Posted on 02/12/2005 4:24:09 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
It seems you do recognize there is something going on in biological systems which is more than the physical laws can address but that you are also confident that whatever it is must be corporeal, i.e. exist in space/time.
That is somewhat different from my view.
Whereas I can see an as yet undiscovered field-like host for the will to live which is common among all living things (amoeba, bacteria, whales, viruses, man, etc.) --- I also see that something more than that is required to explain the unique willfulness of man, in particular individual man. (my post 582)
For Lurkers - in Physics, a "field" exists at all points of space/time.
That unique willfulness of man is the non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal - spirit or soul. In Scripture it would be ruach and neshama - a sense of good and evil, right and wrong, altruism and selfishness, etc. as well as a yearning or sense of belonging "beyond" space/time. In Scriptural parlance, "ears to hear".
The field-like host to consciousness would be nephesh in Scriptural parlance.
I like to think of the mind as a multitude of signals riding on a carrier wave, the action of the neurons. Neurons fire in isolation at a nearly steady rate. In the brain their firing rate and timing is affected by the signals of connected neurons. The connections are electrochemical rather than electronic. There is an incredible amount of slop in the determination of when and whether to fire. I personally don't think it will ever be possible to record or reproduce the personality of a living person. Just my opinion, but I think the sloppiness of the brain is similar to the sloppiness of evolution. It looks bizarre to a computer engineer, but it probably makes the system better than it would be if the tolerances were tight.
I can tell you that when my car is totaled in a collision, it probably won't run anymore, and it may not be "fixable." Even though it still has a driver (me), it still wouldn't be able to take me anywhere.
If the brain is a "machine" or tool of consciousness (which is my argument), if it is "totaled in a collision, it probably won't run anymore. And it may not be 'fixable.'"
This seemingly was the case with my late Aunt Ann, whose Lou Gehrig's disease eventually impaired brain function as regards speech. The loss of function did not cause her to lose the ability and desire to keep on communicating. She was sharp as a tack and lively to communicate still and always, right up to her death. But she had to write notes on paper, which aggravated her to no end. R.I.P. dear Ann.
Neuroscience is doing quite well without assuming extra dimensions. It will, in due time, offer hypotheses for many things that are now speculation.
Again, I think any hypothesis that assumes new and unmeasurable attributes of matter will have to have some predictive power that is superior to hypotheses that work with measurable phenomena.
The first thing they need to do is explain things we already have explanations for, such as the physical basis for mental deficits.
I am sorry to hear about your aunt. I had an uncle with the syndrome that was the basis of the movie, "Memento." He could remember things for about ten or fifteen minutes, and if you kept up a conversation, he could keep track of it longer. But every morning he started out with the assumption that it was the day of his "stroke." He lived like this for 25 years, and his wife never deserted him.
Behe jumped the shark, perhaps. Big deal. Darwin is worm food.
Patience, MEGoodythe worms await us one and all.
Golden lads and girls all must,
As chimney sweepers come to dust.
It is only logical. Every successful communication must have an inception, a beginning, an origination. This is where we are focused. When you willfully decide to move your finger, a cascade of successful communications continues through your molecular machinery until that will is made manifest.
This does not require a physical field hosted in extra dimensions (beyond the three spatial, one time we are able to sense with our mind and vision) but neither does it preclude such a field. If it were a field in our 4D block or even if it existed in extra-dimensions it would still be in space/time of a different geometry and therefore corporeal.
The only reference on this thread to the supernatural is my own and that applies to the unique willfulness of man - especially, individual man - as compared to all other life.
Nor could the will be located in the physical brain when we know of creatures who act willfully but have no brain (amoeba, etc.) - and other collectives of creatures (such as ants and bees) which act together with a single will.
It suggests that the will is non-local and real which is why we believe it is "field-like" if not an actual field, like gravity, electro/magnetism, strong and weak atomic.
That unique willfulness of man is the non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal - spirit or soul.
If there is a plurality of souls, each being "non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal", how would one soul be distinguished from another?
Sounds like Shakespeare's Cymbeline.
Or are you perchance a Loreena McKennitt fan?
Cheers!
Hi grey-whiskers! Granted, and granted. But can you grant me something in return -- could there possibly be real things in the universe that are not amenable to falsification using the methods of science, in principle (e.g., subjective elements like feelings, "qualia," pain, et al. -- you do seem already to grant this)? If there is a "ghost in the machine" of living systems -- and there are reputable scientists working today who suggest the entire universe is alive in some fashion, and so hypothetically has a universe-size "ghost in the machine," as it were -- how are you gonna take this into a laboratory to test it? How does one isolate the ghost? Is it possible that the philosophers, theologians, and mathematicians might have a better method than science for problems of this nature?
Perhaps folks who want to reduce the universe entirely to the categories and competence of science both shrink and falsify the universe as the price paid for what they do. If this is so, would we not lose some part of reality in the process?
I've not heard Loreena McKennitt's music, but I've heard the name. Perhaps I should try to find some of it? Any suggestions?
Our correspondents seem to want to ignore this evidence, Alamo-Girl. Either that or they have not yet appreciated its full significance.
It suggests that the will is non-local and real which is why we believe it is "field-like" if not an actual field, like gravity, electro/magnetism, strong and weak atomic.
Perhaps there are biofields at work, extending both to life and consciousness. (The "ghost in the machine" may be facilitated by such.) There is much interesting work going on today along these lines!
Thank you so much for writing!
we really care professor, forgive me for drawing you out, thats so i could take time to be more helpful now..you know logic
:
the 29+arguments error in 4.1-2 is hidden assumption (p & p&q>r & p>r .: r, invalid if 3rd premiss false). stated simply p='only heredity is observed to copy full proteins', q='only observed mechanisms can copy full proteins', r=common descent..
they assume q that design can't copy full proteins needed, but evidence is !q that it can..human design has copied many long proteins which evos regard as sufficient proof human design will someday copy the whole cell
SINCE design can copy full proteins needed (even if not observed to yet), common descent dnf (doesnt follow)..admit please
:
your error, by contrast, was affirming the consequent (q & p>q .: p, invalid). p = common descent, q = 'a reconstructible tree of sim/diff dna exists'..can convert to hidden assumption (q & p>q & !p>!q .: p, invalid if 3rd premiss false)..
you said p>q: the DNA sequences were found experimentally to be consistent with a common ancestor.
you said q: I guarantee the DNA sequences, with no assumptions.., will allow the biologist reconstruct the evolutionary tree. (sic)
you didn't say !p>!q which would be: if not all have common descent, the tree cannot exist
!p>!q is false because: if not all have common descent, design can produce a similar tree, proven above
THUS common descent dnf..say maybe you missed 306 earlier??
:
your other post was beautiful science, incisive, compellingly put, & yes fun, except this invalid assumption vision thing..please lets answer why you think design is not a valid mechanism
:
..i have 2 mechanisms for copying comments: cut&paste or retype..comment mutations can either arise by edit after cut&paste, or transcript error/edit during retype
if i copy and mutate comments many times, you can lay out a tree of sim/diff comments based on fewer/more mutations..it proves 00 about which means i used at any unobserved time even if all the time you observed me i used cut&paste..
in a nutshell you say the tree is evolutionary like all evolutionary trees (circular argument, p>p .: p, invalid, details left as exercise to reader)..in re ff: 2 pet 3
'I' is also objectified. Putting it in language as the first person does not automatically make it subjective.
you ask: Can you give me an example of something not currently known but which is under study, that might produce evidence against design?
essay on my homepage lists a few..for most of them the evidence is already in but not accepted by all yet..
"I" is the subject of the sentence, "I did." Did is the verb, past tense of "to do." Plus as I'm sure you're aware RightWhale, the first-person pronoun is often taken to be synonymous with the idea of a "self," ego, or soul....
'I' is an object, another 'other'. We might let an accident of language distract us from objective truth. Does the structure of the language dictate how we perceive the world?
lots of folks think evolution contradicts design, you don`t..if more thot like you then they`d let design be taught with evolution..
but you say design not falsifiable..please see the essay on my homepage..
is universe orderly?? this is measurable..it is.
did it originate orderly?? this is testable..it did.
did life come from nonlife because of order?? this is testable..it did.
design permits common descent in fact behe believes in common descent it might surprise you..so what remains to require design be banned??
The structure of a language does dictate the world.
you`re right about empiricism but so often we counterfeit it with circular assumptions..
good science: evolution predicts 1 2 3 4, design predicts not1 not2, we see not1 not2, thus design likely but still adjustable..
bad science: evolution predicts 1 2 3 4, who cares what design predicts, we see 3 4 and sorta 1 2, thus evolution shall not be challenged,,
we've already demolished 4.1-2 of mr theobald by this method, pls suggest other good arguments thx
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.