Intelligent Design

[TLN]

Good thing the mind and consciousness are physical things then:

How The Mind Works.

Ian, philosophy is worthless towards answering questions.

You agree.

Read some science. Maybe you'll actually answer some of the questions you're pondering instead of wasting your time on mental masturbation (read: philosophy).

 

[Robin]

I assume you suppose the developing human foetus achieves sentience at some stage? How does this happen if it is not a matter of adding a few simple molecules to the foetus' brain?

If someone has ever suggested that sentience is simply the result of adding molecules then I would like to see that reference.

I can't find a reference for anybody that thinks there is anything 'simple' about the brain, in fact I have never heard of a 'simple molecule'. Even the component atoms are fantastically complicated.

And whatever the process is it would probably involve more than a few molecules.

Here is an area where scientists are saying quite honestly that they don't know yet even though huge advances have been made in the area.

I think that you ascribe an agenda to science that does not exist, science generally tries to describe things as they are and not to force them into some predefined pattern.

 

[Interesting Ian]

As expected, no answer.

Ian, the only people who believe that "behaviour is reduicble to micro-physics, and hence fundamental physical laws" exist only in your head. Who are you debating here, because it's not us. It some figment in your head.

Just go somewhere and talk to yourself. You'll make much more progress.

Anyone who is a materialist believes behaviour is reducible to micro-physics. If they do not believe this, then they incorrectly describe themselves as materialists as non-reductionist materialism cannot be distinguished from interactionist dualism.

And Paul Anagnostopoulos has confirmed that he believes it.

 

[Robin]

Robin,

May I introduce the King of the Strawmen? King, Robin?

I am not sure what this means - is there a misplaced comma here? Are you saying that I am presenting a strawman argument? The Michael Lockwood quote in II's sig might be considered straw man but I can't see that anything I have said qualifies.

 

[TLN]

Anyone who is a materialist believes behaviour is reducible to micro-physics. If they do not believe this, then they incorrectly describe themselves as materialists as non-reductionist materialism cannot be distinguished from interactionist dualism.

And Paul Anagnostopoulos has confirmed that he believes it.

Where did Paul profess this? Can I see a quote please?

And if it turns out to be true, then talk to Paul. We're not all materialists. Seriously, why did you come here to grind your stupid, worthless philosophical axe?

Furthermore, you are completely powerless to disprove materialisim.

You agree with the above statement.

So, why are you wasting your time and ours?

 

[hammegk]

Ian, the only people who believe that "behaviour is reducible to micro-physics, and hence fundamental physical laws" exist only in your head.

As Ian has explained, if that stance is not that of many of the posters here, what is? Are you dualists? Or do you not know, or care?

Who are you debating here, because it's not us. It some figment in your head.

At least his figments are capable of addressing his actual arguments. Few others show any capability to do so.

And no, this is not a hijack. Your answer also answers the question: "Is it ID or is it chance (er, environment is also "chance" don't ya know)".

 

[TLN]

As Ian has explained, if that stance is not that of many of the posters here, what is? Are you dualists? Or do you not know, or care?

Perhaps he should ask then instead of assuming that skeptic = materialist.

At least his figments are capable of addressing his actual arguments. Few others show any capability to do so.

Ian's arguments have all been addressed and thoroughly demolished. I did so myself on PalTalk for almost three hours. It passes right through him. He's incapable of witnessing his defeat because then he might have to reevaluate his magical fantasies and the comfort they provide him. Typical believer behavior.

 

[BillHoyt]

I am not sure what this means - is there a misplaced comma here? Are you saying that I am presenting a strawman argument? The Michael Lockwood quote in II's sig might be considered straw man but I can't see that anything I have said qualifies.

Robin,

I didn't mean to be obtuse. Ian is the King of strawmen. He, and now, hammy, have hijacked this thread into yet another crap philosophy debate. They'll rant and rave about metaphysical materialism until the original thread topic is toast. They do this at every opportunity, and stolidly refuse to acknowledge that science is not in the metaphysical fog in which they like to stumble about.

 

[BillHoyt]

Yes. I pointed that out, although not explicitly : "it's not that hard to refute Aquinas directly -- again, I refer you to the page cited above, which argues against him in a fairly strong and sophisticated fashion." As it happens, you didn't even pick up on the error in the refutation --- if time is finite, as modern science states, then it's an immediate consequence that an infinite chain of causes can only exist allowing infinitesimal time differences between causes and their effects.

Excuse me? First of all, science doesn't state that time is finite. Time had a beginning, having emerged from space in the Big Bang. Such an infinity doesn't require infinitesimal time differences. Look up "countably infinite," and then reconsider your specious claim.

I specifically enourage you to forumate an argument, instead of sophistry. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen.

How about you drop this line of crap and actually pay attention to what I and others are writing? You might manage to cease looking like a shill.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

TLN said:
Where did Paul profess this? Can I see a quote please?

I said it just below the post where you asked the question.

I don't get it. Am I the only one who thinks that behavior is ultimately attributable to "micro-physics," along with everything else in the world? Is it some sort of loaded question that I don't get? Oh no! Don't tell me it's some whacky philosophical question whose meaning is so opaque that I misinterpreted it.

~~ Paul

 

[BillHoyt]

I said it just below the post where you asked the question.

I don't get it. Am I the only one who thinks that behavior is ultimately attributable to "micro-physics," along with everything else in the world? Is it some sort of loaded question that I don't get? Oh no! Don't tell me it's some whacky philosophical question whose meaning is so opaque that I misinterpreted it.

~~ Paul

Paul,

"ultimately attributable to micro-physics" is different from the strawmanned phrase "adding a few simple molecules."

 

[Interesting Ian]

I said it just below the post where you asked the question.

I don't get it. Am I the only one who thinks that behavior is ultimately attributable to "micro-physics," along with everything else in the world? Is it some sort of loaded question that I don't get? Oh no! Don't tell me it's some whacky philosophical question whose meaning is so opaque that I misinterpreted it.

~~ Paul

It's a very common supposition amongst scientists that ultimately everything can be reduced to micro-physics. This is how the scientific revolution occurred - one understands things by analysing their parts. Hell, even I believe this, apart from when it comes to consciousness.

Why are people denying it? No idea, but let's face it, TLN will simply disagree with me on principle.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Paul,

"ultimately attributable to micro-physics" is different from the strawmanned phrase "adding a few simple molecules."

Indeed, it has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It's an entirely separate issue.

 

[drkitten]

It's a very common supposition amongst scientists that ultimately everything can be reduced to micro-physics.

This, like the "very common" usage of the word "skeptic" that you claim dominates discourse today, but for which a single illustrative citation cannot be found?

If this is indeed a "very common supposition," then you should have no problem finding five quotations from scientists of stature that indicate that "everything can be reduced to micro-physics."

Who is an idiot, Ian, the person who posts falsehoods, or the person who doesn't believe them until they are backed up?

 

[Interesting Ian]

This, like the "very common" usage of the word "skeptic" that you claim dominates discourse today, but for which a single illustrative citation cannot be found?

If this is indeed a "very common supposition," then you should have no problem finding five quotations from scientists of stature that indicate that "everything can be reduced to micro-physics."

Who is an idiot, Ian, the person who posts falsehoods, or the person who doesn't believe them until they are backed up?

Could you name any phenomenon which physicists believe is not reducible?

Reductionism is a fundamental tenet of physics. Physicists constantly seek to show that apparent disparate phenomena have, at root, the same mathematical equation governing their behaviour. Without the presumption of reductionism there could be no TOE. Supposing that reduction doesn't always work is, in a sense, giving up.

 

[BillHoyt]

If this is indeed a "very common supposition," then you should have no problem finding five quotations from scientists of stature that indicate that "everything can be reduced to micro-physics."

This must be some kind of nightmare thread. I'm now in a cold sweat, thrashing my head on my pillow as I realize I have to defend Interesting Ian. Somebody pinch me, please.

Sir, you're apparently unaware of the axioms of science. Here they are, from previous posts of mine:

"The axioms of science are these:

1. There is a real, external universe
2. This universe is rational; A is not equal to not-A.
3. There are regularities in this universe.
4. The components and processes of this universe can be described by mathematics.
5. The components and processes of this universe can be isolated and profitably analyzed in isolation."

The key one, of course, is #5. That is, simply, reductionism. And, yes, every whit of evidence we've gathered throughout the centuries, continues to confirm that reductionist axiom.

 

[BillHoyt]

Please excuse me now as I go to wash my hands. Repeatedly.

 

[hammegk]

If this is indeed a "very common supposition," then you should have no problem finding five quotations from scientists of stature that indicate that "everything can be reduced to micro-physics."

Could you explain to me how scientists of stature that do not believe "everything can be reduced to micro-physics" explain the phenomena we call life?

Do you actually fail to see the problem here? That is, either you agree scientific reduction holds the answer, or if it does not, what then? Don't worry about 5 quotes; what do you believe?

And what is your answer to "What is energy?"? Whatever it is, is it a fact, or is it a belief?

 

[MESchlum]

Could you name any phenomenon which physicists believe is not reducible?

Sure! Look at chaos theory, or thermodynamics. Both are ways to model and predict the behaviour of
large numbers of objects, and work great that way. If you try to use either for simple cases (one or two atoms, say) they don't work. If you try to use physics on each of 10^22 atoms, it doesn't work either.

Different domains of physics are modeled in different ways, and a very good model in one domain won't work in another.

Reductionism is a fundamental tenet of physics. Physicists constantly seek to show that apparent disparate phenomena have, at root, the same mathematical equation governing their behaviour.

Nope. I have yet to meet a physicist who will argue that magnetism and gravity work using the same equations.

Without the presumption of reductionism there could be no TOE. Supposing that reduction doesn't always work is, in a sense, giving up.

Nope. Take mechanics: the science of how objects bend, flow, distort and so forth. The fundamentals are useful in telling you what the properties of the object are, but they are of no use in understanding the behaviour of the object.

Compare:

"This diamond is made of carbon. Carbon has 6 protons and 6 neutrons, and 4 free electrons."

"How nice, can you tell me if the diamond will resist being hit with a sledgehammer?"

"Protons have a positive charge, and are composed of quarks."

"Your point being?"

etc. to:

"The strong bonds in carbon, and their number, allow diamond crystals to form, with the following intrinsic angles."

"So if I hit the diamond with a sledgehammer, what happens?"

"It depends on the angle of the blow. The force of the blow could be spread through the entire crystal, and thus have less macro effect, if you hit it right."

"And you can tell me what those angles are?"

"Of course." Insert chemistry and mechanics computations

"So what happens if the diamond does not break?"

"It will bend, and I can tell you how and how much." Insert mechanics computations



Science does a LOT besides work out the fundamentals of matter and energy. If it were not the case, there would be one physics lab on earth, a huge linear accelerator (or cyclotron).

 

[MESchlum]

Catching up with the above, I'll add that isolating the observed objects is key.

Study a puddle in nature, and lots of things interfere.

Study a measured amount of water in the lab, and you can derive its mechanical properties.

Study a molecule of water, and you can derive its chemical properties (which does not tell you much about sewer pipes, but a lot about molecular biology).

There is no point in reducing a puddle of water to a single water molecule if you're interested in fluid flows. It's even counterproductive.

There is no point in studying the ocean if you want to know the energy levels of a water molecule. It's even counterproductive.

So yes, simplifying and isolating what you want to study is good. Using only quarks, leptons etc. to build the Eiffel tower is insane.