Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Behe Jumps the Shark [response to Michael Behe's NYTimes op-ed, "Design for Living"]
Butterflies and Wheels (reprinted from pharyngula.org) ^ | February 7, 2005 | P. Z. Myers

Posted on 02/12/2005 4:24:09 PM PST by snarks_when_bored

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620 ... 881-899 next last
To: Physicist; longshadow
Headline from the Pennsylvania Gazette: BIZARRE LAB INCIDENT

Physics professor, noted for his determination to prove that humans have free will, was taken to the campus emergency room after he was discovered to have been overcome by what one physician described as an extreme case of "colonic shoe intrusion syndrome," which he declined to describe further. After briefly regaining consciousness, and being asked what had happened, the stricken physicist mysteriously repeated William Wallace's final cry: "Freedom!!"

581 posted on 02/16/2005 7:47:15 AM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: js1138; betty boop; RightWhale; bvw; Physicist
Er, if I may...

One of the problems with associating thinking, willfulness and memory with the brain is that we also see it in biological systems where there is no brain.

The amoeba, for instance, which has been exposed to Chinese ink, will remember the experience and refuse to go for it the next time.

The will to live exists in all living organisms, from bacteria to whales. And even if one uses the Shannon definition (successful communications) to delineate between what is life v non-life/death - viruses have the will to live.

This is prima facie evidence that the will does not exist in the physical brain.

betty boop suggests that consciousness is field-like for an individual. I believe we are on the same "wave length" in that regard.

I perceive the "will to live" being universal (perhaps a field) or perhaps global to this biosphere, i.e. Fecundity principle, the evolution of one. Thus the phenomenon of collective consciousness among bees, ants, etc. - and the trend to autonomy, semiosis and self-organizing complexity. In Scriptures this might be the nephesh spoken of in Genesis 1, the soul of living creatures and perhaps the will of the "creature" (the whole) as described in Romans 8.

But man has a much greater willfulness than this - a sense of good and evil, right and wrong, altruism and selfishness, etc. He is much more likely to rebel against the natural order of things. All physical laws are obeyed in non-life and in life but man seeks to overcome their constraints by his inventions whether airplanes or refrigerators or by experiments in the physics lab. He rebels against nature as well, growing plants out-of-season, inventing new breeds and cloning sheep. He wages war and peace. In Scriptures this would be called the ruach.

Men (or at least some men) also have a sense of reality which transcends the measurable, i.e. space/time. It is as if he knows he belongs to something much greater, or that he doesn't belong "here". He seeks Truth. He seeks God. In Scriptures this would be called the neshama or ‘breath of God’.

In “My Credo” Einstein framed it this way:

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.


582 posted on 02/16/2005 8:19:43 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
The amoeba, for instance, which has been exposed to Chinese ink, will remember the experience and refuse to go for it the next time.

I'm sorry, but amoebas are cells and neurons are cells. The fact that neurons are specialized is not evidence that other cells can't learn or have other sensitivities, such as photosensivity or magnetic orientation.

583 posted on 02/16/2005 8:34:12 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 582 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

I don't think the philosophical problem of free will can be solved, but operationally, the sense of free will is most noticable when we engage in non-coerced, non-habitual activity. Dreaming dreams of things that are not, but might be.


584 posted on 02/16/2005 8:46:37 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: js1138; betty boop; RightWhale; bvw; Physicist
Thank you for your reply!

I'm sorry, but amoebas are cells and neurons are cells. The fact that neurons are specialized is not evidence that other cells can't learn or have other sensitivities, such as photosensivity or magnetic orientation.

Perhaps I didn't make my point well enough.

The "will to live" is voluntary, i.e. willful. Specialization, function and capability are involuntary, i.e. circumstantial.

Since you brought it up, it is fascinating to note that the “will to live” accrues to the autonomous organism or collective (in the case of ants and bees). All of the composite molecular machinery (cardiovascular, neural, digestive, etc.) integrates to that purpose for the organism or collective.

The “theory of evolution” does not address these things – the will to live, the autonomy, the integration of function to purpose, information (successful communication) and semiosis (encoding/decoding).

All of this is related to the study of complexity in biological systems - an endeavor of the mathematicians who have been invited to the evolution table. That may have been a “fatal attraction” since these are also related to the objections raised by the Intelligent Design supporters whether they see the Designer as God, aliens (panspermia, cosmic ancestry, astrobiology) or collective consciousness.

585 posted on 02/16/2005 9:31:25 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

I see your "will to live" as part of a failed attempt to reduce biology to physics. Matter has different properties and behaviors at different levels of organization. Physics can set limits to the component behavior of matter, but it cannot predict the behavior of matter at biological levels of organization.

Your problem concerning the will to live is really just a restatement of the problem of abiogenesis, which is admittedly unsolved.


586 posted on 02/16/2005 9:46:07 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
In crystal growing there are poisons. Small amounts of which stop the growth. The grower must ensure that poisons are avoided in the solution or spray from which the crystals are grown. For example water is poison to growing diamonds.

Yet growers of saw grit diamonds, wanting more edge then face, will use some poison (water) in the growth mix. The water keeps the face down.

That is the grower's mix of things is very important. In studying evolution -- especially from fossil inference, the little influences -- the poisons, the catalysts, the seed start points -- can not be discerned beyond some extent or in rare circumstance.

587 posted on 02/16/2005 9:51:25 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: js1138; Physicist; Alamo-Girl; marron; PatrickHenry; cornelis; StJacques; ckilmer; ...
...operationally, the sense of free will is most noticable when we engage in non-coerced, non-habitual activity. Dreaming dreams of things that are not, but might be.

Oddly enough, js1138, I think the very reverse of this statement is actually the truth of the matter. I'll explain why in a minute, but first I wonder about your use of the terms, the "sense of free will" being "noticeable." I wonder whether free will is a "sensible" or "noticeable" thing in the first place. At least not in the sense of an isolatable entity. Free will is something that can only be seen in its effects. "Dreaming of things that are not, but might be," seems not a good indication of the presence of free will, but only of the presence of an active imagination whose projects are yet unrealized. I think free will, like love, is an action, not a proper noun.

It seems the best place to observe free will in action would precisely be where force is being relentlessly applied to constrain it. Say, a concentration camp. This was psychologist Viktor Frankl's insight. He was incarcerated by Hitler during World War II (I don't remember which concentration camp), but he managed to survive. While in the camp, he made many observations of how different prisoners reacted to the horrors of their situation. He was struck by extraordinary acts of selfless kindness, of self-denial for the benefit of someone more in need than one's self, as well as situations in which prisoners "just gave up" and psychologically, virtually catatonically withdrew into themselves, "beaten by the system," as it were, and practically speaking the dead victims of it while still alive. Based on these observations, Frankl's conclusion was that a man's final freedom is his sovereign ability to choose how he will react in any given situation.

I read two of his books, years ago -- so I'm going by memory here. But I'd like to recommend them to you: Man's Search for Meaning, and The Doctor and the Soul: From Psychotherapy to Logotherapy. Both are extraordinary. The first recapitulates the concentration camp experiences; the second is what I would call a "humanization" of Freud's and Jung's psychological "theories." (IMHO both really need it. I put "theories" in quotation marks here because it is striking, remarkable to me how relentlessly unscientific both men were in their methods....)

FWIW. Thanks for writing!

588 posted on 02/16/2005 9:55:14 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: qam1

Instead of your own predilection (misrepresented by the way as "common sense") why don't you go ask the people you have have carried that story along in far more detail, preserving it for generation after generation. In other words do some research -- ask the experts. Why suffer a burden of misunderstanding when you might -- in true scientific researcher fashion -- resolve the issue. Certainly it would add to your understanding, and who wouldn't look to add to accurate understandings?


589 posted on 02/16/2005 9:57:43 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: js1138; Physicist; Alamo-Girl; marron

p.s.: I left out another type of prisoner response to the concentration camp experience: Those who chose to collude with the Nazis against their own fellow prisoner, in hopes of receiving better treatment, in hopes of improving their chances of survival. Up to and including sheparding their fellow prisoners to the gas chamber....


590 posted on 02/16/2005 10:09:31 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
case of "colonic shoe intrusion syndrome," which he declined to describe further.

Sounds like The Angry American by Toby Keith.
Only the boot is supposed to go in the other guy's *ss, dummy!

Cheers!

591 posted on 02/16/2005 10:17:59 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 581 | View Replies]

To: js1138; betty boop; RightWhale; bvw; Physicist
Thank you for your reply! I see your "will to live" as part of a failed attempt to reduce biology to physics.

Er, the physical laws are preeminent in space/time. If there were failure, they would not be physical laws.

Matter has different properties and behaviors at different levels of organization. Physics can set limits to the component behavior of matter, but it cannot predict the behavior of matter at biological levels of organization.

Again, physical laws are preeminent in space/time. However, I do agree with you that biological systems are like machinery man invents to counter physical laws, e.g. the refrigerator.

For instance, information in biological systems is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in the molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state. Each bit gained has a corresponding dissipation of energy in the local surroundings (thermodynamics).

IOW, even though the biological organism acts willfully, it must always pay the tab of the physical laws in space/time.

Your problem concerning the will to live is really just a restatement of the problem of abiogenesis, which is admittedly unsolved.

It is not a "problem" to me and it is much, much more than abiogenesis!

The issue at bottom is the rise of complexity in biological systems - information, autonomy, semiosis. It may or may not look at abiogenesis v biogenesis. Complexity arose all along the fossil record. The investigators are mathematicians and physicists; the two main avenues are algorithmic information theory (Kolmogorov complexity) and self-organizing complexity (the von Neumann challenge).

IMHO, the biologists seem to have a much too simple concept of what life is. H.H. Pattee said they weren't even interested in the question.

592 posted on 02/16/2005 10:18:05 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Thank you for your very informative post! But did you intend it for me? You were having a sidebar with someone else on growing crystals.
593 posted on 02/16/2005 10:19:39 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

I've read Man's Search for Meaning (40 years ago!). And, of course, there is the defiant slave laborer in the movie, Dr. Zhivago ("I am the only free man here").

Resistence to tyranny is politically interesting, but I don't believe it is a special case when discussing free will. The philosophical problem of free will revolves around the question of motivation. Where there is motive there is a determining factor. I don't think resistence presents any puzzles over motivation. If anything, one's choices are limited to submission or defiance.

I am not terribly impressed by the problem of deciding. Deciding implies a multiple choice list of options, all motivated. For me, the curious problems involve creativity and production of novel things. Given your prison camp scenerio, I am impressed by the guys who built a glider in the attic -- the true story inspiration for the movie Chicken Run.


594 posted on 02/16/2005 10:22:12 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
This is prima facie evidence that the will does not exist in the physical brain.

Perhaps an overstatement, here?

Other suggestions:

"does not always"
"need not"
"can [exist] in other places besides"

And then we have the whole problem of "instinct" e.g. see some accounts in When The Air Hits Your Brain by neurosurgeon Frank Vertosick, where he recounts removing most of the brain of cats, and the reactions of the cats' owners afterwards that "they couldn't tell the difference". In other words, much behavior may be ingrained in muscle memory or elsewhere, without the brain being required to perform the action--but the brain may still play a role in when, how often, how extreme the action is performed, and in regard to what stimuli.

In other words, how sure are you that the situation must be an "either / or " ??

Cheers! [Full Disclosure : Just stirring the pot]

595 posted on 02/16/2005 10:23:00 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 582 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much for the great insight!

It seems the best place to observe free will in action would precisely be where force is being relentlessly applied to constrain it. Say, a concentration camp.

Indeed. The range of choices made by the prisoners is strong evidence of free will.

596 posted on 02/16/2005 10:26:07 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I don't think the philosophical problem of free will can be solved, but operationally, the sense of free will is most noticable when we engage in non-coerced, non-habitual activity. Dreaming dreams of things that are not, but might be.

This sounds quite similar to a point made by G.K. Chesterton (IIRC, in Orthodoxy).

Cheers!

PS--DON'T think about Pink Elephants! /grin

597 posted on 02/16/2005 10:37:16 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers; betty boop
Thank you for your reply and the interesting experiment about removing much of the cats' brains!

In other words, how sure are you that the situation must be an "either / or " ??

I am quite certain that the will does not exist in the physical brain.

I would add however that where the autonomous organism (like the cat) is comprised of molecular machinery (cardiovascual, neural, digestive, etc.) integrated to the purpose of satisfying the organism's will to live --- that the brain is the most frequent (but perhaps not exclusive) site of the origination (inception or beginning) of the cascade of information (successful communication) throughout the organism to accomplish its will.

This is based on the Shannon "mathematical theory of communications" - which is the bedrock to "information theory and molecular biology". Shannon's theory is the basis of the field, "information theory".

Information is the "reduction of uncertainty in the receiver or molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state". It is the action, not the message. The value or meaning of the message is irrelevant to the theory.

598 posted on 02/16/2005 10:40:55 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Physics can set limits to the component behavior of matter, but it cannot predict the behavior of matter at biological levels of organization.

To stir the pot (two ways):

Recently, Right Wing Professor has confidently predicted the ability to model (say on a large cluster of PC's) an entire cell from the governing physical and/or chemical equations. Do you agree?

Or (to put it another way), do you feel the inability to predict behaviour at biological levels of organization is due to
a) 'emergent' properties at sufficent complexity
b) "we just don't have enough horsepower"
c) grey_whiskers hasn't been following the thread closely enough and "I just answered this d*mn point, *ssshole!" /rueful grin

599 posted on 02/16/2005 10:41:00 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: js1138; Alamo-Girl; Physicist; marron; tortoise; RightWhale; PatrickHenry; Right Wing Professor; ...
Dreaming, if you assume the world is objectively real, is pure mental experience, unattached to the real world. But it is not unattached to the brain.

Dear js1138, you stipulate as if the matter you describe had been already validated. So please allow me to counter-stipulate on the same terms.

Consciousness is not unattached from the brain. Unless the brain is dead, of course. The brain is like a kind of geiger counter, recording the activity of neuronal firings, etc., etc. That is to say the brain is not the cause of the neuronal firings, etc., etc. It facilitates them, and can produce a read-out if properly hooked up to an EEG. Then we, the observer can look at the read-out, recognize patterns of activity, etc., etc. But we cannot say that the brain knows anything about that, or is "aware" of these activities.

Consciousness also includes unconscious states; dreaming is likely a good example of such. Consciousness also includes self-consciousness, which (apparently) is an attribute of humans only (as far as we know). But all living organisms -- definitely including Alamo-Girl's amoeba, which in the experiment was observed to "learn" the difference between india ink and a food source, so as not to mistake the former for the latter, and so "wouldn't be fooled again" -- possess some type of sentience, awareness -- and these are things that also belong to consciousness. So I agree with Alamo-Girl: even living organisms that do not have organized brains still have access to some form of consciousness.

And so I think that consciousness in all its forms (including dreaming) definitely belongs to the real world; for it is the distinctive, perhaps determinative, attribute of all living things in some form or fashion.

You said you thought A-G was trying to reduce biology to physics. As I'm somewhat aware of her thoughts in this matter, I'd hazard to say that what she's about is to rescue biology from physics -- in the sense that biology isn't reducible to the physical laws. Or to put it another way, living organisms have a physical basis, plus something else which is not physical. The latter is what makes them living. (Alamo-Girl, please correct the record if I've misrepresented your views here.)

You wrote: "Freeper tortoise has assurred us that AI researches have a handle on what needs to be done to simulate this in silicon, but adds the stipulation that we can't build the hardware yet...."

The operative word in this statement, it seems to me, is simulate. Obviously, before someone may "simulate" something, there must first be a something to simulate. That something, however, remains unaffected, whether the simulation is successful or not: Either way, it continues to be the something it is.

600 posted on 02/16/2005 10:48:47 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620 ... 881-899 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson