Posted on 08/24/2005 6:51:49 AM PDT by Quick1
I would certainly NOT want a "theory" disclaimer for global warming or homosexuality as a genetic trait. Neither of these are theories. They are at best hypotheses, and at worst WAG's, but neither rises to the level of theory.
So then, prove that the gravitational attraction between Alpha Centuri and your computer is as given by Newton's law. Prove that EVERY pair of objects in the universe attracts each other with a force proportional to the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them. Prove that this is correct even if the distance separating them is less than 0.1 mm (no scientist has ever done this and there is reason, based on current theories, to believe that the law for gravitational attraction may be different at small distances.)
Which would mean that physical phenomena govern thoughts, including this one of yours above, too, wouldn't it?
The phenonina simply react according to their nature, always in the same consistent way.
Which means that your thoughts and my thoughts are nothing but atoms banging around in our heads; completely determined by the laws of physics, and thus completely irrational. So why then are you invoking non-physical (and therefore unreal by your lights) things such as propositions, standards, definitions, conventions, logic, mathematics, etc. since by your own definintion only what is physical is real and can be studied by science? All of the above are just as non-material as any "superatural designer", yet you constantly (and inconsistently) appeal to them as if they have some validity. You must assume that the above things have some correspondence with brute physical forces, yet you cannot justify that assumption on the basis of your world-view. Your very world view precludes such a justification.
They [scientists] don't transcend the laws of physics. Scientists are simply sentient machines. The physics provides the basis for the machine.
In my view, the phrase "sentient machine" is an absolute contradiction in terms.
Cordially,
Molecular structure is theoretical. Noone has ever seen an electron, it's part of a theory.
"...intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems..."
Michael Behe
Cordially,
No. The physics just give rise to the machine. The machine's thoughts can be anything whatsoever and is totally independent of the machine physics. The machine may have limitations imposed by the physics, but the machine can not limit rational thought.
A simple example is a computer. It's memory and program content can't be limited by the machine. As an extension of the owner's machinery though, the owner can limit it.
"completely determined by the laws of physics, and thus completely irrational."
The physics is always completely rational, whether it's the real, or the representations. Otherwise A != A.
"things such as propositions, standards, definitions, conventions, logic, mathematics, etc. since by your own definintion only what is physical is real and can be studied by science?"
Those are objects of the mind. Of course they are real, however their is a difference. I said the mind is not limited by physics, so A != A can very well hold and often does.
"All of the above are just as non-material as any "superatural designer", yet you constantly (and inconsistently) appeal to them as if they have some validity.
Natural science only studies the physics, because knowledge of the physics is what's desired. The objects of the mind are studied in philosophy, psychology, or religion. The representaitons for either objects, or interactions in physics include objects of mind from the set that includes only those where A=A. The objects, or interactions themselves contain no "mind" dimension.
There are examples of processes that include decision and action taken by sentient beings, but the physical aciton is not represented, or quantified by "E=action(intent)". The variable "intent" is arbitrary both inscope and existence. So where no sentient being can be objectively demonstrated to exist, they are properly excluded from natural science. Just as all other A != A objects are, or A=any arbitrary infinity objects are.
"In my view, the phrase "sentient machine" is an absolute contradiction in terms."
Machines have capacity. The capacity of the human machine includes sentience. I fail to see the contradiction. I can see the assumption that machines are dumb though.
Agreed. Telling points, all.
I think some Physicists (whose field of study, among others, would include nonlinear dynamics and neurodymaics) would disagree with you, and if you want, I could direct to a forum wherein resides a Physicist with just such qualifications.
In other words, If I'm thinking of an elephant, then that image, thought, or whatever you want to call it, has a physical component, and must be fully explainable, as complicated as it may be.
This no doubt can make for interesting conversation and debate between scientists and philosphers, but to suggest that there are aspects of the mind that, according to physics, can not be reduced to physical phenomena, is simply not true.
You might have a point, if you could provide a clear and concise definition of the term exist, without utilizing any aspect of sentience, either in method or substance.
Good luck doing that.
"In other words, If I'm thinking of an elephant, then that image, thought, or whatever you want to call it, has a physical component, and must be fully explainable, as complicated as it may be."
The physical process and physics of that representation are not dependent on what the nonphysical subject of the representation is. The physical element of the representation for elephant is the same as it is for bucket. IOWs your still talking about the machine's physics. THe physics of the perception of light, sound, pain, memory, emoiton, concept and logic process, ect... are part of the machine. What is percieved, or conjured up, is not.
"to suggest that there are aspects of the mind that, according to physics, can not be reduced to physical phenomena, is simply not true."
The nonphysical representation of the elephant held by the machine can be anything. The elephant can have smooth, thin skin. It can talk when other folks are not around. It might even be a former tree on it's way to nirvana. That's some example for the nonphysical component of the not necessarily rational set, that includes such things as A != A, (A = A or!= A depending on some arb cliam), ect... set.
Re:"So where no sentient being can be objectively demonstrated to exist...
" You might have a point, if you could provide a clear and concise definition of the term exist, without utilizing any aspect of sentience, either in method or substance."
The relevant word is "demonstrate", not "exist". You can't prove a negative. All you can do is show that there is no evidence for whatever is claimed, and/or in addition show the proposiiton is illogical. Pink elephants might exist, but not on this planet. Things that can't be demonstrated to physically exist have no consequence.
"I could direct to a forum wherein resides a Physicist with just such qualifications."
That would be interesting. Thanks.
The Universe was created by an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster. All evidence pointing towards evolution was intentionally planted by this being. -wikipedia
So the Evolution Inquistion thinks the theory of evolution addresses the creation of the universe and there is actually evidence that the universe was created by "evolution".
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."
BS reigns supreme.
Consider yourself noodled.
Thank goodness that poster has no opinion on the debate - I don't know what we'd do if he actually staked out a position.
Well, some noted creationists have been known to favor puttanesca.
What next? Burned at the stake?
Just low boiled until al dente.
If the only thing that needs to be done to falsify the claim that life was intelligently designed is to show that an irreducibly complex system could have evolved naturally, then ID has in fact been falsified. Irreducibly complex systems can in principle evolve naturally via a stepwise process.
Imagine an organism possessing a part A, which performs a function in a rudimentary way. Systems consisting of part A in conjunction with parts B,C,D, and E would perform the function in an improved way with each incremental addition. (i.e. AB is better than A, ABC is better than AB, and so on.) It is easy to imagine that a stepwise evolutionary process might produce system ABCDE. Now imagine that the system is such that A and B are redundant parts, and that systems ACDE, BCDE and CDE all would perform the function equally well. It is easy to see that it would be possible for system CDE to arise from a stepwise evolutionary process.
Now system CDE is an irreducibly complex system. IC systems are defined as systems which lose their function with the removal of any of their parts. Systems CD and DE as well as parts C,D, and E do not perform the function. Therefore removal of any part from CDE destroys the functioning of the system. I have shown above that this system could have arisen via an unintelligent stepwise evolutionary process, however. So according to Behe, this argument falsifies ID. (Whether actual biological systems exist which are IC, and if IC systems do exist, whether they evolved in this way are irrelevant to Behe's claim)
:-)
I wonder if the Deans of evolution have realized that they have lost control?
Or perhaps they too think that ridicule is an effective difense.
I can't give you your definition of 'machine'. No dictionary defines 'machine' the way you want to use it. You'll have to come up for another word for that which you are trying to cram into the word machine. What you have in mind is bigger than the word. It is like trying to put 2 gallons in a one gallon bottle - it spills out and makes mess of logic.
For example, here is the modern Webster Miriam online definition of machine:
an assemblage of parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy one to another in a predetermined manner
Any mechanical or electrical device that transmits or modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance of human tasks.
An artificial work, simple or complicated, that serves to apply or regulate moving power, or to produce motion, so as to save time or force
Notice that NONE of these definitions include the capacity of sentience. To define a machine has having the capacity of sentience destroys the word 'machine'.
If humans are machines; i.e., assemblages of parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy one to another in a predetermined manner then logic and rationality are destroyed as well as the 'real' 'mind' that you postulate because it reduces the mind to matter in motion; nothing but the result of irrational deterministic physical causes/forces.
Those are objects of the mind. Of course they are real...The variable "intent" is arbitrary both in scope and existence
This dualism is not consistent with the presupposition of man as machine.
So where no sentient being can be objectively demonstrated to exist...
With man as machine nothing could 'objectively' be demonstrated because man would be nothing but a little machine that is part of the universe; the big Machine. Man could not stand outside the machine. Mechanical necessity would govern. Your ideas of free will (intent) and mind existing and somehow transcending physical forces would themselves be nothing more than chemical reactions in your brain, inevitable as the "the laws of physics that govern the universe."
Your premise logically excludes the possibility of rational knowledge and freedom and leaves you a universe in which "nature" itself precludes the existence of the kind of free mind you wish to believe in. The bare assertion that 'mind' exists somehow over and above nature cannot bring it into being. Mother machine can only produce baby machines.
Cordially,
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.