AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

This is a review of a new book by the philosopher Thomas Nagel who argues for some form of natural teleology. It runs over two pages-http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/07/awaiting-new-darwin/?page=1-It reminds me somewhat of the ideas of G.B.Shaw and Teilhard de Chardin, or more recent ones on emergence of complexity, though these are not mentioned in the text.-The idea of some sort of holistic laws governing the evolution of the universe are not inconceivable. For instance there is the Smolin theory of evolving universes where the aim is the maximising of the number or size of black holes.

--
GPJ

5972 views

George This is a review of a new book by the philosopher Thomas Nagel who argues for some form of natural teleology. It runs over two pages
> 
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/07/awaiting-new-darwin/?page=1-I&... read Negal's book and reviewed it here, but I really appreciate your providing H. Allen Orr's. Orr has been active in the origin of life efforts for years. His touting the RNA world start to life is old news. and lacks the analytical viewpoint of Robert Shapiro, but despite my poor opinion of Orr, his review is incisive. Nagel's problem is that he sees the teleology and can't explain why evolution looks that way. So he invents a 'third way' with no theory behind it, just a comment that it must exist, because chance and design are lacking something. Nagel, an atheist won't accept design, he doubts chance and is stuck in his thinking. He really smells more like our resident dhw.

5963 views

GEORGE:
This is a review of a new book by the philosopher Thomas Nagel who argues for some form of natural teleology. It runs over two pages-http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/07/awaiting-new-darwin/?page=1-DAVID: I've read Nagel's book and reviewed it here, but I really appreciate your providing H. Allen Orr's. Orr has been active in the origin of life efforts for years. His touting the RNA world start to life is old news. and lacks the analytical viewpoint of Robert Shapiro, but despite my poor opinion of Orr, his review is incisive. Nagel's problem is that he sees the teleology and can't explain why evolution looks that way. So he invents a 'third way' with no theory behind it, just a comment that it must exist, because chance and design are lacking something. Nagel, an atheist won't accept design, he doubts chance and is stuck in his thinking. He really smells more like our resident dhw.-Not so sure I like the verb "smell", but it seems to me that Nagel is groping towards some kind of panpsychism. Just to repeat my own tentative slant on this: The first cause would then be energy transforming itself into matter with a degree of intelligence akin to that of the first forms of life: capable of meaningful actions and combinations but without self-awareness. I think George might argue that these meaningful actions and combinations would be in accordance with natural laws. Don't ask who created natural laws, because the answer will simply be that they are part of the first cause. Simpler than a super-intelligence being the first cause.
 
I am puzzled by the following paragraph in Orr, so perhaps someone can explain it to me:-Nagel's astonishment that a "sequence of viable genetic mutations" has been available to evolution over billions of years is also unfounded.3 His concern appears to be that evolution requires an unbroken chain of viable genetic variants that connect the first living creature to, say, human beings. How could nature ensure that a viable mutation was always available to evolution? The answer is that it didn't. That's why species go extinct. Indeed that's what extinction is. The world changes and a species can't find a mutation fast enough to let it live. Extinction is the norm in evolution: the vast majority of all species have gone extinct. Nagel has, I think, been led astray by a big survivorship bias: the evolutionary lineage that led to us always found a viable mutation, ergo one must, it seems, always be available. Tyrannosaurus rex would presumably be less impressed by nature's munificence.-The only alternative to an unbroken line between first forms and us would surely have to be special creation (or life starting all over again in different ways, which would only redouble the mystery). As I see it, that unbroken line is the whole basis of evolution. Once multicellularity occurred, vast numbers of new combinations led to vast numbers of new organs, organisms and species. Of course billions went extinct, but every one that survived, and every one that "mutated", still descended from the original forms. As I say, I can't follow Orr's logic, but Nagel needn't be astonished either, if he forgets about random mutations and accepts the idea I have been proposing under "The intelligent cell" (which we latterly renamed "the intelligent genome"): namely, that the first forms of life contained a mechanism for endless replication, adaptation and innovation, acting in accordance with changing environments. Otherwise there couldn't have been any evolution.

6036 views

Another review of Nagel's ideas: Basically a good critique of scientific materialism, in which it is stated that Nagel doeesn't think science will ever explain all unless consicousness is included as a basic component of the solution:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/01/30/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainly-false/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_MB_20130130-And offers no answer as usual

5990 views

Another thoughtful review thinks Nagel is on the right track, but offers no answers:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/thomas-nagel-vs-his-critics-has-neo-darwinian-evolution-failed-and-can-teleological-naturalism-take-its-place/

5919 views

DAVID: Another review of Nagel's ideas: Basically a good critique of scientific materialism, in which it is stated that Nagel doesn't think science will ever explain all unless consciousness is included as a basic component of the solution:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/01/30/is-scientific-materialism-al...-And offers no answer as usual.-DAVID: Another thoughtful review thinks Nagel is on the right track, but offers no answers:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/thomas-nagel-vs-his-critics-has-neo-d...-As I wrote in response to the first review, it seems to me that Nagel is groping towards some form of panpsychism. David, I think you have difficulty understanding why he calls himself an atheist. After all, he downgrades materialism, emphasizes the inability of science to understand consciousness, and is no doubt fully aware of the complexity of life. I certainly wish he was an agnostic, but he isn't, and I suspect the reason is that he can't accept the possibility of any kind of god. You yourself can understand this if it entails the conventional father figure with his multiple human attributes, but your own concept also has attributes: it is eternal and universal, it is aware of itself, it had a purpose in creating life (namely, to guide evolution towards the production of humans), it is "within and without" the universe. A force that is self-aware and that deliberately creates a mechanism leading to another being that is self-aware already has much in common with us humans ... not in the material sense but in the mental sense. And so even your relatively vague concept of God would be unacceptable to Nagel, if my reading of his mind is correct.-You say twice that Nagel "offers no answers". People who do offer answers will always find that their reasoning eventually runs into a brick wall, and the only way over that wall is through faith (as you readily acknowledge). This is vehemently denied by some atheists, who simply don't realize how improbable their alternatives are, and so I think it's to Nagel's credit that he recognizes the gaps in the materialist argument and is searching for a different route that will fill those gaps without creating others (as is the case with any form of God), and without resorting to faith. Even if he does "smell" like dhw and offers no answers, don't hold it against him!

5939 views


>dhw: You say twice that Nagel "offers no answers". ...... I think it's to Nagel's credit that he recognizes the gaps in the materialist argument and is searching for a different route that will fill those gaps without creating others (as is the case with any form of God), and without resorting to faith. Even if he does "smell" like dhw and offers no answers, don't hold it against him!-No, I do him credit for trying, and for stopping when he can go no further. but he has certainly put a nail in the darwin theory coffin. The subtitle of his book is: "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False." That statement is very positive, and brings to mind Paul Davies who says we have to add information, but he also has no idea where that info comes from. -IT MUST COME FROM SOMEWHERE. Tell me it arises de novo. It still boils down to the consideration that the information has a first cause. Only an intellect can create information.

5885 views

dhw: You say twice that Nagel "offers no answers". ...... I think it's to Nagel's credit that he recognizes the gaps in the materialist argument and is searching for a different route that will fill those gaps without creating others (as is the case with any form of God), and without resorting to faith. Even if he does "smell" like dhw and offers no answers, don't hold it against him!-DAVID: No, I do him credit for trying, and for stopping when he can go no further. but he has certainly put a nail in the darwin theory coffin. The subtitle of his book is: "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False." That statement is very positive, and brings to mind Paul Davies who says we have to add information, but he also has no idea where that info comes from. 
IT MUST COME FROM SOMEWHERE. Tell me it arises de novo. It still boils down to the consideration that the information has a first cause. Only an intellect can create information.-We have long since agreed that parts of Darwin's theory are in trouble, e.g. random mutations and gradualism, but you have never claimed that evolution did not take place. One controversy is over HOW it took place, and another is over how its mechanisms came into being. But the basis of the theory ... namely, that all forms of life descended from earlier forms ... remains unchallenged except by Creationists, and you have said many times that you are not a Creationist.-I don't agree that only an intellect can create information. Information is everywhere, even in a grain of sand, though it takes an intellect of some kind to extract, evaluate and use it. You're right, of course that everything must come from somewhere ... including the grain of sand ... and since all effects have causes, theoretically we can go back indefinitely. That includes going back prior to the Big Bang, if it happened. You and I have agreed, though, that there has to be a first cause, and we have even agreed that it's energy. The difference between us is that I stop there. You insist that first cause energy is a universal intellect with self-awareness and even with a purpose in its mind. I say maybe. Or maybe it's impersonal and unselfconscious, but during its eternal and infinite movements and transformations into matter, it has formed combinations which themselves have a degree of awareness that has gradually evolved, epitomized by the way lesser "intellects" have evolved into greater here on Earth. Maybe. -Your version is a single planning mind right from the start; what I've described is not a single mind, and doesn't even lead to a single mind: it's an on-going process with an almost infinite number of different "minds" (in inverted commas, because they're not minds as we know them ... just as your God is not a mind as we know it) constantly combining to form new "minds". You might call it process theology without God. It still requires faith ... that energy and matter can develop their own laws and degrees of awareness ... but no more faith than is required to believe in a single eternal and universal intellect that has always had its own laws and awareness, or in countless giant strokes of luck. I say "maybe" to all of them, but Nagel's "natural teleology" is clearly more in line with the above form of panpsychism.

5959 views


> dhw:I don't agree that only an intellect can create information. Information is everywhere, even in a grain of sand, though it takes an intellect of some kind to extract, evaluate and use it.-A grain of sand is the result of erosion of rock which came from lava orginally. It has a crystallin structure, which is pretty but does not contain information of any use other than descriptive.-> 
> dhw: Your version is a single planning mind right from the start; what I've described is not a single mind, and doesn't even lead to a single mind: it's an on-going process with an almost infinite number of different "minds" (in inverted commas, because they're not minds as we know them ... just as your God is not a mind as we know it) constantly combining to form new "minds". You might call it process theology without God. -Can you describe the 'process' in your theory? Your supposition is much more complex than my simple suggestion of a first cause mind.

5863 views

dhw:I don't agree that only an intellect can create information. Information is everywhere, even in a grain of sand, though it takes an intellect of some kind to extract, evaluate and use it.-DAVID: A grain of sand is the result of erosion of rock which came from lava orginally. It has a crystallin structure, which is pretty but does not contain information of any use other than descriptive.-It is also sometimes possible to say where certain types of sand come from (useful in forensic science?), and for me all of that counts as information. As is so often the case, a buzz word enters the debate, and today it's "information". Descriptive information is information, so what do you mean by "information" when you say only an intellect can create it? (I presume by "intellect" you mean a self-aware intelligence.)-dhw: Your version is a single planning mind right from the start; what I've described is not a single mind, and doesn't even lead to a single mind: it's an on-going process with an almost infinite number of different "minds" (in inverted commas, because they're not minds as we know them ... just as your God is not a mind as we know it) constantly combining to form new "minds". You might call it process theology without God.
 
DAVID: Can you describe the 'process' in your theory? -The process in my 'theory' is an ongoing series of causes and effects, in which matter combines in different forms, each with its own individual "intelligence" (i.e. ability to create systems though almost certainly without self-awareness), resulting in a wider and wider variety of forms, with greater complexity and increasing "intelligence". It is evolution on a cosmic scale, which has led to what as far as we know is our own unique self-awareness.
 
DAVID: Your supposition is much more complex than my simple suggestion of a first cause mind.-I cannot see why the idea that matter combines itself in "intelligent" ways should be regarded as more complex than the idea of an infinite and eternal, self-aware intellect, with no provenance, that deliberately creates universes on the one hand and DNA on the other.

5853 views


> DAVID: Your supposition is much more complex than my simple suggestion of a first cause mind.
> 
> dhw: I cannot see why the idea that matter combines itself in "intelligent" ways should be regarded as more complex than the idea of an infinite and eternal, self-aware intellect, with no provenance, that deliberately creates universes on the one hand and DNA on the other.-There is a whole section of theological thought that describes God as very simple. It is the result of that simplicity's actions that you view as very complex.

5941 views

Lee Smolin has a new book coming out, expanding on his "Life of the Cosmos". This is a sort of preview:-http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer-I sort of find this type of theory attractive, though I would prefer one that showed the existing laws of nature were the result of mathematical necessity, since that would be far more conclusive. Even a theory of endless evolution of universes must presumably have a beginning somewhere? Unless of course it goes round in endless cycles as Roger Penrose imagines!-I've never understood this creationist claim that 'information' cannot increase except by intervention of a creative mind. It seems to me this is exactly what evolution does; build up more complex structures which must therefore contsin more information - or certainly require more information to describe how they work.

--
GPJ

5926 views

George: Lee Smolin has a new book coming out, expanding on his "Life of the Cosmos". This is a sort of preview:
> 
> http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer&... 
> I sort of find this type of theory attractive, though I would prefer one that showed the existing laws of nature were the result of mathematical necessity,-Thanks again for a wonderful website re' Smolin. His work on quantum gravity is confusing him I think:-"The idea of cosmological variation, however, is one of pure conjecture. "It's an hypothesis," Smolin concedes.
 
But that said, Smolin points to string theory as a potential mechanism. "There could be a connection there," he told us, "it describes a landscape of different cosmological parameters â different phase transitions between them â and this is almost exactly the kind of example I had in mind when trying to explain the variation of the constants."
 
Smolin is also unsure how many baby universes each black hole is able to produce â though he suspects that it's one per black hole. "The answer," he says, "will ultimately depend on quantum gravity theory."
 
Life as epiphenomenon?
 
We asked Smolin if life in the universe is therefore an accident â that humans and all other organisms are mere epiphenomenon, a sideshow to a much larger process.
 
"If the hypothesis of Cosmological Natural Selection is true, then life â and the universe being biofriendly â is a consequence of the universe being finely-tuned to produce black holes by producing many, many massive stars."
 
But he added: "Those if statements are important."-Other prominent cosmologists pick him apart as presented on the site.-
 
> George: I've never understood this creationist claim that 'information' cannot increase except by intervention of a creative mind. It seems to me this is exactly what evolution does; build up more complex structures which must therefore contsin more information - or certainly require more information to describe how they work.-To me the initial complexity of the first living cells raises the issue you question. I think chance formation of living matter from an inorganic Earth defies all odds. That is where we differ. Life ony took 400 million years to appear. Not enough time for chance alone to work is my view.

5938 views

Dhw: I cannot see why the idea that matter combines itself in "intelligent" ways should be regarded as more complex than the idea of an infinite and eternal, self-aware intellect, with no provenance, that deliberately creates universes on the one hand and DNA on the other. -DAVID: There is a whole section of theological thought that describes God as very simple. It is the result of that simplicity's actions that you view as very complex.-How do the theologians know? And why do you believe them? But if this sort of argument satisfies you, what could be simpler than mindless energy? Even simpler than energy with a mind! As you say, it is the result of that simplicity's actions that you view as very complex.-****-dhw: I don't agree that only an intellect can create information. Information is everywhere, even in a grain of sand, though it takes an intellect of some kind to extract, evaluate and use it.-DAVID: A grain of sand is the result of erosion of rock which came from lava orginally. It has a crystallin structure, which is pretty but does not contain information of any use other than descriptive.-Dhw: [...] As is so often the case, a buzz word enters the debate, and today it's "information". Descriptive information is information, so what do you mean by "information" when you say only an intellect can create it? (I presume that by intellect you mean a self-aware intelligence.)-I eagerly await your definition of "information". Meanwhile, George has made a similar point: -GEORGE: I've never understood this creationist claim that 'information' cannot increase except by the intervention of a creative mind. It seems to me this is exactly what evolution does: build up more complex structures which must therefore contain more information ... or certainly require more information to describe how they work.-David, you cite the complexity of the first living cells as your reason for not believing in chance ... and I'm certainly not going to disagree with you. I would just like to point out yet again that a single, universal, eternal, self-aware creative mind is not the only possible explanation. In my post of 4 February at 12.39, as requested, I described an alternative process of evolution on a cosmic scale (rather less scientific than Smolin's!) through "intelligent" but not self-aware matter. Your ... to me surprising ... response is reproduced at the start of this post. I can only repeat that all these theories (God, chance, variants of panpsychism) require faith, and I really cannot see why one faith should take precedence over another.

5787 views


> DAVID: There is a whole section of theological thought that describes God as very simple. It is the result of that simplicity's actions that you view as very complex.
> 
> dhw: How do the theologians know? And why do you believe them?-This becomes an area of faith-based reasoning, which is beyond your position. It is logical once a first cause of this type is accepted. God is a simple concept, His results are very complex.- 
> Dhw: [...] As is so often the case, a buzz word enters the debate, and today it's "information". Descriptive information is information, so what do you mean by "information" when you say only an intellect can create it? (I presume that by intellect you mean a self-aware intelligence.)
> 
> I eagerly await your definition of "information". Meanwhile, George has made a similar point.-Information is of several types: descriptive, or analytic; functional or planning; historical or retrospective. There are probably more forms of information but you can see that the word information is very encompassing. For God or first cause I can believe in a planning, analytic mind a a source of the info needed. If chance doesn't work, and you doubt that it does, than planning must occur. And that plan must be analyzed by a thoughtful self-aware mind. That is how my mind works, and I assume the universal mind is a pattern for mine. 
> 
> dhw: David, you cite the complexity of the first living cells as your reason for not believing in chance ... and I'm certainly not going to disagree with you. I would just like to point out yet again that a single, universal, eternal, self-aware creative mind is not the only possible explanation. In my post of 4 February at 12.39, as requested, I described an alternative process of evolution on a cosmic scale (rather less scientific than Smolin's!) through "intelligent" but not self-aware matter. Your ... to me surprising ... response is reproduced at the start of this post. I can only repeat that all these theories (God, chance, variants of panpsychism) require faith, and I really cannot see why one faith should take precedence over another.-'Self-aware matter', as a theory, is simply an extension of my UI as in pansychism. My table is not aware of anything. My computer is, and living matter certainly is. But neither of the latter have the kind of self-awareness I have. I don't know how to define 'intelligent but not self-aware matter'. My dog fits that phrase to a degree. To me true planning intelligence requires a mind that is introspective, not my dog's. And you saw how I answered George. Information is not self-creating. It must have a source. This is the nub of the entire Intelligent Design thesis.

5928 views

dhw: David, you cite the complexity of the first living cells as your reason for not believing in chance ... and I'm certainly not going to disagree with you.-Great summary of why the origin of life is a miracle:- http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/28/atheistic-science-is-rapidly-sinking-in-the-quicks...

5944 views

DAVID: There is a whole section of theological thought that describes God as very simple. It is the result of that simplicity's actions that you view as very complex.
dhw: How do the theologians know? And why do you believe them?
DAVID: This becomes an area of faith-based reasoning, which is beyond your position. It is logical once a first cause of this type is accepted. God is a simple concept, His results are very complex.-So life and the human mind are too complex not to have been designed, but the universal, eternal, self-aware, planning mind which you think created them and the universe is undesigned and simple. And self-awareness is a simpler concept than lack of self-awareness, since you claim that the theory of deliberate creation is simpler than the chance and panpsychism theories. I can see the "faith-based", but I'm struggling with the "reasoning"!-Dhw: [...] As is so often the case, a buzz word enters the debate, and today it's "information". Descriptive information is information, so what do you mean by "information" when you say only an intellect can create it? (I presume that by intellect you mean a self-aware intelligence.)
DAVID: Information is of several types: descriptive, or analytic; functional or planning; historical or retrospective. There are probably more forms of information but you can see that the word information is very encompassing. For God or first cause I can believe in a planning, analytic mind as a source of the info needed. If chance doesn't work, and you doubt that it does, than planning must occur. And that plan must be analyzed by a thoughtful self-aware mind. That is how my mind works, and I assume the universal mind is a pattern for mine.-Then your argument should not be that only an intellect can create information. You mean that only an intellect can plan. Agreed. However, that is the whole point of our discussion. Are the universe and life on Earth the result of planning, or of a higgledy-piggledy process of experimentation (by a self-aware experimenter), or of a higgledy-piggledy process of evolution (by chance, or by matter that is intelligent but not self-aware)?
 
dhw: David, you cite the complexity of the first living cells as your reason for not believing in chance ... and I'm certainly not going to disagree with you. I would just like to point out yet again that a single, universal, eternal, self-aware creative mind is not the only possible explanation. In my post of 4 February at 12.39, as requested, I described an alternative process of evolution on a cosmic scale (rather less scientific than Smolin's!) through "intelligent" but not self-aware matter. Your ... to me surprising ... response is reproduced at the start of this post. I can only repeat that all these theories (God, chance, variants of panpsychism) require faith, and I really cannot see why one faith should take precedence over another.-DAVID: 'Self-aware matter', as a theory, is simply an extension of my UI as in pansychism. -Panpsychism does not stipulate self-awareness or even a mind. It stipulates "varying degrees in which things have inner subjective or quasi-conscious aspects, some very unlike what we experience as consciousness" (Oxford Companion to Philosophy). That's why I have summed it up as "intelligence" (in inverted commas) without self-awareness. (NB I'm not a panpsychist. I'm merely putting the idea forward as an equally likely/unlikely alternative.)-DAVID: My table is not aware of anything. My computer is, and living matter certainly is. But neither of the latter have the kind of self-awareness I have. I don't know how to define 'intelligent but not self-aware matter'. My dog fits that phrase to a degree. -Exactly. "To a degree". (See the above definition.) Just like cells combining intelligently to form new organs, though we doubt if they are self-aware. What you attribute to a single, self-aware, planning mind may be the product of billions of "intelligent" though unselfconscious interactions between "things". I don't know how to define this form of intelligence either ... the whole concept is beyond definition and indeed beyond our comprehension. So is God's "universal mind", but you do not reject that theory on the grounds of indefinability and incomprehensibility.-DAVID: To me true planning intelligence requires a mind that is introspective, not my dog's. And you saw how I answered George. Information is not self-creating. It must have a source. This is the nub of the entire Intelligent Design thesis.-I agree that true planning intelligence requires an introspective mind, but "planning" is the nub of the controversy surrounding Intelligent Design. And yes, information must have a source, but that does not mean it has to be deliberately created by a single, self-aware universal intellect. Your starting-point is always an assumption based on your faith, and I can't fault your reasoning once you build on that basic premise. It's the basic premise itself that is under scrutiny.-****-DAVID: Great summary of why the origin of life is a miracle:
http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/28/atheistic-science-is-rapidly-sinking-in-the-quicks...-It certainly is ... a great summary AND a miracle! Many thanks for this.

5989 views

DAVID: There is a whole section of theological thought that describes God as very simple. It is the result of that simplicity's actions that you view as very complex.
> 
> dhw:So life and the human mind are too complex not to have been designed, but the universal, eternal, self-aware, planning mind which you think created them and the universe is undesigned and simple. I can see the "faith-based", but I'm struggling with the "reasoning"!-I must admit I've read the theologic thought, but not pursued it to understand their reasoning. 
> 
> dhw: Then your argument should not be that only an intellect can create information. You mean that only an intellect can plan. Agreed. However, that is the whole point of our discussion. Are the universe and life on Earth the result of planning, or of a higgledy-piggledy process of experimentation?-Our 'plan', especially life, is so complex only an intellect can create it. Chance cannot as the article below shows you.- 
> dhw: I can only repeat that all these theories (God, chance, variants of panpsychism) require faith, and I really cannot see why one faith should take precedence over another.[/i]-All a matter of faith. I've made my choice. You cannot.Both reasonable.-
> dhw:I agree that true planning intelligence requires an introspective mind, but "planning" is the nub of the controversy surrounding Intelligent Design. And yes, information must have a source, but that does not mean it has to be deliberately created by a single, self-aware universal intellect. Your starting-point is always an assumption based on your faith, and I can't fault your reasoning once you build on that basic premise. It's the basic premise itself that is under scrutiny.-Again, your only other source of the planning is chance. Very unreasonable conclusion considering the following article:
> 
> ****
> 
> DAVID: Great summary of why the origin of life is a miracle:
> http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/28/atheistic-science-is-rapidly-sinking-in-the-quicks... 
> It certainly is ... a great summary AND a miracle! Many thanks for this.

5951 views


> > dhw:I agree that true planning intelligence requires an introspective mind, but "planning" is the nub of the controversy surrounding Intelligent Design. And yes, information must have a source, but that does not mean it has to be deliberately created by a single, self-aware universal intellect.
 
> David: Again, your only other source of the planning is chance. Very unreasonable conclusion considering the following article:
> > 
> > ****
> > 
> > DAVID: Great summary of why the origin of life is a miracle:
> > http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/28/atheistic-science-is-rapidly-sinking-in-the-quicks... > 
> > It certainly is ... a great summary AND a miracle! Many thanks for this.-Molecular machines in genome:-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wpTJVWra7I&feature=player_detailpage

5887 views

dhw: Then your argument should not be that only an intellect can create information. You mean that only an intellect can plan. Agreed. However, that is the whole point of our discussion. Are the universe and life on Earth the result of planning, or of a higgledy-piggledy process of experimentation?-DAVID: Our 'plan', especially life, is so complex only an intellect can create it. Chance cannot as the article below shows you. [...] Again, your only other source of the planning is chance.-Oops! Your editing has truncated my list of options! I wrote: "Are the universe and life on Earth the result of planning, or of a higgledy-piggledy process of experimentation (by a self-aware experimenter), or of a higgledy-piggledy process of evolution (by chance, or by matter that is intelligent but not self-aware)?"-Only one of these four options leaves life to chance, and you have ignored the last of them (the panpsychist variant), which offers "intelligence" without God.- DAVID: All a matter of faith. I've made my choice. You cannot. Both reasonable.-I am very happy with this answer, just as I am very happy with your arguments against chance. Our difficulties don't arise from arguments AGAINST anything. The problem is arguments FOR (chance, various forms of God, various forms of panpsychism). These are always a matter of faith, and I do not find one faith more reasonable than another. But of course that is the essence of all our discussions, and by exchanging reasons for and against, I would like to think we all learn something.-Thank you for the latest batch of articles, including-http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2013/02/amateur-astronomer-hubble.html-I'm particularly interested in the ravenous black hole in M106, "actively devouring matter and spewing out jets of particles". Since you believe that your version of God planned our universe with the express purpose of creating us, I wonder if you have any thoughts on why he might have created these gulping, spitting black holes all over the place, with matter appearing and disappearing all the time. It all seems rather higgledy-piggledy to me.

5896 views


> dhw: Only one of these four options leaves life to chance, and you have ignored the last of them (the panpsychist variant), which offers "intelligence" without God.-I have the firm belief that you cannot offer intelligence as a first cause and it not be God. As I understand panpsychism it is intelligence in everything in the universe. That is really panentheism. God is everywhere, for example, as in your consciousness, which is part of Him, whether you want to accept Him or not.- 
> 
> dhw: I am very happy with this answer, just as I am very happy with your arguments against chance. Our difficulties don't arise from arguments AGAINST anything. The problem is arguments FOR (chance, various forms of God, various forms of panpsychism). These are always a matter of faith, and I do not find one faith more reasonable than another. -God has various forms in various religions, usually anthropomorphic. And I feel worthless. -> 
> dhw:I'm particularly interested in the ravenous black hole in M106, "actively devouring matter and spewing out jets of particles". Since you believe that your version of God planned our universe with the express purpose of creating us, I wonder if you have any thoughts on why he might have created these gulping, spitting black holes all over the place, with matter appearing and disappearing all the time. It all seems rather higgledy-piggledy to me.-There is a view by some scientists and theologans that the specific laws of nature by which the universe is evolving are constricted to allow only this sort of evolution. For example, the formation of galaxies always requires a black hole at the center. Galaxies are present due to quantum fluctuations in the original plasma after the Big Bang. And so on. It really seem to be all planned out by design.

5825 views

Even more about Nagel from James Barham, atheist philosopher:-http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2012/11/12/nagel-dembski-life-mind/

6664 views

DAVID: Even more about Nagel from James Barham, atheist philosopher:-http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2012/11/12/nagel-dembski-life-mind/-It may be unwise to comment on a review of a book I haven't read, but a review should itself be coherent, and for me the ideas criticized make more sense than the criticism itself. Since the ideas link up so closely with my own tentative theorizing, I need to quote the relevant section of the review:-"Nagel himself admits that value is logically connected, not with consciousness, but rather with life as such:-. . . with the appearance of life even in its earliest forms, there come into existence entities that have a good, and for which things can go well or badly. Even a bacterium has a good in this sense, in virtue of its proper functioning, whereas a rock does not.[117] [NB This is a quote from Nagel]-He does not suggestâand he is right not to suggestâthat we must therefore imagine bacteria as conscious beings.
Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. We have no way of knowing. But, in any case, that question is not the most important one for Nagel's project.
What is crucial for Nagel's project is the realization that bacteria don't have to be conscious for things to be able to go well or badly for them. Therefore, flourishing, needing, valuing, and a host of other normative properties are essential features, not of consciousness, but of life as such.
This point relates to another important problem with Nagel's whole discussion. Nowhere does he make it clear that he is aware of the crucial distinction between local and global teleology.
At most points in his text, the "teleological principles" he has in mind seem to be global, or cosmic, in nature."
 
Since Nagel himself has used bacteria as an illustration of his thesis, I can only assume that he is extrapolating the global principles from the local, so how many local points does he have to make before he moves onto his global ones? It seems to me that he is in fact making exactly the point I have been trying to make myself by drawing a parallel between cells which act "intelligently" (see my quote from the Oxford description of panpsychism) ... but which are not, we assume, self-aware ... and the evolution of the cosmos, in which matter with varying degrees of (indefinable) "intelligence" forms functioning systems. I see little difference between "teleological principles" and "intelligence" in the sense I have indicated, since the latter is required to engender and fulfil purpose (e.g. why and how did single cells combine in the first place?). The confusing nature of Barham's critique becomes apparent in the following:-"The bottom line is that local teleological principles at least have some prospect of being anchored in real science, andâif confirmedâthey would go a good part of the way towards closing the yawning chasm between the inanimate world and the domain of life and mind."-How can local teleological principles possibly close the yawning chasm between the inanimate world and living matter without being applied to the global, and isn't that precisely what Nagel is trying to do? -I need to end by stressing yet again that I am not championing this theory. I am only offering it as an alternative which I find no less reasonable, or no more unreasonable, than those theories involving chance and the many different versions of God.

5955 views

DAVID: Even more about Nagel from James Barham, atheist philosopher:
> 
> http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2012/11/12/nagel-dembski-life-mind/&#... 
> dhw: It may be unwise to comment on a review of a book I haven't read, but a review should itself be coherent, -Having read the book I'll comment. Nagel realizes that teleology seems to be apparent in developing the universe and also in the developmwent of life.- 
> "The bottom line is that local teleological principles at least have some prospect of being anchored in real science, andâif confirmedâthey would go a good part of the way towards closing the yawning chasm between the inanimate world and the domain of life and mind."-But Nagel never closes that gap, since he literally flounders around after presenting his criticisms of Neo-Darwin not recognizing the apparent teleology at work. He offers no source for the teleology because he refused to offer the possibility of God.
> 
> dhw: How can local teleological principles possibly close the yawning chasm between the inanimate world and living matter without being applied to the global, and isn't that precisely what Nagel is trying to do? -Yes he is, and he has a valid criticism of Neo-Darwinism, a science which will only recognize material methodologic reductionism. 
> 
> dhw:I need to end by stressing yet again that I am not championing this theory. I am only offering it as an alternative which I find no less reasonable, or no more unreasonable, than those theories involving chance and the many different versions of God.-You are in Negal's dory floating on a sea of confusion. He wants a 'third way' and you do also. Panpsychism is a Spinozan concept to try to sneak purpose into inanimate objects. Rocks have a purpose we give them. Nagel recognizes this. Plants and trees have feelings, mediated by chemicals given them in evolution. But they are not conscious in our sense of the term. We have reflective consciousness. it is back to Adler and "the difference of man and the difference it makes". Nagel wants to know where that comes from, but insists on remaining atheistic. Really he is obviously teetering on agnositicism as practiced by dhw.

5958 views

DAVID: I have the firm belief that you cannot offer intelligence as a first cause and it not be God. As I understand panpsychism it is intelligence in everything in the universe. That is really panentheism. God is everywhere, for example, as in your consciousness, which is part of Him, whether you want to accept Him or not.-I realize that you have a firm belief, but in this discussion it's vital that we clarify our terms. I tried to make it clear that by "intelligence" I do NOT mean the self-awareness which is so essential to your concept of God. ("Intelligence" may not be the right word, which is why I usually put it in inverted commas, but there IS no right word.) Panpsychism has many variants, and I'm putting my own slant on it, but this slant is in keeping with the description I quoted from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, which does NOT entail self-awareness or even a mind. It suggests that there are "varying degrees in which things have inner subjective or quasi-conscious aspects, some very unlike what we experience as consciousness." This concept is very different from your panentheism, and ties in neatly with the latest article about Nagel which you have alerted us to, and which I will discuss in a separate post.-Dhw: Our difficulties don't arise from arguments AGAINST anything. The problem is arguments FOR (chance, various forms of God, various forms of panpsychism). These are always a matter of faith, and I do not find one faith more reasonable than another.-DAVID: God has various forms in various religions, usually anthropomorphic. And I feel worthless. -I was genuinely shocked to read this, and cannot for the life of me understand why you should feel worthless. If that is what belief in God makes you feel, come and join me on my fence, where you will be treated with all the affection and respect you deserve!-Dhw: Since you believe that your version of God planned our universe with the express purpose of creating us, I wonder if you have any thoughts on why [God] might have created these gulping, spitting black holes all over the place, with matter appearing and disappearing all the time. It all seems rather higgledy-piggledy to me.-DAVID: There is a view by some scientists and theologians that the specific laws of nature by which the universe is evolving are constricted to allow only this sort of evolution. For example, the formation of galaxies always requires a black hole at the center. Galaxies are present due to quantum fluctuations in the original plasma after the Big Bang. And so on. It really seems to be all planned out by design.-What seems planned and designed to you seems higgledy-piggledy to me! If the laws of nature require a black hole at the centre of each galaxy, I don't see how that provides proof of a conscious designer. And I still wonder what might be the point of all this matter appearing and disappearing, and what it has to do with God's purpose, which you believe was to create us. But I had similar trouble understanding the purpose of the dodo!

5900 views


> Dhw: Our difficulties don't arise from arguments AGAINST anything. The problem is arguments FOR (chance, various forms of God, various forms of panpsychism). These are always a matter of faith, and I do not find one faith more reasonable than another.-I understand your position.
> 
> DAVID: God has various forms in various religions, usually anthropomorphic. And I feel worthless. 
> 
> dhw:I was genuinely shocked to read this, and cannot for the life of me understand why you should feel worthless. If that is what belief in God makes you feel, come and join me on my fence, where you will be treated with all the affection and respect you deserve!-I am not worthless. It is my poor inferential writing. Anthropomorphic gods are worthless.
> 
> Dhw: Since you believe that your version of God planned our universe with the express purpose of creating us, I wonder if you have any thoughts on why [God] might have created these gulping, spitting black holes all over the place, with matter appearing and disappearing all the time. It all seems rather higgledy-piggledy to me.-And it seems quite organized to me
> 
>dhw: What seems planned and designed to you seems higgledy-piggledy to me! If the laws of nature require a black hole at the centre of each galaxy, I don't see how that provides proof of a conscious designer. And I still wonder what might be the point of all this matter appearing and disappearing, and what it has to do with God's purpose, which you believe was to create us. -Remember matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. Each galaxy is the same, like different model cars coming off an assembly line. Globlar, eliptical or spiral. Looks designed to me.

5973 views

DAVID: God has various forms in various religions, usually anthropomorphic. And I feel worthless. 
dhw: I was genuinely shocked to read this, and cannot for the life of me understand why you should feel worthless. If that is what belief in God makes you feel, come and join me on my fence, where you will be treated with all the affection and respect you deserve!
DAVID: I am not worthless. It is my poor inferential writing. Anthropomorphic gods are worthless.-Hilarious! All the same, you will always be welcome on my fence, though I clearly have more respect for anthropomorphic gods than you do. That is because I cannot imagine a self-aware God creating minds totally different from his own.
 
dhw: What seems planned and designed to you seems higgledy-piggledy to me! If the laws of nature require a black hole at the centre of each galaxy, I don't see how that provides proof of a conscious designer. And I still wonder what might be the point of all this matter appearing and disappearing, and what it has to do with God's purpose, which you believe was to create us. 
DAVID: Remember matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. Each galaxy is the same, like different model cars coming off an assembly line. Globular, eliptical or spiral. Looks designed to me.-Yeah, but different model cars are designed for an obvious purpose, and I still wonder what might be the purpose of all this matter appearing etc...(see the passage you have quoted above).-DAVID: Even more about Nagel from James Barham, atheist philosopher: -http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2012/11/12/nagel-dembski-life-mind/-dhw (quoting from Barham's review:) "The bottom line is that local teleological principles at least have some prospect of being anchored in real science, andâif confirmedâthey would go a good part of the way towards closing the yawning chasm between the inanimate world and the domain of life and mind."
DAVID: But Nagel never closes that gap, since he literally flounders around after presenting his criticisms of Neo-Darwin not recognizing the apparent teleology at work. He offers no source for the teleology because he refused to offer the possibility of God.-My criticism was of Barham, who does not seem to have understood the link I presume Nagel is trying to establish between "local" and "global" teleology (see below). But of course Nagel flounders, because none of us have a clue how life and mind came out of the inanimate world. Hence all these faith-based theories.-dhw: How can local teleological principles possibly close the yawning chasm between the inanimate world and living matter without being applied to the global, and isn't that precisely what Nagel is trying to do? 
DAVID: Yes he is, and he has a valid criticism of Neo-Darwinism, a science which will only recognize material methodologic reductionism. -Thank you for this, as it confirms the incoherence of Barham's criticism.-dhw: I need to end by stressing yet again that I am not championing this theory. I am only offering it as an alternative which I find no less reasonable, or no more unreasonable, than those theories involving chance and the many different versions of God.
DAVID: You are in Nagel's dory floating on a sea of confusion. He wants a 'third way' and you do also. -We are all floating on a sea of confusion, but those of you who believe in anthropomorphic gods, in chance, in panpsychism, in panentheism, are content with your particular faith, and this allows you to shut out the confusion. As for me, no, I don't want a 'third way'. I would just like to know the truth (which I can't), and am exploring all the options.
 
DAVID: Panpsychism is a Spinozan concept to try to sneak purpose into inanimate objects. Rocks have a purpose we give them. Nagel recognizes this. Plants and trees have feelings, mediated by chemicals given them in evolution. But they are not conscious in our sense of the term. -I don't think many people (including panpsychists) seriously believe they are. That is why I keep banging on about degrees of "intelligence" (in inverted commas).

DAVID: We have reflective consciousness. It is back to Adler and "the difference of man and the difference it makes". Nagel wants to know where that comes from, but insists on remaining atheistic. Really he is obviously teetering on agnosticism as practiced by dhw.-You have read the book and I haven't, but I suspect you're right. Perhaps only agnostics are willing to admit that they are floating on a sea of confusion.

6008 views

dhw:I clearly have more respect for anthropomorphic gods than you do. That is because I cannot imagine a self-aware God creating minds totally different from his own.- I think I have discovered one of our 'misunderstanding' differences. I think my mind is a part of the universal intelligence (God) and as such is exactly the same as His. I am self-aware and so is HE. Only much smaller in capacity and with less intellectual power. But I am similar to concepts of God in that I can know the past but not the future. This is the background of why we have evolution. God has/had goals in mind and He had to use evolution to get there. We cannot truly know His personality which was fixed at His beginning. It just IS. We, on the other hand, develop a personality based on inheritance, life experiences, etc. we therefore all differ and have different expectations. My assumption is there never was nothing, an absolute void. Something cannot appear from a true void of nothingness. God is a necessary being, from the beginning, whenever that was. I am made in the image of God in my brain's consciousness. Here the Bible is right on.

6000 views

dhw: I clearly have more respect for anthropomorphic gods than you do. That is because I cannot imagine a self-aware God creating minds totally different from his own.-DAVID: I think I have discovered one of our 'misunderstanding' differences. I think my mind is a part of the universal intelligence (God) and as such is exactly the same as His. I am self-aware and so is HE. Only much smaller in capacity and with less intellectual power. -So our minds are not totally different from his ... one up for "worthless" anthropomorphic gods!-DAVID: But I am similar to concepts of God in that I can know the past but not the future. This is the background of why we have evolution. God has/had goals in mind and He had to use evolution to get there. We cannot truly know His personality which was fixed at His beginning. It just IS. We, on the other hand, develop a personality based on inheritance, life experiences, etc. we therefore all differ and have different expectations. My assumption is there never was nothing, an absolute void. Something cannot appear from a true void of nothingness. God is a necessary being, from the beginning, whenever that was. I am made in the image of God in my brain's consciousness. Here the Bible is right on.-You say God's personality was fixed at his beginning, but according to you he had no beginning. And the fact that we cannot truly know his personality doesn't mean he hasn't got one, or that it does not share the characteristics of his creations. And why should whatever personality he has be fixed? Maybe his basic characteristics are, in the same way that heredity fixes many of ours, but if he doesn't know the future, then he's going to learn something, and learning something automatically involves movement of some kind. So why assume that he had goals in mind, did all this planning, engaged in all this detailed scientific analysis and execution, and yet had no human-like reasons for doing so (e.g. boredom, entertainment, curiosity, education) and himself underwent no development? If God exists, it makes perfect sense to me that our consciousness mirrors his, but self-awareness requires a self to be aware of, and so it also makes perfect sense to me that the attributes of the creature mirror the attributes of the creator. Perhaps rather than call it an anthropomorphic view of God, we should call it a deomorphic view of man.
 
I agree, and have always agreed, that nothing can come of nothing. I don't know why that makes God a necessary being. Your argument that life is too complex to have assembled itself by chance is fine with me, but that has no bearing on the "nothing" argument. If eternal, unselfconscious energy as "first cause" did come up with the magic formula by sheer luck or by "intelligent" cell-like experimentation, you wouldn't need God. I think you should stick to your complexity argument!

5948 views


> dhw:You say God's personality was fixed at his beginning, but according to you he had no beginning. And the fact that we cannot truly know his personality doesn't mean he hasn't got one, or that it does not share the characteristics of his creations.-You are critically correct. It is hard for me to not to imagine a beginning for anything. I think we share His characteristics in a small way, but what that makes of Him we cannot know.-> dhw: And why should whatever personality he has be fixed? Maybe his basic characteristics are, in the same way that heredity fixes many of ours, but if he doesn't know the future, then he's going to learn something, and learning something automatically involves movement of some kind. So why assume that he had goals in mind, did all this planning, engaged in all this detailed scientific analysis and execution, and yet had no human-like reasons for doing so (e.g. boredom, entertainment, curiosity, education) and himself underwent no development?-It goes back to my complexity argument, Why create the complexity of life if there is no goal in mind? Why create life at all? I am not implying God is human-like or not human-like. I just don't know. The evidence strongly implies teleology. There is obvious directionality in creation of the universe and life. That requires a planner. One does not plan without analysis and introspection.
 -> dhw:If God exists, it makes perfect sense to me that our consciousness mirrors his, but self-awareness requires a self to be aware of, and so it also makes perfect sense to me that the attributes of the creature mirror the attributes of the creator. Perhaps rather than call it an anthropomorphic view of God, we should call it a deomorphic view of man.-You are very likely correct. We and God reflect each other,but it is always my point that we have no guide as to how far to carry that comparison.
> 
> dhw:I agree, and have always agreed, that nothing can come of nothing. I don't know why that makes God a necessary being. Your argument that life is too complex to have assembled itself by chance is fine with me, but that has no bearing on the "nothing" argument.-Yes, it does. We must have a planner for the complexity. We agree there is a first cause. By philosophic definition that is 'necessary'.-> dhw: If eternal, unselfconscious energy as "first cause" did come up with the magic formula by sheer luck or by "intelligent" cell-like experimentation, you wouldn't need God. I think you should stick to your complexity argument!-Your if, "the unselfconscious energy" (ue) as a first cause is an extremely unreasonable proposal for my 'planner' of complexity. 'Sheer luck' is chance in sheep's clothing. Your ue is a philosophic dead end, because it requires chance, which you, yourself, have rejected. -You've said you reject the idea of God because you cannot imagine such a being. I can't either. You have more imagination than I do. You are a playwright with lots of imagination behind your work, but you won't carry our agreements to a logical conclusion despite the imagination problem. God must exist to explain what we both see.

5939 views

From my neutral position on the agnostic fence, I have objected to David's claim that anthropomorphic gods are "worthless". His own god apparently has a "fixed" personality which we cannot know, but is self-aware and planned the universe and evolution, with the goal of producing us.
 
Dhw: So why assume that he had goals in mind, did all this planning, engaged in all this detailed scientific analysis and execution, and yet had no human-like reasons for doing so (e.g. boredom, entertainment, curiosity, education) and himself underwent no development?-You now proceed to repeat my own arguments, and then, oh bliss, join me on my agnostic fence: "I am not implying God is human-like or not human-like. I just don't know." Good. So I trust you will now agree that anthropomorphic gods are not worthless. I went on to say it made sense to me that the attributes of the creature mirror the attributes of the creator, but perhaps we should call this a deomorphic view of man rather than an anthropomorphic view of God. You replied: "You are very likely correct. We and God reflect each other, but it is always my point that we have no guide as to how far to carry that comparison." Good. So anthropomorphic gods are not worthless and God's personality is probably not fixed.
 
You and I agree that nothing can come of nothing, but I do not agree that this makes God a "necessary being".-DAVID: Yes, it does. We must have a planner for the complexity. We agree there is a first cause. By philosophic definition that is 'necessary'.-You have split up my argument, which is that the necessary first cause need not be a self-aware planner. You reject chance and you reject the panpsychic alternative, so of course YOUR necessary first cause is a self-aware planner, but there are plenty of people who do believe in chance or different versions of panpsychism, with the first cause being unselfconscious energy, i.e. they do not have to assume that something came of nothing. By all means reject their beliefs on the grounds of complexity, but do not assume that the only alternative is something from nothing.
 
DAVID: You've said you reject the idea of God because you cannot imagine such a being. [...] you won't carry our agreements to a logical conclusion despite the imagination problem. God must exist to explain what we see.-I do not reject the idea of God. It appears that I am even more open to different concepts of gods than you are. As I keep trying to explain, my form of agnosticism entails neither believing nor disbelieving ... I consider chance to be as unlikely a creator of life as an eternal, infinite, self-aware form of energy, and as an eternal, infinite, "intelligent" but not self-aware form of energy. One of these concepts must be true, but I have no idea which one. Our agreements concern the complexity of life and the unlikelihood of chance, but the "sea of confusion" (your metaphor for Nagel's position) clearly engulfs your own concept of God, and since so many people have so many different concepts, not only of gods but also of what may have produced the universe and life, I would suggest that the logical conclusion is: we don't know, we can't know, and therefore we shall have to keep an open mind.

6027 views

dhw: but there are plenty of people who do believe in chance or different versions of panpsychism, with the first cause being unselfconscious energy, i.e. they do not have to assume that something came of nothing. By all means reject their beliefs on the grounds of complexity, but do not assume that the only alternative is something from nothing.-I'm not assuming 'something from nothing', you are. Where did the 'unselfconscious energy' come from? Was it eternal? If eternal, so is my self-aware God who is the UI. Something must be eternal. The base of everything is energy, so energy is eternal. Our disagreement is on whether that energy is organized or not and I do not think unorganized energy can become organized, except by chance and you and I have rejected chance as a likely possibility. I do not think unorganized energy can produce the reality we see. And I know you cannot explain how unorganized energy can advance to the organization we see today. It requires mind work or chance, so we are back to intellect.-
> 
> dhw;I do not reject the idea of God. It appears that I am even more open to different concepts of gods than you are. As I keep trying to explain, my form of agnosticism entails neither believing nor disbelieving ... I consider chance to be as unlikely a creator of life as an eternal, infinite, self-aware form of energy, and as an eternal, infinite, "intelligent" but not self-aware form of energy....... One of these concepts must be true, but I have no idea which one.I would suggest that the logical conclusion is: we don't know, we can't know, and therefore we shall have to keep an open mind.-And I disagree. Only one choice is logical, a planning self-aware mind. There is no way an amorphous clump of energy can do any more than degrade according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. An eternally organized UI most likely does not experience entropy or it would not, by definition, be eternal.

5917 views

dhw: ...but there are plenty of people who do believe in chance or different versions of panpsychism, with the first cause being unselfconscious energy, i.e. they do not have to assume that something came of nothing. By all means reject their beliefs on the grounds of complexity, but do not assume that the only alternative is something from nothing.-DAVID: I'm not assuming 'something from nothing', you are.
 
This is a misunderstanding. I am not assuming anything! You had argued ... in my view correctly ... that nothing can come from nothing. You then went on to say that this makes God a "necessary being". If you read my comment more closely, you will see that my objection is to your assumption that, if nothing can come from nothing, God is the "necessary" first cause. Other people argue that the necessary first cause can be unselfconscious energy (which is something, not nothing). Your argument that this is unlikely because of the complexity of life etc. is not what I am opposing.
 
DAVID: Where did the 'unselfconscious energy' come from? Was it eternal? If eternal, so is my self-aware God who is the UI. Something must be eternal.-There is no disagreement between us on this point. -DAVID: The base of everything is energy, so energy is eternal. Our disagreement is on whether that energy is organized or not and I do not think unorganized energy can become organized, except by chance and you and I have rejected chance as a likely possibility. I do not think unorganized energy can produce the reality we see.
 
Dhw: ...One of these concepts [God, chance, a form of panpsychism] must be true, but I have no idea which one. I would suggest that the logical conclusion is: we don't know, we can't know, and therefore we shall have to keep an open mind.-DAVID: And I disagree. Only one choice is logical, a planning self-aware mind. There is no way an amorphous clump of energy can do any more than degrade according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. An eternally organized UI most likely does not experience entropy or it would not, by definition, be eternal.-And as you have so often agreed in the past, it requires faith to believe in such a "mind". I have always accepted your argument against chance, which I regard as being just as unlikely as an eternal, organized, self-aware clump of energy that does not experience entropy. Your faith in God arises from the unlikelihood of chance. The atheist's faith in chance arises from the unlikelihood of God. Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

5940 views


> dhw: And as you have so often agreed in the past, it requires faith to believe in such a "mind". I have always accepted your argument against chance, which I regard as being just as unlikely as an eternal, organized, self-aware clump of energy that does not experience entropy. Your faith in God arises from the unlikelihood of chance. The atheist's faith in chance arises from the unlikelihood of God. Tweedledum and Tweedledee.-Either t-dum or t-dee is correct. On that we do agree. I've chosen my firm ground, you are still straddling on top of your fence. And there we stay. Ah, well, I tried.

5934 views

dhw: And as you have so often agreed in the past, it requires faith to believe in such a "mind". I have always accepted your argument against chance, which I regard as being just as unlikely as an eternal, organized, self-aware clump of energy that does not experience entropy. Your faith in God arises from the unlikelihood of chance. The atheist's faith in chance arises from the unlikelihood of God. Tweedledum and Tweedledee.-DAVID: Either t-dum or t-dee is correct. On that we do agree. I've chosen my firm ground, you are still straddling on top of your fence. And there we stay. Ah, well, I tried.-Or to put it another way:-It's Tweedledum or Tweedledee,
On that the two of us agree.
You've gone for God. Your choice makes sense,
As does my straddling the fence.
You will not budge ... that's plain to see.
I've tried, but you're as stuck as me.

5888 views

Another view of Nagel's position, and why Neo-Darwinism is untennable:-"Nagel has hit the naturalists where they hurt most: namely, by taking their philosophy with the seriousness it deserves and then forcing upon them an existential decision. Unfortunately the politically correct version of naturalism that currently dominates academic philosophy finesses that decision by hiding behind an idealised vision of Darwin as someone who would have welcomed, say, the molecular revolution in genetics but without ever having licensed the grisly side of eugenics.-In contrast, Nagel sees quite clearly that the trajectory of twentieth century biology radically challenges our conventional self-understanding as human beings. I would say that science is pushing us in two rather opposing directions - either towards being more like the other animals or being more like a deity capable of creating such animals. Although Nagel himself refuses to look over this precipice, he does not share the wishful thinking of his critics who might simply blunder into the abyss."-http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/11/15/3633527.htm

5891 views

Another sympathetic review:-http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/10/12/162725315/are-the-mind-and-life-natural-The 'head in the sand' approach:-"Let us remember, then, that there is another strategy for responding to the explanatory gaps. This has been one of philosophy's orthodox strategies at least since Kant and it is an approach championed by many of the 20th century's greatest thinkers, from Carnap and the logical positivists down through Wittgenstein and Ryle, to Dennett. According to this strategy, the seeming gaps are, really, a cognitive illusion. We think we can't explain life, but only because we insist on adhering to a conception of life as vaguely spooky, some sort of vital spirit. And likewise, we think we can't explain consciousness, but again this is because we cling to a conception of consciousness as, well, somehow spiritual, and precisely because we insist on thinking of it as something that floats free of its physical substrates ("a ghost in the machine"), as something essentially interior and private. Once we clear away these confusions, so this alternative would have it, we realize that we don't need to solve any special problems about life and mind. There never were any problems."

5929 views

DAVID: Another sympathetic review:-http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/10/12/162725315/are-the-mind-and-life-natural-The 'head in the sand' approach:-"Let us remember, then, that there is another strategy for responding to the explanatory gaps. This has been one of philosophy's orthodox strategies at least since Kant and it is an approach championed by many of the 20th century's greatest thinkers, from Carnap and the logical positivists down through Wittgenstein and Ryle, to Dennett. According to this strategy, the seeming gaps are, really, a cognitive illusion. We think we can't explain life, but only because we insist on adhering to a conception of life as vaguely spooky, some sort of vital spirit. And likewise, we think we can't explain consciousness, but again this is because we cling to a conception of consciousness as, well, somehow spiritual, and precisely because we insist on thinking of it as something that floats free of its physical substrates ("a ghost in the machine"), as something essentially interior and private. Once we clear away these confusions, so this alternative would have it, we realize that we don't need to solve any special problems about life and mind. There never were any problems."-So life and consciousness are not spiritual, and therefore life and consciousness don't need an explanation (although scientists are still struggling in vain to explain them). What a wonderful philosophy! If there's a problem, close your eyes and it will go away. Anyway, I thought logical positivism had long since been widely regarded as a philosophical dodo.

5991 views

Is Nagel's book the most despised, or, of coursse, a very important gadfly in the mix?-http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2013/jan/04/most-despised-science-book-2012

5999 views

More praise for Nagel:-http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112481/darwinist-mob-goes-after-serious-philosopher#

5987 views

Evenhanded review of Nagel:-http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=1

5857 views

Evenhanded review of Nagel:-http://tbsblog.thebestschools.org/2013/05/11/reviewer-on-thomas-nagels-mind-cosmos-a-flawed-thesis-but-still-a-valuable-contribution/#more-13337-The editorial comment for religiosity at the end is not intended by me as important.-"Apparently Dr. Nagel, wants to have his cake and eat it too. Read, for example, this sentence: "Those who have seriously criticized these arguments have certainly shown that there are ways to resist the design conclusion; but the general force of the negative part of the intelligent design positionâskepticism about the likelihood of the orthodox reductive view, given the available evidenceâdoes not appear to me to have been destroyed in these exchanges."
 
"Hard to track ?
 
"Definitely. And that's because "seriously criticized" and "certainly shown" are pumped up phrases which go flat when followed by swarming, confusing negatives like "negative part... skepticism of the likelihood... does not appear... to have been destroyed..."
 
"While we do get the point that the design argument deserves consideration, the gummy syntax of this sentence is representative of the style of much of the book.
 
"Nagel follows up this sentence with the limp observation, "At least, the question should be regarded as open." But, really, are there any worthwhile questions that are not open?"

5919 views

More evenhanded reviews of Nagel:-http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/nagel%E2%80%99s-untimely-idea

5865 views

More Feser on Nagel. Thomist fifth way approach to teleology in the world:-http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/06/nagel-and-his-critics-part-x.html#more-Please read it all.-"Of course, whether this approach to teleology and to theism in general is correct cannot be settled without evaluation of the Thomistic arguments. Haldane takes Nagel to task for not seriously engaging the arguments for theism -- Nagel being content for the most part to express his aversion to the idea of God. As Haldane writes: "Saying 'I don't want to go there' hardly counters the suggestion that this may be where the reasoning leads.' "

5829 views

A book review. Two atheists who don't like Darwin are also upset with each other:-http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/books/review/john-grays-silence-of-animals.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&ref=books&pagewanted=all&

5713 views

Another evenhanded review of Nagel:-https://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.2109/article_detail.asp

5677 views

Nagel explains Nagel:-http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/the-core-of-mind-and-cosmos/?_r=1&-I don't know why he isn't agnostic

5670 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum