About: The Progressive Diminishment of Man
by BradfordIt may be argued that what man believes himself to be determines not only his conduct, but the substance of what he feels is possible, thus determining the scope of art and culture. The ostensible purpose of science is to serve man through the ever-expanding knowledge of facts, and yet as science has ascended, many scientists have mounted a purposeful attack on the ancient concept of man in order to diminish him in his own estimation. The feeling among scientists seems to be that man does not deserve a privileged place in the universe.
HT: Clare
February 27th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
I was in danger of falling in love with the author. The site has this to say about her:
Comment by Bradford — February 27, 2010 @ 3:59 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Careful, Bradford! The lady is a classic crackpot!
See #17 in Baez's Crackpot Index:
Comment by olegt — February 27, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
So olegt calls her a crackpot because what she says is supported by the evidence?
Also the correlation olegt is trying to make just doesn't connect.
All she is saying is that science does not and cannot answer everything.
And that is just a fact of life.
Leave it to a socialist to try to make something out of nothing.
Anything for a childish dig, hey oleg?
Comment by ID guy — February 27, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
There is a person named John Baez who is an expert on crackpots?
Oh wait, it's a humor piece from a mathematician. Oleg you old trickster, you almost fooled us into taking you seriously!
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 27, 2010 @ 5:05 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
angryoldfatman,
You're half right: Baez was only half joking when he introduced his crackpot index.
At any rate, how can you take seriously someone who complains that science knows what electricity does but doesn't know what electricity is? Does she expect physicists to tell her that electric field=little green men pushing electrons inside a metal?
Comment by olegt — February 27, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Olegt:
Not surprisingly you took a narrow view of the essay. Scientism involves the use of science to make broader points about man's place in the universe. You are correct in noting that predicting correctly does not give us whys. One of the ironies of exchanges in forums like this is the tacit understanding existing among mainstream thinkers. The official version is that science only tells us how things function etc. That's also the correct version. Temperature measurements only give a basis for a warming theory. They tell you nothing about values and which ones to further with available funding. You and others know this. You know that at the core of global warming arguments- pro and con- lies some very disputed notions of right and wrong. The author would agree that the whys are not answerable through empirical approaches. Where the author and I diverge from you and others is in two important points. First, there are answers to the why questions and the why questions are the most important ones. Second science is very limited with respect to its ability to reveal information about the real world. My kinda woman.
Comment by Bradford — February 27, 2010 @ 6:12 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
She expects you to realize that Dawkins and others are fundamentally wrong about the ability of science to reveal reality about this world. You can't formulate an empirically useful notion about a quality that is fundamental to humanity- consciousness. Chomsky's observations are right on target.
Comment by Bradford — February 27, 2010 @ 6:15 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Bradford,
Could you expound on what you mean when you say that science can't "reveal reality about this world?"
Comment by olegt — February 27, 2010 @ 6:25 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
By learning the hows you never arrive at a plausible theory of origins. You are able to explain things mechanistically but if the underlying nature of reality does not lend itself to this approach you will not only not get answers, you will build a philosophical edifice which is debilitating to the human spirit. That's the theme of the essay.
Comment by Bradford — February 27, 2010 @ 6:43 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Sounds familiar; C.S. Lewis said something very similar: http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/03/to-conquer-or-to-give-ground/
Comment by TomG — February 27, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Now she is complaining?
Pointing out that science doesn't answer all questions isn't a complaint.
Do you have any shred of decency?
Comment by ID guy — February 27, 2010 @ 10:24 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
We're rather fond of the little monkeys.
Comment by Zachriel — February 27, 2010 @ 11:21 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 12:37 am
Bradford wrote:
But what is the alternative? Drop the how question altogether and learn nothing? Didn't Newton and Maxwell studied the how question? Seriously, the why approach (philosophy and theology) has been much less fruitful in studying not only the origins but just about anything. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say, so maybe try again, Bradford?
Ah, that is where the problem might be. Newton figured out that planets move in ellipses without much help from angels, Darwin explained how evolution could proceed without God's tinkering, astronomers learned how stars and planets form out of hydrogen clouds. You don't think that is progress in our understanding of the Universe?
Comment by olegt — February 28, 2010 @ 12:37 am
February 28th, 2010 at 8:08 am
But with the help from God/ intelligent being who set up the conditions.
This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. –Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia
It is in Principia
Baldly explained it- never demonstrated it.
And again God is only required for the initial conditions.
Even the YECs say that.
Speculate- not learned- they speculate that is how planets form.
Comment by ID guy — February 28, 2010 @ 8:08 am
February 28th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
olegt wrote:
Good. I'll only take you half-seriously.
I don't know Oleg, I've been told scientists know as much about Darwinian evolution as they do gravity. That being the case, they must not know jack squat about gravity.
As for electricity, you mention electrons moving through metal. If this is as fully understood as you imply, then there is no question of what electrons are and what magnetism is. Thus electrons should no longer be thought of as nebulous clouds and magnetism is no longer a mysterious invisible force.
Perhaps you can educate those renegades in your own field of science about your findings, Oleg. Maybe you can just copy all of Bohr's works and cut and paste your name in the appropriate places, which I understand is the fashionable thing to do these days.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 28, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Not sure what you're trying to say, angryoldfatman, but it must be something profound.
Comment by olegt — February 28, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
This is precisely the arrogance the author was alluding to. All the above proves nothing other than that we learn how nature functions. But you hold the illusion that results of an empirical approach support a broader albeit erroneous point. No believer thinks God must interfere in planetary motion or motion of any other kind to effect outcomes. The Angel mention is the standard atheist knee jerk response to a straw man of their own creation. When you mock your own fantasy version of what another believes you look foolish.
Darwin proposed a theory of biological change. He significantly did not put forth a theory of life's origins and the continued pretense that he did so reflects a misuse of science and the presence of a metaphysical wedge issue.
As for cosmology, you cite another how theory that says nothing about the origin of mass and energy or the regularities of nature we refer to as laws. The common thread to the three citations is an inference that if God exits he cannot have been a watchmaker who creates the basic substance of the universe and winds it up with laws and physical properties so that it unfolds according to plan. The position that the mass and energy of the universe and the properties of it simply exists without the need of a prior causal source is at best an arguable philosophical position. If it is one that is believed in, the obvious question is why a believer in it would find the need to assert it as being made more plausible by prior successful efforts by humanity to discover how nature functions. The discovery process did not shed any light on what the author referred to as an ancient concept of man nor did it diminish a sense of humanity's privileged place in the universe notwithstanding views to the contrary.
Comment by Bradford — February 28, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Science – when interpreted materialistically – can tell us that there is intentionality in nature but it cannot tell us how it got there.
Science – when interpreted metaphysically – can tell us that there is intentionality in nature, and does tell us how it got there.
The materialists like to pretend there are no answers when in fact the answers are quite clear.
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 28, 2010 @ 2:30 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Olegt, did James Chadwick know what he was discovering when he calculated the mass of the neutron or does an absence of knowledge about quarks imply that he did not know what neutrons were? The author is indicating that nature is like an onion whose outer layers have been peeled. But the ancient man doing the peeling is unaware of the chemical composition of onion cells. Does he still not know the nature of that which he is peeling. He can describe its texture and taste. Nature is like that onion.
Comment by Bradford — February 28, 2010 @ 2:45 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
The author is alluding to this passage:
What scientists see is man being a small part of the world. It is hard to believe, given the vastness of space, that man is special in any way. That is an age old question, "why should we think ourselves special"?
The only basis for believing we are special would proceed from the notion we are special in God's sight.
This would require accepting:
1. the existence of God
2. that we are special in God's sight
I think there is some circumstantial evidence to those questions, but the "specialness" might have to be accepted with some degree of faith.
Even if God made a complex machine, it does not necessitate we are special in God's eyes any more than a software developer might find a piece of software special in the software developer's eyes.
The psalmist expressed the perplexity that God would find something in Man that would interest Him. We aren't given reasons by the psalmist, but it is left as the great mystery throughout the Bible: "why would God care for us?"
We might argue we live on a privileged planet, and that is somewhat persuassive. On the otherhand, a petri dish with agar is a privileged planet of sorts to bacteria. So the argument for a privileged planet may be true, but it still does not directly imply specialness in God's sight. However, falsifying the privileged planet hypothesis would also falsify our specialness in God's sight. In formal terms, a privileged planet is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be special in God's sight.
We might have good reason to accept we are special if:
1. We have evidence God communicated this fact to humanity directly in some way (like the Bible)
2. We accept it by faith
We assume certain laws of physics, but we can't formally prove they are immutable and eternal since our experiments and observations are only a small sample of every conceivable measurement. For sure, we can falsify certain conceptions of the laws of physics, but we can't formally prove them (in the Popperian sense).
The ability to prove God's love is, like the axioms of mathematics, laws of physics, beyond our reach to prove, even if true. An element of faith might be the only avenue to access the truth.
God's love may be subject to some falsification. If Darwinian evolution is the answer to life's origin and development of complexity, if life is no more special than gravity and celestial mechanics, I would consider God's love for us somewhat falsified.
One might argue: God used evolution. To which I'd respond: "on what grounds do we decide we are special, just our own whims?"
If Darwinian evolution is true, there is no reason to believe we are special in God's sight. In such case, this would be the way to perceive reality:
and
But then if Weinberg is right, the more we understand science, the more pointless science would seem!!!
On the otherhand, if God made the world, and put us in a privileged planet optimized for scientific discovery, to discover that we were created, the more meaningful science would be!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 28, 2010 @ 2:56 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Bradford wrote:
All of the above points to the success of the scientific approach, no more and no less.
It looks foolish only in the historical perspective. Medieval Christians seriously considered that possibility. Newton was dead serious about the solar system. Fast forward to today's
creationistswho insist that evolution bears distinctive marks of God's direct intervention (what else is irreducible complexity about?). Fifty years from now their claims will look as laughable.Bradford, you are making stuff up. Show me an evolutionist who claims that Darwin "put forth a theory of life's origins." You can't.
Bradford, you seem to be under an illusion that physical laws have been handed down to us from high up. They haven't. Fallible people, not a deity, came up with these laws. Take Newton's law of universal gravitation. It looks awesome: point masses attract each other with a force inversely proportional to the square of their distance. Such perfection! It must have been designed! Well, on closer inspection Newton's law turns out to be just an approximation valid in the limit of weak gravity. Not so perfect, after all. Same story with the principle of least action that was once viewed as God's infinite wisdom in designing the world turned out to be an approximation: quantum systems do not necessarily follow the principle. I can go on. So "the laws of nature" are just our imperfect attempts to capture reality. They're not too bad, but they're not ideal. No reason to worship them.
No, that's not my position. I have said many times that science cannot rule out the existence of God. It just makes him unnecessary in specific contexts: planetary motion, formation of the solar system, biological evolution. On the other hand, it is your position to ascribe things that science has not yet explain to direct involvement of God. Historically, this has been a losing position (see the above examples), so it does not seem wise to hold it. That's my point.
Comment by olegt — February 28, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Your view of history differs from mine. I have put forth the view that nature can reveal design by what it is we know about nature. Design sympathetic individuals like David Heddle and Mike Gene would concur. The former would say he sees it when he looks at the vast universe but does not know how to empirically test the idea. Mike has formulated rational albeit non-scientific norms to score design. While I don't disagree with either of them, unlike them, I hold that nature itself can reveal properties which argue against theorized pathways or approaches to outcomes. In another thread Eric is doing a fine job of arguing that position with respect to life's origins. History has shown that if you were betting on the discovery of chemical pathways to life you would be losing money at this point.
The are two properties of nature- the origin of life and the origin of consciousness- which have unique challenges qualitatively different than discovering elliptical paths. You may think that fifty years from now this statement will be laughed at. Perhaps so. Or perhaps in fifty years people will be saying virtually the same things said about them today. The outcomes evidence properties that are inconsistent with the theorized generating processes.
Comment by Bradford — February 28, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Bradford wrote:
Bradford, unless I'm mistaken, you seem to want all or nothing. Science does not work that way. When Maxwell formulated theory of eletromagnetism, he had no idea about photons, the quanta of electromagnetic field. Yet his theory was clearly a step forward. It showed the unified nature of electric and magnetic phenomena and paved the way to identifying light as electromagnetic waves. Take any other subject, it will be the same story. Of course Chadwick had no idea that the neutron consists of three quarks bound by gluons. Still, his discovery was remarkable as it confirmed the theoretical expectations that atoms contain not only protons and electrons, but also neutral particles with a mass approximately equal to that of the proton. It was most certainly a step forward.
It's Bynum who comes across arrogant and ignorant in her essay, and that's the worst combination in a thinker that I can imagine.
This is getting confusing. Are you saying that there is no point in knowing the chemistry of onions? Or what?
Comment by olegt — February 28, 2010 @ 3:54 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
My position in relation to yours:
1. "science cannot rule out the existence of God. "
agreed
2. "It just makes him unnecessary in specific contexts"
Agreed. I've even argued that this is the way God intends us to do science, in a way that does not presume his existence.
3. planetary motion
agreed
4. formation of the solar system,
skeptical, suspect special creation instead of planetary evolution
5. biological evolution
disagree, evolutionary theory is premature in its claims at best, wrong at worst. The falseness of evolution does not imply the truthfulness of ID, but evolutionary theories do not hold a candle to experimental physics and chemistry.
There we at least agree on the majority of points. As always, evolution is the sticking point!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 28, 2010 @ 4:01 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
The layered onion represents a view of nature, causal origins and ultimately the view man has of himself. The predominant POV I encounter among ID critics is that scientific advances proceed toward the onion core and that it is simply a matter of time before we arrive at the core which will tell us all we are currently ignorant of with respect to the larger issues the author alludes to. But the allegorical onion is more like a biomass which never yields to a complete unveiling of its core and never tells us details of its origin source.
Comment by Bradford — February 28, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Bradford,
By saying that "it is time to revisit the works of Kant, Descartes, Aristotle and Plato," Bynum seems to argue that science should be replaced with philosophy. Given philosophers' dismal track record in understanding nature, she has no point.
Comment by olegt — February 28, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
By appealing to magical untestable processes.
This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. –Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia
Interesting- perhaps the greatest scientist of all time disagrees with olegt.
Comment by ID guy — February 28, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Joe,
Newton was certainly a great scientist, but even great scientists can be wrong once in a while. Newton erred on this one.
Comment by olegt — February 28, 2010 @ 6:21 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Dick,
No he didn't. And your bald assertion doesn't refute him
Also you don't have any evidence that blind, undirected processes can account for this solar system.
You can't even form a testable hypothesis for your position.
Hell you can't even account for gravity besides saying it just is.
So what the hell do you have besides this incessant need to misrepresent ID and baldly declare your position the winner?
Anything? Anything at all?
Comment by ID guy — February 28, 2010 @ 6:43 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
ID guy wrote:
Joe, formation of the solar system is a well understood problem. The subject has been hashed and rehashed on this blog. You were there. How did you manage not to take away anything?
Comment by olegt — February 28, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Dick,
Stephen Hawking said the followinmg about the laws of nature in "A Briefer History of Time" "They just are (the way they are)"
IOW no idea about their origin.
So you can grin all you want all you are doing is proving my point.
It remains that the laws that rule our world are evidence for an intelligent designer.
You should really at least try to learn about ID if you are going to try to argue against it.
As to the nebula hypothesis, I am well aware of it.
What is the testable hypothesis?
We used to think that our solar system is "typical".
Now we know it is not.
We have gas giants allegedly spiraling inward in some solar systems, but in ours we have them in nice stable orbits.
The point being is the best you have is speculation based on materialistic assumptions of reductionism.
As for taking something away when having a discussion with you- it is clear that you will do and say anything, but in the end it comes down to evidence.
And your wishful thinking isn't evidence.
Comment by ID guy — February 28, 2010 @ 9:34 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
So what is the testable hypothesis?
If solar systems form via many chance collisions/ cosmic accidents what should expect to see?
What would falsify this?
This is what passes for science?
Say anything as long as it doesn't involve design…
Comment by ID guy — February 28, 2010 @ 9:39 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
I looked at the second link and I see you following what I said.
Was that what you wanted to show me?
That I said something and then come along and say basically the same thing?
Comment by ID guy — February 28, 2010 @ 9:44 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Joe, how about you first read some published review papers on the subject, then come to me with questions?
Comment by olegt — February 28, 2010 @ 9:51 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Dick,
Been there, done that.
Why can't you just tell us about the testable hypothesis?
How can we test that claim that our solar system arose via cosmic accidents caused by gravitational collapse of some random nebula?
What would falsify that claim?
And do you really think that cosmic accidents can account for all the factors required for complex living organisms to coincide in place and time?
Comment by ID guy — February 28, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
ID guy wrote:
O, you've read some review articles? Good. Which ones?
Comment by olegt — February 28, 2010 @ 10:40 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 2:24 am
When a person argues that mind and consciousness can be explained reductively, or that there is no ultimate meaning and purpose for life, man’s existence, or the universe, he is making metaphysical (philosophical) claims that have never been proven scientifically. Neither, has anyone ever described a way such things can be established empirically or scientifically. No doubt there are people that believe that way, but at this point such beliefs are just that, beliefs based on faith.
Science cannot be substituted for philosophy without making claims that are essentially philosophical claims that are themselves empirically unverifiable claims.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 1, 2010 @ 2:24 am
March 1st, 2010 at 4:37 am
If we include religion, ignorance and superstition with philosophy, we have the ultimate solution: science can't make any claims unless they can be verified by evidence immediately recognized as true in the mind of anyone without any prior knowledge and understanding of the subject.
Comment by Satolep — March 1, 2010 @ 4:37 am
March 1st, 2010 at 9:22 am
olegt-
I have read at least 100 papers on the formation of stars, planets and solar systems.
More than enough to understand that your position is not testable and is based on nothing more than the fiat- "explain everything without mentioning design."
Out of all the combinations only one planet in our solar system experiences total solar eclipses- ours.
All olegt can do is wave his hands and cry "coincidence".
Never mind the fact that without that Moon we wouldn't exist.
So I take oleg's constant poking to be a sign that he can't support his position.
Surprise, surpise…
Comment by ID guy — March 1, 2010 @ 9:22 am
March 1st, 2010 at 9:37 am
ID guy wrote:
OMG, at least a hundred? I'm very impressed, Joe.
Care to list them?
Comment by olegt — March 1, 2010 @ 9:37 am
March 1st, 2010 at 9:54 am
Dick,
Is that all you have?
If you can't support your position then just say so.
But acting like a little baby really doesn't help you.
However I do understand that is all you can do…
Comment by ID guy — March 1, 2010 @ 9:54 am
March 1st, 2010 at 9:56 am
How can we test that claim that our solar system arose via cosmic accidents caused by gravitational collapse of some random nebula?
What would falsify that claim?
Now continue to prove that you can't support your position by continuing to ignore those questions.
Man if ignorance was scientific data oleg's position would be untouchable.
Comment by ID guy — March 1, 2010 @ 9:56 am
March 1st, 2010 at 10:09 am
I was going to let that little bit of ignorance slide but seeing that all oleg can do is taunt people, well here goes-
That is just pure ignorance oleg.
No one thinks that planets form out of hydrogen clouds.
Are you really that daft?
Planets form from the left-overs of supernovae- which contain much, much more than hydrogen-
IOW the nebula that are alleged to form planets are not hydrogen clouds.
As for stars, well their formation from hydrogen clouds isn't correct either.
So what gives oleg?
Do you know anything about astrophysics or are you just guessing?
Comment by ID guy — March 1, 2010 @ 10:09 am
March 1st, 2010 at 10:30 am
Joe,
Since you are such a specialist on planetary nebulae, would you care to comment on the following table comparing logarithmic abundances of elements of nebula M1-1 and the Sun?
H He C N O Ne S Ar
M1-1 12.00 11.02 8.57 8.4 8.7 7.95 6.6 6.32
Sun 12.00 11.0 8.66 7.98 8.91 8.05 7.2 6.57
Source.
Specifically, what percentage of the M1-1's composition is hydrogen? Helium? The rest of the elements?
Comment by olegt — March 1, 2010 @ 10:30 am
March 1st, 2010 at 11:51 am
Satolep, you don't seem to understand where empirical results end and philosophy begins. The way to refute JAD's claim about treating consciousness reductively is to refute it empirically rather than blather about superstition. The superstition might be the one holding that consciousness is completely sourced from properties of atoms. If it is no one has been able to show this.
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2010 @ 11:51 am
March 1st, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Bradford wrote:
It's a bit more complicated than that, Bradford. You first need to make sure that philosophy of mind asks the right questions. To see what I mean, go back 110 years and see what the situation was in physics. People were trying to measure the speed of the Earth relatively to the aether (the Michelson-Morley experiment). Invariably they failed to detect any movement. Turns out physicists had been asking the wrong question. Einstein ditched aether and replaced it with spacetime, which turned out to be a physical object with its own degrees of freedom (that's general relativity).
I think it's quite likely that the reason why philosophy of mind hasn't made any progress in centuries is the same: philosophers aren't asking the right questions. The concept of mind might be as intuitively obvious as the concept of aether or phlogiston, but it may be equally vacuous.
Comment by olegt — March 1, 2010 @ 12:29 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Olegt:
You're bright enough to realize that the belief that a mind is reducible to physical neural components is an extension of a philosophical system. But it is a philosophy that is unsubstantiated by the applications represented by another philosophy- empiricism. That's a strong indicator of a boundary. When arriving at a boundary, philosophical fillers are inevitable. There are no conceptual vacuums. So despite apparent aversions to philosophy there is use made of it even if the user is picky about his philosophical preferences.
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2010 @ 12:45 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 1:06 pm
I'm not sure what significance that has, Bradford. Science has always had boundaries and scientists have always had philosophical biases about approaching new problems. (E.g., God does not play dice.) Some approaches turned out to be useful, most failed. I see nothing different this time around.
Comment by olegt — March 1, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 1:10 pm
God is necessary for all of the above. All of these things show intentionality that cannot be explained by matter alone.
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 1, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Dick,
I never claimed to be a specialist on planetary nebulae.
However it doesn't take a specialist to know what you said is false.
And you even provided a paper that supports my claim.
Thank you.
Comment by ID guy — March 1, 2010 @ 1:25 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Olegt:
There are two modes of thought I think worth looking at. With respect to neurobiology and dualism, the former is unable to refute the latter without allowing itself to become dogmatic. If identical neural states give rise to different thought modes one must conclude that physical evidence is inadequate (an artificial gap creation), dualism could be plausible after all or that identical physical conditions can be mapped to different conceptual outcomes (making distinguishing predictions problematic).
With respect to the larger culture Einstein's view of God and dice is a colorful reference to a non-scientific concept to make a philosophical scientific point even if it was subsequently shown erroneous. There can be a fine line between this sort of thing and scientism. Holding to the view that reductionism will unveil nature's mysteries is one thing. Attempting to debunk another's philosophical views based on the assumption that it will is another. Wedding science to cultural and political objectives is a very bad idea.
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Bradford,
Do you think a week-long leave from this blog would help Joe cool off? I think it's worth a try.
Comment by olegt — March 1, 2010 @ 2:56 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Here is a little thought experiment that might help us tease out some of the right questions.
It is the year 2020 and I am trying to make plans for a vacation. I call a company that guarantees not only the lowest price on air fairs, rental car and hotel but also promises friendly, personalized service. Okay, I’ll give that a try.
I am pleasantly surprised when my call is answered by a real live human being named Andrea. Not only is Andrea incredibly pleasant but also exceptionally knowledgeable and efficient she asks the right questions, give me several options and even makes some suggestions.
I am impressed. In this computer age there is still nothing like another conscious human being to interact with.
However, later I learn, though the company that owned her tried to keep it a closely guarded secret, that Andrea was not a real live human being but a sophisticated voice recognition program. Andrea had me completely fooled. For me and all intents and purposes 99.9% of the customers that have been calling Andrea, has passed the Turing test.
Now the questions: #1. Is Andrea actually conscious?
I (my future fictional self)do some research and discover that the company that created and developed the Andrea and Andrew (the male voice version) programs, hired some of the best Hollywood script writers to work along with the programmers to create convincing and natural sounding scripts. However, even Andrea’s creator doubts that she is a really conscious entity. “She is only a program, a designed illusion, to mimic conscious human interaction. She is no more conscious that a ventriloquist’s dummy.”
#2 What would it take to actually make Andrea conscious?
(2a) More advanced circuitry or programming?
(2b) Or, is there something else that needs to be added?
(2c) Can that something else be explained reductively?
#3 What is it that makes human beings self consciousness?
#4 How did consciousness evolve by natural evolutionary processes alone?
Finally, as Bynum observes: ‘Darwin once famously asked, why thought, “being a secretion of the brain” should be considered “more wonderful than gravity, a property of matter?”’
#5 What scientific warrant did Darwin in the mid 19th Century to assume that thought and consciousness can be explained merely as “a secretion of the brain”?
It appears to me that Darwin’s assumption was purely a metaphysical (or philosophical) one.
These are pretty basic questions. If you don’t think that they are the correct ones, why don’t you provide the questions that you think are.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 1, 2010 @ 3:08 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Hi IDguy,
I enjoy most of your comments but, as an outsider looking in, you seem to be trying to get banned.
If that is not your intent please rethink your language.
Oleg's hypocrisy is on abundant display at all times and we can all see it, especially as he arrogates to play thread cop or complain to moderators (here) about standards of decency. He doesn't seem to be able to see it or he doesn't care.
But there is no reason for you to get booted for it.
Comment by Pez — March 1, 2010 @ 4:11 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Pez,
Thank you.
Olegt said I lied.
He has attacked me at will and has been shown to be wrong on more than one occasion.
However you are more than right.
Oleg and Zachriel want to drag me into a fight and I am more than willing- I don't fight only the fights I can win I fight the fights worth fighting- and dose guys are worth fighting.
But this forum is not the place so I apologize for my stooping to olegt's level.
Now that it is clear his tactics are well-known and unappreciated by all I will be OK with that understanding.
Comment by ID guy — March 1, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 4:28 pm
ID guy, it would be a good idea if you just ignored Olegt for a week or so.
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2010 @ 4:28 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Fine Bradford.
olegt wrongly accussed me of lying so please don't let that post stay.
I made a claim, olegt provided a paper that supported that claim and then said I lied.
http://telicthoughts.com/about-the-progressive-diminishment-of-man/comment-page-2/#comment-253718
Is that OK here at Telic Thoughts?
Comment by ID guy — March 1, 2010 @ 4:43 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 4:47 pm
That's all you needed to write. To all- keep the lie accusations out of this thread.
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2010 @ 4:47 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Bradford,
One more word and then I will shut up- promise-
olegt never said anything about a "planetary nebula" until well after the fray started.
Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.
I know what a planetary nebula is.
I know that a planetary nebula is different than a hydrogen cloud.
OK bye-bye. Thank you and I will take a break…
Comment by ID guy — March 1, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Bradford,
I agree that I could have handled that conversation better. It became too much of a side show. Will try to stay away from this.
Comment by olegt — March 1, 2010 @ 7:37 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Oleg,
You made the claim that God is "unnecessary in specific contexts: planetary motion, formation of the solar system, biological evolution".
I responded with, "God is necessary for all of the above. All of these things show intentionality that cannot be explained by matter alone".
Perhaps you could concentrate on this for a bit (you know, as a distraction).
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 1, 2010 @ 8:27 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 8:35 pm
How do you discern intent, Daniel? Must one be a believer in God to see it or is there an objective measure?
Comment by olegt — March 1, 2010 @ 8:35 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 9:00 pm
JAD wrote:
The answer depends on how you define consciousness. See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for more on that , but here is the idea in a nutshell. A digital thermometer can measure temperature. But does it actually feel the heat? On the one hand, it is certainly sensitive to heat, so the answer appears to be yes. On the other, the thermometer is not going through the same chain of reactions as a human being does, so perhaps not. So, it depends.
And you needn't imagine robots to formulate paradoxes. How about animals? Is a chimpanzee conscious? How about cats? Fish? Insects?
So in my biased view, questions #1, and with it questions #2-4, are not answerable without further elaboration.
I'm tempted to agree with you on that. Can you point me to the quote in context?
Comment by olegt — March 1, 2010 @ 9:00 pm
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:48 am
It's a great essay, Bradford. Thanks for sharing it.
I love science and scientists, but they tend to suffer from a severe case of myopia. There are people who will look at Cindy Crawford, and say, wow, what an attractive woman at age 44. Then, there are scientists who will narrowly focus on her mole through binoculars, and produce reams of data on the "fleshy abnormal, benign mass on the corner of her lip" to the exclusion of the big picture.
Comment by David S — March 2, 2010 @ 12:48 am
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:04 am
Many things in nature are observed to reliably tend towards certain ends – as if intentionally. These things are not conscious however. One does not have to believe in God to discern that Oleg. All of science is based on this – for science is about making predictions based on observed patterns of repeatable results – so yes, these things can be measured.
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 2, 2010 @ 10:04 am
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:34 am
Daniel,
Aristotle noted that heavy objects tend towards the center of the Earth. His theory of gravity has not proven to be of much use, however. It had to be replaced by Newton's theory of gravity, which does not rely on intent.
Appearances can be deceiving.
Anyway, how do you measure intent?
Comment by olegt — March 2, 2010 @ 10:34 am
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:34 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER
If Andrea can pass the Turing test it seems unlikely that her creator would doubt that she is conscious. Consider the sophistication of a program required to fully mimic a human travel agent and pass the Turing test:
Customer: "Where would I like to vacation? Somewhere warm."
Andrea: "(laughs) Antarctica is out? Well, we have a special on Caribbean cruises, two travel for the price of one. Are you married?"
Customer: "(short) Divorced."
Andrea: "Oh, I'm very sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have asked you a question that personal."
Customer: "No, that's okay, it was years ago. No, I'm thinking about Hawaii or Mexico. Anything going on there?"
Andrea: "…"
This level of sophistication would require an extremely complex program that could not rightly be called just an illusion or ventriloquist's dummy.
Comment by woodchuck64 — March 2, 2010 @ 12:34 pm
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Are you saying that heavy objects don't tend to fall to earth? Newton's theory does not change Aristotle's observation – it just refines it.
By observation and experiment. If an enzyme reliably selects a specific substrate and reliably produces a specific product, we can safely say that it tends to do so. If, on the other hand it randomly selects substartes and produces random products, we cannot say that it tends towards anything specific. So that which more reliably tends towards a certain end has more "intent" than that which doesn't.
Don't conflate intent with desire though. No one is saying that heavy objects desire to fall to earth or that enzymes have a conscious desire for certain substrates. The fact that these things tend towards these ends without conscious desire points to the conscious desire of something outside themselves.
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 2, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:23 pm
"Tend" is a different word than "intend." Just because we observe a tendency doesn't mean there is intent.
Comment by Zachriel — March 2, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Daniel Smith wrote:
Some do and some don't. The Moon is certainly a heavy object but it does not tend to fall down to earth. In fact, it exhibits the opposite tendency by slowly receding from us.
That's like saying that Michelangelo simply refined a block of marble to make David.
Comment by olegt — March 2, 2010 @ 2:36 pm
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Noted.
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 2, 2010 @ 8:36 pm
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Tell me (because I have no idea), did Aristotle actually say that the moon was falling towards the Earth?
If blocks of marble tend to become Davids, then maybe.
I'm not saying that Aristotle had a better understanding of science than Newton. How could he? (Aristotle: 384 BC – 322 BC; Newton: 1643 AD – 1727 AD). What I'm saying is that nature is full of "the tendency towards specific ends". I'm also saying that an appeal to the properties of matter fails to explain these tendencies.
What is your answer Oleg? Why does some matter tend towards becoming a cell while other matter tends towards becoming a rock? What property of matter determines this? Is there something immaterial that acts upon matter? What is it?
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 2, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Let me clarify what I meant when I said, “For me and all intents and purposes 99.9% of the customers that have been calling Andrea, has passed the Turing test.” Obviously I am not talking about the test as originally construed by Turing. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for the original Turing test it was “not enough for the computer program to fool ‘ordinary observers’ in circumstances other than those in which the test is supposed to take place. What the computer program has to be able to do is to survive interrogation by someone who knows that one of the other two participants in the conversation is a machine.”
Since, the customers are not made aware that Andrea might be a computer program, the test is a blind test. The original Turing test was not. Perhaps I should rephrase my statement sentence to read: ‘For me and all intents and purposes 99.9% of the customers that have been calling Andrea, has passed “a Turing type” test.’
I disagree that her creator would believe that she actually is conscious. The purpose behind the creation of Andrea was not to create a self-conscious being, but create a program that could give the illusion of consciousness. Since Andrea is a very task oriented that is a more technically feasible goal.
Andrea’s creator is going to know how “she” was programmed and scripted as well as “her” limitations. For example, he is going to know that she is a very task oriented savant that limits her interactions with humans to travel related tasks (making reservations, taking down credit card information etc,) and knowledge. There would probably certain limitations, for example, like giving Andrea a sense of humor, especially an impromptu sense of humor.
But none of this would necessarily keep her from interacting with humans in a way that at least seems to be natural, personal and professional. You just script her so she avoids exposing her areas of weakness.
I chose this particular scenario because I think it is something that, if it is not already being developed, is probably feasible in the not too distant future. When I was in college I worked briefly for a telemarketing firm that was involved in raising money for legitimate charities. What I remember about the job was the routine machine-like repetitiveness of the work. We were given a script to learn and instructed not to depart from the script. And after a few days I had the script down and no longer had to read from it. (If a task is machine-like for a human it shouldn’t be that difficult, at some point, for a machine to take over.)
Your example, in my opinion, has Andrea going off script. If humans can stick to the script why wouldn’t a computer, especially if it is programmed that way? If the customer tries to get the agent off script there are polite and professional ways to deal with that.
The point I was trying to make is that there is a difference between the illusion or perception of consciousness and real consciousness. If we really understood consciousness we would be able to describe what it would require to create or replicate it. If the reductionist view of consciousness is true then that is something we should understand. So, do we?
In other words, I can see how it is at least possible to create the illusion of consciousness, but how do we create actual consciousness?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 2, 2010 @ 11:09 pm
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:22 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER:
We know certain important things about human consciousness that we should, in theory, be able to duplicate in computers or special parallel hardware architectures, but have not done so yet to sufficient complexity. I would say these are:
1) The ability to store and retrieve in practical time enormous amounts of integrated information. This parallels the nature of neurons and the vast number of connections to other neurons.
2) Virtual simulations of environments, actors, and self. A program that has any hope of consciousness needs to be able to create and run simulations based on perception and memory that can be used to predict various events in future time. One of the most important simulations is a simulation of self that predicts behavior of other actors, animate and inanimate in the environment given actions of self (something like what we think of as the inner dialog or self reflection). Simulation is a well understand concept in computer science, but the requirements of a virtual simulation of this magnitude also swamps current hardware capacities. (Abstractions –that is, the union of diverse concepts by virtue of certain similarities– may make this task easier by reducing the number of objects that have to be simulated. The trick is of course learning which abstractions are most important for given environments and actors, and that may be why it takes years to "program" the human brain for any kind of competent interaction with its environment.)
These are probably not all the requirements for consciousness, but when we've reached the technological ability to better model 1 and 2, my expectation would be that degree of consciousness is in some sense proportional to the informational capacity, speed and complexity of the implementation.
(I'm also ignoring the issue of qualia which I hope is not the main point here)
Comment by woodchuck64 — March 3, 2010 @ 12:22 pm
March 3rd, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Zachriel,
Thanks for making me think about the difference between a tendency and intent.
Aquinas compared it to an archer shooting an arrow at a target. We can see the tendency of the arrow towards the target, but the intent is not in the arrow, nor is it in the bow, the intent is in the archer. More specifically, the intent is in the mind of the archer.
Nature is replete with examples of things that are not conscious and thus cannot have intentionality or purpose of their own volition, yet nevertheless act as if they do.
Why is that?
Why doesn't nature descend into randomness and chaos?
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 3, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:28 pm
They do not act as if they have intentionality: we interpret their actions as having intentionality. The fact is that we cannot, by observation, identify intentionality. We only know about the intentionality behind the arrow because we understand the archer.
Because there are other sources of order than intentionality.
Comment by don provan — March 3, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:02 pm
We are not just talking about order here Don. We are talking about the bulk of nature acting as if it has a job to do and being about the business of getting that job done. That's more than mere order. The fact that these things reliably and repeatedly act towards an end – though they cannot consciously choose that end – shows that their actions are not random or fortuitous. No these tendencies must exist by design.
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 3, 2010 @ 4:02 pm
March 3rd, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Comment by don provan — March 3, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
March 3rd, 2010 at 8:04 pm
This is obviously true to all parties. All the rest of the chatter in this thread is useless drivvel. If there is a designer, the designer may show itself one day and put the matter to rest. Until then, what is to be gained by the endless ping pong of useless verbiage?
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 3, 2010 @ 8:04 pm
March 3rd, 2010 at 8:24 pm
What is order?
Comment by chunkdz — March 3, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
March 3rd, 2010 at 8:58 pm
The opposite of randomness and chaos.
Comment by don provan — March 3, 2010 @ 8:58 pm
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:31 pm
No, really. What definition are you using for 'order'? What are the characteristics?
Comment by chunkdz — March 3, 2010 @ 9:31 pm
March 3rd, 2010 at 11:01 pm
LOL @ chunkdz! I can feel Don "Made of Meat" Provan's Google searches slowing the Internet down even as I type this.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 3, 2010 @ 11:01 pm
March 4th, 2010 at 1:03 am
angryoldfatman:
I had a tough time downloading earlier.
Things are working more smoothly now since Don went to bed.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 1:03 am
March 4th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
What is problematic is that the mainstream on the whole is committed to coming up with illogical and fruitless explanations as accepted truth, such as the Origin of Life via physics and chemistry.
Physics and chemsitry are necessary but not sufficient explanations for the architecture of physical computers. Living organisms implement physical self-replicating computers.
A computer's most important salient features MUST transcend physical and chemical law, thus it cannot ever be explained purely in terms of physics and chemistry, but must be described in terms of information and mentalist constructs outside of physical law. I've given up trying to waste too much time with the OOL industry committed to perpetuating their own self delusions. Computer information processing systems don't spring up from primordial soups spontaneously, PERIOD.
Just as it is unscientific to look for square circles in Euclidean geometry, so it is unscientific at this stage to look for purely chemical and physical explanations for life.
Physicist Yockey, Neils Bohr, von Neumann, Wigner pointed out issues with the OOL eneterprise.
Science is about: observation, hypothesis, testing
In that regard, OOL has been:
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Failure and repeated failure
Darwinian evolution:
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Story Telling with many contradictions and unprovable assertions
Theories in Physics a Chemistry:
1. Observation: famous observational, even serendipitous experiments like rutherford scattering, davisson germer, michelson morely
2. Hypothesis
3. Success and failure, but spectacular success with specific experiments to celebrate:
heinrich hertz creation of radio waves, stern gerlach, practically all that is found in modern technology…..
How much of modern technology benefits from the Darwinian hypothesis: zero. Ideas of natural selection and differential reproductive success have roots in creationists like Blyth. The presumption we evolved from lower forms via a mindless process offers zero scientific insight compared to the insights of operational physics, chemistry, and biology (like medical science).
So the "progressive diminishment of man" is coming from quarters that have a dubious scientific track record (OOL and Darwinian evolution).
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 4, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
March 4th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
If I am following your argument here, consciousness is an emergent property of “informational capacity, speed and complexity of the implementation.” In other words, if you develop the hardware and software with the appropriate “capacity, speed and complexity”… voila! we have consciousness. On the other hand, maybe you were trying to argue something else.
That seems to be what Ray Kurzweil is claiming in the following article. Because of Moore’s law, he argues, and the apparent fact that computer technology appears to be growing, not only exponentially, but “double exponentially” we will have machines that by perhaps sometime in the 2030’s be able to match human capabilities.
But will these computers really be conscious? Back in 2002 Kurzweil was willing to concede, well maybe not.
That of course brings us back to the question, what is consciousness? Here I agree with Kurzweil. The question is an ontological one.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 4, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 10:00 am
You seem to be missing the full implications of the statement "intentionality is not in the objects or their actions". If it is not "in them" (that is, inherent to matter) then it must come from outside them (that is from something other than matter – something immaterial.) So what is immaterial and capable of directing, organizing and sustaining nature?
An "end" is an observable result. Yes, rivers, clouds, water, weather… all these things must be designed. Their tendencies are not reducible to matter.
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 5, 2010 @ 10:00 am
March 11th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Daniel Smith,
Earlier you said something about "intent".
Well science does have a way of determining intent- by figuring out what it took to do it.
Murder- intent.
Robbery- intent.
Vandalism- intent.
Archeology- intent.
The point being is don't let oleg and Zachriel try to take you off track.
Comment by ID guy — March 11, 2010 @ 9:37 am
March 11th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
I'm not sure I can really sort through all your confusion.
First, you haven't established that there's intentionality at all, so claiming you know where it must be is silly.
Second, if intentionality is not in the object you are observing, it does not follow that the source could not be some other material object.
Comment by don provan — March 11, 2010 @ 8:31 pm
March 11th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
I'm not sure what else to tell you. Daniel asked, "Why doesn't nature descend into randomness and chaos?" By "order", I meant whatever Daniel meant that was other than randomnes and chaos. If you're trying to say that Daniel and I are not understanding each other, perhaps you could do it in a more constructive way. I don't think we're having any trouble, myself.
Comment by don provan — March 11, 2010 @ 8:34 pm