In this post I want to briefly review a series of lectures called 'The Darwinian Revolution'. The lecturer is prof. Frederick Gregory. I's a balanced and historical treatment of the subject, and the best introduction to Darwinism that I know of.
Comments;
- Gregory written the massive 'Natural science in Western History' so he knows the subject intimately. The course not only deals with the precursors to Darwin and the Origin, but also with the century that came after. It has the benefit of dealing not only with the English scene, but with European thinkers as well.
I appreciate the fact he gives us a scholarly presentation rather than a polemical one. (e.g. you know who)
In my opinion the historical approach is the only way to teach evolutionary theory. The trouble with the way it's taught to most students is a triumphalist approach. e.g. "evolution is a fact... so memorize the details." The historical approach gives you an idea of how debatable most of the main parts of the theory are. It gives you a glimpse of a time when it was still possible to question this new orthodoxy. It reminds people that many of the best scientists of the day brought pertinent criticisms to bear upon the theory.
To merely pronounce evolution as a fact is to tear the theory out of its context and thus distort the subject. Nothing as complicated as evolution can ever be a fact, as we normally think of facts. e.g. 2+2=4. There will always be more to learn about the history of living organisms on this planet, and as long as you are learning about x you can't say you have the facts about x.
I recommend the series for both creationists and evolutionists. I think it has something to offer to each. (This is one characteristic of a scholarly work; that both sides of a debate will find it illuminating and useful.)
Some comments on individual lectures;
#14. Groundwork for recovery
Gregory talks about how the idea of mutations came to the fore around 1916. Thomas Hunt Morgan said mutations can be good, bad or indifferent. i.e. as far as the survival of the organism is concerned.
- I would claim a mutation can never be beneficial, from a biblical creation viewpoint. Let's compare a genetic code of organism x to a Shakespeare sonnet. Can a copying mistake ever be beneficial? No; at least not as far as the author is concerned. If God indeed created all the original kinds, then a mutation (copying mistake) can never be a good thing, as what was created perfect has changed. That's how I see it, but maybe I'm wrong. (That this change might be part of God's providence is another question.)
Notes;
1. Darwinian Revolution - Frederick Gregory [Teaching Company/24 lectures]
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
It's an information universe
A common complaint made against creationists is the most of creationist writing consists of a critique of evolution. Though there's some truth to this claim, it can be explained in a couple of ways. [1.] The area of what we might call creation science is relatively young, and has few participants; second, evolutionists appear to be largely ignorant of what we might call positive study, investigation and discovery in the field. One example of a positive creation can be seen in the work of Werner Gitt on information theory.
Quotes and comments;
- the quotes below are from an article by Gitt. He makes the claim that information cannot come from matter, and that it therefore disproves materialism and macro-evolution.
97. 'The American mathematician Norbert Wiener made the oftcited statement: “Information is information, neither matter nor energy.” With this he acknowledged a very significant thing: information is not a material entity. [2.]
97. 'Let me clarify this important property of information with an example. Imagine a sandy stretch of beach. With my finger I write a number of sentences in the sand. The content of the information can be understood. Now I erase the information by smoothing out the sand. Then I write other sentence in the sand. In doing so I am using the same matter as before to display this information. Despite this erasing and rewriting, displaying and destroying varying amounts of information, the mass of the sand did not alter at any time. The information itself is thus massless.
98. 'Information itself is never the actual object or act, neither is it a relationship (event or idea), but encoded symbols merely represent that which is discussed. Symbols of extremely different nature play a
substitutionary role with regard to the reality or a system of thought. Information is always an abstract representation of something quite different.
98. 'Using the last four of the five levels, we developed an unambiguous definition of information: namely an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose. We term any entity meeting the requirements of this definition as “universal information” (UI).
99. 'In the following we will describe the four most important laws of nature about information.
#1. A material entity cannot generate a nonmaterial entity
#2. Universal information is a non-material fundamental entity
#3. Universal information cannot be created by statistical processes
#4. Every code is based upon a mutual agreement between sender and receiver
99. 'The materialistic worldview has widely infiltrated the natural sciences such that it has become the ruling paradigm. However, this is an unjustified dogma. The reality in which we live is divisible into two fundamentally distinguishable realms: namely, the material and the non-material.
99. 'Matter involves mass, which is weighable in a gravitational field. In contrast, all non-material entities (e.g. information, consciousness, intelligence and will) are massless and thus have zero weight. Information is always based on an idea; it is thus also massless and does not arise from physical or chemical processes. Information is also not correlated with matter in the same way as energy, momentum or electricity is. However, information is stored, transmitted and expressed through matter and energy.
99. 'Sufficient Condition (SC): An observed entity can be judged to be “non-material” if it has no physical or
chemical correlation with matter. This is always the case if the following four conditions are met:
• SC1: The entity has no physical or chemical interaction with matter.
• SC2: The entity is not a property of matter.
• SC3: The entity does originate in pure matter.
• SC4: The entity is not correlated with matter.
100. 'The grand theory of evolution would gain some empirical support if it could be demonstrated, in a real experiment, that information could arise from matter left to itself without the addition of intelligence. Despite the most intensive worldwide efforts this has never been observed.
101. 'The programs in living systems obviously exhibit an extremely high degree of sophistication. No scientist can explain the program that produces an insect that looks like a withered leaf. No biologist understands the secret of an orchid blossom that is formed and coloured like a female wasp … and smells like one, too. We are able to think, feel, desire, believe and hope. We can handle a complex thing such as language, but we are aeons away from understanding the information control process that develop the brain in the embryo. Biological information displays a sophistication that is unparalleled in human information.
- It's my guess that the more we discover about the complexity of biological information, the more the concept of intelligent design will begin to make sense to people. With each new discovery the assumption of materialism becomes harder to hold.
102. 'Even though information requires a material substrate for storage/transmission, information is not a property of matter. In the same way, the information in living things resides on the DNA molecule. But it is no more an inherent property of the physics and chemistry of DNA than the blackboard’s message was an intrinsic property of chalk.
102. 'The grand theory of atheistic evolution must attribute the origin of all information ultimately to the interaction of matter and energy, without reference to an intelligent or conscious source. A central claim of atheistic evolution must therefore be that the macro-evolutionary processes that generate biological information are fundamentally different from all other known information-generating processes.
However, the natural laws described here apply equally in animate and inanimate systems and demonstrate this claim to be both false and absurd.
Notes;
1. It's in the nature of new fields of study that they often begin largely as critiques of existing theories. (e.g. Marx and Engels and their critique of capitalism)
2. Scientific laws of information and their implications—part 1 - Werner Gitt [JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(2) 2009]
- part 2. of the article is also available free online.
- Werner Gitt has also written a book on Information theory that I recommend.
Quotes and comments;
- the quotes below are from an article by Gitt. He makes the claim that information cannot come from matter, and that it therefore disproves materialism and macro-evolution.
97. 'The American mathematician Norbert Wiener made the oftcited statement: “Information is information, neither matter nor energy.” With this he acknowledged a very significant thing: information is not a material entity. [2.]
97. 'Let me clarify this important property of information with an example. Imagine a sandy stretch of beach. With my finger I write a number of sentences in the sand. The content of the information can be understood. Now I erase the information by smoothing out the sand. Then I write other sentence in the sand. In doing so I am using the same matter as before to display this information. Despite this erasing and rewriting, displaying and destroying varying amounts of information, the mass of the sand did not alter at any time. The information itself is thus massless.
98. 'Information itself is never the actual object or act, neither is it a relationship (event or idea), but encoded symbols merely represent that which is discussed. Symbols of extremely different nature play a
substitutionary role with regard to the reality or a system of thought. Information is always an abstract representation of something quite different.
98. 'Using the last four of the five levels, we developed an unambiguous definition of information: namely an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose. We term any entity meeting the requirements of this definition as “universal information” (UI).
99. 'In the following we will describe the four most important laws of nature about information.
#1. A material entity cannot generate a nonmaterial entity
#2. Universal information is a non-material fundamental entity
#3. Universal information cannot be created by statistical processes
#4. Every code is based upon a mutual agreement between sender and receiver
99. 'The materialistic worldview has widely infiltrated the natural sciences such that it has become the ruling paradigm. However, this is an unjustified dogma. The reality in which we live is divisible into two fundamentally distinguishable realms: namely, the material and the non-material.
99. 'Matter involves mass, which is weighable in a gravitational field. In contrast, all non-material entities (e.g. information, consciousness, intelligence and will) are massless and thus have zero weight. Information is always based on an idea; it is thus also massless and does not arise from physical or chemical processes. Information is also not correlated with matter in the same way as energy, momentum or electricity is. However, information is stored, transmitted and expressed through matter and energy.
99. 'Sufficient Condition (SC): An observed entity can be judged to be “non-material” if it has no physical or
chemical correlation with matter. This is always the case if the following four conditions are met:
• SC1: The entity has no physical or chemical interaction with matter.
• SC2: The entity is not a property of matter.
• SC3: The entity does originate in pure matter.
• SC4: The entity is not correlated with matter.
100. 'The grand theory of evolution would gain some empirical support if it could be demonstrated, in a real experiment, that information could arise from matter left to itself without the addition of intelligence. Despite the most intensive worldwide efforts this has never been observed.
101. 'The programs in living systems obviously exhibit an extremely high degree of sophistication. No scientist can explain the program that produces an insect that looks like a withered leaf. No biologist understands the secret of an orchid blossom that is formed and coloured like a female wasp … and smells like one, too. We are able to think, feel, desire, believe and hope. We can handle a complex thing such as language, but we are aeons away from understanding the information control process that develop the brain in the embryo. Biological information displays a sophistication that is unparalleled in human information.
- It's my guess that the more we discover about the complexity of biological information, the more the concept of intelligent design will begin to make sense to people. With each new discovery the assumption of materialism becomes harder to hold.
102. 'Even though information requires a material substrate for storage/transmission, information is not a property of matter. In the same way, the information in living things resides on the DNA molecule. But it is no more an inherent property of the physics and chemistry of DNA than the blackboard’s message was an intrinsic property of chalk.
102. 'The grand theory of atheistic evolution must attribute the origin of all information ultimately to the interaction of matter and energy, without reference to an intelligent or conscious source. A central claim of atheistic evolution must therefore be that the macro-evolutionary processes that generate biological information are fundamentally different from all other known information-generating processes.
However, the natural laws described here apply equally in animate and inanimate systems and demonstrate this claim to be both false and absurd.
Notes;
1. It's in the nature of new fields of study that they often begin largely as critiques of existing theories. (e.g. Marx and Engels and their critique of capitalism)
2. Scientific laws of information and their implications—part 1 - Werner Gitt [JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(2) 2009]
- part 2. of the article is also available free online.
- Werner Gitt has also written a book on Information theory that I recommend.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The greater and the lesser light
Much of what poses as science in our day is merely atheism in disguise. An example of this is the latest book by Stephen Hawking, the Great Design.
Quotes and comments;
A. "We are such insignificant creatures on a minor planet of a very average star in the outer suburb of one of a hundred billion galaxies. So it is difficult to believe in a God that would care about us or even notice our existence." [1.]
- Stephen Hawking has no way of knowing the earth is a 'minor' planet. As far as we know, the earth is utterly unique... so why does he refer to it in such a derogatory way? The word minor means lesser. This being the case it is utterly unscientific to refer to the earth as minor, since it is by far (an understatement) the most amazing planet we know of. This isn't science, but merely anti-creationism dressed up as science. One might call Mercury a minor planet, but not earth.
If earth were truly a minor planet professor Hawking wouldn't exist. It would appear he has some axe to grind, some desire to diminish the significance of the earth. We need to ask what effect does this bias against creation have on the scientific enterprise? How does it effect how scientists formulate and defend theories?
Why say average star? The fact X is average doesn't mean it doesn't have a greatness or grandeur. (e.g. an average human being)
What has all this got to do with God? It would appear that Hawking thinks of God as a fellow professor at Oxbridge. Isn't he aware that God is greater than man, that god has greater capacities (eg. to love) than man?
One wonders what hawking knows about God. e.g. how is it he knows God doesn't notice man. (The bible tells us very differently.)
Summary;
What people like Hawking do is to assume they know the universe, and to measure the earth in terms of that assumed knowledge. Their idea (propagated so successfully by Carl Sagan) is that the universe is full of planets like earth, that are complete with sentient beings. This claim however isn't empirical, and thus according to our judges, doesn't qualify as scientific. The only empirical (verifiable) knowledge we have is that the earth is unique; and that human beings are unique.
M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Hawking atheopathy; Famous physicist goes beyond the evidence - by Jonathan Sarfati
3. The exoplanets that have been discovered so far to date are nothing like earth. When Hawking calls earth a minor planet he's contradicting the evidence.
4. It's ironic of course that Hawking makes so much mileage (and so much money) talking about a God he claims doesn't exist.
- As a physicist he might be in the major leagues, but in terms of philosophy he's most definitely minor league.
Quotes and comments;
A. "We are such insignificant creatures on a minor planet of a very average star in the outer suburb of one of a hundred billion galaxies. So it is difficult to believe in a God that would care about us or even notice our existence." [1.]
- Stephen Hawking has no way of knowing the earth is a 'minor' planet. As far as we know, the earth is utterly unique... so why does he refer to it in such a derogatory way? The word minor means lesser. This being the case it is utterly unscientific to refer to the earth as minor, since it is by far (an understatement) the most amazing planet we know of. This isn't science, but merely anti-creationism dressed up as science. One might call Mercury a minor planet, but not earth.
If earth were truly a minor planet professor Hawking wouldn't exist. It would appear he has some axe to grind, some desire to diminish the significance of the earth. We need to ask what effect does this bias against creation have on the scientific enterprise? How does it effect how scientists formulate and defend theories?
Why say average star? The fact X is average doesn't mean it doesn't have a greatness or grandeur. (e.g. an average human being)
What has all this got to do with God? It would appear that Hawking thinks of God as a fellow professor at Oxbridge. Isn't he aware that God is greater than man, that god has greater capacities (eg. to love) than man?
One wonders what hawking knows about God. e.g. how is it he knows God doesn't notice man. (The bible tells us very differently.)
Summary;
What people like Hawking do is to assume they know the universe, and to measure the earth in terms of that assumed knowledge. Their idea (propagated so successfully by Carl Sagan) is that the universe is full of planets like earth, that are complete with sentient beings. This claim however isn't empirical, and thus according to our judges, doesn't qualify as scientific. The only empirical (verifiable) knowledge we have is that the earth is unique; and that human beings are unique.
M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Hawking atheopathy; Famous physicist goes beyond the evidence - by Jonathan Sarfati
3. The exoplanets that have been discovered so far to date are nothing like earth. When Hawking calls earth a minor planet he's contradicting the evidence.
4. It's ironic of course that Hawking makes so much mileage (and so much money) talking about a God he claims doesn't exist.
- As a physicist he might be in the major leagues, but in terms of philosophy he's most definitely minor league.
Monday, September 27, 2010
The mathematical equivalent of stupidity
In a lecture on something called neuroeconomics, Robert Sopalsky offers a concise introduction to game theory. At one point he discusses a hypothetical scenario where a person is offered a choice of saving people by pulling a lever, or by pushing a person in front of a train. (As I remember it, in the latter scenario more people are saved.) He tells us these scenarios are mathematically equivalent. [1.]
Quotes and comments;
- To say ethical strategy A. (moral) is 'mathematically equivalent' to strategy B. (immoral) is nonsensical. You can't talk about ethics and morality in terms of mathematics. That's not what ethics is. Mathematics isn't ethical, and ethics aren't mathematical. How anyone can make such a huge mistake I don't know.
Materialism (being monistic) leads to endless errors; as the human and the non-human must be explained by the same principles. The appeal of game theory is that it gives promise of being able to explain animal behavior in terms of mathematics; and thus gives hope to the dream of being able to explain all things (including human experience) in terms of physics.
Notes;
1. Robert Sopalsky; Biology and human behavior; lecture 12 [Cooperation, competition and neuroeconomics]
- While creationists have done a fair job of reviewing books on evolution, they've done a poor job of keeping up with lecture series such as this. (The Teaching Company alone has many courses on evolution.) I can't remember ever having seen a review of one of them. As courses like these gain in popularity I think this is a lack that needs rectifying.
2. Neuroeconomics appearantly refers to observing the brain while people play these games such as Prisoner's Dilemna.
- I fail to see how these games can possibly be an accurate reflection of the animal world. I think we see here the triumph of the rational over the real.
Quotes and comments;
- To say ethical strategy A. (moral) is 'mathematically equivalent' to strategy B. (immoral) is nonsensical. You can't talk about ethics and morality in terms of mathematics. That's not what ethics is. Mathematics isn't ethical, and ethics aren't mathematical. How anyone can make such a huge mistake I don't know.
Materialism (being monistic) leads to endless errors; as the human and the non-human must be explained by the same principles. The appeal of game theory is that it gives promise of being able to explain animal behavior in terms of mathematics; and thus gives hope to the dream of being able to explain all things (including human experience) in terms of physics.
Notes;
1. Robert Sopalsky; Biology and human behavior; lecture 12 [Cooperation, competition and neuroeconomics]
- While creationists have done a fair job of reviewing books on evolution, they've done a poor job of keeping up with lecture series such as this. (The Teaching Company alone has many courses on evolution.) I can't remember ever having seen a review of one of them. As courses like these gain in popularity I think this is a lack that needs rectifying.
2. Neuroeconomics appearantly refers to observing the brain while people play these games such as Prisoner's Dilemna.
- I fail to see how these games can possibly be an accurate reflection of the animal world. I think we see here the triumph of the rational over the real.
Standing up for evolution
The politicization of children's books has now hit the Origins debate.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'An award-winning children’s book was written by a man who said, “We have got to stand up for evolution. Lots of kids don’t know about it....” Chris Wormell, who wrote and illustrated One Smart Fish, received the Booktrust Early Years Award... The book is a story about a fish wanting to evolve into a land animal. [1.]
- ''We've got to stand up for evolution...'' Really? Is he forgetting he's just matter in motion, a bag of chemicals, a robot acting out the wishes of selfish genes?
Stand up for a mindless process of chance and degeneration? Human beings defending and celebrating the process of entropy? Sounds great; let the parade begin.
I once wrote a very similar story... the main difference being that mine was satire.
Sadly, the book radically distorts evolutionary theory... as it depends upon teleology and will. I'm sure this wasn't done intentionally, as it seems unlikely a book that dishonest would receive an award.
I guess his next book will be about a land animal that wishes to become a fish. (I can easily imagine that the final book in the trilogy will be about a human being that wishes to be an animal.)
Notes;
1. Children Propagandized Into Evolution with Fishy Tale Creation/Evolution Headlines 09/07/2010
2. Stand up for;
'To speak or act in support or defense of (a person, a cause, a belief, or the like).' - Wiktionary
- Perhaps Mr. Wormell isn't aware that the process of evolution isn't a person, a cause, or a belief. (On second thought, I could be wrong.)
3. The politicization of children's books is something that saddens me, but I guess that's to be expected when so many people think children belong to the state. (Is it my imagination or do most books nowdays seem to be written by political hacks?)
4. Richard Dawkins wants to make the teaching of evolution compulsory for grade schools in Britain. In other words he wants to use the power of the state to force his worldview on the general populace, to use political power to destroy individual conscience. [see ref. #1]
Quotes and comments;
A. 'An award-winning children’s book was written by a man who said, “We have got to stand up for evolution. Lots of kids don’t know about it....” Chris Wormell, who wrote and illustrated One Smart Fish, received the Booktrust Early Years Award... The book is a story about a fish wanting to evolve into a land animal. [1.]
- ''We've got to stand up for evolution...'' Really? Is he forgetting he's just matter in motion, a bag of chemicals, a robot acting out the wishes of selfish genes?
Stand up for a mindless process of chance and degeneration? Human beings defending and celebrating the process of entropy? Sounds great; let the parade begin.
I once wrote a very similar story... the main difference being that mine was satire.
Sadly, the book radically distorts evolutionary theory... as it depends upon teleology and will. I'm sure this wasn't done intentionally, as it seems unlikely a book that dishonest would receive an award.
I guess his next book will be about a land animal that wishes to become a fish. (I can easily imagine that the final book in the trilogy will be about a human being that wishes to be an animal.)
Notes;
1. Children Propagandized Into Evolution with Fishy Tale Creation/Evolution Headlines 09/07/2010
2. Stand up for;
'To speak or act in support or defense of (a person, a cause, a belief, or the like).' - Wiktionary
- Perhaps Mr. Wormell isn't aware that the process of evolution isn't a person, a cause, or a belief. (On second thought, I could be wrong.)
3. The politicization of children's books is something that saddens me, but I guess that's to be expected when so many people think children belong to the state. (Is it my imagination or do most books nowdays seem to be written by political hacks?)
4. Richard Dawkins wants to make the teaching of evolution compulsory for grade schools in Britain. In other words he wants to use the power of the state to force his worldview on the general populace, to use political power to destroy individual conscience. [see ref. #1]
Friday, September 24, 2010
The mind, the brain, and creation
It's all the rage in neurobiology to claim that the brain (matter) is all there is, and that the mind doesn't exist. I'd like to make a dissenting comment or two.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'You can’t deny that your mind exists. After all, the very act of denying requires the ability to form thoughts, which seems to be a mental ability—so denying that you have a mind would amount to proving that you do! What’s unclear, however, is just what it means to have a mind.We know that we have brains,
which are purely physical objects." [1.]
- Let's take a look at this statement to see if it makes any sense. Let's change one word... 'we know that a computer is a purely physical object.' Now; does that claim make any sense? I don't think so; and I don't think the claim about the brain makes any sense. What is a purely physical object? We could define it as an object that has recieved no human input, had no intelligent intervention in its structure or shape let's say. I don't think the brain is an object that hasn't recieved any intelligent intervention. I think the brain is a creation of an intelligence. (In a way similar to software; it's a product of coding.) The brain is an 'object' created by intelligence, for a purpose, and to perform certain functions. To fail to understand this, is to forever be unable to understand the mind.
Brain and mind are very different things in the sense matter and information are very different things. To understand mind we need to understand the concept of information. We might call mind the information embedded in the matter of the brain. (In this case; specified and complex information.) Information is both separate from and dependent upon matter. (How god, or the mind of god, can exist without matter I don't know. I see the question of god's existence as beyond human ability to comprehend.)
Summary; It's my opinion that human beings are only conscious because they were designed to be so; that this could not have happened via some chemical accident.
Notes;
1. 60 Second Philosopher - Andrew Pessin/ch. 4.
- I was surprised to see that this book [of daily meditations] wasn't more popular. I suspect this was because the author was too demanding of his readers. I hope to rectify his mistake with my new book 'Philosophy in 60 seconds a week :=)
2. to pretend the mind doesn't exist is like pretending software doesn't exist. (We were designed to think, act and respond in certain ways. The bible claims that this 'programming' has gone wrong in some way; that man no longer the same as in the original creation.)
- I might add here that no one who has read the bible carefully, and as intended, can doubt that the creation (including man) has changed from its state in the original creation. Creationists may have taught an unchanging creation, but this wasn't biblical. (Since the books of the bible weren't written to satisfy man's fallen curiosity, the details aren't given to us.)
3. I don't see anything wrong with using terms like spirit (soul, etc.) to represent the information we see in genetic code. (There is after all nothing we can see or touch in information itself. We can think of information as immaterial.) I see it (at least) as an intuition that there's more to living organisms than mere matter. (I admit to liking the term informed matter... which I seem to recall someone using to describe Aristotle's take on Plato's forms.) Terms like spirit gave people a way to talk about a very real phenomenon while the genetic code was unknown. It (spirit) respected human experience, while the philosopher friendly (and Rationalist) idea of materialism discounted human experience.
4. The idea the brain is all there is... and that there is no mind, is as foolish a notion as claiming a computer is only hardware. The observation that brain is just matter completely misses the point.
5. To claim that thoughts can be boiled down to the firing of neurotransmitters is like saying a book can be boiled down to paper and ink. Neuro-biologists fail to understand the concept of information.
6. People who claim that religious experience can be boiled down to a brain malfunction (eg. Susan Greenfield) have ceased being empiricists. If all is merely matter in motion nothing can be a malfunction. Just as David Hume said that no one sees causation, no one sees malfunction. All one sees is matter in motion. The idea of malfunction depends on a standard; and that's not reductionism.
- These people never bother to define religion or spiritual either, which is very convenient for them.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'You can’t deny that your mind exists. After all, the very act of denying requires the ability to form thoughts, which seems to be a mental ability—so denying that you have a mind would amount to proving that you do! What’s unclear, however, is just what it means to have a mind.We know that we have brains,
which are purely physical objects." [1.]
- Let's take a look at this statement to see if it makes any sense. Let's change one word... 'we know that a computer is a purely physical object.' Now; does that claim make any sense? I don't think so; and I don't think the claim about the brain makes any sense. What is a purely physical object? We could define it as an object that has recieved no human input, had no intelligent intervention in its structure or shape let's say. I don't think the brain is an object that hasn't recieved any intelligent intervention. I think the brain is a creation of an intelligence. (In a way similar to software; it's a product of coding.) The brain is an 'object' created by intelligence, for a purpose, and to perform certain functions. To fail to understand this, is to forever be unable to understand the mind.
Brain and mind are very different things in the sense matter and information are very different things. To understand mind we need to understand the concept of information. We might call mind the information embedded in the matter of the brain. (In this case; specified and complex information.) Information is both separate from and dependent upon matter. (How god, or the mind of god, can exist without matter I don't know. I see the question of god's existence as beyond human ability to comprehend.)
Summary; It's my opinion that human beings are only conscious because they were designed to be so; that this could not have happened via some chemical accident.
Notes;
1. 60 Second Philosopher - Andrew Pessin/ch. 4.
- I was surprised to see that this book [of daily meditations] wasn't more popular. I suspect this was because the author was too demanding of his readers. I hope to rectify his mistake with my new book 'Philosophy in 60 seconds a week :=)
2. to pretend the mind doesn't exist is like pretending software doesn't exist. (We were designed to think, act and respond in certain ways. The bible claims that this 'programming' has gone wrong in some way; that man no longer the same as in the original creation.)
- I might add here that no one who has read the bible carefully, and as intended, can doubt that the creation (including man) has changed from its state in the original creation. Creationists may have taught an unchanging creation, but this wasn't biblical. (Since the books of the bible weren't written to satisfy man's fallen curiosity, the details aren't given to us.)
3. I don't see anything wrong with using terms like spirit (soul, etc.) to represent the information we see in genetic code. (There is after all nothing we can see or touch in information itself. We can think of information as immaterial.) I see it (at least) as an intuition that there's more to living organisms than mere matter. (I admit to liking the term informed matter... which I seem to recall someone using to describe Aristotle's take on Plato's forms.) Terms like spirit gave people a way to talk about a very real phenomenon while the genetic code was unknown. It (spirit) respected human experience, while the philosopher friendly (and Rationalist) idea of materialism discounted human experience.
4. The idea the brain is all there is... and that there is no mind, is as foolish a notion as claiming a computer is only hardware. The observation that brain is just matter completely misses the point.
5. To claim that thoughts can be boiled down to the firing of neurotransmitters is like saying a book can be boiled down to paper and ink. Neuro-biologists fail to understand the concept of information.
6. People who claim that religious experience can be boiled down to a brain malfunction (eg. Susan Greenfield) have ceased being empiricists. If all is merely matter in motion nothing can be a malfunction. Just as David Hume said that no one sees causation, no one sees malfunction. All one sees is matter in motion. The idea of malfunction depends on a standard; and that's not reductionism.
- These people never bother to define religion or spiritual either, which is very convenient for them.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Creation and the gift of awareness
Is self awareness a gift or an accident?
Quotes and comments;
A. "Self-awareness is a supreme gift, a treasure as precious as life." - Irvin Yalom [1.]
- Self awareness is a gift Yalom tells us . This somnolent statement ignores the fact that a gift must come from a person. Since Yalom claims to be a materialist, awareness (whatever else he can say about it) can't be a gift - as there is no Person from whom it is offered. Yalom is asleep at the keyboard, nodding off over his notebook when he writes this way. If he wants to be consistent he can't speak of awareness as a gift - he can only speak of it as an accident.
He's using language from another worldview; speaking as if this was a personal universe, not the impersonal one he speaks about elsewhere in his books and talks.
In the materialist model of the universe people find presents under the tree, but claim no one put them there. The materialist has no one to thank for this 'gift' of awareness. (If we reject creation we remove the foundation for worship.)
B. In speaking of the awareness of death (what he calls death anxiety) Yalom quotes from the epic of Gilgamesh;
"Thou hast become dark and cannot hear me. When I die, shall I not be like Enkidu? Sorrow enters my heart. I am afraid of death." [2.]
- Anyone who claims they're not afraid of death is likely dead already.
In orthodox Christian theology the fear of death, at its deepest level is a fear of judgment. An existentialist like Yalom claims to be willing to 'stare at the sun' but when he denies a life after death he reveals to us that's he not willing to look things at the deepest level after all. (Some of us follow Epicurus, and some of us aspire to follow Calvin. Some of us think the goal or ideal of life is personal tranquility, and some think it's godliness.)
Notes;
1. Staring at the sun; overcoming the terror of death - Irvin Yalom/p.1
A. "Self-awareness is a supreme gift, a treasure as precious as life. This is what makes us human."
- Self-awareness is a vital part of being human, but it's not what makes us human. What makes us human is that we were created in the image of God.
B. ibid
2. Gift;
- c.1100, from O.N. gift, from P.Gmc. *giftiz (cf. O.Fris. jefte, M.Du. ghifte "gift," Ger. Mitgift "dowry"), from PIE base *ghabh- "to give or receive" (see habit). O.E. cognate gift meant "bride-price, marriage gift (by the groom), dowry" (O.E. for "giving, gift" was related giefu). Sense of "natural talent" is c.1300.
- We might say that materialists have a real gift for appropriating theistic language :=)
3. Gift;Websters/1913
1. Anything given; anything voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation; a present; an offering.
2. The act, right, or power of giving or bestowing.
Quotes and comments;
A. "Self-awareness is a supreme gift, a treasure as precious as life." - Irvin Yalom [1.]
- Self awareness is a gift Yalom tells us . This somnolent statement ignores the fact that a gift must come from a person. Since Yalom claims to be a materialist, awareness (whatever else he can say about it) can't be a gift - as there is no Person from whom it is offered. Yalom is asleep at the keyboard, nodding off over his notebook when he writes this way. If he wants to be consistent he can't speak of awareness as a gift - he can only speak of it as an accident.
He's using language from another worldview; speaking as if this was a personal universe, not the impersonal one he speaks about elsewhere in his books and talks.
In the materialist model of the universe people find presents under the tree, but claim no one put them there. The materialist has no one to thank for this 'gift' of awareness. (If we reject creation we remove the foundation for worship.)
B. In speaking of the awareness of death (what he calls death anxiety) Yalom quotes from the epic of Gilgamesh;
"Thou hast become dark and cannot hear me. When I die, shall I not be like Enkidu? Sorrow enters my heart. I am afraid of death." [2.]
- Anyone who claims they're not afraid of death is likely dead already.
In orthodox Christian theology the fear of death, at its deepest level is a fear of judgment. An existentialist like Yalom claims to be willing to 'stare at the sun' but when he denies a life after death he reveals to us that's he not willing to look things at the deepest level after all. (Some of us follow Epicurus, and some of us aspire to follow Calvin. Some of us think the goal or ideal of life is personal tranquility, and some think it's godliness.)
Notes;
1. Staring at the sun; overcoming the terror of death - Irvin Yalom/p.1
A. "Self-awareness is a supreme gift, a treasure as precious as life. This is what makes us human."
- Self-awareness is a vital part of being human, but it's not what makes us human. What makes us human is that we were created in the image of God.
B. ibid
2. Gift;
- c.1100, from O.N. gift, from P.Gmc. *giftiz (cf. O.Fris. jefte, M.Du. ghifte "gift," Ger. Mitgift "dowry"), from PIE base *ghabh- "to give or receive" (see habit). O.E. cognate gift meant "bride-price, marriage gift (by the groom), dowry" (O.E. for "giving, gift" was related giefu). Sense of "natural talent" is c.1300.
- We might say that materialists have a real gift for appropriating theistic language :=)
3. Gift;Websters/1913
1. Anything given; anything voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation; a present; an offering.
2. The act, right, or power of giving or bestowing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)