Posted on 06/02/2003 1:46:54 PM PDT by Heartlander
How would this be different from hidden variables?
I did not wax poetic but I stated as much in item two:
2. if there is a God He never intervened in life's history (i.e. practical atheism, naturalism)Note:
Me:
A 'mindless' process 'without purpose or goal' that is responsible for all life is a philosophy or a religious belief.
Hmmm
"- it is a statement of fact, and it is either true or untrue."
Let's try this:
An intelligent process with purpose and goal is responsible for all life is a statement of fact, and it is either true or untrue. Your inability to reconcile that fact with your particular worldview does not, however, have any impact at all upon the truth or untruth of it.
You have compared living processes to a non-living process i.e. natural selection and gravity. Tell me what natural law I am following if I 'decide' to climb a latter? How is 'my behavior' following natural laws? It seems, to me at least, that life has freedom within natural laws and that's what makes life well, life.
This is my problem is with the Ridley hypothesis from the article posted. He is stating that life is 'purely' determined by natural causes. Science has been struggling to explain life this way and Ridley has merely extended it to the Platonic logical extreme.
Here is a good example of how science has failed to explain natural selection with 'purely natural' causes:
"I argue in this paper that any evolutionary theory of life that excludes from the living world a primary non-material or transcendent dimension or guiding presence, is no theory at all. The materialist's claim that natural selection supplies this evolutionary 'arrow' but is entirely material in its action, is a fundamentally dishonest claim. If there is no real purposive agenda that natural selection is pursuing then the expression "natural selection" is blatantly misleading and should be deleted from the evolutionary vocabulary. "
"Or if natural selection is nothing but the summation of a set of unguided processes then the materialist's story telling should only use language that reflects this materialism. Neo-Darwinism is riven through with words and expressions that reflect anything but a mindless materialism. Read any modern Darwinian text and the language of purpose, direction, intentionality coupled with the denial of purpose is common currency. This is, in modern parlance, a crude form of biological spin-doctoring. Here are just a few examples of this unavoidable language of intentionality:"-
struggle for survival
adaptive advantage
competition
reproductive success
variants that cope best with the environment heritable features that best suit the organism for making a living
selective advantage
selfish genes
habitat tracking species stasis
"In this paper it is therefore refreshing to be able to refer to the writings of Alister Hardy, no less a Darwinist, but also one who acknowledges that much more than purely material categories are required to describe the living world."
WHAT IS NATURAL SELECTION? A PLEA FOR CLARIFICATION
-Neil Broom
Again, you say "only natural causes." You keep slipping the philosophy of naturalism into the mind of every scientist. It's quite true that science tries to discover what natural causes exist. And science has been very good at that. But it's only in the minds of science critics that science utterly denies the existence of the spiritual domain. We've gone around on this before, and you haven't changed your mind, so I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one forever. Too bad, because it causes you to misunderstand my motives, and I can't talk you out of it.
What I have observed is that metaphysical supernaturalists (which I think all creationists are) not only have a problem with metaphysical naturalism but also with methodological naturalism as it is practiced in science. It somehow seems to vex them that scientists don't even bother to look for supernatural explanations and that they don't even address supernaturalism in their papers or scientific literature like in form of a disclaimer that states that the described phenomenon might also have a supernatural cause.
However, I don't know what good such a disclaimer would do. Also, I don't know anybody who claims that supernatural explanations are impossible. Their explanatory value may be null but for each phenomenon you can postulate a dozen supernatural scenarios and that for every religion. And this is the problem: once you allow the supernatural in, everything goes and there is no way to verify the different supernatural scenarios or else they would be considered to be natural.
What I also don't understand is the fact that the statement that our minds may only be an epiphenomenon of our brains is considered to be more abominable than the statement that there must be some supernatural component (call it ectoplasm if you will) to our minds. It seems that even the attempt to seek natural explanations for the human mind is seen as blasphemy because it might lead to a point where we simply "don't need this hypothesis" (to cite Laplace).
But even if there is such a supernatural component to our mind then it somehow interacts with our material brain, in other words our brain is a material device that detects/measures/observes the supernatural. This means that we could (at least in principle or in reality if we are technologically advanced enough) build a device that can detect this supernatural component of our minds and how it interacts with its host brain. So in the end this component would also be considered to be natural just like lightning or earthquakes which were also supernatural some time in the past.
Just my rant for the weekend ;)
Yes, that's the one. The French in that production is impeccable, par excellence as they would say. The kind that makes you talk it in your sleep or wake up with the same. Words are winged, Homer used to say.
tortoise is an A.I. expert and he has made relevant comments on another thread which might interest you. The discussion begins at post 1179.
Plato inclined to a metaphysical supernaturalism, Socrates a religious supernaturalism. Some creationists in early Christianity do both.
This, in part, was my criticism at #219. One must consider the scenarios of human nature when nature is spiritualized ex facto.
"Hidden Variable" is a loaded term, so I can't say much about it without a context. What I am referring to is a bit different than the "hidden variable" concept normally applied to QM. In the case I am talking about there is no "hidden" function per se, rather we are viewing the function directly but are modeling it conceptually with stochastic methods rather than discrete deterministic ones. Actually, this is what usually happens if you model any closed finite state process by sampling its state, so this is not surprising. Unfortunately, our measuring/sampling tools are pretty coarse which affects the resolution of the analysis, though this has been getting better with time. With much higher resolution data we might be able to infer or properly guess the deterministic function, but until then we are stuck with stochastic functions and sampling.
I would add that the fact it can be modeled this way at all suggests that the function is very, very simple. These type of analysis doesn't scale well at all with function complexity.
Only the physical, or natural exists. IOWs if it's real, it exists, as you concluded in your final paragraph. There is no such thing as the supernatural.
"However, I don't know what good such a disclaimer would do."
It's a forced confession by those demanding free advertisement.
I agree. There's a big difference between metaphysical naturalism (the philosophy which denies the existence of spiritual phenomena) and methodological naturalism, which science practices of necessity. I wish more people were aware of this.
The usual "disclaimer-of-atheism" certificate is attached, along with consumer warnings, hazzardous contents label, daily nutritional requirements percentages, equal housing logo, the no-smoking symbol, the recycled ingredients listing, instructions for environmentally sensitive disposal, country of origin disclosure, and affirmative action declaration. Your mileage may vary. Look for the union label. An equal opportunity employer. |
Methodological naturalism is historically contigent. This puts pressure on the distinction between natural and unnatural--this was the lesson of the 18th and 19th centuries in philosophy, in the 20th century for physics. In other words science ex facto is possible, but it has no pure fact to work with. The implications for politics and or the philosophy of law are profound.
What he said.
tortoise this is alludes to what happens when one goes too far with non-axiomatic reasoning,eh?
And of course, a dash of this post goes well with a good gob of these (you have read them haven't you? Oh. O-k, then.):
THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE WITHOUT DUALISM
Science's Big Query: What Can We Know, and What Can't We?
No. Darwinism posits that any random changes that happen to enhance survival are passed down to the next generations, and any random changes the don't enhance survival lead to the death of the indivdual, minimizing the number of chances it has to be passed into descendants.
Selection isn't random, and anyone writing a review that doesn't recognize this shouldn't be writing the review.
...
I'm still waiting for Darwinists to explain this paradox to me
No paradox. The only element of chance is the mutation. Selection by definition is not a random process. Those not possessing a trait needed for survival, don't.
Lets look at free will from a naturalistic perspective:
From a naturalistic perspective, there are no causally privileged agents, nothing that causes without being caused in turn. Human beings act the way they do because of the various influences that shape them, whether these be biological or social, genetic or environmental. We do not have the capacity to act outside the causal connections that link us in every respect to the rest of the world. This means we do not have what many people call free will, the ability to cause our behavior without being fully caused in turn.Further, you deny all/any miracles while still leaving the door open as to how everything was created. I would say that if God created anything, at any point, it would constitute a miracle i.e. Big Bang, etc...
If God can and does change the rules in the middle of the game, like democrats at election time, then there is no rational basis for making decisions. No need for medicine or medical science, since God will provide miracles either to those who deserve them, or for some inscrutable purpose. In either case, health is in the hands of God. Same for self-defense, same for nearly condition of mankind. If the rules are unknowable, human decisions are of no value.
Let me get this straight, if miracles happen then I can go to a bar, get drunk, and God will get me home? There is no longer a need to think because God will take care of it all? God was created for our purpose?
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.