Intelligent Design

[MESchlum]

But single atoms have a temperature.

I know. But the conceptual jump from macro temperature (where the speed of the atoms is one of the components of temperature) to micro temperature (where it's the only one) is something of a change.

Now to justify my above claim - got to keep those sceptical neurons firing.

Consider a frying pan. On the stove, not moving. The speed of the atoms in the frying pan is not all that high, since the atoms are linked together, and the pan is immobile (on a macro level).

Heat the pan: the temperature of the pan goes up, the pan still does not move. Temperature here is manifested not only by increased movement of the atoms, but by increased amounts of energy transferred to other objects. If I understand it right, that is.

So, to me, the jump from a single atom (where temperature is speed, roughly speaking) to a macro object (where energy transfer, shape (ice/water) and other factors are present) is a jump. And, to me, the frying pan is atoms all the way - but having a lot of them means scaled up micro models don't do a good job of explaining things.

And at least we aren't discussing philosophy.

 

[Elind]

I assume you suppose the developing human foetus achieves sentience at some stage? How does this happen if it is not a matter of adding a few simple molecules to the foetus' brain?

Sentience, as in self aware, doesn't develop until well after birth and it's not a matter of adding a few simple molecules, it's a matter of making connections. How exactly we don't know, but your view sounds simplistic in the extreme.

 

[MESchlum]

Huntsman seems to have said things better than I'd manage, so I shall defer.

It's physics all the way down.

Macro phenomena can be described constructively with macro properties that do not scale down well.

Good enough?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Well, I was entirely agreeing with your post, until you said this:

Huntsman

Using Ian's ridiculous definitions, the property of distance implies dualism and is non-reduceable.

Huh?? What definitions are you talking about??

Looking at a single element, concepts of distance and position are unknown and, in fact, unknowable. However, the properties of an object do not change radically because another object exists; the laws for the single object apply equally to the two, although new behavior may emerge by the interaction fo these objects.

I can't imagine what you think I'm disagreeing with you about.

Let me make myself clear. If certain phenomena are not reducible, then we will have excellent reasons to suppose that the phenomenon which prima facie appears the least susceptible to reduction, that is consciousness, will also not be reducible. In other words psychology cannot be reduced to micro-physics. In other words, in addition to the familiar upward causation, we also have downward causation. In effect this means that psychological states actually influence and shape the interactions of the atoms and elementary particles comprising the brain.

Now even though psychological states might still be ontologically dependent on the brain, it seems to me to be basically a semantic quibble about whether we describe this as non-reductive materialism or interactive dualism. This comes about because we do not possess a good definition of the physical.

Hope that clears everything up.

 

[BillHoyt]

Using Ian's ridiculous definitions, the property of distance implies dualism and is non-reduceable.

Are you thinking of lacchus or 1inch? I remember somebody going on about distance recently...

 

[BillHoyt]

I know. But the conceptual jump from macro temperature (where the speed of the atoms is one of the components of temperature) to micro temperature (where it's the only one) is something of a change.

I think you're referring to conduction, convection and radiation, all of which are "macro" phenomena, and all of which are firmly rooted in "micro" phenomena.

 

[Elind]

It's a very common supposition amongst scientists that ultimately everything can be reduced to micro-physics. This is how the scientific revolution occurred - one understands things by analysing their parts. Hell, even I believe this, apart from when it comes to consciousness.

Why are people denying it? No idea, but let's face it, TLN will simply disagree with me on principle.

Wow; finally I understand something you say and agree with it; except that last little sentence (even though it's a considerable simplification to talk about "parts" only).

Consciousness comes from "your" god, I presume?

(I know you've tried to explain this before, but you use your own definitions for concepts that strike me as circular arguments, if not outright sophistry; kind of like Dembski.)

 

[Hellbound]

Are you thinking of lacchus or 1inch? I remember somebody going on about distance recently...

Actually, I must apologize. This seems to be more the definition that others have been regarding as Ian's definition. While I believe his arguments about consciousness fall into the same category of confusing reductionism with ignoring parts of the problem, he has not stated the view I ascribed to him.

My apologies.

However, as others stated, there are many points between the extremes of "consciousness cannot be explained in physical terms" and "consciousness develops with the addition of a few atoms." Primarily, the idea that consciousness is a range, from the obviously non-conscious (rocks, dirt), to marginally conscious (protozoa, simple organisms) to the mildly conscious (alligators, dogs) to moderately conscious (dolphins, primates) to the conscious (humanity). To assume that consciousness suddenyl arises liek the flipping of a switch with the addition of a few molecules or conenctions is to ignore what we know to date from the world around us.

 

[Elind]

there are many points between the extremes of "consciousness cannot be explained in physical terms" and "consciousness develops with the addition of a few atoms." Primarily, the idea that consciousness is a range, from the obviously non-conscious (rocks, dirt), to marginally conscious (protozoa, simple organisms) to the mildly conscious (alligators, dogs) to moderately conscious (dolphins, primates) to the conscious (humanity). To assume that consciousness suddenyl arises liek the flipping of a switch with the addition of a few molecules or conenctions is to ignore what we know to date from the world around us.

This is the type of argument Ian seems to make, by misusing the meaning of "consciousness". My dictionary tells me that it means self aware. Ian confuses himself and makes discussion impossible when he confuses it with "life" and then claims that everything can be explained with physics; except human consciousness.

This is simple religion masquerading as philosophy, or pseudoscience and the circus revolves because we are chasing different meanings of words, in different universes as it were.

 

[hammegk]

... Ian confuses himself and makes discussion impossible when he confuses it with "life" and then claims that everything can be explained with physics; except human consciousness.

Please differentiate "consciousness" from "life". And no, I did not ask about human consciousness.

Who do you think is most confused?

 

[Elind]

Please differentiate "consciousness" from "life". And no, I did not ask about human consciousness.

Who do you think is most confused?

A plant is conscious? That word has a particular meaning. Look it up.

I think Ian is most

and.. maybe my consciousness is slipping. but I don't recall commenting on your post.

 

[hammegk]

A plant is conscious? That word has a particular meaning. Look it up.

Yeah, I can use a dictionary. That wasn't the implication I had in mind. Care to answer?

I think Ian is most

Perhaps. He has given his stance a lot more thought than most appear to have.

and.. maybe my consciousness is slipping. but I don't recall commenting on your post.

Sorry, bubby, this is a bulletin board. Did you think you were sending pm's?

 

[Elind]

Yeah, I can use a dictionary. That wasn't the implication I had in mind. Care to answer?


Perhaps. He has given his stance a lot more thought than most appear to have.


Sorry, bubby, this is a bulletin board. Did you think you were sending pm's?

There is probably a section somewhere for smartasses. Grow up kiddy.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Actually, I must apologize. This seems to be more the definition that others have been regarding as Ian's definition. While I believe his arguments about consciousness fall into the same category of confusing reductionism with ignoring parts of the problem, he has not stated the view I ascribed to him.

My apologies.

However, as others stated, there are many points between the extremes of "consciousness cannot be explained in physical terms" and "consciousness develops with the addition of a few atoms." Primarily, the idea that consciousness is a range, from the obviously non-conscious (rocks, dirt), to marginally conscious (protozoa, simple organisms) to the mildly conscious (alligators, dogs) to moderately conscious (dolphins, primates) to the conscious (humanity). To assume that consciousness suddenyl arises liek the flipping of a switch with the addition of a few molecules or conenctions is to ignore what we know to date from the world around us.

Excellent! However, I must point out that this is a distinct issue that you're addressing here. My sig has nothing whatsoever to do with reductionism. Let's stay focussed

 

[hammegk]

There is probably a section somewhere for smartasses.

You didn't understand the question, or you are too dense to attempt an answer. Which, I wonder, but really don't care.

Grow up kiddy.

Aw, did you get in a snit? So sorry, bubby.

 

[Elind]

Excellent! However, I must point out that this is a distinct issue that you're addressing here. My sig has nothing whatsoever to do with reductionism. Let's stay focussed

I'll try once more then; please try to state your view of what constitutes consciousness, using words that we don't end up wondering if we understand in the same way. Perhaps you could just explain your sig?

 

[BillHoyt]

Just to refresh everybody's memory, this thread was about Intelligent Design. That is, prior to the hijacking.

 

[Robin]

Just to refresh everybody's memory, this thread was about Intelligent Design. That is, prior to the hijacking.

There is something about the subject of Intelligent Design that it always morphs into a religious or philosophical debate.

 

[Robin]

Interesting Ian and Hammegk:

It is not that scientists believe that everything can be reduced to micro-physics - it is just that they will study anything that can be observed.

So physics is just the name we give to the process of trying to find out how stuff works.

The concept of materialism is meaningless. Perhaps there are things beyond matter - if so then it will be some other stuff that behaves according to some other rules and if you can observe it then some scientist will try to work out what those other rules are.

If you can't observe it then there is no way of knowing anything about it.

 

[BillHoyt]

There is something about the subject of Intelligent Design that it always morphs into a religious or philosophical debate.

One has to wonder about that phenomenon. Is it because those taking a position contrary to the evidence know they aren't playing with a full deck, as it were? Be that as it may, we can't really discuss issues properly without giving them levels and boundaries. We're trying to deal with the biological level, not the metaphysical fog.