Posted on 01/27/2009 6:59:07 AM PST by betty boop
Edited on 01/27/2009 7:16:52 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Wooops mod- You’ve missed a number of posts i nthis htread that have done exactly what you falsely accused me of doing- I see you decided to also biasedly nuke my posts which called you out for doing exactly what you accused me of falsely doing- Well done- keep up the hypocrisy so htese threads go accordign to your master plan! you’d also better have me banned, because I’m just goign to keep exposing your hypocritical trumped up charges.
Betty Boop AlamoGirl- The mod took it upon themself to nuke my post apologizing to you for engagin in the mods derailment attempts when htey attempted to exhert hteir will on this thread by trumping up a charge against me by presuming to make it personal by reading my mind and presuming to know my intent for calling JS out for feigning ingornace on KINDS and Baraminology when I’ve PERSONALLY told him many many times, and so have personal knowledge that JS DOES infact know full well- This mod is a FACT, it is NOT ‘reading his mind’.
mod, you and JS can play your little miss innocent routines all you like, and you can keep nuking my posts to hide hte fact that you were wrong for stepping in and making a mountain out of an issue where no moutnain existed, nor was there one called for- but you took it upon yourself to direct the thread i nthe direction you wished, and you can continue subjectively ignoring others in htis htread who DID infact assume to read others minds, and hwo DID infact ‘make it personal’ many times in past posts all you like- but if you’re NOT goign to objectively enforce the ‘rules’, then I’m goign to keep exposing your uncalled for subjectivity in these htese threads.
If you wish to apologize publicly for screwing up, and wish to go back through each post and objectively nuke those posts that ‘made it personal’, then I’ll accept your apology- but if you just wish to keep subjectively controlling how htis htread goes, and wish to keep subjectively nuking posts you don’t like while subjectively allowing others to do the exact think you falsely accused me of doing- then by golly you’d better have me banned- because I’m not goign to put up with that CRAP. JS DOES know full because and I know this for a FACt because I PERSONALLY have told him many many times- I stand by my post, and if you don’t like me calling him on it- then you’d better either have me banned, or continue your basied nikings- but don’t expect me to just let you get away with that crap without exposing oyu for it! If you wish to control these threads in such a manner that suits your fancy- then you’re going to have a long day ahead of you unless you have me banned- which is fien by me- I’ll not put up with your crap subjective moderation.
Hi BB,
I didn’t post this at first because Alex Williams said he couldn’t participate. But after a while I figured you would at least be interested in his reply, so I decided to send it to you as a PM. All the best—GGG
Hi GGG,
Thanks for the message.
While the referenced article is interesting, it misses the main point. It is the irreducibility of the autopoietic hierarchy that provides the compelling evidence for design. That is, none of the levels of the hierarchy can be explained in terms of the properties of the level below it. Higher levels are not ‘emergent properties’ of the lower levels.
Two other major points are:
· the lowest level of the hierarchy is not ‘pure elements’, as Jean Drew says, but molecules—the homochiral proteins and sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) and the other pure molecular components, in contrast to the dirty mixtures of the natural environment.
· Shannon information theory deliberately ignores the meaning of the information and only deals with the statistics of the code. It is thus more than useless in biology (where meaning is central) because it diverts attention away from meaning.
I published three further papers on this general theme in Journal of Creation 22(2) 2008.
· How Life Works, pp.85–91
· Molecular Limits to Natural Variation, pp.97–104
· Mutations: evolution’s engine becomes evolution’s end, pp.60–66.
I am currently engaged in writing a popular level book on How Life Works. It is proving very demanding, even though I already have the main material all together. I am trying to make it as simple as possible and well illustrated so that everyone can understand it.
Unfortunately, I suffer from numerous health problems (including a degenerative nerve condition) which prevent me from doing anything much on a regular basis, so I don’t do anything that I don’t have to do.
I am willing to answer emails but I do not participate in web-based discussions.
Keep up the good work.
Kind regards,
Alex Williams
I can’t believe I just did that! Oh well. Can we still pretent it’s a PM? Earth to GGG, wake up GGG.
Indeed, I completely agree with Dr. Williams on this: "It is the irreducibility of the autopoietic hierarchy that provides the compelling evidence for design. That is, none of the levels of the hierarchy can be explained in terms of the properties of the level below it. Higher levels are not ‘emergent properties’ of the lower levels." I'd thought the article was pretty clear about this. But I guess not clear enough.
Regarding Dr. Williams' second point — "the lowest level of the hierarchy is not ‘pure elements’, as Jean Drew says, but molecules—the homochiral proteins and sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) and the other pure molecular components, in contrast to the dirty mixtures of the natural environment" — I appreciate his elaboration. Indeed, the remarks regarding homochirality in his article strongly suggest that such molecules are already "prepped" in a special way for life. But from his own statements, I'd thought to "catalog" homochiral proteins and sugars at Level (ii) of his model. So for good or ill, I left the "slot" of Level (i) to be "populated" by the atomic elements and laws of physics. For it seems to me that all life forms have a "physical basis." So the model should be able to reflect this.
It is true that Shannon information theory is indifferent to the meaning of messages. All it claims to be is a model for successful communication in all domains — which would include biology. It envisions successful communication of information as an action (similar to the action principle of physics) that moves a biological organism from a "before" to an "after" state, thus reducing uncertainty in the state of the receiver of the communication (i.e., the biological organism).
I hate to have to say this, but I think it's true nonetheless: Strictly speaking, science isn't interested in the "meaning" of things, but in how things "work."
This is not to denigrate, let alone abolish the concept of inversely-causal meta-information. It is merely to say that, at the level of action, biological processing may "reduce" to the statistics of codes.
Yet this does not appear to affect the teleological status of meta-information: Because it points to purposes, goals, in nature, we can speak of it as meaningful. Yet as already pointed out, in general "meaning" is not a problem for science. This seems to be a case of Stephen Jay Gould's niftily separated magisteria bumping up hard against one another.
In any case, it still remains a mystery from the perspective of science what the source of this inversely-causal meta-information is, and by what means it's conducted or translated into the physical and biological domains. It seems not to arise "in" nature, as we currently understand nature; it is not an "evolutionary development," rather it may well be the pre-eminent guide to evolution. But then, problems of "origin" seem to be devilishly difficult for science....
In any case, it seems to me we have to be careful about "mixing our metaphors": speculations about meaning belong to philosophy and theology, not to science. Science can only give us what is observable and experimentally replicable. The meaning and purpose of life, and the origin of meta-information, falls entirely outside its method.
At least that is my understanding, FWIW.
Thanks ever so much for writing, GGG! If you hear from Dr. Williams again, please thank him from me for his kindness in writing!
Excellent reply, BB. I meant to PM it as an FYI because Williams said he couldn’t participate.
==In any case, it seems to me we have to be careful about “mixing our metaphors”: speculations about meaning belong to philosophy and theology, not to science.
I think the autopoietic hierarchy has implications for all three. Science is more than just information gathering. In fact, I would argue that the most important aspect of science involves the interpretation of the same. If the various constituents of life are designed, then part of the job of science will be to discover the purpose of said designs. To my mind, such an endeavor overlaps with the concept of meaning.
All the best—GGG
2. Origin of inertia.
3. Origin of life.
b. Origin of Semiosis
5. Origin of consciousness.
6. Origin of conscience.
While I agree with you that the AP hierarchy "has implications" beyond science, we still need to recognize that science, qua science, is not "in the meaning business."
"Meaning" in nature is something that only man cares about: a "molecular machine" going from a before state to an after state doesn't need to know what the message "means"; it just needs correct, clear instructions that enable it to contribute to securing the needful biological ends of the total organism of which it is a constituent.
It's odd; but the meaning of science is not something that can be elucidated on the basis of the currently prevailing scientific method, which presupposes the doctrine of naturalism. Meaning is not a "natural" phenomenon.
But science ever since Francis Bacon has chosen to impose this limitation on itself; i.e., the expectation that all natural phenomena have natural causes, which can be discovered by direct observation, and tested by replicable experiments. It wasn't always that way; but it sure is now, in spades.
Thank you ever so much for writing, GGG!
Can we add a new item to the list of “open” origin questions — the origin of novelty in nature?
When you boil it all down, what science studies is change, or instances of novelty, in the natural world. Change as a natural process can be studied without having to know “why” change happens in the first place. Origin questions tend to get you into the prickly thicket of “Why?” questions. But science does not need to ask such questions to do its job. One just takes it for granted that change, novelty is somehow necessary in the natural world; no further inquiry need be made. The scientist’s job is to study change as it appears, not explain “Why?” it is a fundamental feature of the natural world.
And this is similar to the case of Darwinian evolution theory. The theory doesn’t require knowledge of the origin of biological life in order to study life as a changing process. In other words, the theory takes it for granted that life already exists; and then tells you how it “speciates” (changes over time, the source of biological novelty and diversity).
Science seems divided on the issue of origin questions. Some scientists believe that the solution to such questions is obtainable by means of the scientific method, and that it’s just a matter of time before their answers are “scientifically” revealed. Others won’t touch such problems with a ten-foot pole; because to speak of “origins” is, to their way of thinking, just a way to smuggle the notion of “creator” into the scientific debate. And this is strictly impermissible.
George V. Coyne, S.J., an astronomer with the Vatican Observatory, thinks such matters go straight to the heart of what science is and what it can do. The key criterion goes to “what is meant by ‘origins’ and what is meant by ‘creation.’”
The key to understanding the difference between creation and origins is the notion of change…. Changes in nature are the object of study for the natural sciences. From pure energy to matter, from hydrogen to hydrocarbons, from giant molecular clouds to star clusters, from single cells to organs, from amino acids to the human brain — these are all objects of investigation for the natural sciences. They all require an existing entity which changes. The natural sciences do not deal with the issue of existing at all; they deal with existing in a specific way and the changes in nature, which bring about specific ways of existing.A little later on, Coyne continues: “In our discourse on beginnings we find it necessary to speak in a temporal framework. The creator is considered to be prior to what is created, but the priority is actually not temporal. The relationship is metaphysical, not temporal. To be created out of nothing does not mean that the creature is first nothing and then something. It means that the creature has a dependent existence.” [Ibid., p. 11]Creation, on the other hand, speaks to the very existence of whatever exists. It does not speak to change. Creation does not deal with the chain of events which bring about a specific kind of being. It deals with the source of being of whatever exists. It does not address the evolution of one kind of being from another. To create, therefore, is not to work on or with some already existing material. Creation is not, therefore, a cause in the usual sense of the word. Or, if you wish, creation is the complete cause of all things. Such a complete causing is precisely what the act of creation is. Thus, to create is to give existence to whatever exists in a specific way. To create does not mean to take “nothing” and make “something” out of it, in the sense of changing it from not being to being. To exist means to depend upon a source of existence. So, creation is not exclusively, not even primarily, some distant event; to create is the continual, complete causing of the existence of whatever is.
So there can, in principle, be no necessary conflict between the doctrine of creation and any scientific explanation of origins. The natural sciences seek to account for change and the origins of change. Whether the changes described are biological or cosmological, have a beginning or not, are unending or temporally finite, they remain processes. Creation accounts for the existence of things, not for changes in things. So, given that something exists, how did life originate from this something is a scientific question. Why there is something rather than nothing is not a scientific question. — “Evolution and Intelligent Design,” Divine Action and Natural Selection: Science, Faith, and Evolution, Singapore:World Scientific, 2009, p. 9f.
In these last remarks, Coyne touches on our old friend, the law of cause and effect, which in the universe of sense perception ever moves along the arrow of time from past, to present, to future. Thus causes must come first in the temporal order; their effects follow later on. This perception of the normal “flow” of things is so deeply ingrained in the human psyche that the very idea of “inverse-causality” is senseless, even reprehensible, to many people today, including many scientists.
It goes without saying that the law of cause and effect is intrinsic to the scientific method. And yet, if the observation of the great philosopher David Hume is to be taken seriously, science has reason to be troubled about the “firmness” of our ideas regarding causality. For it seems to me Hume was right: We never actually see a cause at work. The only thing we think we know is that one thing follows upon another. In short, by the time we notice the effect, the cause has already receded into the past; i.e., it is not then a direct observable; and we never saw “what it did” to effect a particular outcome, because we were completely unaware of it until the outcome occurred. In fact, the same thing could be said of the effect: We notice it by taking “measurements”; but by the time the measurement has been taken, the effect is already in the past, too.
In saying this, Hume was drawing attention to the fact that accounts of causation never can come by direct observation, but only by means of an exercise of human judgment — a completely different faculty of the human mind than sense perception.
And then steps in the great philosopher Immanuel Kant, who observed that human sense perception is physically structured in such a way that all we can really say about “direct observation” is that it can capture only the outward, or surface appearance of things, but can never grasp the observed thing as it is “in itself.” This formulation draws the sharp distinction between “appearance” and the actual reality of which the appearance is merely the “reflection,” as “registered in the brain” of an observer at a particular point in space and time. Again, we are in effect thrown back on judgment, since direct sensory perception provides insufficient data for a more complete understanding of the entity concerned.
Well, these would seem to be the really “deep problems” for science. Notice that it’s philosophers who have pointed them out. Which is why I consider as total nonsense arguments holding that science and theology/philosophy are somehow mutually-exclusive knowledge domains or “magisteria” whose paths should never cross. Or worse, that one of the magisteria is “true” and the other “false,” one always right, the other always wrong. If you take a look at the history of science, or of human culture more generally, you will find that the two knowledge domains have been cross-fertilizing for well over two millennia by now…. To the mutual benefit of each.
In closing, let me add an amusing story. You and I both appreciate Robert Jastrow’s famous comment about the scientists, painstakingly struggling up the mountain peak of Knowledge, and finally making it all the way up to the summit — only to find a band of theologians who had been waiting for them, sitting there for centuries.
Well, Richard Gordon, Department of Radiology, University of Manitoba, has written an uproariously funny “new ending” for that parable:
…who have been sitting there for centuries… killing each other and their descendents in the name of God. But the scientist and his comrades, who although they had also argued for centuries, formed together a single world effort at understanding the universe. They then convinced the younger theologians to descend the mountain and consider whether science itself might provide a way to bring an end to their mutual slaughter. In exchange, the scientists had to broaden their view, and start working on some of the tougher problems they had previously fobbed off on religion. [Op. cit., “Preface 3,” p. xlix]Oh, the joys of the “observer problem!” Noble scientists! Blood-thirsty theologians! LOLOL! (Richard Dawkins, call your office....)
People can only see what they can see from where they stand. But at the same time, if the universe is an intelligible order (which I’m convinced it is), then direct observation only gets you so far; and there are limits to rational speculation….
I did appreciate Gordon in effect admitting that maybe, just maybe, “scientists had to broaden their view.”
Thank you ever so much for writing, and your kind words of support, dearest sister in Christ!
Thanks for the pings. I’ve been following even though I’ve been too busy to post much.
==While I agree with you that the AP hierarchy “has implications” beyond science, we still need to recognize that science, qua science, is not “in the meaning business.”
Thanks for your reply, Betty Boop. I just wrote a long response that was deleted when I checked for spelling. I can’t describe my reaction to this travesty as anything other then demoralizing! I just can’t bring myself to write it all over again, so I will do my best summarize:
In my opinion science is all about meaning. Distant light photons do not mean “star” unless there is an intelligible sender and an intelligent receiver. An “apple” falling to the ground does not mean gravity, unless there is an intelligible sender and an intelligent receiver. The fact that these messages are intelligible presupposes meaning. Thus, when a scientist says this happened, or that happened, they are deciphering the meaning of the message. The message cannot be explained by the chemistry or physics of their brain, any more than it can be explained by the chemistry or physics of the sender. Thus, scientists must take the meaning that is conveyed by the sender, and the meaning that is understood by the receiver, as an axiom at the very foundation of what makes discovery possible. And yet, neither the chemistry nor the physics of this interchange explains the intelligibility of the message. The chemistry and physics involved are the medium, not the message. The fact that we (not just scientists) are constantly receiving intelligble messages from every aspect of the Universe (no matter how over our heads, and no matter how poorly understood) means that science is all about deciphering the meaning (and at least the intelligent design) of the sender, which presupposes the intelligence of the receiver. Thus, science is fundamentally about meaning. To deny this obvious fact is to deny science itself IMHO.
All the best—GGG
Indeed. That's why Shannon information theory draws such a clear distinction between the "content" (i.e., meaning) and the "conduit" (i.e., medium) of the message. Since science is not in the meaning business, all it has to go on is the medium. It's awesomely good there. But the fact still remains that scientific knowledge does not encompass the totality of human knowledge, or provide solutions to all human problems; let alone does it reach to wisdom.
So truly, I appreciate your frustration that science cannot, in principle, deliver all the answers of most vital concern to human beings.
Must run for now. Take-out just arrived!
Hope to speak with you again soon, GGG!
So true.. If an observable happens and no observer is there to see it, did it happen?..
A new twist to an old bromide..
More, if it was observed was anything missed in the observation?...
WHo can observe anything from all aspects?..
The arrogant may think they do..
The vain may be sure they do?..
and, the afraid may be afraid to admit they looked...
But the wise know they are pretty stupid..
For the more you know, the more you know of things you don't know..
Generating humility..
Observation is not a problem for the humble..
They are the true scientists.. satisfied with a piece of the puzzle(observation)..
That reminds me of the philosophy statement I put in my high school senior yearbook:
As I extend the radius of my knowledge, I expand by a factor of 2pi the circumference on which I touch my ignorance.
It served me well throughout a long career as a scientist and technologist...
[[For the more you know, the more you know of things you don’t know..]]
Aint htta the truth- There was an old saying I’ve forgotten now, but basically it goes somethign like “When I was young, I thought I knew it all, when I got a bit older, I knew I knew it all, but when I got old, I knew I was just beginning to udnerstand dimly”
Somethign liek that
I'm 71 now, and living (by choice) 'way out in the boonies. My best hope of keeping this old brain exercised is that we have 4th and 6th-grade granddaughters living with us. I live for those "teachable moments" -- and have learned to drop whatever I'm doing to nurture and share those moments of youthful discovery...
Although I keep stereo and metallurgical microscopes ready at hand, my next planned project with the girls is to build a simple microscope (as I did at 10) and introduce them to the wonders of a hay infusion culture.
Likewise, man's ability to reason is limited. His inability to comprehend a thing nor more invalidates it than it would for an amoeba not to be able to comprehend high energy particle physics.
It is particularly absurd when men (e.g. Dawkins remark above) think they can measure God.
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.