Posted on 02/15/2003 4:18:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Scientists thought it was settled. The universe, they had decided, is about 20 billion years old, and Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old. Simple forms of life came into being more than three billion years ago, having formed spontaneously from nonliving matter. They grew more complex through slow evolutionary processes and the first hominid ancestors of humanity appeared more than four million years ago. Homo sapians itself—the present human species, people like you and me—has walked the earth for at least 50,000 years.
But apparently it isn't settled. There are Americans who believe that the earth is only about 6,000 years old; that human beings and all other species were brought into existence by a divine Creator as eternally separate variations of beings; and that there has been no evolutionary process.
They are creationists—they call themselves "scientific" creationists—and they are a growing power in the land, demanding that schools be forced to teach their views. State legislatures, mindful of the votes, are beginning to succumb to the pressure. In perhaps 15 states, bills have been introduced, putting forth the creationist point of view, and in others, strong movements are gaining momentum. In Arkansas, a law requiring that the teaching of creationism receive equal time was passed this spring and is scheduled to go into effect in September 1982, though the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit on behalf of a group of clergymen, teachers, and parents to overturn it. And a California father named Kelly Segraves, the director of the Creation-Science Research Center, sued to have public-school science classes taught that there are other theories of creation besides evolution, and that one of them was the Biblical version. The suit came to trial in March, and the judge ruled that educators must distribute a policy statement to schools and textbook publishers explaining that the theory of evolution should not be seen as "the ultimate cause of origins." Even in New York, the Board of Education has delayed since January in making a final decision, expected this month [June 1981], on whether schools will be required to include the teaching of creationism in their curriculums.
The Rev. Jerry Fallwell, the head of the Moral Majority, who supports the creationist view from his television pulpit, claims that he has 17 million to 25 million viewers (though Arbitron places the figure at a much more modest 1.6 million). But there are 66 electronic ministries which have a total audience of about 20 million. And in parts of the country where the Fundamentalists predominate—the so called Bible Belt— creationists are in the majority.
They make up a fervid and dedicated group, convinced beyond argument of both their rightness and their righteousness. Faced with an apathetic and falsely secure majority, smaller groups have used intense pressure and forceful campaigning—as the creationists do—and have succeeded in disrupting and taking over whole societies.
Yet, though creationists seem to accept the literal truth of the Biblical story of creation, this does not mean that all religious people are creationists. There are millions of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews who think of the Bible as a source of spiritual truth and accept much of it as symbolically rather than literally true. They do not consider the Bible to be a textbook of science, even in intent, and have no problem teaching evolution in their secular institutions.
To those who are trained in science, creationism seems like a bad dream, a sudden reveling of a nightmare, a renewed march of an army of the night risen to challenge free thought and enlightenment.
The scientific evidence for the age of the earth and for the evolutionary development of life seems overwhelming to scientists. How can anyone question it? What are the arguments the creationists use? What is the "science" that makes their views "scientific"? Here are some of them:
• The argument from analogy.
A watch implies a watchmaker, say the creationists. If you were to find a beautifully intricate watch in the desert, from habitation, you would be sure that it had been fashioned by human hands and somehow left it there. It would pass the bounds of credibility that it had simply formed, spontaneously, from the sands of the desert.
By analogy, then, if you consider humanity, life, Earth, and the universe, all infinitely more intricate than a watch, you can believe far less easily that it "just happened." It, too, like the watch, must have been fashioned, but by more-than-human hands—in short by a divine Creator.
This argument seems unanswerable, and it has been used (even though not often explicitly expressed) ever since the dawn of consciousness. To have explained to prescientific human beings that the wind and the rain and the sun follow the laws of nature and do so blindly and without a guiding would have been utterly unconvincing to them. In fact, it might have well gotten you stoned to death as a blasphemer.
There are many aspects of the universe that still cannot be explained satisfactorily by science; but ignorance only implies ignorance that may someday be conquered. To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
In short, the complexity of the universe—and one's inability to explain it in full—is not in itself an argument for a Creator.
• The argument from general consent.
Some creationists point at that belief in a Creator is general among all peoples and all cultures. Surly this unanimous craving hints at a greater truth. There would be no unanimous belief in a lie.
General belief, however, is not really surprising. Nearly every people on earth that considers the existence of the world assumes it to have been created by a god or gods. And each group invents full details for the story. No two creation tales are alike. The Greeks, the Norsemen, the Japanese, the Hindus, the American Indians, and so on and so on all have their own creation myths, and all of these are recognized by Americans of Judeo-Christian heritage as "just myths."
The ancient Hebrews also had a creation tale—two of them, in fact. There is a primitive Adam-and-Eve-in-Paradise story, with man created first, then animals, then women. There is also a poetic tale of God fashioning the universe in six days, with animals preceding man, and man and woman created together.
These Hebrew myths are not inherently more credible than any of the others, but they are our myths. General consent, of course, proves nothing: There can be a unanimous belief in something that isn't so. The universal opinion over thousands of years that the earth was flat never flattened its spherical shape by one inch.
• The argument of belittlement.
Creationists frequently stress the fact that evolution is "only a theory," giving the impression that a theory is an idle guess. A scientist, one gathers, arising one morning with nothing particular to do, decided that perhaps the moon is made of Roquefort cheese and instantly advances the Roquefort-cheese theory.
A theory (as the word is used by scientists) is a detailed description of some facet of the universe's workings that is based on long observation and, where possible, experiment. It is the result of careful reasoning from these observations and experiments that has survived the critical study of scientists generally.
For example, we have the description of the cellular nature of living organisms (the "cell theory"); of objects attracting each other according to fixed rule (the "theory of gravitation"); of energy behaving in discrete bits (the "quantum theory"); of light traveling through a vacuum at a fixed measurable velocity (the "theory of relativity"), and so on.
All are theories; all are firmly founded; all are accepted as valid descriptions of this or that aspect of the universe. They are neither guesses nor speculations. And no theory is better founded, more closely examined, more critically argued and more thoroughly accepted, than the theory of evolution. If it is "only" a theory, that is all it has to be.
Creationism, on the other hand, is not a theory. There is no evidence, in the scientific sense, that supports it. Creationism, or at least the particular variety accepted by many Americans, is an expression of early Middle Eastern legend. It is fairly described as "only a myth."
• The argument of imperfection.
Creationists, in recent years, have stressed the "scientific" background of their beliefs. They point out that there are scientists who base their creationists beliefs on a careful study of geology, paleontology, and biology and produce "textbooks" that embody those beliefs.
Virtually the whole scientific corpus of creationism, however, consists of the pointing out of imperfections in the evolutionary view. The creationists insists, for example, that evolutionists cannot true transition states between species in the fossil evidence; that age determinations through radioactive breakdown are uncertain; that alternative interpretations of this or that piece of evidence are possible and so on.
Because the evolutionary view is not perfect and is not agreed upon by all scientists, creationists argue that evolution is false and that scientists, in supporting evolution, are basing their views on blind faith and dogmatism.
To an extent, the creationists are right here: The details of evolution are not perfectly known. Scientists have been adjusting and modifying Charles Darwin's suggestions since he advanced his theory of the origin of species through natural selection back in 1859. After all, much has been learned about the fossil record and physiology, microbiology, biochemistry, ethology, and various other branches of life science in the last 125 years, and it was to be expected that we can improve on Darwin. In fact, we have improved on him. Nor is the process finished. it can never be, as long as human beings continue to question and to strive for better answers.
The details of evolutionary theory are in dispute precisely because scientists are not devotees of blind faith and dogmatism. They do not accept even as great thinker as Darwin without question, nor do they accept any idea, new or old, without thorough argument. Even after accepting an idea, they stand ready to overrule it, if appropriate new evidence arrives. If, however, we grant that a theory is imperfect and details remain in dispute, does that disprove the theory as a whole?
Consider. I drive a car, and you drive a car. I do not know exactly how an engine works. Perhaps you do not either. And it may be that our hazy and approximate ideas of the workings of an automobile are in conflict. Must we then conclude from this disagreement that an automobile does not run, or that it does not exist? Or, if our senses force us to conclude that an automobile does exist and run, does that mean it is pulled by an invisible horses, since our engine theory is imperfect?
However much scientists argue their differing beliefs in details of evolutionary theory, or in the interpretation of the necessarily imperfect fossil record, they firmly accept the evolutionary process itself.
• The argument from distorted science.
Creationists have learned enough scientific terminology to use it in their attempts to disprove evolution. They do this in numerous ways, but the most common example, at least in the mail I receive is the repeated assertion that the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates the evolutionary process to be impossible.
In kindergarten terms, the second law of thermodynamics says that all spontaneous change is in the direction of increasing disorder—that is, in a "downhill" direction. There can be no spontaneous buildup of the complex from the simple, therefore, because that would be moving "uphill." According to the creationists argument, since, by the evolutionary process, complex forms of life evolve from simple forms, that process defies the second law, so creationism must be true.
Such an argument implies that this clearly visible fallacy is somehow invisible to scientists, who must therefore be flying in the face of the second law through sheer perversity. Scientists, however, do know about the second law and they are not blind. It's just that an argument based on kindergarten terms is suitable only for kindergartens.
To lift the argument a notch above the kindergarten level, the second law of thermodynamics applies to a "closed system"—that is, to a system that does not gain energy from without, or lose energy to the outside. The only truly closed system we know of is the universe as a whole.
Within a closed system, there are subsystems that can gain complexity spontaneously, provided there is a greater loss of complexity in another interlocking subsystem. The overall change then is a complexity loss in a line with the dictates of the second law.
Evolution can proceed and build up the complex from the simple, thus moving uphill, without violating the second law, as long as another interlocking part of the system — the sun, which delivers energy to the earth continually — moves downhill (as it does) at a much faster rate than evolution moves uphill. If the sun were to cease shining, evolution would stop and so, eventually, would life.
Unfortunately, the second law is a subtle concept which most people are not accustomed to dealing with, and it is not easy to see the fallacy in the creationists distortion.
There are many other "scientific" arguments used by creationists, some taking quite cleaver advantage of present areas of dispute in evolutionary theory, but every one of then is as disingenuous as the second-law argument.
The "scientific" arguments are organized into special creationist textbooks, which have all the surface appearance of the real thing, and which school systems are being heavily pressured to accept. They are written by people who have not made any mark as scientists, and, while they discuss geology, paleontology and biology with correct scientific terminology, they are devoted almost entirely to raising doubts over the legitimacy of the evidence and reasoning underlying evolutionary thinking on the assumption that this leaves creationism as the only possible alternative.
Evidence actually in favor of creationism is not presented, of course, because none exist other than the word of the Bible, which it is current creationist strategy not to use.
• The argument from irrelevance.
Some creationists putt all matters of scientific evidence to one side and consider all such things irrelevant. The Creator, they say, brought life and the earth and the entire universe into being 6,000 years ago or so, complete with all the evidence for eons-long evolutionary development. The fossil record, the decaying radio activity, the receding galaxies were all created as they are, and the evidence they present is an illusion.
Of course, this argument is itself irrelevant, for it can be neither proved nor disproved. it is not an argument, actually, but a statement. I can say that the entire universe was created two minutes age, complete with all its history books describing a nonexistent past in detail, and with every living person equipped with a full memory; you, for instance, in the process of reading this article in midstream with a memory of what you had read in the beginning—which you had not really read.
What kind of Creator would produce a universe containing so intricate an illusion? It would mean that the Creator formed a universe that contained human beings whom He had endowed with the faculty of curiosity and the ability to reason. He supplied those human beings with an enormous amount of subtle and cleverly consistent evidence designed to mislead them and cause them to be convinced that the universe was created 20 billion years ago and developed by evolutionary processes that include the creation and the development of life on Earth. Why?
Does the Creator take pleasure in fooling us? Does it amuse Him to watch us go wrong? Is it part of a test to see if human beings will deny their senses and their reason in order to cling to myth? Can it be that the Creator is a cruel and malicious prankster, with a vicious and adolescent sense of humor?
• The argument from authority.
The Bible says that God created the world in six days, and the Bible is the inspired word of God. To the average creationist this is all that counts. All other arguments are merely a tedious way of countering the propaganda of all those wicked humanists, agnostics, an atheists who are not satisfied with the clear word of the Lord.
The creationist leaders do not actually use that argument because that would make their argument a religious one, and they would not be able to use it in fighting a secular school system. They have to borrow the clothing of science, no matter how badly it fits, and call themselves "scientific" creationists. They also speak only of the "Creator," and never mentioned that this Creator is the God of the Bible.
We cannot, however, take this sheep's clothing seriously. However much the creationist leaders might hammer away at in their "scientific" and "philosophical" points, they would be helpless and a laughing-stock if that were all they had.
It is religion that recruits their squadrons. Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the actual arguments for or even against evolution, march in the army of the night with their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason.
Even if I am right and the evolutionists' case is very strong, have not creationists, whatever the emptiness of their case, a right to be heard? if their case is empty, isn't it perfectly safe to discuss it since the emptiness would then be apparent? Why, then are evolutionists so reluctant to have creationism taught in the public schools on an equal basis with evolutionary theory? can it be that the evolutionists are not as confident of their case as they pretend. Are they afraid to allow youngsters a clear choice?
First, the creationists are somewhat less than honest in their demand for equal time. It is not their views that are repressed: schools are by no means the only place in which the dispute between creationism and evolutionary theory is played out. There are churches, for instance, which are a much more serious influence on most Americans than the schools are. To be sure, many churches are quite liberal, have made their peace with science and find it easy to live with scientific advance — even with evolution. But many of the less modish and citified churches are bastions of creationism.
The influence of the church is naturally felt in the home, in the newspapers, and in all of surrounding society. It makes itself felt in the nation as a whole, even in religiously liberal areas, in thousands of subtle ways: in the nature of holiday observance, in expressions of patriotic fervor, even in total irrelevancies. In 1968, for example, a team of astronomers circling the moon were instructed to read the first few verses of Genesis as though NASA felt it had to placate the public lest they rage against the violation of the firmament. At the present time, even the current President of the United States has expressed his creationist sympathies.
It is only in school that American youngsters in general are ever likely to hear any reasoned exposition of the evolutionary viewpiont. They might find such a viewpoint in books, magazines, newspapers, or even, on occasion, on television. But church and family can easily censor printed matter or television. Only the school is beyond their control.
But only just barely beyond. Even though schools are now allowed to teach evolution, teachers are beginning to be apologetic about it, knowing full well their jobs are at the mercy of school boards upon which creationists are a stronger and stronger influence.
Then, too, in schools, students are not required to believe what they learn about evolution—merely to parrot it back on test. If they fail to do so, their punishment is nothing more than the loss of a few points on a test or two.
In the creationist churches, however, the congregation is required to believe. Impressionable youngsters, taught that they will go to hell if they listen to the evolutionary doctrine, are not likely to listen in comfort or to believe if they do. Therefore, creationists, who control the church and the society they live in and to face the public-school as the only place where evolution is even briefly mentioned in a possible favorable way, find they cannot stand even so minuscule a competition and demand "equal time."
Do you suppose their devotion to "fairness" is such that they will give equal time to evolution in their churches?
Second, the real danger is the manner in which creationists want threir "equal time." In the scientific world, there is free and open competition of ideas, and even a scientist whose suggestions are not accepted is nevertheless free to continue to argue his case. In this free and open competition of ideas, creationism has clearly lost. It has been losing, in fact, since the time of Copernicus four and a half centuries ago. But creationism, placing myth above reason, refused to accept the decision and are now calling on the government to force their views on the schools in lieu of the free expression of ideas. Teachers must be forced to present creationism as though it had equal intellectual respectability with evolutionary doctrine.
What a precedent this sets.
If the government can mobilize its policemen and its prisons to make certain that teachers give creationism equal time, they can next use force to make sure that teachers declare creationism the victor so that evolution will be evicted from the classroom altogether. We will have established ground work, in other words, for legally enforced ignorance and for totalitarian thought control. And what if the creationists win? They might, you know, for there are millions who, faced with a choice between science and their interpretation of the Bible, will choose the Bible and reject science, regardless of the evidence.
This is not entirely because of the traditional and unthinking reverence for the literal words of the Bible; there is also a pervasive uneasiness—even an actual fear—of science that will drive even those who care little for fundamentalism into the arms of the creationists. For one thing, science is uncertain. Theories are subject to revision; observations are open to a variety of interpretations, and scientists quarrel among themselves. This is disillusioning for those untrained in the scientific method, who thus turn to the rigid certainty of the Bible instead. There is something comfortable about a view that allows for no deviation and that spares you the painful necessity of having to think.
Second, science is complex and chilling. The mathematical language of science is understood by very few. The vistas it presents are scary—an enormous universe ruled by chance and impersonal rules, empty and uncaring, ungraspable and vertiginous. How comfortable to turn instead to a small world, only a few thousand years old, and under God's personal and immediate care; a world in which you are his particular concern and where He will not consign you to hell if you are careful to follow every word of the Bible as interpreted for you by your television preacher.
Third, science is dangerous. There is no question but that poison gas, genetic engineering, and nuclear weapons and power stations are terrifying. It may be that civilization is falling apart and the world we know is coming to an end. In that case, why not turn to religion and look forward to the Day of Judgment, in which you and your fellow believers will be lifted into eternal bliss and have the added joy of watching the scoffers and disbelievers writhe forever in torment.
So why might they not win?
There are numerous cases of societies in which the armies of the night have ridden triumphantly over minorities in order to establish a powerful orthodoxy which dictates official thought. Invariably, the triumphant ride is toward long-range disaster. Spain dominated Europe and the world in the 16th century, but in Spain orthodoxy came first, and all divergence of opinion was ruthlessly suppressed. The result was that Spain settled back into blankness and did not share in the scientific, technological and commercial ferment that bubbled up in other nations of Western Europe. Spain remained an intellectual backwater for centuries. In the late 17th century, France in the name of orthodoxy revoked the Edict of Nantes and drove out many thousands of Huguenots, who added their intellectual vigor to lands of refuge such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Prussia, while France was permanently weakened.
In more recent times, Germany hounded out the Jewish scientists of Europe. They arrived in the United States and contributed immeasurably to scientific advancement here, while Germany lost so heavily that there is no telling how long it will take it to regain its former scientific eminence. The Soviet Union, in its fascination with Lysenko, destroyed its geneticists, and set back its biological sciences for decades. China, during the Cultural Revolution, turned against Western science and is still laboring to overcome the devastation that resulted.
As we now, with all these examples before us, to ride backward into the past under the same tattered banner of orthodoxy? With creationism in the saddle, American science will wither. We will raise a generation of ignoramuses ill-equipped to run the industry of tomorrow, much less to generate the new advances of the days after tomorrow.
We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization, and those nations that retain opened scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. I don't suppose that the creationists really plan the decline of the United States, but their loudly expressed patriotism is as simpleminded as their "science." If they succeed, they will, in their folly, achieve the opposite of what they say they wish.
( Isaac Asimov, "The 'Threat' of Creationism," New York Times Magazine, June 14, 1981; from Science and Creationism, Ashley Montagu, ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1984, pp. 182-193. )
Just for comparison, my first paper, a fairly mundane piece of benchmark research published in 1981, got 46 citations over the same period.
Fringe science.
I thought I might have killed it this morning. At least it didn't turn blue and die.
Ah, your authority again. You must be an accomplished physicist.
It's a pop physics book.
So you say. We need more than your opinion, Professor. Show us your badge.
But I did find one review by a real physicist.
I see. We need a "real" physicist. You are giving us words, Professor, and opinions, but nothing else. Are you a physicist or are you just passing along the opinions of others? I will give you a bit of Walker's bio in due course. Perhaps you will then share your physics background with us so that we can take comfort that your strong opinions are backed by something more than, well, your strong opinions.
Quintessential fringe science, in other words.
The words speak for themselves and your editorialization is not required. Some other physicist disagrees. That's life. Walker includes lots of math in his book just so, I presume, the naysayer physicists and others such as yourself can challenge it. You are certainly most welcome to attempt to do so but your may first wish to read the book.
Some very fine minds have gone off on similar tangents.
Your bias is showing. Fine minds, you will admit, have a better track record than those who simply opine on the work of others.
We have your rhetoric. I'm unimpressed. Would you care to comment on substance?
Well, at least you are consistent, Phaedrus.
And then someone else said: “This is far too vague…. How is it key? The future is amorphous, ambiguous, undefined and immensely complex in its possibilities. What test does it give us?
Then the first observer observed: “This debate about free will has a fundamental flaw, and that is that it fails to recognize that things are as they are regardless of which side ‘wins’” [i.e., it seems a conclusion already has been firmly drawn on the matter of this question by this party to the debate].
Well, if that is so, Mr. First Observer, then human free will is “dead as a doornail,” right out of the starting gate. Unable by definition, on principle, to tell us anything about, or to affect the course of events -- that is, unable to affect or effect anything new in the world of human experience and endeavor. And we haven't even touched on the problem of "winning." How well does this mental construct really accord with what you personally know of Reality?
* * * * * *
I think open questions present themselves here that we won’t answer tonight, if in a lifetime.
So let’s just change the subject. You wrote:
It's called magnetic transparency. It's the way a really good piece of window glass filters out the visible spectrum.... I would like you to ponder for a moment what goes on in an MRI scan (technically an NMRI). You have a superconducting electromagnet powerful enough to make the protons in the molecules of you brain jiggle in resonance. Yet it has no discernable effect on people's ability to think, nor on the content of their thought. Why is that? Because the brain is 99.999 percent free of magnetic materials. There might be a few isolated pockets of magnetic material that may or may not be sensitive to the earth's magnetic field, but I assure you that if the brain were a radio receiver it would explode like a hamster in a microwave during an MRI scan.
So, let me thank you, js1138, for correcting the public record, and affording a new learning experience for non-scientific folk who maybe are playing “catch-up” WRT to the reigning scientific – and public – debate of these issues.
So here's a (probably dumb) question: If the brain "is 99.999 percent free of magnetic materials," then how can it be said to participate in a quantum universe that would seem to be dispositably described as a seething sea of electomagnetic possibility?
You give a good description of the "magnetic shield" defense -- here derived, I gather, from classical physics. I do have a few questions. You seemed to indicate that the ability to apperceive the idea of “future” was perhaps a mark of high-level consciousness. You seemed to suggest that a sure test (albeit still on trial) of human consciousness would be the ability to “anticipate” the future.
But what does this mean? Does “anticipate” mean “prove?” As in: Validate by means of the scientific method?
Another thing I wondered about: Do you think that consciousness is coextensive with thought --which, as you seem to define it, ultimately depends on words or other kinds of symbols? That is, that we humans are inexorably, ineluctably “language-dependent” for everything we know?
I find such questions interesting. Hope you do, too.
Bose condensation of most matter requires microkelvin temperatures. Cooper pair formation by electrons (which is the basis of supercondctivity) is about as strong as an interaction between elementary particles in condensed matter can get, and it disappears around 120K. You can observe other coherent quantum pheomena in solids, and rarely liquids, but they're scattered by random thermal motion of the atoms, and their lifetimes become short (i.e. sub microsecond) by about 100K. At room temperature (300K), atoms are vibrating incoherently at high amplitude, and the coherences that link quantum states are destroyed on a nanosecond timescale.
I’m wondering if you read the Alex Kaivarainen article because he does address your objection in the section titled “Mesoscopic molecular Bose condensation at physiological temperature: possible or not?” He starts by saying,
- From the flyleaf to The Physics of Consciousness
So here's a (probably dumb) question: If the brain "is 99.999 percent free of magnetic materials," then how can it be said to participate in a quantum universe that would seem to be dispositably described as a seething sea of electomagnetic possibility?
Every particle that has an electric charge -- electrons, protons -- can be affected by a magnetic field. The question is whether the components of the brain are affected to an extent that we need to concern ourselves with it. I'm sure you know about electromagnetic transparancy. If you have ever used a radio or television you know that some objects -- wood, for example -- do not block radio waves. You probably also know that antennae cannot be made from just any old material. The chemistry of an object makes it receptive or transparent to electomagnetic waves. I'm sure QM explains why this is, but that's over my head. You don't need to be a quantum mechanic to know that some things are transparent to magnetism. Among them are the components of the brain.
You seemed to suggest that a sure test (albeit still on trial) of human consciousness would be the ability to “anticipate” the future.
I don't have a sure test for anything. If I get one I'll start posting in blue. I did propose an operational definition of free will. It certainly isn't "sure" or complete, but it has some advantages. For one thing it is compatible with many concepts in experimental and psysiological psychology.
I don't recall proposing this as a test of consciousness. That is another, and to me, a more difficult issue. Anticipating consequences is an objectively observable phenomenon, something studied in psychology labs all over the world. It is usually discussed under the heading of learning theory. But what is learning, if it isn't adjusting behavior in anticipation of consequenses?
Do you think that consciousness is coextensive with thought --which, as you seem to define it, ultimately depends on words or other kinds of symbols?
I don't think consciousness requires language, but that is just an opinion. As for "thinking", I am reluctant to speculate about that. I may sound like a know-it-all at times, but I'm struggling with this, same as everyone.
As always, I find myself agreeing with you. It is very difficult for those who sustain a metaphysically naturalist worldview to waive off strong determinism, which is the polar opposite of free will. IMHO, it is a poison pill to the argument for atheism.
Likewise, lowering the bar in the definition of free will to nominal anticipation has the effect of equalizing mankind to rodents in sentience. Of course, animal rights activists are all over this looking for lawyers to defend "animal rights."
Lew Rockwell.com 7/25/00 Tibor Machan “A recent Rivera Live television talk program hosted several animal rights advocates who were given considerable air time defending their position in both analytical and emotion terms... There was a law professor, for example, who raised some questions but gave no clear cut argument against the idea that animals have rights akin to human beings, the position widely shared about those who got nearly all the air time on the program.”
Alamo-Girl, please correct me if any of the substance of this story is incomplete or incorrect.
After all this time, the physics community cannot get its mind around intangibility, real though it has proved to be. I am thus not surprised that Walker could be considered "fringe" within a group where timidity reigns. A paradigm shift is not required. Quantum mechanics IS a major paradim shift.
Walker covers all this and much more in his clear, eloquent, incisive book. It is a fine and beautiful work and I recommend it unreservedly.
I don't think nature cares much about our politics in formulating it's laws. Animal rights s a difficult issue, even for conservatives. There is another FR thread currently discussing cat health. Even conservatives get mushy about their pets. If they thought cats were mentally the equivalent of bricks, they would not have these concerns.
I don't see how anyone could doubt whether wave phenomenon has bearing on consciousness! ...assuming you have a quantifiable mental phenomenon that requires an explanation, and you have a verifiable interaction between wave phenomena and the mental phenomena. Where is the transmitter, the receiver, the demonstrated interaction?
And which community discovered these phenomena, and exactly what were they doing as they studied them? Nearly everything you own that uses electricity is designed by people versed in QM. How is it that they don't have their minds around it.
No argument. The physicists have been able to employ quantum mechanical theory and math of do wondrous electronic things. It is far-and-away the most productive scientific discovery in the history of mankind.
But for reference, here is the quote again ...
After all this time, the physics community cannot get its mind around intangibility...
... and I will let it stand unchanged because Man was able to use fire to his benefit thousands of years before he understood it in scientific terms. We can learn to use a tool but that does not mean we understand how it works.
Alamo-Girl, please correct me if any of the substance of this story is incomplete or incorrect.
That explanation is my understanding as well. For lurkers, I offer these two articles to help explain the issue of Bell’s Inequalities:
NONLOCALITY GETS MORE REAL. "Bell's Inequalities," the set of mathematical relations that would rule out the notion that distant quantum particles exert influences on each other at seemingly instantaneous rates, have now been violated over record large distances, with record high certainty, and with the elimination of an important loophole in three recent experiments, further solidifying the notion of "spooky action at a distance" in quantum particles. At the Optical Society of America meeting in Baltimore earlier this month, Paul Kwiat (kwiat@lanl.gov) of Los Alamos and his colleagues announced that they produced an ultrabright source of photon pairs for Bell's inequality experiments; they went on to verify the violation of Bell's inequalities to a record degree of certainty (preprint at p23.lanl.gov/agw/2crystal.pdf). Splitting a single photon of well-defined energy into a pair of photons with initially undefined energies, and sending each photon through a fiber-optic network to detectors 10 km apart, researchers in Switzerland (Wolfgang Tittel, Univ. Geneva, wolfgang.tittel@physics.unige.ch) showed that determining the energy for one photon by measuring it had instantaneously determined the energy of its neighbor 10 km away--a record set by the researchers last year but now demonstrated in an improved version of the original experiment. (Tittel et al., Physical Review Letters, 26 October 1998.) A University of Innsbruck group performed Bell measurements with detectors that randomly switched between settings rapidly enough to eliminate the "locality loophole," which posited that one detector might somehow send a signal to the other detector at light or sub-light speeds to affect its reading. (Weihs et al., upcoming paper in Phys. Rev. Lett., website at http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/c7/c704/qo/photon/_bellexp/)
THE FIRST ENTANGLEMENT OF THREE PHOTONS has been experimentally demonstrated by researchers at the University of Innsbruck (contact Harald Weinfurter, harald.weinfurter@uibk.ac.at, 011-43-512-507-6316). Individually, an entangled particle has properties (such as momentum) that are indeterminate and undefined until the particle is measured or otherwise disturbed. Measuring one entangled particle, however, defines its properties and seems to influence the properties of its partner or partners instantaneously, even if they are light years apart. In the present experiment, sending individual photons through a special crystal sometimes converted a photon into two pairs of entangled photons. After detecting a "trigger" photon, and interfering two of the three others in a beamsplitter, it became impossible to determine which photon came from which entangled pair. As a result, the respective properties of the three remaining photons were indeterminate, which is one way of saying that they were entangled (the first such observation for three physically separated particles). The researchers deduced that this entangled state is the long-coveted GHZ state proposed by physicists Daniel Greenberger, Michael Horne, and Anton Zeilinger in the late 1980s. In addition to facilitating more advanced forms of quantum cryptography, the GHZ state will help provide a nonstatistical test of the foundations of quantum mechanics. Albert Einstein, troubled by some implications of quantum science, believed that any rational description of nature is incomplete unless it is both a local and realistic theory: "realism" refers to the idea that a particle has properties that exist even before they are measured, and "locality" means that measuring one particle cannot affect the properties of another, physically separated particle faster than the speed of light. But quantum mechanics states that realism, locality--or both--must be violated. Previous experiments have provided highly convincing evidence against local realism, but these "Bell's inequalities" tests require the measurement of many pairs of entangled photons to build up a body of statistical evidence against the idea. In contrast, studying a single set of properties in the GHZ particles (not yet reported) could verify the predictions of quantum mechanics while contradicting those of local realism. (Bouwmeester et al., Physical Review Letters, 15 Feb.)
I agree! And I am anxious to read the Walker book.
Roger Penrose has taken a lot of heat as well, mostly from the disciplines who are threatened by his assertions. Stephen Wolfram is another who is criticized, in his case by using the very formalisms he seeks to debunk (LOL!)
The aversion to the intelligent design movement is so visceral that the opponent/scientists take to signing petitions of all things. Jeepers!
Old ideas die hard, particularly where there is a “vested interest.”
In San Francisco, as I recall, an ordinance has been passed so that a human cannot be an “owner” of a pet. They must now be registered as “guardians.” This is just a baby-step down the “animal rights” path, but undervaluing sentience could have quite a legal impact.
The physical laws tell us that all that there is, is a manifestation of wave phenomenon, thus the brain is a collective of wave phenomenon in itself, functioning within a seemingly endless sea of wave phenomenon - some of which may be a manifestation of other dimensions via resonance of superstrings or the effect of virtual particles or things we cannot begin to comprehend.
I assert that the brain itself is the transmitter/receiver that materializes a unity of consciousness which is the individual being. But the individual being cannot exist, materially, apart from the whole.
In the new age and Buddhist/Eastern mindset, the whole isn’t a being, it is a greater collective which is influenced by the individual and vice versa.
In the Christian mindset the believer abides within the higher, non-material, being who has all the free will characteristics of consciousness, which I described earlier encompasses language, comprehension, love, sacrifice, self-awareness, etc.
This is a great mystery (and probably inconceivable) to people who are not Christian, but it is the fact of life to those of us who are:
I have other personal experiences which confirm this assertion, including feeling the spirits of both my sister and mother pass through me as their physical bodies went into a deep coma before physical death, night travels, and so much more.
Do you think consciousness is a purely natural process, in the sense of having a purely material basis?
Gee, didn't we do this dance once before?
As opposed to what, a purely unnatural process???
Considering QM can we even say the 'purely material' has a purely material basis?
If I say 'yes' or 'no,' is that anything other than an opinion? What possible fact can I point to that demonstrates conclusively one way or the other?
In reality this question is due to an artificial split of the mapping of reality that doesn't exist in reality. There is no 'purely material' or 'purely immaterial' any more than there is 'dogness' vs 'beingness.'
The Universe is one big thing, and you can reduce it to any component parts you want but that is just your conceptual handles. You can't take the consciousness out of the Universe any more than you can take the material out of the Universe.
It's kind of like saying, what is your shape when you remove all the water from your body? None, because without the water there is no shape, just dust.
As I've seen you say before, 'the ghost in the machine, the ghost in the machine.' But there is no ghost and there is no machine, there is just existence.
IT is all of IT. And if that ain't natural, then what is?
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.