The Future of Biology: Reverse Engineering

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 3/14/05 | Staff

[js1138]

Can you give me a coherent reason why matter and spirit cannot be manifestations of the same underlying reality. If physics can cope with wave/particle duality, why is it necessary for philosophy to insist on an either/or solution?

[OhioAttorney]

Can you give me a coherent reason why matter and spirit cannot be manifestations of the same underlying reality. If physics can cope with wave/particle duality, why is it necessary for philosophy to insist on an either/or solution?

AquinasFan, would you mind pinging me on your reply to this question? It's relevant to our earlier exchange about whether 'mind' is automatically going to count as 'supernatural'. (For the record, I'm basically with js1138 on this issue but I think it makes better sense to regard 'mind' as more fundamental than 'matter'.)

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

I haven't followed the debate on FR, but I've never seen such an IDer anywhere else either.

Been to ARN.Org much? Where there are Pro ID *scientists* who regularly take part in the discussions? Have you heard of Mike Gene or Bill Dembski?

ARN

[js1138]

I think most of the problems in philosophy arise from overextending metaphors. The concept of matter is my prime case. The supposed properties of matter have been truncated by philosophers and theologians who visualize matter as interacting billiard balls.

[PatrickHenry]

Now that is a well-written -- and well reasoned -- post. (And not at all because you referenced my humble links. You have -- in my always humble opinion -- vaulted into the upper ranks of posters.

[Doctor Stochastic]

... since murder is always wrong.

Ultimately, I would have to abide by my bishop's decision.

If your bishop tells you that killing your children isn't murder (perhaps because they are possessed by the devil) then what?

What if there are two conflicting bishops? The whole spiritualist outlook seems like a formula for conflict.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The supposed properties of matter have been truncated by philosophers and theologians who visualize matter as interacting billiard balls.

Leibniz thought of them as non-interacting billiard balls or monads.

I'm not sure philosophers or theologians would do much better to visualize matter as interacting complex wavefunctions either.

[OhioAttorney]

I humbly thank you, O Most Humble Sir. And don't be too humble about your Page O' Links; that's one of the best resources on that subject available on the Net. (Within my humble experience, of course :-).)

[OhioAttorney]

I think most of the problems in philosophy arise from overextending metaphors. The concept of matter is my prime case. The supposed properties of matter have been truncated by philosophers and theologians who visualize matter as interacting billiard balls.

That's a good point that brings up another: it's hard to settle on a meaning of 'materialism' without first settling on a meaning of 'matter'. If our understanding of 'matter' expands to the point that we regard it as including 'mental' properties, there will be a lot more 'materialists' than there are now.

[TigerTale]

What criteria could separate between "designed" and "naturalistic" phenomena?

This is the key question ID has to answer before it can cross the dividing line between philosophy and natural science. "Irreducible Complexity" seems to be an attempt at an answer, but the irreducible keeps getting reduced--we have yet to see an example of IR in the real world.

If ID produces a set of intellectual tools by which design can be distinguished from apparent design, it can become an expirimental science with the possibility of verifiable results. Until then, it will remain a pursuit better suited to philosophers than to biologists.

[b_sharp]

"Social structures can inherit old theories and wrap them in layers of instutionality of all sorts -- people's careers and institutions tied to a given way of looking at the world. They -- as history shows again, and again and again -- become very jealous of a certain way of looking at the world. Not only reactive -- but resistive -- lossey."

That is true to a certain extent, however, the occurrence of resistance to change in the past does not mean it is happening now. It is simply not an argument.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply! Indeed, Godel and Einstein continued the debate started between Aristotle and Plato. It continues today between Hawking and Penrose.

[Alamo-Girl]

Actually js1138, I have seen a pretty good theoretical solution to the problems of life and consciousness that is premised on a universal evolutionary model based on physics and mathematics/geometry, in a manuscript currently being prepared for publication. I really do wish I could say more about it here, but I do not have the necessary permissions. When the time comes though, I'll be putting up billboards all over the place!

And I'll be doing what I can to strongly recommend it also!

[b_sharp]

"Cute post, but I must correct your tagline if you're going to want to be properly mocking ID. "

It was just a note that more than one answer can be correct.

""Bible" is ALWAYS capitalized. Look it up in your grammar book. "

I left it uncapitalized because in that context it simply means 'book' therebye including faiths other than Christian. I will correct it because your point is valid. Thanks.

"Welcome to FR, hope you have thick skin if you're going to remain a darwinist on this thread. "

I've argued against YECs for a couple of years so my skin is fairly thick. My concern is not having enough time to devote to fully answering posts.

"Contact PatrickHenry if you want on the evo ping though."

Thanks. I've been on PatrickHenry's list for a few weeks.

[js1138]

The case of Andrea Yeats is straightforward. If, right now, I heard voices telling me to kill my children, I would know with certainty that they were demonic, a defect of my imagination or some other disorder, since murder is always wrong.

You are assuming that there are no brain defects that could change your fundamental understanding of reality. This assumption would have to ignore clinical experience.

I understand there is a problem of measurement here: who decides who is sane and who is insane. But in this case the majority rules, even if there is no way to prove the majority is right.

Unrelated to the problem of demon possession, there is a famous case of an artist who lost his color vision due to a brain injury. It is possible, of course, for colorblind people to understand the concept of color, but this artist lost his memory of color and his ability to understand the concept of color. He was unable to imagine color in any way.

There are countless syndromes like this in which a brain deficit or injury results in the inability to understand or imagine what is lost.

If the true locus of consciousness is not the physical brain, then brain injuries should be perceived as a loss in the same way that loss of a limb is perceived. But this isn't the way it works. Brain disfunctions frequently "close," leaving the individual without the ability to perceive the loss.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

me: ...the design of the biological system to regulate temperature has a purpose...

you: You are assuming the conclusion. There is nothing in the paper that shows purpose, only use. Things may be used for various purposes; leather's first use may be holding cows together, but that doesn't stop it from being ant food later.

You are torturing the meaning of the word "purpose".

Hyperdictionary

1. [n] the quality of being determined to do or achieve something; "his determination showed in his every movement"; "he is a man of purpose"

2. [n] what something is used for; "the function of an auger is to bore holes"; "ballet is beautiful but what use is it?"

3. [n] an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions; "his intent was to provide a new translation"; "good intentions are not enough"; "it was created with the conscious aim of answering immediate needs"; "he made no secret of his designs"

Again, I assert that the purpose of the design (reverse engineered by the study in question) is to regulate temperature. That is what the design is used for, i.e. to regulate temperature. Therefore, I assert the study evidenced both design and purpose.

Perhaps it is the inference of intent which is unsettling, i.e. does design + purpose suggest intent? To me, it does. To others, it may not.

[Aquinasfan]

You are assuming that there are no brain defects that could change your fundamental understanding of reality. This assumption would have to ignore clinical experience.

I'm pleading ignorance here. Would you explain further?

But since we can't get inside other people's heads, it seems that we're up against the limits of our ability to know anything here with certainty.

Brain disfunctions frequently "close," leaving the individual without the ability to perceive the loss.

The ability of the mind to receive sensible forms depends on the proper functioning of the body's sense organs, so this would not contradict an essentially non-material theory of sense cognition.

[OhioAttorney]

The ability of the mind to receive sensible forms depends on the proper functioning of the body's sense organs, so this would not contradict an essentially non-material theory of sense cognition.

(Aside: for similar reasons, it also wouldn't tell against the practice of prescribing chemical medication to treat psychological disorders. So the current practice of 'doping' students -- whatever else is wrong with it -- doesn't imply, as you suggested in an earlier post, that the psychologists who do so are necessarily materialists.)

[js1138]

You are torturing the meaning of the word "purpose".

LOL. Two of your dictionary definitions include will or intention. So you are saying that intention=intention.

[Aquinasfan]

If your bishop tells you that killing your children isn't murder (perhaps because they are possessed by the devil) then what?

I didn't make myself clear. The natural law is "the first line of defense." Murder is always wrong. So, with regard to the Yeats case, there would be no need for me to seek the counsel of my bishop to determine my course of action. The case with Joan of Arc is different, since the command to undertake a war against England wasn't intrinsically evil. Whether such a course of action was prudent, or commanded by God, would have been difficult to determine.

Parenthetically, the fact of my children's possession is irrelevant. Murder is always wrong.

What if there are two conflicting bishops? The whole spiritualist outlook seems like a formula for conflict.

I am always obligated to act according to my conscience, but I am never permitted to do anything that is intrinsically evil. Since I am obligated to act according to my conscience, I am obligated to inform my conscience as best I can.

Bishops' opinions frequently differ, particularly regarding the prudence of particular courses of action, i.e., the application of principles to particular circumstances. In normal disciplinary matters (not doctrinal matters), I'm obligated to abide by the decision of my bishop, unless his command violates my conscience or the natural law.