging from organic and inorganic matter coming together (assumption of an adaptive system). All of the observable examples I've seen on emergence so far that are based on nature have one thing in common: Life is already present. In contrast, the hypothesis means life from non-life, an extrapolation from what is observable to apply to something that is not, to get round the something from nothing problem. In contrast, observation from non-adaptive emergent systems (bluehillside gave the example of a snowflake in #604; the emergent order there coming from the giving up of heat energy and the water molecules losing their dynamism) show that they stay that way.

[Alan Burns]

The interesting word there is 'away', as if that is the task of neuroscience, to dismiss human ideas and experiences.  I have read quite a few summaries of neuroscience research, but I've never seen that.   But presumably you have.

I would like to see a citation where neuroscientists actually do this.    Otherwise, it sounds as if you have made this up, as a straw man.    I wonder what Jesus would think of your dishonest tactics?

In this context I was using "away" as in "away from anything supernatural, such as the soul".  I find it truly astonishing what some non believers assume can be produced from unguided, deterministic events derived from natural forces.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#829

JK,

... More than you have it seems. I wouldn’t use the term “robot”, but I see no inherent reason for material systems not to be capable of self-awareness given enough complexity, and for that complexity to have emerged as it does elsewhere in nature with no top down designer being required.

Other than your personal disdain, what argument do you even think you have to rebut this position?

If this is your hypothesis, then by your own scientific standards, it should be falsifiable.

That said, I would suggest that the required capacity for self-awareness is a property of life. All the examples of emergence given from nature has life already present, i.e. the system is an adaptive one.

In your #604, you said this:

Snowflakes are non-adaptive emergent systems because they stay snowflakes. Ants and people and some software and cities on the other hand are adaptive because, well, they adapt in response to new stimuli.

In the case of ants and people, life is already present, and in the case of software, it was programmed that way! Therefore the functionality comes as a result of of external intelligent input.

It follows then that self-awareness would come from an adaptive system, one in which life is already present, or where the system has been set up (programmed) that way. Inorganic and organic matter coming together would be part of a non-adaptive system and, like your snowflake example, or Newton's laws in Physics, or in Chemistry, order from disorder coming as a result of giving up something, a non-adaptive system stays that way.

[Sebastian Toe]

In this context I was using "away" as in "away from anything supernatural, such as the soul".  I find it truly astonishing what some non believers assume can be produced from unguided, deterministic events derived from natural forces.

I find it truly astonishing that you want to use a 'soul' to explain everthing.

[Walter]

In this context I was using "away" as in "away from anything supernatural, such as the soul".  I find it truly astonishing what some non believers assume can be produced from unguided, deterministic events derived from natural forces.

you are welcome to remain astonished .It must be like 'Christmas' every day for you

[torridon]

I find it truly astonishing what some non believers assume can be produced from unguided, deterministic events derived from natural forces.

I find many discoveries in science astonishing too.  That's why I like it; it's the thrill of discovery, it's a never ending reveal going on.

[wigginhall]

In this context I was using "away" as in "away from anything supernatural, such as the soul".  I find it truly astonishing what some non believers assume can be produced from unguided, deterministic events derived from natural forces.

Any chance of a citation, where a neuroscientist 'explains away' human experience?   You must have one, as you have been alluding to it, and I know you wouldn't make it up. 

[torridon]

In the context of the discussion here, one hypothesis has life emerging from organic and inorganic matter coming together (assumption of an adaptive system). All of the observable examples I've seen on emergence so far that are based on nature have one thing in common: Life is already present. In contrast, the hypothesis means life from non-life, an extrapolation from what is observable to apply to something that is not, to get round the something from nothing problem. In contrast, observation from non-adaptive emergent systems (bluehillside gave the example of a snowflake in #604; the emergent order there coming from the giving up of heat energy and the water molecules losing their dynamism) show that they stay that way.

Emergence applies across the board, not just in living systems. When Miller did his famous experiment we started to understand the concept of chemical evolution by which primitive early earth gases evolved over time into something more complex - amino acids etc.  This happens because the increase in complexity resulted from the fact that longer chain compounds have different properties than the shorter chain ones that preceded them. Complexity thresholds are crossed wherever new properties emerge that favour the higher level.

[Sriram]

Emergence applies across the board, not just in living systems. When Miller did his famous experiment we started to understand the concept of chemical evolution by which primitive early earth gases evolved over time into something more complex - amino acids etc.  This happens because the increase in complexity resulted from the fact that longer chain compounds have different properties than the shorter chain ones that preceded them. Complexity thresholds are crossed wherever new properties emerge that favour the higher level.

According to some theories, Consciousness participates in the evolution of the universe. Check out Participatory Anthropic Principle, Biocentrism and related subjects.

[Nearly Sane]

According to some theories, Consciousness participates in the evolution of the universe. Check out Participatory Anthropic Principle, Biocentrism and related subjects.

Just to point out that it would be useful if you didn't use the term theory here as it would indicate a misunderstanding of its meaning in this context.

[wigginhall]

Well, theism argues that a conscious mind determines the evolution of the universe.   As NS notes, that is not a theory, however.  Call it a guess.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, theism argues that a conscious mind determines the evolution of the universe.   As NS notes, that is not a theory, however.  Call it a guess.

I understand that simulated universes are an accepted theory.
That kind of wipes the bottom on your Y Fronts of an argument doesn't it?