AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

This excerpt is on point as to how I view my theory. I know it destoys standard Darwinism. It should.-"This line of thinking is known as 'Theistic Evolution'. But its followers are just kidding themselves if they think it is compatible with Darwinism. First, to the extent that anyone ... either God, ... or 'any being. . . external to our universe responsible for selecting its properties' ... set nature up in any way to ensure a particular outcome, then to that extent, although there may be evolution, there is no Darwinism. Darwin's main contribution to science was to posit a mechanism for the unfolding of life that required no input from any intelligence ... random variation and natural selection. If laws were 'implanted' into nature with the express knowledge that they would lead to intelligent life, then even if the results follow by 'natural development,' nonetheless, intelligent life is not a random result (although randomness may be responsible for other, unintended features of nature). Even if all the pool balls on the table followed natural laws after the cue struck the first ball, the final result of all the balls in the side pocket was not random. It was intended [via the specific arrangement of the balls on the pool table before the shot was made].
 
Second, 'laws', understood as simple rules that describe how matter interacts (such as Newton's law of gravity), cannot do anything by themselves. For anything to be done, specific substances must act. If our universe contained no matter, even the most finely tuned laws would be unable to produce life, because there would be nothing to follow the laws. Matter has unique characteristics, such as how much, where it is, and how it's moving. In the absence of specific arrangements of matter, general laws account for little."-Also: "Even if we grant that evolution is capable of "climbing Mount Improbable" (to use a phrase popularized by Professor Richard Dawkins, the world's best-known contemporary atheist), it is still a very remarkable
 fact (unexplained by Darwinism) that evolution possesses the tools required to get it to the top of the mountain and generate such a variety of complex life-forms."-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-the-intelligent-designer-an-interventionist-reply-to-felsenstein-and-liddle/-Darwin's random mutation and natural selection cannot work. Too little time and the fossil record doesn't remotely look like that method was in operation.

2718 views

DAVID: This excerpt is on point as to how I view my theory. I know it destroys standard Darwinism. It should. -http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-the-intelligent-designer-an-interv...-I shan't quote the excerpt, as it will take up too much space, but I'll just quote your conclusion :-D AVID: Darwin's random mutation and natural selection cannot work. Too little time and the fossil record doesn't remotely look like that method was in operation.-Once and for all, can we take it for granted between us that random mutations and gradualism are out. Darwin would have agreed with you that if gradualism is out, then so is his theory, but you subscribe to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, and you see yourself as an evolutionist, which means that you accept common descent, and that is the crucial difference between evolutionists and creationists. (Hence the heading Uncommon Descent used by anti-evolutionists.)
 
dhw: If God intervenes for "major jumps forward in speciation", that is not just a "form of creationism" ... it IS creationism.-DAVID: Of course. Lets define creationism/ creationists. 1) First there are the fundamentalists who believe Genesis and the Earth is young and perhaps only as old as 4004 BC, per The Bishop of Usher. They envision the universe, the Earth, and the start of life created in seven days. They even have a acronym YEC. 2)There are old earth creationists, who accept the idea that the universe and the Earth are much older, But they still feel that God created the universe, the Earth, and started life, but in more than seven days. 3) Finally there are theistic evolutionists like me, and yes we are a form of creationist, only we are the third way. We feel God uses evolution as a favored process. How much is pre-planned and how much is dabbling is not clear, but it fits the scientific findings better than the first two types of creationist. It is the approach that Nagel is looking for; he knows about it and won't accept it.-You and I can discount categories 1) and 2) (Tony probably wouldn't), and focus on 3) as a basis for discussion. The battle now is therefore over common descent. If God intervenes (dabbles), you have separate creation, which is the opposite of common descent. I shall now put on my theist hat, because your idea of theistic evolution is very different from mine, and it must be very different from Darwin's when he put on his own theist hat (my edition of Origin contains many references to the Creator, conveniently ignored by the neo-Darwinists.) As Darwin himself put it, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one..." Here then is my theistic scenario: Your God created life, and into those first few forms he inserted a mechanism for reproduction, adaptation and innovation, but this mechanism was not an automaton. Automatons do not innovate. He gave it sufficient intelligence to enable it to act autonomously, so that once it was in place, he was able to sit back and watch what happened. He also created the Earth in such a way that the environment would be constantly changing, and life forms would adapt and innovate accordingly, in an infinite variety of ways. With the intelligence that he had given them, the early forms of life learned to cooperate, and to create more complex forms between them. We see this cooperation in virtually every biological process. It is even echoed in the beautiful little video on bird embryology that you have treated us to. Cells now automatically repeat the movements, interactions and combinations first invented by their ancestors millions of years ago, when each innovation was brought into being. This explains the diversity of life, and how the original single cell has evolved into the astonishingly complex multicellular organisms that exist today, including ourselves. The great experiment ran and is still running its own course, and if he hasn't lost interest, God is still watching it unfold.-Science cannot handle divine intervention, but the concept of the "intelligent cell" makes intervention unnecessary. The whole process of evolution is driven by interaction between the environment and God's inventive mechanism. The scenario fits in perfectly with Darwin's theory of common descent. And that, no doubt, is why he repeatedly insisted that his theory was compatible with religious belief.-However, I will now put on my agnostic hat and go one step further, since you are determined to impose your beliefs on the atheist Nagel. I don't think yours is the approach he's looking for at all. I think what he's after is that very same mechanism, designed not by your God but by different forms of intelligence which themselves evolved out of energy within changing matter. You might call this an atheistic variant of panpsychism.

2721 views


> dhw: Science cannot handle divine intervention, but the concept of the "intelligent cell" makes intervention unnecessary. The whole process of evolution is driven by interaction between the environment and God's inventive mechanism. The scenario fits in perfectly with Darwin's theory of common descent. And that, no doubt, is why he repeatedly insisted that his theory was compatible with religious belief.-And that is where I sit. But again, it may not be automatic common descent, but may require intervention.
> 
> dhw: However, I will now put on my agnostic hat and go one step further, since you are determined to impose your beliefs on the atheist Nagel. I don't think yours is the approach he's looking for at all. I think what he's after is that very same mechanism, designed not by your God but by different forms of intelligence which themselves evolved out of energy within changing matter. You might call this an atheistic variant of panpsychism.-You are still inventing brilliant intelligence out of thin air. Raw energy at what level, by what mechanism can invent intelligence and thought? Pipe dream.

2701 views

dhw: Science cannot handle divine intervention, but the concept of the "intelligent cell" makes intervention unnecessary. The whole process of evolution is driven by interaction between the environment and God's inventive mechanism. The scenario fits in perfectly with Darwin's theory of common descent. And that, no doubt, is why he repeatedly insisted that his theory was compatible with religious belief.-DAVID: And that is where I sit. But again, it may not be automatic common descent, but may require intervention.-I like your caution. "May" is an auxiliary verb we agnostics are very fond of too. But at least now you have embraced the possibility that divine intervention may not have been necessary. We are making progress up our Mount Improbable!-dhw: However, I will now put on my agnostic hat and go one step further, since you are determined to impose your beliefs on the atheist Nagel. I don't think yours is the approach he's looking for at all. I think what he's after is that very same mechanism, designed not by your God but by different forms of intelligence which themselves evolved out of energy within changing matter. You might call this an atheistic variant of panpsychism.-DAVID: You are still inventing brilliant intelligence out of thin air. Raw energy at what level, by what mechanism can invent intelligence and thought? Pipe dream.-How you love to pounce on your own shadow! Your God is your invention of "brilliant intelligence out of thin air", and in defence of your pipe dream, you wrote on Monday, 20 May under "Innovation": "Yes I know there has to be the famous leap at first, but everything is so logical after that." I replied: "All three hypotheses demand an initial leap of faith, and then the world as we know it, or rather as we INTERPRET it (order for you, order and disorder for me), follows on quite logically from that particular starting point."-Belief in pipe dreams depends on leaps of faith (remember Marx: "Religion is the opium of the people"). Pipe dreamers are ill advised to criticize their fellow leapers of whatever creed for smoking pipes. That is the privilege of us non-leaping, non-smoking fence-sitters!

2672 views


> DAVID: You are still inventing brilliant intelligence out of thin air. Raw energy at what level, by what mechanism can invent intelligence and thought? Pipe dream.
> 
> dhw: How you love to pounce on your own shadow! Your God is your invention of "brilliant intelligence out of thin air", 
> Belief in pipe dreams depends on leaps of faith (remember Marx: "Religion is the opium of the people"). Pipe dreamers are ill advised to criticize their fellow leapers of whatever creed for smoking pipes. That is the privilege of us non-leaping, non-smoking fence-sitters!-The degree of intelligence you need to create the universe and life by panpsychism is certainly equivalent to the concept of 'my God'. You are literally arguing for God without using the term or concept. Think of God without the religious overlays, as I do, and you are at the same stage of my thought process. We are in almost full agreement, except for the terminology.

2693 views


> > DAVID: You are still inventing brilliant intelligence out of thin air. Raw energy at what level, by what mechanism can invent intelligence and thought? Pipe dream.
> > 
> > dhw: How you love to pounce on your own shadow! Your God is your invention of "brilliant intelligence out of thin air", 
> > Belief in pipe dreams depends on leaps of faith (remember Marx: "Religion is the opium of the people"). Pipe dreamers are ill advised to criticize their fellow leapers of whatever creed for smoking pipes. That is the privilege of us non-leaping, non-smoking fence-sitters!
> 
> The degree of intelligence you need to create the universe and life by panpsychism is certainly equivalent to the concept of 'my God'. You are literally arguing for God without using the term or concept. Think of God without the religious overlays, as I do, and you are at the same stage of my thought process. We are in almost full agreement, except for the terminology.-I agree with your statement above, David. In my view, you are both literally arguing for each others ideas. The only difference seems to be in your minds image of the process. One sees a personage (with unknown physical characteristics) when you imagine the process, and the other imagines the process without the one personage. It just seems to me you are both imaging the same process in your mind, one just calls that process God while the other calls it panpsychism. I could only hope we might all come this close with my own imaging of the process, which I am sure Tony and others here probably feel the same. In some sense, this is how we, as an "intelligent" race of beings, should always work out our differences. Your patience with each other is a great model for society .Not to say you were that far apart in the first place...but still, even a minor difference in view is able to cause a war.

2704 views


> > David: The degree of intelligence you need to create the universe and life by panpsychism is certainly equivalent to the concept of 'my God'. 
> 
> bbella:I agree with your statement above, David. In my view, you are both literally arguing for ach others ideas. The only difference seems to be in your minds image of the process. One sees a personage (with unknown physical characteristics) when you imagine the process, and the other imagines the process without the one personage. -You are right on. I don't view a person at all. I still think of God as a quantum mind.

2697 views

DAVID: The degree of intelligence you need to create the universe and life by panpsychism is certainly equivalent to the concept of 'my God'. You are literally arguing for God without using the term or concept. Think of God without the religious overlays, as I do, and you are at the same stage of my thought process. We are in almost full agreement, except for the terminology.-Alas, you have overlooked two small obstacles to our reaching agreement: 1) My panpsychist variant dispenses with any kind of god (see below), and 2) I find all three hypotheses (your god, the atheists' chance, and my panpsychist variant) equally impossible to believe. My agnosticism leaves me open to exploring all avenues, but I have yet to find one that leads to enlightenment!-However, if you don't find it too frustrating, I'd like to go on exploring my panpsychist avenue. As I've pointed out before, A.N Whitehead ... the leading figure in process theology ... blended forms of panpsychism and panentheism, though I can't claim to have understood what it was/is all about. His version has your God at its centre, whereas mine has no single universal intelligence, let alone one with a purpose. Your first cause energy is self-aware and supremely intelligent, and that is your great leap. My panpsychist first cause energy is blank: it makes matter which changes and eventually reverts back to energy, but through the process of change ... this is the leap ... it BECOMES aware within individual units of matter. This gives rise to individual intelligences, and these over vast periods of time cooperate in manipulating matter to form the universe and life. There is no god of any kind ... only the different sorts of intelligence (the variety is manifest throughout the organic world, from plants and bacteria to ourselves). -Unlike materialism, this panpsychist hypothesis allows for psychic experiences, since energy is not bound forever to the materials in which it is embedded. The ability of individual intelligences to communicate would explain most of what we have come to regard as mystic experiences, but they have grown as it were from the bottom up ... accumulating through the ages ... not from the top down, i.e. a single intelligence to which we somehow return. 
 
All three hypotheses lead logically to life and evolution once the basic premise has been accepted, but how we interpret the whole process will depend on that original leap of faith.-Nebulous? Yes, of course. Far too nebulous for me to take the leap. But I think both theists and atheists might find it difficult to ask questions of this hypothesis that are not equally applicable to their own.
 
*******-BBELLA: I agree with your statement above, David. In my view, you are both literally arguing for each others ideas. The only difference seems to be in your minds image of the process. One sees a personage (with unknown physical characteristics) when you imagine the process, and the other imagines the process without the one personage. It just seems to me you are both imaging the same process in your mind, one just calls that process God while the other calls it panpsychism. I could only hope we might all come this close with my own imaging of the process, which I am sure Tony and others here probably feel the same. In some sense, this is how we, as an "intelligent" race of beings, should always work out our differences. Your patience with each other is a great model for society .Not to say you were that far apart in the first place...but still, even a minor difference in view is able to cause a war.-I had drafted my reply to David before seeing your post, BBella. We're certainly both dealing with the same results - universe, life, evolution - but in David's hypothesis they are all the consequence of deliberate planning by a single, eternal intelligence that has an overall purpose and vision. In my panpsychist hypothesis, there is NO single intelligence, NO overall purpose, NO overall vision. And not what David in his reply to you calls a "quantum mind" (I equate personality with mind, not with body, so in that sense, David's God IS a personage, even if he is "a person like no other person"). Instead the process has unfolded through different, individual forms of intelligence, all embedded in different forms of matter, cooperating and working things out as they go along.
 
However, I need to keep stressing that I do not believe in it, any more than I believe in chance or in David's eternal deity. And so, while we agree that the universe, the Earth, life and humans are all here and got here somehow, there is no agreement between us on the processes that enabled it to happen. David holds fast to one, and I juggle with them all. But perhaps it's our very differences that make us model citizens of the world, since differences are a far greater test of patience and tolerance than agreements could ever be!

2697 views

dhw:My agnosticism leaves me open to exploring all avenues, but I have yet to find one that leads to enlightenment!-There are many imponderables on the way to enlightenment. Unfortunately one comes to the chasm. The reasonable progress stops, there is a huge gap and something on the other side. The something on the other side will always require faith. This is a given. When you arrive in the afterlife, you will be surprised to find even atheists there.
> 
> dhw: As I've pointed out before, A.N Whitehead ... the leading figure in process theology ... blended forms of panpsychism and panentheism, though I can't claim to have understood what it was/is all about. His version has your God at its centre, whereas mine has no single universal intelligence, let alone one with a purpose. Your first cause energy is self-aware and supremely intelligent, and that is your great leap. My panpsychist first cause energy is blank: it makes matter which changes and eventually reverts back to energy, but through the process of change ... this is the leap ... it BECOMES aware within individual units of matter.-I have no idea how your leap works. We know how intelligence works because we have it. We experience consciousness. Your raw energy, by no plan makes matter, which is somehow organized enough to invent intelligence. Please pass the hashish pipe. I can perhaps see prior intelligence infusing intelligence into matter it creates. I have to start with some type of organization. The plasma of the very hot universe came first, no matter till much later. That plasma followed some rules we understand. The fact that there are rules at that point that we can discern implies an underlying intelligence to begin with.-
> dhw: Unlike materialism, this panpsychist hypothesis allows for psychic experiences, since energy is not bound forever to the materials in which it is embedded. -My beliefs allow for psychic experiences. I believe in human species consciousness, per Sheldrake. your contortions are unnessessary. -> 
> dhw: Nebulous? Yes, of course. Far too nebulous for me to take the leap. But I think both theists and atheists might find it difficult to ask questions of this hypothesis that are not equally applicable to their own.-Nebulous yes, but I don't find the questions in my belief system that you dredge up to thwart yourself.
> 
> dhw: However, I need to keep stressing that I do not believe in it, any more than I believe in chance or in David's eternal deity. ...... But perhaps it's our very differences that make us model citizens of the world, since differences are a far greater test of patience and tolerance than agreements could ever be!-I still hold to the position that your theory is simply a contorted version of mine. The only difference I see is your method of creation of intelligence and consciousness.I start with it at the beginning and you create it as things go along. We all get to the same end result. But to avoid God you sure get convoluted.

2704 views

DAVID: When you arrive in the afterlife, you will be surprised to find even atheists there.-If my panpsychist hypothesis is true, there will be atheists but no god!
 
DAVID: I don't find the questions in my belief system that you dredge up to thwart yourself.-What is the source of your first cause energy's intelligence? Don't know. How is your super-intelligence able to dabble? "I have no idea, just as I have no idea how He arranged the start of life." (Innovation, 13 May at 15.28)-DAVID: I have no idea how your leap works. We know how intelligence works because we have it. We experience consciousness.-We do experience it, but we don't know how it works or where it comes from. That applies to your God hypothesis as it does to my panpsychist hypothesis.-DAVID: Your raw energy, by no plan makes matter, which is somehow organized enough to invent intelligence.
 
Once more: matter does not INVENT intelligence. Energy makes matter. Matter changes. The energy within the matter BECOMES aware of the changes. Here are three pointers for you: 1) You believe in intelligent energy (God), so the concept is not alien to you. 2) You believe in an afterlife in which your own intelligence will survive the death of your materials. That is individualized intelligent energy, which has evolved through a lifetime's experiences. 3) We know there are different forms of intelligence with different forms of communication (e.g. bacteria, plants, animals). This is a concept I'm extending to all evolution, including the universe: individualized intelligence as energy which evolves through experience (unlike your God, who has always had it) and is able to control matter from within (unlike your God, who somehow tweaks it from without).-DAVID: I have to start with some type of organization.
 
Why do you "have" to start with organization? Why not start with disorder, and a gradual establishment of order (rules) through the experience and experiments of evolving intelligences? -DAVID: My beliefs allow for psychic experiences. I believe in human species consciousness, per Sheldrake. your contortions are unnecessary.-No contortions. Once you accept the basic premise that intelligence is energy, it follows on that it doesn't depend on the materials in which it's embedded, and may therefore not only survive them but may also communicate with other intelligences.
 
DAVID: I still hold to the position that your theory is simply a contorted version of mine. The only difference I see is your method of creation of intelligence and consciousness. I start with it at the beginning and you create it as things go along. We all get to the same end result. But to avoid God you sure get convoluted.-All theories have to lead to existence as we know it. The difference therefore has to be how we reach that point. Your theory entails a form of existence none of us know anything about ... a single "quantum mind" which is hidden behind a wall of quantum uncertainty, but dabbles in mysterious ways to fulfil a purpose which is also hidden. The panpsychist hypothesis entails no such contortions. All it requires is matter (which we know exists), energy (which we know exists), and the single step by which energy within matter acquires awareness (which we know exists, though we don't know how it works.) If I believed in this, I would undoubtedly comment that to bring in God, you sure get convoluted.

2696 views


> DAVID: Your raw energy, by no plan makes matter, which is somehow organized enough to invent intelligence.
> 
> dhw: Once more: matter does not INVENT intelligence. Energy makes matter. Matter changes. The energy within the matter BECOMES aware of the changes. ..... This is a concept I'm extending to all evolution, including the universe: individualized intelligence as energy which evolves through experience and is able to control matter from within -This theory looks exactly like the orgin of life theories. Life, as organic chemistry suddenly appears from inorganic matter, how we don't know, but it had to happen because we are here. Evolution is driven by intelligence in the genome as we agree, but as you noted in the other thread, we have no idea how. You want intelligence to grow by chance. No matter how you spin it it still sounds the same. Intelligence by chance arrival.-> 
> DAVID: I have to start with some type of organization.
> 
> dhw:Why do you "have" to start with organization? Why not start with disorder, and a gradual establishment of order (rules) through the experience and experiments of evolving intelligences?-What records experience and developing intelligence in disorder? The Second Law reqires the input of energy into order to avoid entropy, and you start with disordered energy. The whole thought is an oxymoron. -> 
> DAVID: I still hold to the position that your theory is simply a contorted version of mine. The only difference I see is your method of creation of intelligence and consciousness. I start with it at the beginning and you create it as things go along. We all get to the same end result. But to avoid God you sure get convoluted.-> dhw; The panpsychist hypothesis entails no such contortions. All it requires is matter (which we know exists), energy (which we know exists), and the single step by which energy within matter acquires awareness (which we know exists, though we don't know how it works.) If I believed in this, I would undoubtedly comment that to bring in God, you sure get convoluted.-But, simply put, there is no way you could possibly believe in this contrived theory and have faith in it. I understand your 'IF'. I don't have an 'if'. And the reason for your IF is the theory is one big contortion. Remember the folks who started the idea of panpsychism presumed an intelligent beginning. You have twisted their thinking all out of shape and into contortion.

2684 views

An additional thought about chance explanations for the complexity of life:-"The truly extraordinary claim â indeed, the wildly and irresponsibly outrageous claim â is that a highly scalable, massively parallel system architecture incorporating a 4-bit digital coding system and a super-dense, information-rich, three-dimensional, multi-layered, multi-directional database structure with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms, utilizing file allocation, concatenation and bit-parity algorithms, operating subject to software protocol hierarchies could all come about through a long series of accidental particle collisions."-Under comments here:- http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/naturalism-intelligent-design-and-ext... your argument: chaotic energy....matter....less chaotic energy....some information...less chaotic energy....more information....less chaotic energy ....better matter.....some intelligence.....etc... to the present.-Really? From zilch to the complexity described in the quote. Pipedream. I ascribe to an intelligence first theory. At least it makes sense. It fits both necessity and possibility in Aristotelian philosophy.

2678 views

DAVID: An additional thought about chance explanations for the complexity of life:-"The truly extraordinary claim â indeed, the wildly and irresponsibly outrageous claim â is that a highly scalable, massively parallel system architecture incorporating a 4-bit digital coding system and a super-dense, information-rich, three-dimensional, multi-layered, multi-directional database structure with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms, utilizing file allocation, concatenation and bit-parity algorithms, operating subject to software protocol hierarchies could all come about through a long series of accidental particle collisions."-Under comments here:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/naturalism-intelligent-design-and-ext...-The whole point of my panpsychist hypothesis is that none of the above came about by chance! If you wish to argue that the intelligences that created them came about by chance, you may as well argue (as Tony pointed out) that your God also came about by chance, in the sense that first cause energy somehow happened to be conscious of itself and therefore happened to be able to invent life etc. Lucky us.-DAVID: And your argument: chaotic energy....matter....less chaotic energy....some information...less chaotic energy....more information....less chaotic energy ....better matter.....some intelligence.....etc... to the present.-These repetitions, though designed to look as messy as possible, are a reasonably accurate description of the evolutionary process.
 
DAVID: Really? From zilch to the complexity described in the quote. Pipedream. I ascribe to an intelligence first theory. At least it makes sense. It fits both necessity and possibility in Aristotelian philosophy.-But it does not explain where your first supreme "intelligence" came from, any more than my hypothesis explains where the first lesser "intelligence" came from. The complexity itself does not arrive from zilch, but in both hypotheses from the first awareness (your divine or my panpsychist version). The article you have quoted contains the following:-"Now from the vantage point of intelligent design, treated strictly as a scientific inquiry, no theological or atheological position has a privileged place. Intelligent design, as a scientific research program, attempts to determine whether certain features of the natural world exhibit signs of having been designed by an intelligence. This intelligence could be E.T. or a telic principle immanent in nature or a transcendent personal agent. These are all, at least initially, live options...Forget about the term supernatural and the presuppositional baggage it carries. What if the designing intelligence(s) responsible for biological complexity cannot be confined to physical objects? Why should that burst the bounds of science?...But the contrast between natural and supernatural causes is the wrong contrast. The proper contrast is between undirected natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other...Design has no prior commitment against naturalism or for supernaturalism. Consequently, science can offer no principled grounds for excluding design or relegating it to the sphere of religion."-(The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design, William A. Dembski, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL 2004, pp 188-190)-BBella would like the bit about ET intelligence, and the reference to "the designing intelligence(s) responsible for biological complexity" not confined to physical objects fits in with the concept of intelligence(s) ... note the possible plural ... as energy within but not dependent on those physical objects. A "telic principle immanent in nature" could also refer to awareness evolving in matter. There is nothing in this whole article that contradicts the panpsychist hypothesis I have suggested, which SUPPORTS the case for design, but not the case for your own single, "transcendent, personal agent".

2654 views

dhw: The article you have quoted contains the following:
> 
> "Now from the vantage point of intelligent design, treated strictly as a scientific inquiry, no theological or atheological position has a privileged place. Intelligent design, as a scientific research program, attempts to determine whether certain features of the natural world exhibit signs of having been designed by an intelligence. This intelligence could be E.T. or a telic principle immanent in nature or a transcendent personal agent. These are all, at least initially, live options...Forget about the term supernatural and the presuppositional baggage it carries. What if the designing intelligence(s) responsible for biological complexity cannot be confined to physical objects? Why should that burst the bounds of science?...But the contrast between natural and supernatural causes is the wrong contrast. The proper contrast is between undirected natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other...Design has no prior commitment against naturalism or for supernaturalism. Consequently, science can offer no principled grounds for excluding design or relegating it to the sphere of religion."
> 
> (The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design, William A. Dembski, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL 2004, pp 188-190)-In your twisted thinking you don't see the real point. I know Dembski well, met him once, and read much of his works, that parapraph out of context, is simply trying to say that science cannot exclude the consideration of purposeful design in studying our reality. And that leads at another level, in another context to who is the designer?

2667 views

dhw: Once more: matter does not INVENT intelligence. Energy makes matter. Matter changes. The energy within the matter BECOMES aware of the changes. ..... This is a concept I'm extending to all evolution, including the universe: individualized intelligence as energy which evolves through experience and is able to control matter from within. -DAVID: This theory looks exactly like the orgin of life theories. Life, as organic chemistry suddenly appears from inorganic matter, how we don't know, but it had to happen because we are here. Evolution is driven by intelligence in the genome as we agree, but as you noted in the other thread, we have no idea how. You want intelligence to grow by chance. No matter how you spin it it still sounds the same. Intelligence by chance arrival.-You don't how your God got there, how he acquired his intelligence, what he is like, or "how He arranged the start of life". But according to you, he has to be there because we are here. I have no problem with your incredulity over my panpsychist hypothesis. I don't believe it either. I merely offer it as an alternative to your own equally incredible theory (see also below).
 
DAVID: I have to start with some type of organization.-dhw: Why do you "have" to start with organization? Why not start with disorder, and a gradual establishment of order (rules) through the experience and experiments of evolving intelligences?-DAVID: What records experience and developing intelligence in disorder? The Second Law reqires the input of energy into order to avoid entropy, and you start with disordered energy. The whole thought is an oxymoron.-An oxymoron would be disorderly order or orderly disorder, but I am suggesting order being created (panpsychistically) out of disorder. Of course I'm in no position to argue the merits of original order versus original disorder, but the following suggests that our universe began in chaos:-	www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100907171642.htm-"Seven years ago Northwestern University physicist Adilson E. Motter conjectured that the expansion of the universe at the time of the big bang was highly chaotic. Now he and a colleague have proven it using rigorous mathematical arguments." -"Proven" is a powerful word, but I'm clearly not alone in thinking that chaos may have preceded order. -DAVID: But, simply put, there is no way you could possibly believe in this contrived theory and have faith in it. I understand your 'IF'. I don't have an 'if'. And the reason for your IF is the theory is one big contortion. Remember the folks who started the idea of panpsychism presumed an intelligent beginning. You have twisted their thinking all out of shape and into contortion.-No, the reason for my "if" is that I am no more able to explain the origin of life and consciousness than you are. That is the gap at the heart of both our hypotheses (since your God is/was also alive and conscious). Otherwise the shape of mine seems far clearer to me than that of what I described in my earlier post as: "...a form of existence none of us know anything about ... a single "quantum mind" which is hidden behind a wall of quantum uncertainty, but dabbles in mysterious ways to fulfil a purpose which is also hidden." You say you don't have an "if". That is because you have a solid faith, not because your theory has any shape or rational basis.

2654 views


> DAVID: I have to start with some type of organization.
> 
> dhw: Why do you "have" to start with organization? Why not start with disorder, and a gradual establishment of order (rules) through the experience and experiments of evolving intelligences?
> dhw: Of course I'm in no position to argue the merits of original order versus original disorder, but the following suggests that our universe began in chaos:
> 
> 	www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100907171642.htm
> 
> dhw:"Seven years ago Northwestern University physicist Adilson E. Motter conjectured that the expansion of the universe at the time of the big bang was highly chaotic. Now he and a colleague have proven it using rigorous mathematical arguments." 
> 
> dhw: "Proven" is a powerful word, but I'm clearly not alone in thinking that chaos may have preceded order.-I've taken the time to look up the report:-"Fifty years ago, physicists believed that the true answer could be in what happened a fraction of a second after the big bang. Though the initial studies failed to show that an arbitrary initial state of the universe would eventually converge to its current form, researchers found something potentially even more interesting: the possibility that the universe as a whole was born inherently chaotic...... 
"This could mean that the early evolution of the universe, though not necessarily its current state, depended very sensitively on the initial conditions set by the big bang."-Two thoughts: In the first fraction of a second inflation occurred, which caused the universe to be very even throughout its vast extent. That resulted in the present predicted and confirmed curved graph of the cosmic wave background. Secondly, the initial conditions controlled the early evolution of the universe, per the quoted study. Sounds like a controlled and planned chaos to me. Interpretation: chaos yes, but following rules; set by whom? 
 
> dhw: I am no more able to explain the origin of life and consciousness than you are. That is the gap at the heart of both our hypotheses You say you don't have an "if". That is because you have a solid faith, not because your theory has any shape or rational basis. -I first concluded that the organization seen in life had to be planned by a thinking 'something'. Consciousness raises the same issue in that it is difficult for me to imagine the development of consciousness from an inorganic universe unless consciousness already existed in some form. Thus my form of "God" came to be, not a current religious concept, so much as a logical beginning. The theory is very satisfying to me. It makes a tight fit to every aspect of our puzzlement. And I accept there has to be a first cause. That makes my God a universal consciousness.

2660 views

DAVID: I have to start with some type of organization.-dhw: Of course I'm in no position to argue the merits of original order versus original disorder, but the following suggests that our universe began in chaos:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100907171642.htm
"Seven years ago Northwestern University physicist Adilson E. Motter conjectured that the expansion of the universe at the time of the big bang was highly chaotic. Now he and a colleague have proven it using rigorous mathematical arguments." -DAVID: Two thoughts: In the first fraction of a second inflation occurred, which caused the universe to be very even throughout its vast extent. That resulted in the present predicted and confirmed curved graph of the cosmic wave background. Secondly, the initial conditions controlled the early evolution of the universe, per the quoted study. Sounds like a controlled and planned chaos to me. Interpretation: chaos yes, but following rules; set by whom? -If effect follows cause, it's hardly surprising that initial conditions controlled the early evolution of the universe. Different conditions would no doubt have led to a different evolution. You dismissed my hypothesis (order may have been created panpsychistically out of disorder) as an oxymoron, which it is not. Controlled chaos, planned chaos, chaos that follows rules: these are oxymora, David, and I cannot think of any context in which they would make sense.
 
dhw: I am no more able to explain the origin of life and consciousness than you are. That is the gap at the heart of both our hypotheses. You say you don't have an "if". That is because you have a solid faith, not because your theory has any shape or rational basis. -DAVID: I first concluded that the organization seen in life had to be planned by a thinking 'something'. Consciousness raises the same issue in that it is difficult for me to imagine the development of consciousness from an inorganic universe unless consciousness already existed in some form. Thus my form of "God" came to be, not a current religious concept, so much as a logical beginning. The theory is very satisfying to me. It makes a tight fit to every aspect of our puzzlement. And I accept there has to be a first cause. That makes my God a universal consciousness.-I also accept that there has to be a first cause, whether conscious or unconscious. And I also find it difficult to imagine the development of life and consciousness (on Earth) from an inorganic universe. I find it equally difficult to imagine life and consciousness (your God) simply being there for ever and ever. Sadly, there is no "tight fit to every aspect of our puzzlement", and that is why the gaps in all theories can only be filled by irrational faith.-You referred us to an article in defence of ID, which quoted Dembski.-DAVID: In your twisted thinking you don't see the real point. I know Dembski well, met him once, and read much of his works, that parapraph out of context, is simply trying to say that science cannot exclude the consideration of purposeful design in studying our reality. And that leads at another level, in another context to who is the designer?-My point specifically was "there is nothing in this whole article that contradicts the panpsychist hypothesis I have suggested, which SUPPORTS the case for design, but not the case for your own single, "transcendent, personal agent."" The other level or context simply becomes WHO OR WHAT is the designer, and the fact that Dembski believes in your God does not invalidate my use of the ID argument to defend my panpsychist hypothesis. No twisting. Straight as an arrow.

2682 views


> dhw: If effect follows cause, it's hardly surprising that initial conditions controlled the early evolution of the universe. Different conditions would no doubt have led to a different evolution. -The issue is who set the conditions, especially since they ended in the evolution of a universe that is fine-tuned for life. Penrose placed the odds for such a chance beginning, famously and widely quoted, as 10^10^123. Chance is eliminated by mathematician consensus at a range 10^50-150. If initial conditions just were set by whatever (which you don't specifiy) then they were set by chance. and you don't like chance anymore than I do. Only one specific set of initial conditions created this life-allowing universe!
 
> dhw: I am no more able to explain the origin of life and consciousness than you are. That is the gap at the heart of both our hypotheses. -Agreed 
> 
> dhw: I also accept that there has to be a first cause, whether conscious or unconscious. And I also find it difficult to imagine the development of life and consciousness (on Earth) from an inorganic universe. I find it equally difficult to imagine life and consciousness (your God) simply being there for ever and ever. -I don't know that'my God' is alive in any sense we know. He is a supreme intelligence in a quantum state of conscious energy, here in the sense that He is everywhere, but not a state or level of reality that we can reach. - 
> dhw: You referred us to an article in defence of ID, which quoted Dembski.
> dhw: My point specifically was "there is nothing in this whole article that contradicts the panpsychist hypothesis I have suggested, which SUPPORTS the case for design,-It is your faith in your convoluted theory of panpsychism which provides the aura of SUPPORT.

2649 views

dhw: If effect follows cause, it's hardly surprising that initial conditions controlled the early evolution of the universe. Different conditions would no doubt have led to a different evolution. -DAVID: The issue is who set the conditions, especially since they ended in the evolution of a universe that is fine-tuned for life. Penrose placed the odds for such a chance beginning, famously and widely quoted, as 10^10^123. Chance is eliminated by mathematician consensus at a range 10^50-150. If initial conditions just were set by whatever (which you don't specifiy) then they were set by chance. and you don't like chance anymore than I do. Only one specific set of initial conditions created this life-allowing universe!-Given our agreement that the first cause is eternal energy, there may have been 123 zillion big bangs and universes, and 123 zillion forms of life or just ours alone. Who knows? Has Penrose calculated the odds against eternal energy being or becoming conscious of itself? And are they reckoned to be any different from the odds against energy becoming conscious of the changes taking place in the matter within which it is embedded?
 
You've glossed over your oxymoron of controlled, planned, rule-following chaos, which surely not even you can believe in, especially since you mistakenly condemned my panpsychist hypothesis for that very same reason. Our universe's chaos led to our universe's order, but nobody knows how. So we can all pull to pieces the theories of chance, divine intelligence, panpsychist intelligence, because there is NO theory that doesn't ultimately depend 100% on FAITH.
 
DAVID: I don't know that'my God' is alive in any sense we know. He is a supreme intelligence in a quantum state of conscious energy, here in the sense that He is everywhere, but not a state or level of reality that we can reach.-See below.-dhw: You referred us to an article in defence of ID, which quoted Dembski.
dhw: My point specifically was "there is nothing in this whole article that contradicts the panpsychist hypothesis I have suggested, which SUPPORTS the case for design...-DAVID: It is your faith in your convoluted theory of panpsychism which provides the aura of SUPPORT.-As I have stressed repeatedly, I do not have faith in it. I merely offer it as an alternative form of design which I regard as no more improbable but considerably less convoluted than a quantum state of energy that creates planned and rule-following chaos, may or may not be alive in any sense we know, and is everywhere within and without the universe, but not at any level of reality we can reach.

2654 views

dhw:Has Penrose calculated the odds against eternal energy being or becoming conscious of itself? And are they reckoned to be any different from the odds against energy becoming conscious of the changes taking place in the matter within which it is embedded?-You cannot calculate the odds of the nebulous. We know the initial conditions of the universe and its current parameters. Penrose used known accepted physics, not the ruminations of a bone fide agnostic. Since we have no idea how life got started, or how consciousness arises, calculating the odds for consciousness are impossible.
> 
> dhw:there is NO theory that doesn't ultimately depend 100% on FAITH.-Yes, agreed.
> 
> As I have stressed repeatedly, I do not have faith in it [his panpsychism theory]. I merely offer it as an alternative form of design which I regard as no more improbable but considerably less convoluted than a quantum state of energy that creates planned and rule-following chaos, may or may not be alive in any sense we know, and is everywhere within and without the universe, but not at any level of reality we can reach.-Fair enough.

2650 views

DAVID: Penrose placed the odds for such a chance beginning, famously and widely quoted, as 10^10^123. Chance is eliminated by mathematician consensus at a range 10^50-150. If initial conditions just were set by whatever (which you don't specifiy) then they were set by chance. and you don't like chance anymore than I do. Only one specific set of initial conditions created this life-allowing universe!-Dhw: Given our agreement that the first cause is eternal energy, there may have been 123 zillion big bangs and universes, and 123 zillion forms of life or just ours alone. Who knows? Has Penrose calculated the odds against eternal energy being or becoming conscious of itself? And are they reckoned to be any different from the odds against energy becoming conscious of the changes taking place in the matter within which it is embedded?-DAVID: You cannot calculate the odds of the nebulous. We know the initial conditions of the universe and its current parameters. Penrose used known accepted physics, not the ruminations of a bone fide agnostic. Since we have no idea how life got started, or how consciousness arises, calculating the odds for consciousness are impossible.-How known are "known accepted physics" and accepted by whom? That was the thrust of my 123 zillion big bangs and universes. And so there is little point in calculating odds and pretending that they provide any sort of criterion for belief. At the very best, they can only provide support for incredulous non-belief, and that applies in equal measure to the hypotheses of chance, or divine/panpsychist intelligence creating life and consciousness as we know them, and the conditions that gave rise to them.
 
dhw: ...there is NO theory that doesn't ultimately depend 100% on FAITH.-DAVID: Yes, agreed.-Welcome to the fence.

2645 views


> dhw: How known are "known accepted physics" and accepted by whom? That was the thrust of my 123 zillion big bangs and universes.-Fairly well known. We keep studying our universe and the findings continue to fit the Big Bang theory. The multiverse proposal is to keep chance in the game.-> dhw: ...there is NO theory that doesn't ultimately depend 100% on FAITH.
> 
> DAVID: Yes, agreed.
> 
> Welcome to the fence.-The fence is for the faithless.

2666 views

dhw: How known are "known accepted physics" and accepted by whom? That was the thrust of my 123 zillion big bangs and universes.-DAVID: Fairly well known. We keep studying our universe and the findings continue to fit the Big Bang theory. The multiverse proposal is to keep chance in the game.-My point was to query the relevance of Penrose's "famously and widely quoted" odds of 10^10^123 against a chance beginning, which you defended by saying "we know the initial conditions of the universe and its current parameters. Penrose used known accepted physics." I don't regard "fairly well known" as a reliable basis for such figures, and no matter whether the Big Bang theory is true or not, you yourself have consistently pointed out that we haven't a clue what could have preceded the Big Bang. We are all groping in the dark, and for a faithless neutral like myself, 123 zillion universes in eternity is just as likely/unlikely as an unknown and unknowable quantum mind that has also existed for eternity and has created just one.

2665 views

dhw: no matter whether the Big Bang theory is true or not, you yourself have consistently pointed out that we haven't a clue what could have preceded the Big Bang. We are all groping in the dark, and for a faithless neutral like myself, 123 zillion universes in eternity is just as likely/unlikely as an unknown and unknowable quantum mind that has also existed for eternity and has created just one.-If God came to you and shook your hand, you would ask Him if He was the real one. Philosophic analysis of scientific findings has to start with the available science. If everything smells of design, there must be a designer. That should be no surprise.

2640 views

Dhw: No matter whether the Big Bang theory is true or not, you yourself have consistently pointed out that we haven't a clue what could have preceded the Big Bang. We are all groping in the dark, and for a faithless neutral like myself, 123 zillion universes in eternity is just as likely/unlikely as an unknown and unknowable quantum mind that has also existed for eternity and has created just one.-DAVID: If God came to you and shook your hand, you would ask Him if He was the real one. Philosophic analysis of scientific findings has to start with the available science. If everything smells of design, there must be a designer. That should be no surprise.-The available science can offer us nothing but materials. If there "must be a designer", then it can only be some form of intelligence directing the materials themselves from within, just as the individual brain directs the individual body from within. Science has never found any other form of intelligence, let alone a universal, eternal, hidden, quantum mind that could come and shake me by the hand. It's not a bad argument for my panpsychist hypothesis. Thank you.

2651 views

dhw:Science has never found any other form of intelligence, let alone a universal, eternal, hidden, quantum mind that could come and shake me by the hand. It's not a bad argument for my panpsychist hypothesis. Thank you.-No, it isn't. What science shows, as I explain it, is that there is no other explanation of the findings except design. One needs a philosophic step beyond the materialistic reoprts to analyze the findings and see the reasons for design.

2655 views

DAVID: If God came to you and shook your hand, you would ask Him if He was the real one. Philosophic analysis of scientific findings has to start with the available science. If everything smells of design, there must be a designer. That should be no surprise.-Dhw: The available science can offer us nothing but materials. If there "must be a designer", then it can only be some form of intelligence directing the materials themselves from within, just as the brain directs the body from within. Science has never found any other form of intelligence, let alone a universal, eternal, hidden, quantum mind that could come and shake me by the hand. It's not a bad argument for my panpsychist hypothesis. Thank you. -DAVID: No, it isn't. What science shows, as I explain it, is that there is no other explanation of the findings except design. One needs a philosophic step beyond the materialistic reports to analyze the findings and see the reasons for design.-I'm goading you with your apparent desire to start with "the available science", but I think you have once more missed the point of my panpsychist hypothesis, which SUPPORTS design ... but not your version. Instead of a single inexplicable eternal intelligence designing everything from scratch according to a master plan, I'm proposing inexplicable evolving intelligences designing everything as they go along. These are the only forms of intelligence that science knows of ... embedded in materials. You and I even agree on one such: the intelligent genome, which manipulates matter from within to create innovations (= design). We don't know how this originated, just as we don't know how your God acquired his intelligence, but we agree that the genome exists, that it is somehow involved in design, and that design builds on earlier design (= evolution). So if you want an improbable scenario that fits in with the "available science" AND with design, this is it! Your own improbable scenario explains design by bringing in an ADDITIONAL unknown power for whose actual existence the "available science" can offer no evidence.

2619 views


> dhw:I'm goading you with your apparent desire to start with "the available science", but I think you have once more missed the point of my panpsychist hypothesis, which SUPPORTS design ... but not your version. Instead of a single inexplicable eternal intelligence designing everything from scratch according to a master plan, I'm proposing inexplicable evolving intelligences designing everything as they go along. ......So if you want an improbable scenario that fits in with the "available science" AND with design, this is it! Your own improbable scenario explains design by bringing in an ADDITIONAL unknown power for whose actual existence the "available science" can offer no evidence.-I simply do not believe that embryonal intelligences can grow themselves into more complex intelligences required to design what we see. Yours is a wonderful just-so story equal to the best in Darwinism. you are asking for design rom self-designing intelligences.

2682 views

dhw: I'm goading you with your apparent desire to start with "the available science", but I think you have once more missed the point of my panpsychist hypothesis, which SUPPORTS design ... but not your version. Instead of a single inexplicable eternal intelligence designing everything from scratch according to a master plan, I'm proposing inexplicable evolving intelligences designing everything as they go along. ......So if you want an improbable scenario that fits in with the "available science" AND with design, this is it! Your own improbable scenario explains design by bringing in an ADDITIONAL unknown power for whose actual existence the "available science" can offer no evidence.-DAVID: I simply do not believe that embryonal intelligences can grow themselves into more complex intelligences required to design what we see. Yours is a wonderful just-so story equal to the best in Darwinism. you are asking for design from self-designing intelligences.-I do not believe it either. But this is the agnostic's dilemma: ALL the explanations are just-so stories. Instead of "asking for design from self-designing intelligences", you ask for design from...a self-designed intelligence! What else is your God?

2618 views

dhw: I do not believe it either. But this is the agnostic's dilemma: ALL the explanations are just-so stories. Instead of "asking for design from self-designing intelligences", you ask for design from...a self-designed intelligence! What else is your God?-Yes, our difference is your unwillingness to allow belief without absolute proof, which none of us will ever have, now or to the infinite future when the universe dissolves into heat death.

2640 views

dhw: I do not believe it either. But this is the agnostic's dilemma: ALL the explanations are just-so stories. Instead of "asking for design from self-designing intelligences", you ask for design from...a self-designed intelligence! What else is your God?-DAVID: Yes, our difference is your unwillingness to allow belief without absolute proof, which none of us will ever have, now or to the infinite future when the universe dissolves into heat death.-This is an unworthy rhetorical device. Your impossible "absolute" proof implies that there is SOME proof of God's existence, but of course there is none at all, just as there is no proof at all that chance can create life and consciousness, that energy can spontaneously become aware of itself, or that all phenomena can be explained in material terms. All these subjective conclusions depend 100% on inference. And so the difference between us is that you are willing to believe something for which there is NO proof, which I suggest is the essence of true faith.

2619 views

dhw: I'm goading you with your apparent desire to start with "the available science", but I think you have once more missed the point of my panpsychist hypothesis, which SUPPORTS design ... but not your version. Instead of a single inexplicable eternal intelligence designing everything from scratch according to a master plan, I'm proposing inexplicable evolving intelligences designing everything as they go along. ......So if you want an improbable scenario that fits in with the "available science" AND with design, this is it! -In an attempt to understand your metaphysical theory of panpsychism, a seemingly emergent self-directing mental state in all living matter, but not clearly connected or disconnected, I've resorted to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy:-http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/-Your eyes will glaze over. Mine have, and I still see no basis for your theories.

2646 views

dhw: I'm goading you with your apparent desire to start with "the available science", but I think you have once more missed the point of my panpsychist hypothesis, which SUPPORTS design ... but not your version. Instead of a single inexplicable eternal intelligence designing everything from scratch according to a master plan, I'm proposing inexplicable evolving intelligences designing everything as they go along. ......So if you want an improbable scenario that fits in with the "available science" AND with design, this is it! -DAVID: In an attempt to understand your metaphysical theory of panpsychism, a seemingly emergent self-directing mental state in all living matter, but not clearly connected or disconnected, I've resorted to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy:-http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/-Your eyes will glaze over. Mine have, and I still see no basis for your theories.-I couldn't get through it, and I'm profoundly sorry that you have wasted your time trying to wade through such a philosophical swamp. I've frequently pointed out that I'm offering my own personal take on panpsychism, of which there are as many varieties as there are gods in the pantheon. The basis of my particular hypothesis is the same as yours: namely, that energy is capable of intelligence (though this remains indefinable, as it must take many forms). We have no idea how, which is what makes both our hypotheses equally unbelievable. The great difference, however, is that your intelligent energy is a single, sourceless, controlling, planning entity which has deliberately created the universe and us from the outside, whereas my intelligent energy emerged in a few individual forms which cooperated to create more and more forms (= evolution by individual design), in the same way as humans have cooperated to create ever more complex units. The connections are not clear except where cooperation is obvious. You may feel at one with magpies, marmosets, marigolds and the moon (my hypothesis is not restricted to organic matter, but nor is energy), or you may feel they are all separate. There is no single overriding purpose; evolution simply moves onward in whatever directions it is led by individual intelligences. You see your mysteriously intelligent God deliberately moving the pieces into place. I am suggesting that my mysteriously intelligent pieces deliberately moved themselves into place. The third hypothesis is that chance moved them into place. I say that there is no basis for any of these hypotheses. And yet one of them must be close to the truth. You are willing to choose, and I am not.

2622 views

dhw: You see your mysteriously intelligent God deliberately moving the pieces into place. I am suggesting that my mysteriously intelligent pieces deliberately moved themselves into place. The third hypothesis is that chance moved them into place. I say that there is no basis for any of these hypotheses. And yet one of them must be close to the truth. You are willing to choose, and I am not.-So be it.

2627 views

I've frequently pointed out that I'm offering my own personal take on panpsychism, of which there are as many varieties as there are gods in the pantheon. The basis of my particular hypothesis is the same as yours: namely, that energy is capable of intelligence (though this remains indefinable, as it must take many forms). We have no idea how, which is what makes both our hypotheses equally unbelievable. -I agree that energy takes many forms, but wonder about consciousness role in that undertaking. In a way, getting down to the nitty-gritty (as is said in these parts), I'm thinking consciousness is not energy but inhabits energy. I think of it more as a formless knowing within energy forms; non moveable - unlike energy, as energy is always on the move, ever changing. Consciousness, on the other hand, in the way I think of it, at the moment, is not even subject to movement or time, altho it can and does inhabit both. ->You [David] see your mysteriously intelligent God deliberately moving the pieces into place. I am suggesting that my mysteriously intelligent pieces deliberately moved themselves into place. -Maybe what David is referencing as God is just simply consciousness, that which permeates all that is, yet is not all that is, itself. In the sense, that consciousness, itself, cannot deliberately move energy, but can influence energy. In a sense, energy takes it's cues from consciousness. Just like our body (or any living body) takes it's cues from it's consciousness. But consciousness itself, by itself, moves nothing. So, possibly, there are two states (maybe more, who knows?). Two intermingled states, consciousness and energy, working together, producing what is?

2625 views


> bbella: I agree that energy takes many forms, but wonder about consciousness role in that undertaking. In a way, getting down to the nitty-gritty (as is said in these parts), I'm thinking consciousness is not energy but inhabits energy. 
> 
> bbella: Maybe what David is referencing as God is just simply consciousness, that which permeates all that is, yet is not all that is, itself. In the sense, that consciousness, itself, cannot deliberately move energy, but can influence energy. -What dhw and I have generally agreed upon is that chance is not the answer to what has appeared or been created. Also he agrees with me there has to be something from the very beginning. It is not logical to get what we see from a true nothing, nothingness in an absolute sense. What I propose is that consciousness had to exist from the beginning but also that recognizing the basis of all creation is energy, matter being a form of energy in a more solid state, that in the begining there had to be energy. So in my way of looking at it, conscious energy is the start of everything. It is eternal. It is what religions refer to as God. Free-floating conciousness without energy doesn't seem possible to me. What dhw will not do is accept the idea that my conscious energy is purposeful in and of itself.

2632 views

BBELLA: I'm thinking consciousness is not energy but inhabits energy [...] Maybe what David is referencing as God is just simply consciousness, that which permeates all that is, yet is not all that is, itself.-DAVID: Free-floating consciousness without energy doesn't seem possible to me. What dhw will not do is accept the idea that my conscious energy is purposeful in and of itself.-David's first cause energy has always been conscious to the nth degree, and like him I can't see how one can separate the two. His God is within and without the universe, so presumably "permeates all that is", in contrast to my panpsychist alternative. In this, consciousness does not mean humanly or divinely self-conscious, which is why I generally prefer the vaguer word "intelligence". My starting point is exactly as David describes: "the basis of all creation is energy, matter being a form of energy in a more solid state". However, instead of "conscious energy is the start of everything", we have non-conscious energy generating matter and also "inhabiting" matter. Matter takes on countless forms, though these are always individual, and matter never stays the same. My hypothesis is that, since consciousness needs to be conscious of SOMETHING, individual energies within individual matter became conscious of change. (Weird, but no weirder than energy having always been conscious to the nth degree, or chance combining materials to generate life and consciousness.) Once energy inhabiting matter becomes "intelligent", it learns to manipulate matter. And so while I would say energy "inhabits" matter, I would again say that energy and consciousness are inseparable, with the important proviso that while energy can exist without consciousness, consciousness cannot exist without energy.-Consciousness or "intelligence" according to this hypothesis does not "permeate all that is". It began as isolated pockets of intelligent energy within different forms of matter, but as the universe has evolved, so the number and variety of intelligences has expanded. Evolution itself depends on their cooperation, and as they combine, so the scale, depth, knowledge, experience also expand. And maybe when the matter disintegrates and once more becomes energy, that energy might possibly retain all the knowledge and experience it had gathered during its habitation of matter (I'm linking up now with psychic experiences like NDEs). -David therefore begins with a single form of energy already, mysteriously, endowed with supreme self-awareness, and "purposeful in and of itself". My alternative begins with no consciousness followed, equally mysteriously, by pockets of energy in matter becoming intelligent, and then developing ever more complex forms of intelligence, leading to our own consciousness of consciousness of consciousness. These forms may all have their own individual purposes (hence every innovation), but there is no overall purpose guiding them.

2646 views

dhw: I would again say that energy and consciousness are inseparable, with the important proviso that while energy can exist without consciousness, consciousness cannot exist without energy.-I can't accept this blanket statement. When the universe appeared from the Big Bang, as 'matter' it was all energy in a quark soup, a very hot plasma, no particles, to find. As it cooled the quarks appeared and gradually coalesced into the larger particles, all of whom fit into famililes and can be described mathematically, which is how the LHC folks knew to look for the Higgs. This means that the energy suppied to make the universe had an underlying order. There was a hidden organization hidden by the enormous heat. Please tell me who or what organized the energy in advance? How did this simple hierarchy then deveop consciousness? 
> 
> dhw: Consciousness or "intelligence" according to this hypothesis does not "permeate all that is". It began as isolated pockets of intelligent energy within different forms of matter, but as the universe has evolved, so the number and variety of intelligences has expanded.-Who or what put the intelligence into the plasma? Why should hot plasma have any intelligence at all, unless the intellligence that made the heirarchy of energy forms preceeded the creation of the plasma?-> dhw: Evolution itself depends on their cooperation, and as they combine, so the scale, depth, knowledge, experience also expand. And maybe when the matter disintegrates and once more becomes energy, that energy might possibly retain all the knowledge and experience it had gathered during its habitation of matter (I'm linking up now with psychic experiences like NDEs).-I don't see the NDE link at all. And matter IS energy, all the time. Going back and forth is just changing the form of energy. Are you trying to propose that energy cannot learn anything unless it takes a form of matter? Convolution upon convolution.
> 
> dhw: David therefore begins with a single form of energy already, mysteriously, endowed with supreme self-awareness, and "purposeful in and of itself". My alternative begins with no consciousness followed, equally mysteriously, by pockets of energy in matter becoming intelligent, and then developing ever more complex forms of intelligence, leading to our own consciousness of consciousness of consciousness. These forms may all have their own individual purposes (hence every innovation), but there is no overall purpose guiding them.-The evolution of intelligence sounds like the Darwin theory of consciousness, which of course does not exist. The great charles was too smart to propose that one. Energy/matter/energy/matter learning all the time. Using our current model in each of our human existences, since I don't really know where it is hiding, developing intelligence requires learning, thinking, analyzing, using mental language, and concluding. How does energy/matter do this on its own? By energy natural selection?

2629 views

In my reply to Tony, I summarized the three hypotheses we have discussed, one of them being "an evolving universe of individual intelligences with individual purposes but no overall purpose" ... and as always I pointed out that I "can accept none of them". In my reply to BBella and David, I once more explained my panpsychist hypothesis, which David has picked to pieces with a series of highly pertinent questions :-D AVID: [...] This means that the energy supplied to make the universe had an underlying order. There was a hidden organization hidden by the enormous heat. Please tell me who or what organized the energy in advance? How did this simple hierarchy then deveop consciousness? -I don't know. Please tell me how eternal first cause energy developed consciousness and was able to organize itself and the universe. (See below.)-DAVID: Who or what put the intelligence into the plasma? Why should hot plasma have any intelligence at all, unless the intellligence that made the heirarchy of energy forms preceeded the creation of the plasma?-I don't know. If the universe, life and human consciousness required intelligence to design them, why should we believe that the intelligence that designed them did NOT need to be designed? (See below) Perhaps, though, you should debate such issues with folk like Brian Cox, Stephen Hawking, Peter Higgs, Lawrence Krauss, Roger Penrose, Victor Stenger, Leonard Susskind etc., who also know a thing or two about physics but reject your hypothesis. I'm not saying they are right. I'm simply pointing out that NO-ONE has the answers to these questions.-dhw: Evolution itself depends on their cooperation, and as they combine, so the scale, depth, knowledge, experience also expand. And maybe when the matter disintegrates and once more becomes energy, that energy might possibly retain all the knowledge and experience it had gathered during its habitation of matter (I'm linking up now with psychic experiences like NDEs).-DAVID: I don't see the NDE link at all. And matter IS energy, all the time. Going back and forth is just changing the form of energy. Are you trying to propose that energy cannot learn anything unless it takes a form of matter? Convolution upon convolution.-The NDE link is that when the brain/body dies, NDE-ers claim that their existence continues. This can only be in the form of energy which is INDEPENDENT of matter but which retains the identity, memories emotions etc. that evolved while it was embedded in matter. Since you believe in an afterlife (I reserve judgement), I don't see how you can object to this.
 
DAVID: Energy/matter/energy/matter learning all the time. Using our current model in each of our human existences, since I don't really know where it is hiding, developing intelligence requires learning, thinking, analyzing, using mental language, and concluding. How does energy/matter do this on its own? By energy natural selection?-I don't know. Nobody knows. That is why there is no consensus. How did/does your first-cause energy learn, think, analyse, use mental language and draw conclusions on its own? Every single one of your questions requires a starting point for intelligence, and no matter what starting point you choose, you come up against the same unanswerable questions. The idea that your superintelligence came from nowhere but has always been there is no more and no less incredible than my idea that maybe intelligence evolved through energy's experience within changing matter, or the idea that chance assembled a magic combination of materials that sparked it all off. Belief in any of these ideas requires faith in the unbelievable.

2615 views

dhw: Belief in any of these ideas requires faith in the unbelievable.-Most folks intertwine faith and belief in their thought systems. You are right. Faith allows one to believe.

2618 views


> > bbella: I agree that energy takes many forms, but wonder about consciousness role in that undertaking. In a way, getting down to the nitty-gritty (as is said in these parts), I'm thinking consciousness is not energy but inhabits energy. 
> > 
> > bbella: Maybe what David is referencing as God is just simply consciousness, that which permeates all that is, yet is not all that is, itself. In the sense, that consciousness, itself, cannot deliberately move energy, but can influence energy. 
> 
>It is not logical to get what we see from a true nothing, nothingness in an absolute sense. What I propose is that consciousness had to exist from the beginning....Free-floating conciousness without energy doesn't seem possible to me. -Possibly, David, energy has always been, just as consciousness may have always been. But I'm not proposing consciousness is nothing or came from nothing. I am proposing the possibility that consciousness is something, e.g. knowing, but is not itself made out of or from energy.

2597 views


> bbella: Possibly, David, energy has always been, just as consciousness may have always been. But I'm not proposing consciousness is nothing or came from nothing. I am proposing the possibility that consciousness is something, e.g. knowing, but is not itself made out of or from energy.-Certainly you may be correct. Consciousness is mysterious. We don't know how it arises. Van Lommel proposes that it is like electromagnetic waves of a radio signal, which brings it back to a form of energy, and the brain acts like a receiver. -There has to be something from the beginning. Consciousness made of energy is still my choice.

2607 views

DHW: There is no single overriding purpose; evolution simply moves onward in whatever directions it is led by individual intelligence.-It seems to me that you two are arguing over this more than anything. All of our personal pet theories on life require faith, intelligence from nothing, and some sort of starting energy. The real dilemma seems to be the question of purpose. (Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, but...)
DHW thinks there is no purpose. (As do atheist)
David thinks that humanity was the purpose. (Though he goes no further than that, that I have seen)
I think that there is a purpose, but that purpose was put on pause to deal with some housekeeping issues brought on by free will.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2621 views

Tony: DHW: There is no single overriding purpose[/i- 
>> Tony DHW thinks there is no purpose. (As do atheist)
> David thinks that humanity was the purpose. (Though he goes no further than that, that I have seen)
> Tony: I think that there is a purpose, but that purpose was put on pause to deal with some housekeeping issues brought on by free will.-You have me correctly, but I don't follow your free will comment completely. God gave us free will which has created some problems for all of us, but we have to learn to control our free will, and most of us are doing just that. So God is in control even though He has lost some control over us, despite the fact that He had the purpose to create us.[/quote]

2613 views

Tony: DHW: There is no single overriding purpose[/i
> 
> 
> >> Tony DHW thinks there is no purpose. (As do atheist)
> > David thinks that humanity was the purpose. (Though he goes no further than that, that I have seen)
> > Tony: I think that there is a purpose, but that purpose was put on pause to deal with some housekeeping issues brought on by free will.
> 
>David: You have me correctly, but I don't follow your free will comment completely. God gave us free will which has created some problems for all of us, but we have to learn to control our free will, and most of us are doing just that. So God is in control even though He has lost some control over us, despite the fact that He had the purpose to create us.-The house keeping issues brought on by free will were not cause by humans. Humanity just exacerbated the problem by bringing it into our realm of existence. Supposing the bible tales are true(which I do, even if you don't, but let's assume for a moment that they are for the sake of the discussion) Satan(Title, not a name) exercised his free will to raise a challenge to God's right to rule. Had he been alone, in his actions, the issue likely could have been resolved immediately. Instead though, he drafted some unwitting accomplices and so things had to be paused while the tragedy ran it's course. God has no desire to control us. That is people talking. Ruling and controlling are two completely different things.[/quote]

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2592 views


> Tony: The house keeping issues brought on by free will were not cause by humans. Humanity just exacerbated the problem by bringing it into our realm of existence. .....God has no desire to control us. That is people talking. Ruling and controlling are two completely different things.-Agreed. God rules over us but we have free will and the ability to screw up. God wants us to have that freedom of choice and to learn from the mistakes we make. God is a God of tough love, the only kind of approach that teaches a mature morality.

2627 views

DAVID (to dhw): You are worse than religions' presumption they can apply attributes to God. Now He is bored. How do you know He is bored? You hae given him a purpose for human creation. How do you know He did it with purpose?-Dhw: I don't. I have merely said that IF I believed in him, that would be "the most likely purpose for me". Pure speculation. -Tony:.....God has no desire to control us. That is people talking. Ruling and controlling are two completely different things.-DAVID: Agreed. God rules over us but we have free will and the ability to screw up. God wants us to have that freedom of choice and to learn from the mistakes we make. God is a God of tough love, the only kind of approach that teaches a mature morality.-Wow! I'm not supposed to even speculate that God, if he exists, might have acted out of boredom, whereas you can read his mind, know his purpose, tell us exactly what he wants, and even categorize the kind of love he has for us. Once more I demand equal rights for agnostics!
 
DHW: It's when people take a firm decision that they are forced into defending irrationality.-DAVID: I don't think what I am defending, panentheism, is irrational. It feels right to me and it answers my questions about reality.-Your God is hidden, you don't know how he operates, you declare that you don't know any of his attributes ... though you think he is a conscious, planning, purposeful quantum mind which you personally are able to read, as above ... and you admit that your belief in his existence rests 100% on faith. Fine if it sounds right to you and answers your questions about reality. Atheists would say the same about their faith in chance. But since when was faith based on reason?

2614 views


> dhw: Wow! I'm not supposed to even speculate that God, if he exists, might have acted out of boredom, whereas you can read his mind, know his purpose, tell us exactly what he wants, and even categorize the kind of love he has for us. Once more I demand equal rights for agnostics!-You are speculating without study, other than relying upon Darwin who studied and came up to a different conclusion than Wallace who studied the same stuff.-> dhw: Fine if it sounds right to you and answers your questions about reality. Atheists would say the same about their faith in chance. But since when was faith based on reason?-If you study enough cosmology, particle physics, the standard model, and what is currently known about epigenetic evolution it is not difficult to reach some conclusions about the controlling mechanisms. Which although hidden make sense.Reason can come into play. Sure it is guess work, but at least an educated kind of guessing, which is all Darwin did if you are honest about it. I have spent the last several years presenting science on this website. I appreciate the opportunity and it has been fun for me, but the purpose is to show the audience here how science can lead one to easily presume there is a greater power running the show.

2632 views

dhw: Wow! I'm not supposed to even speculate that God, if he exists, might have acted out of boredom, whereas you can read his mind, know his purpose, tell us exactly what he wants, and even categorize the kind of love he has for us. Once more I demand equal rights for agnostics!-DAVID: You are speculating without study, other than relying upon Darwin who studied and came up to a different conclusion than Wallace who studied the same stuff.-I was commenting on your statement that "God wants us to have freedom of choice and to learn from the mistakes that we make. God is a God of tough love, the only kind of approach that reaches a mature morality." What on Earth has that got to do with Darwin? What have you studied that gives you the authority to make such a statement about God's wishes and God's kind of love?-dhw: Fine if it sounds right to you and answers your questions about reality. Atheists would say the same about their faith in chance. But since when was faith based on reason?-DAVID: If you study enough cosmology, particle physics, the standard model, and what is currently known about epigenetic evolution it is not difficult to reach some conclusions about the controlling mechanisms. Which although hidden make sense.Reason can come into play. Sure it is guess work, but at least an educated kind of guessing, which is all Darwin did if you are honest about it. I have spent the last several years presenting science on this website. I appreciate the opportunity and it has been fun for me, but the purpose is to show the audience here how science can lead one to easily presume there is a greater power running the show.-I hope you do not misunderstand the nature of our discussions. I greatly appreciate the science you present here, and I also accept that science "can lead one to easily presume there is a greater power running the show." But you yourself have always acknowledged that science cannot answer any of the fundamental questions about the origin of life and consciousness ... let alone about the supposed consciousness, nature, purposes, creative techniques of first-cause energy ... and so if an "educated kind of guessing" is to turn into belief, you have to take a leap of FAITH. Theists take it, and atheists take it (though they usually refuse to believe that their atheism requires faith in chance), and both camps claim that science supports them. Science supports no-one. The limited information it offers us can be interpreted whichever way one chooses or, in my case, one doesn't choose.

2634 views


> dhw: I was commenting on your statement that "God wants us to have freedom of choice and to learn from the mistakes that we make. God is a God of tough love, the only kind of approach that reaches a mature morality." What on Earth has that got to do with Darwin? What have you studied that gives you the authority to make such a statement about God's wishes and God's kind of love?-Darwin jumped to conclusions that have not been born out. His friend Wallace reached exactly the opposite conclusions from the same data. My study of the science leads me to my conclusions about God. I have as much authority as DArwin had.-> David: the purpose is to show the audience here how science can lead one to easily presume there is a greater power running the show.[/i]
> 
> dhw: I hope you do not misunderstand the nature of our discussions. I greatly appreciate the science you present here, and I also accept that science "can lead one to easily presume there is a greater power running the show." But you yourself have always acknowledged that science cannot answer any of the fundamental questions about the origin of life and consciousness ... let alone about the supposed consciousness, nature, purposes, creative techniques of first-cause energy ... and so if an "educated kind of guessing" is to turn into belief, you have to take a leap of FAITH. -I have never claimed that science has all the answers, especially to the areas you mention. At some point Darwin took his defective leap of faith about an evolutionary mechanism. Theories are theories, and laws are accepted truths about how nature works. God is not subject to laws, but considering Him allows theories, based on science. Faith is always a leap.

2679 views

The plot so far: In response to Tony's post about purpose, I wrote that IF I believed in God, "the most likely purpose for me would be God relieving his boredom". This brought down on me the wrath of David: "You are worse than religions' presumption they can apply attributes to God. [...] How do you know he is bored? [...] How do you know He did it with purpose?" (Of course I never claimed to know or even believe any such thing!) In response to Tony, however, David wrote: "God wants us to have freedom of choice and to learn from the mistakes that we make. God is a God of tough love, the only kind of approach that reaches a mature morality." I see this as one rule for agnostics (I shouldn't even speculate about God's mind) and one rule for theists (David knows exactly what's in God's mind), and I have demanded equal rights for agnostics.-DAVID: You are speculating without study, other than relying upon Darwin who studied and came up to a different conclusion than Wallace who studied the same stuff.-Dhw: What on Earth has that got to do with Darwin? What have you studied that gives you the authority to make such a statement about God's wishes and God's kind of love?-DAVID: Darwin jumped to conclusions that have not been born out. His friend Wallace reached exactly the opposite conclusions from the same data. My study of the science leads me to my conclusions about God. I have as much authority as Darwin had.-There is absolutely no link between Darwin's theory of evolution and your theory that "God wants us to have freedom of choice and to learn etc.", and "God is a God of tough love"! Leave Darwin out of it! You have pontificated about God's purpose where all I did was speculate. I intend to report this case to the Bush-Blair Institute for Double Standards.-******
 
David:[...] the purpose is to show the audience here how science can lead one to easily presume there is a greater power running the show.-dhw:[...] you yourself have always acknowledged that science cannot answer any of the fundamental questions about the origin of life and consciousness ... let alone about the supposed consciousness, nature, purposes, creative techniques of first-cause energy ... and so if an "educated kind of guessing" is to turn into belief, you have to take a leap of FAITH. -DAVID: I have never claimed that science has all the answers, especially to the areas you mention. At some point Darwin took his defective leap of faith about an evolutionary mechanism. Theories are theories, and laws are accepted truths about how nature works. God is not subject to laws, but considering Him allows theories, based on science. Faith is always a leap.-I thought we had agreed that there IS an evolutionary mechanism (the intelligent cell/genome) and that the defect lay in Darwin's reliance on random mutations. As for theories, atheist interpreters of Darwin draw atheist conclusions from his theory; theist interpreters draw theist conclusions. These conclusions are not "based on science", because there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that chance can create life and the mechanisms of evolution, or that there is a hidden quantum mind which has designed them in order to teach humans the lessons of tough love!

2625 views

dhw: I thought we had agreed that there IS an evolutionary mechanism (the intelligent cell/genome) and that the defect lay in Darwin's reliance on random mutations. As for theories, atheist interpreters of Darwin draw atheist conclusions from his theory; theist interpreters draw theist conclusions. These conclusions are not "based on science", because there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that chance can create life and the mechanisms of evolution, or that there is a hidden quantum mind which has designed them in order to teach humans the lessons of tough love!-Yes, we agreed, but you stopped at your fence. Quantum reality starts with consciousness first. All of the quantum theorists end up with that conclusion. Here is a theist's compilation of those conclusions:-https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit-So yes, one can conclude a'hidden quantum mind' without needing much faith. Faith comes after the realizations quoted therein.

2630 views

dhw: I thought we had agreed that there IS an evolutionary mechanism (the intelligent cell/genome) and that the defect lay in Darwin's reliance on random mutations. As for theories, atheist interpreters of Darwin draw atheist conclusions from his theory; theist interpreters draw theist conclusions. These conclusions are not "based on science", because there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that chance can create life and the mechanisms of evolution, or that there is a hidden quantum mind which has designed them in order to teach humans the lessons of tough love!-DAVID: Yes, we agreed, but you stopped at your fence. Quantum reality starts with consciousness first. All of the quantum theorists end up with that conclusion. Here is a theist's compilation of those conclusions:-https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit-So yes, one can conclude a 'hidden quantum mind' without needing much faith. Faith comes after the realizations quoted therein.-I'm in no position to debate quantum theory with you, but I am deeply suspicious of the wording here. I can only tell you why I'm suspicious, in the hope that you will come up with some answers.-What exactly do you mean by "quantum reality"? Is there any consensus even among quantum theorists on what it means? Do you yourself believe that the reality you perceive does not exist if you are not there to perceive it? That cause and effect are an illusion? That everyday objects are not real? Of course I accept that if there is such a thing as objective reality, we cannot know it, but that tells us nothing about whether consciousness produced material reality (theism), material reality produced consciousness (materialism), or first cause energy became conscious through its experience of matter (my panpsychist hypothesis). All it tells us is that reality changes according to our perception of it.-Now let's look at the philosophical equation with which this article begins:-1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.-1) is fair enough, except that it would be an epiphenomenon, not "a epi-phenomena". 
2) What exactly is a "special position", and who defines what is special and what is not special? 
3) Same question. If every living creature on Earth were wiped out tomorrow, do you believe the rest of material reality, i.e. Earth and the rest of the material universe, would also disappear? I don't. And I believe the universe and the Earth existed long before our conscious perception of them did. And a materialist atheist would argue that consciousness will then have no special or central position ... because it won't even exist. 
4) This seems to me like saying: If David's evidence is convincing, God exists. David's evidence is convincing, and therefore God exists. Let me repeat, as I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong) this whole argument shows only that consciousness is central to our PERCEPTION of material reality, and that does not mean that our consciousness or any other type of consciousness CREATES material reality. -I'm surprised that "all of the quantum theorists end up with that conclusion". Do you mean that all quantum theorists accept the same definition of reality, and they have all concluded that it was created by a quantum mind, i.e. that consciousness preceded the material world? Assuming that contemporary physicists know something about quantum theory, I have raided Wikipedia for a list of atheists/agnostics among them. I don't know how reliable Wikipedia is, but to your knowledge, do all of them accept your claim? Jim Al-Khalili, Charles H. Bennett, Sean M. Carroll, Frank Close, Brian Cox, David Deutsch, Alan Guth, Stephen Hawking, Peter Higgs, Lawrence Krauss, Robert L. Park, Roger Penrose, Lisa Randall, Lee Smolin, Victor Stenger, Leonard Susskind, Steven Weinberg.-Of course this proves absolutely nothing. I am merely questioning the meaning and accuracy of your statements.

2668 views


> dhw: What exactly do you mean by "quantum reality"? Is there any consensus even among quantum theorists on what it means? Do you yourself believe that the reality you perceive does not exist if you are not there to perceive it? That cause and effect are an illusion? That everyday objects are not real? -Quantum math allows the use of probabilities to create electronic devices we use. Yet we cannot ever know whether the individual particle is a wave or a point of energy. When an experiment is done the result can only give an answer sought, not the complete picture. Thus the results have to factor in conscious intent because only what is looked for is found. Do I believe that reality would disappear if all human consciousness disappeared? No. One simply takes my next step. Consciousness pre-existed reality and exists first.-> 
> dhw:Do you mean that all quantum theorists accept the same definition of reality, and they have all concluded that it was created by a quantum mind, i.e. that consciousness preceded the material world? -The theorists I follow believe as I do. Obviously they tend to be theistic.-
> dhw:Of course this proves absolutely nothing. I am merely questioning the meaning and accuracy of your statements.-My statements about quantum theory are correct. My statements of my conclusions are the correct conclusions for me. Consciousness is mixed up in quantum reality, the level underlying our perceived reality.

2636 views

Quantum math allows the use of probabilities to create electronic devices we use. Yet we cannot ever know whether the individual particle is a wave or a point of energy. When an experiment is done the result can only give an answer sought, not the complete picture.-Isn't life just one great experiment being sought by us all, each individually as well as socially? Seek and you will find, as the scripture say. Yet, even so, we cannot see the result or the complete picture, of what this means.->Thus the results have to factor in conscious intent because only what is looked for is found. -I've always thought this a conundrum. Scientist realize what they see when looking into QR is what they are looking for, and they know it. So what is the point and the result, the big/complete picture? Just that, what it is! The malleable fabric of what they are looking to experiment on reflects back their own belief, or reality. Now what? Just keep staring...keep experimenting...seeking a different answer? Or, start looking at the implications and taking that "science" seriously and to it's nth degree. But, this is where they (most) fall off the flat earth into quantum nothingness. Which is understandable, in a sense. I pretty much fall off there too.->dhw: Of course this proves absolutely nothing. I am merely questioning the meaning and accuracy of your statements.->My statements about quantum theory are correct. My statements of my conclusions are the correct conclusions for me. Consciousness is mixed up in quantum reality, the level underlying our perceived reality.-So very well said, David. I think this belief, of personal observed "Quantum Reality" is something we both have in common (not sure about anyone else here). We both understand that our perceptions of "what is" is just that...our own personal perceived realities that we consciously, or unconsciously, have searched to find and have found within our own personal realities. -I am convinced that the Quantum State of the malleable fabric of all that is, is just that - malleable by the state of consciousness. And the Quantum entanglement theory, on a macro scale, for me, also fits my own thought, that each of our separate realities collide, get entangled, and yet at the same time, coalesce into one balanced body that has it's painful, as well as glorious moments from which we perceive from our separate and social states of conscious reality seat. And when we each consciously perceive this teleo-reality, we, each, again, have the choice in how to neatly place what we view into our own conscious reality - which then moves the very state/fabric of the reality we perceive. We all do it...but, for most, it is done automatically, unconsciously, without purposeful thought.

2633 views

BBELLA: Isn't life just one great experiment being sought by us all, each individually as well as socially? Seek and you will find, as the scripture say. Yet, even so, we cannot see the result or the complete picture, of what this means.-I go along with this analogy. -DAVID: Thus the results have to factor in conscious intent because only what is looked for is found. -BBELLA: I've always thought this a conundrum. Scientist realize what they see when looking into QR is what they are looking for, and they know it. So what is the point and the result, the big/complete picture? Just that, what it is! The malleable fabric of what they are looking to experiment on reflects back their own belief, or reality. Now what? Just keep staring...keep experimenting...seeking a different answer? Or, start looking at the implications and taking that "science" seriously and to it's nth degree. But, this is where they (most) fall off the flat earth into quantum nothingness. Which is understandable, in a sense. I pretty much fall off there too.-So do most of us, which is why I find it impossible to subscribe to such concrete conclusions as God doesn't exist, or life was deliberately created by a conscious quantum mind which wants us to learn the lessons of tough love.-DAVID: My statements about quantum theory are correct. My statements of my conclusions are the correct conclusions for me. Consciousness is mixed up in quantum reality, the level underlying our perceived reality.-BBELLA: So very well said, David. I think this belief, of personal observed "Quantum Reality" is something we both have in common (not sure about anyone else here). We both understand that our perceptions of "what is" is just that...our own personal perceived realities that we consciously, or unconsciously, have searched to find and have found within our own personal realities.-We're aware that we can never "know" any of the answers to our main questions, and can only come up with subjective beliefs, but at least some of us never stop searching, and sometimes by exchanging views on these personal realities I think we can (and I hope we do) help one another.-BBELLA: And when we each consciously perceive this teleo-reality, we, each, again, have the choice in how to neatly place what we view into our own conscious reality - which then moves the very state/fabric of the reality we perceive. We all do it...but, for most, it is done automatically, unconsciously, without purposeful thought.-That is part of the pleasure and sometimes the frustration of our discussions. Especially when sceptical agnostics cast doubt on subjective opinions that claim to be based on objective realities!

2631 views

BBELLA: Isn't life just one great experiment being sought by us all, each individually as well as socially? Seek and you will find, as the scripture say. Yet, even so, we cannot see the result or the complete picture, of what this means.
> 
> dhw: I go along with this analogy. 
> 
> dhw: We're aware that we can never "know" any of the answers to our main questions, and can only come up with subjective beliefs, but at least some of us never stop searching, and sometimes by exchanging views on these personal realities I think we can (and I hope we do) help one another.
> 
> dhw: That is part of the pleasure and sometimes the frustration of our discussions. Especially when sceptical agnostics cast doubt on subjective opinions that claim to be based on objective realities!-The issue is we have no objective reality at the quantum level. And it underlies the level we experience. Quantum reality is seen as the probability we can calculate from the random actions of all the particles. We live with quantum averages and can use these to create electronic machines that work. But in the purely quantum level what is it we have? No one knows. But it is the basis of the universe. No one has any real understanding of this. So we are stuck. How long can a person search and how far, if there is no real answer and probably can never be?

2634 views

dhw: We're aware that we can never "know" any of the answers to our main questions, and can only come up with subjective beliefs, but at least some of us never stop searching, and sometimes by exchanging views on these personal realities I think we can (and I hope we do) help one another.-DAVID: The issue is we have no objective reality at the quantum level. And it underlies the level we experience. Quantum reality is seen as the probability we can calculate from the random actions of all the particles. We live with quantum averages and can use these to create electronic machines that work. But in the purely quantum level what is it we have? No one knows. But it is the basis of the universe. No one has any real understanding of this. So we are stuck. How long can a person search and how far, if there is no real answer and probably can never be?-You could hardly have made a clearer case for agnosticism.

2610 views

David: So we are stuck. How long can a person search and how far, if there is no real answer and probably can never be?[/i]
> 
> dhw:You could hardly have made a clearer case for agnosticism.-Why should the basis of reality be so unintelligable, unless the creator wanted to stay hidden? Read Einhorn's "A Concealed God" for clarification. God wanted a requirement of faith.

2620 views


> DAVID: The issue is we have no objective reality at the quantum level. And it underlies the level we experience. Quantum reality is seen as the probability we can calculate from the random actions of all the particles. We live with quantum averages and can use these to create electronic machines that work. But in the purely quantum level what is it we have? No one knows. But it is the basis of the universe. No one has any real understanding of this.- 
> You could hardly have made a clearer case for agnosticism.-I read another way of putting the point about quantum theory and God. We live in a secondary reality. The primary reality is at the quantum level. And that is God's level. What would an agnostic call the primary level?

2609 views


> We're aware that we can never "know" any of the answers to our main questions, and can only come up with subjective beliefs, but at least some of us never stop searching, and sometimes by exchanging views on these personal realities I think we can (and I hope we do) help one another.-I completely agree, dhw. And so appreciate the openness and respectfulness here, especially since I have brought to the table many times some pretty far out ideas here. 
 
> BBELLA: And when we each consciously perceive this teleo-reality, we, each, again, have the choice in how to neatly place what we view into our own conscious reality - which then moves the very state/fabric of the reality we perceive. We all do it...but, for most, it is done automatically, unconsciously, without purposeful thought.
> 
> That is part of the pleasure and sometimes the frustration of our discussions. Especially when sceptical agnostics cast doubt on subjective opinions that claim to be based on objective realities!-So very true! Objective Reality: The ultimate oxymoron.

2590 views

DAVID: Quantum reality starts with consciousness first-dhw: What exactly do you mean by "quantum reality"? Is there any consensus even among quantum theorists on what it means? Do you yourself believe that the reality you perceive does not exist if you are not there to perceive it? That cause and effect are an illusion? That everyday objects are not real? -DAVID: When an experiment is done the result can only give an answer sought, not the complete picture. Thus the results have to factor in conscious intent because only what is looked for is found. Do I believe that reality would disappear if all human consciousness disappeared? No. One simply takes my next step. Consciousness pre-existed reality and exists first.-I see no connection whatsoever between your "simple" next step and the experiments ... unless you're saying that reality is whatever you want it to be, and so because you want it to be the product of consciousness, it is the product of consciousness.
 
DAVID: All of the quantum theorists end up with that conclusion.-dhw: Do you mean that all quantum theorists accept the same definition of reality, and they have all concluded that it was created by a quantum mind, i.e. that consciousness preceded the material world? -DAVID: The theorists I follow believe as I do. Obviously they tend to be theistic.-Obviously. So it's not "all of the quantum theorists", it's only those whose opinions you agree with. Exit quantum theory as a scientific basis for your beliefs.-dhw: Of course this proves absolutely nothing. I am merely questioning the meaning and accuracy of your statements.-DAVID: My statements about quantum theory are correct. My statements of my conclusions are the correct conclusions for me. Consciousness is mixed up in quantum reality, the level underlying our perceived reality.-Consciousness is "mixed up" in our perception of reality, and we have no idea whether the material or quantum reality we consciously perceive corresponds to an objective reality. That is not the same as saying that consciousness ... any kind of consciousness, human or divine ... precedes reality, let alone creates it. But I do not doubt that they are the correct conclusions for you. The atheist physicists I listed in my last post would presumably say that their conclusions are the correct conclusions for them!

2634 views

TONY (quoting dhw): "There is no single overriding purpose; evolution simply moves onward in whatever directions it is led by individual intelligence."
It seems to me that you two are arguing over this more than anything. All of our personal pet theories on life require faith, intelligence from nothing, and some sort of starting energy. The real dilemma seems to be the question of purpose. (Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, but...)
DHW thinks there is no purpose. (As do atheist)-I see three faith-based hypotheses but can accept none of them: 1) chance (atheist, no purpose), 2) God with a purpose (theist), and 3) an evolving universe of individual intelligences with individual purposes but no overall purpose (atheist). -TONY: David thinks that humanity was the purpose. (Though he goes no further than that, that I have seen). I think that there is a purpose, but that purpose was put on pause to deal with some housekeeping issues brought on by free will.-If I believed in 2), the most likely purpose for me would be God relieving his boredom. Free will and laisser-faire evolution would certainly be a major factor, as they would create elements of unpredictability essential to any form of entertainment.

2624 views


> dhw:If I believed in 2), the most likely purpose for me would be God relieving his boredom. Free will and laisser-faire evolution would certainly be a major factor, as they would create elements of unpredictability essential to any form of entertainment.-You are worse than religions' presumption they can apply attributes to God. Now He is bored. How do you know He is bored? You hae given him a purpose for human creation. How do you know He did it with purpose?

2614 views

dhw: If I believed in 2), the most likely purpose for me would be God relieving his boredom. Free will and laisser-faire evolution would certainly be a major factor, as they would create elements of unpredictability essential to any form of entertainment.-DAVID: You are worse than religions' presumption they can apply attributes to God. Now He is bored. How do you know He is bored? You hae given him a purpose for human creation. How do you know He did it with purpose?-I don't know it. I don't even believe it. I've merely said that IF I believed in him, that would be "the most likely purpose for me". Pure speculation. But I wasn't just referring to human creation anyway (you've ignored "laisser-faire evolution"), whereas you on the contrary have frequently stated your belief that God created life and evolution for the purpose of creating humans! How do you know? Also pure speculation. As is faith in chance, your God, and my panpsychist hypothesis. No harm in speculating. It's when people take a firm decision that they are forced into defending irrationality.

2608 views

dhw: How do you know? Also pure speculation. As is faith in chance, your God, and my panpsychist hypothesis. No harm in speculating. It's when people take a firm decision that they are forced into defending irrationality.-We are back to how do you know that you love your wife, or she loves you? I don't think what I am defending, panentheism, is irrational. It feels right to me and it answers my quesions about reality. Your irrationality is my rationality. To each his own.

2603 views

David: We are back to how do you know that you love your wife, or she loves you? I don't think what I am defending, panentheism, is irrational. It feels right to me and it answers my quesions about reality. Your irrationality is my rationality. To each his own.-Fortunately, I do not suffer with this. In my world view, love is an action word, completely demonstrable. If that action is accompanied by a feeling, so much the better, but feelings are flighty things which often waver in their strength, while action can be resolute. Which is better, to demonstrate love even when you are emotionally wiped out and numb, or to demonstrate it when you are happy and feeling good?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2604 views

A major issue is where do body plans come from and then last 500 million years. Is this evidence of guided evolution?:-http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26essay.html-"One advantage developmental biologists have over paleontologists is that they can experiment on the development of these animals. Most of the genes in this network can be removed, and the developing embryo finds a way to compensate. But these five core genes, which form what Davidson calls a kernel, cannot be modified: change any one of them and no embryo forms at all. There is no reason to think that there was anything unusual about how this kernel first evolved some 500 million years ago (before sea urchins and starfish split into different groups), but once the kernel formed it locked development onto a certain path. These events, small and large, limit the range of possibilities on which natural selection can act. These questions about mechanism were not even being asked under the modern synthesis.-The failure to consider how biodiversity grows reflects an even more troubling flaw in the modern synthesis: it lacks any real sense of history. This may sound odd, as evolution is about history. A geologist would describe evolutionary theory as uniformitarian: "The present is the key to the past." ( my bold)This is the principle we use that by understanding how processes operate today we can understand past events. Evolutionary theory assumes that the processes we can study among fruit flies disporting themselves in a laboratory capture the broad sweep of evolutionary change."

2467 views

DAVID: A major issue is where do body plans come from and then last 500 million years. Is this evidence of guided evolution?:-http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26essay.html-I find all this very confusing. First, I don't know why David has put it under the heading "Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism", which is a highly misleading heading in the first place. As we have repeated over and over again on this website, and Darwin himself also emphasized, Darwinism does not exclude theism. -Secondly, if a body plan is successful within a given environment, why would it NOT last? As we keep saying, the key to "how biodiversity grows" (i.e. evolutionary development) has to be innovation, but you seem to want to have it all ways: stasis suggests guided evolution, innovation suggests guided evolution. Even higgledy-piggledy would suggest guided evolution if only you could find a way to explain it!
 
However, thirdly, the conclusion to this article seems to me to be just as confusing: -QUOTE: Does all this add up to a new modern synthesis? There is certainly no consensus among evolutionary biologists, but development, ecology, genetics and paleontology all provide new perspectives on how evolution operates, and how we should study it. None of these concerns provide a scintilla of hope for creationists, as scientific investigations are already providing new insights into these issues. The foundations for a paradigm shift may be in place, but it may be some time before we see whether a truly novel perspective develops or these tensions are accommodated within an expanded modern synthesis. -I'm not sure whether the author knows how to distinguish between creationism and theistic evolution (it pays some folk to pretend there's no difference), but since there is no consensus, and since "new perspectives" may not become a "novel perspective" (what's the difference?), and since nobody has a clue yet how life or the mechanisms that drive evolution originated or actually function, I really don't know what this article is trying to prove. There is always a scintilla of hope for alternative theories if existing theories remain so flawed.

2464 views

DAVID: A major issue is where do body plans come from and then last 500 million years. Is this evidence of guided evolution?:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26essay.html
> 
> dhw: I find all this very confusing. First, I don't know why David has put it under the heading "Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism", which is a highly misleading heading in the first place. As we have repeated over and over again on this website, and Darwin himself also emphasized, Darwinism does not exclude theism. -The answer to dhw's question is simple. Darwin did not exclude theism, but the Darwinists of today do; they espouse Darwin's theory as the only correct one, which is what I mean by the term Darwinism, as a living faith, and therefore vs. theistic evolution.
> 
> dhw: Secondly, if a body plan is successful within a given environment, why would it NOT last? As we keep saying, the key to "how biodiversity grows" (i.e. evolutionary development) has to be innovation, but you seem to want to have it all ways: stasis suggests guided evolution, innovation suggests guided evolution. Even higgledy-piggledy would suggest guided evolution if only you could find a way to explain it!-If we look at the Cambrian, and especially the latest Cambrian find in the Canadian Rockies with organ systems visable, one has to recognize that these animals with all organ systems working in conjunction, came out of nowhere with a planned set of equipment. Sure they survived, but the huge question this fossil find makes is how without precursors? Therefore it raises the theistic question of who made the complete body plan. By chance? Think of the number of coordinated mutations that had to take place. The latest theory based on virus studies is the viruses did it!-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129583.300-origin-of-organs-thank-viruses-for-your-skin-and-bone.html#.UxCTC_mQyM5 -Since self-sufficient life had to start first, viruses came later as partial copies of life, and then they pushed evolution? Quite a reach for a new theory.
> 
> dhw: However, thirdly, the conclusion to this article seems to me to be just as confusing: 
> 
> QUOTE: Does all this add up to a new modern synthesis? There is certainly no consensus among evolutionary biologists, but development, ecology, genetics and paleontology all provide new perspectives on how evolution operates, and how we should study it. -No wonder they are confused. They want natural chance mechanisms and to me that is wishful "pie on the sky".
> 
> dhw: I really don't know what this article is trying to prove....... There is always a scintilla of hope for alternative theories if existing theories remain so flawed.-That was my point in presenting the article. Theistic evolution is another way of theorizing

2475 views

Antony Flew, a famous atheist philosopher published his book, There is a God, in 2007. And now an English humanist is now an agnostic after reviewing ID material:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1637120036/

"A brilliantly synoptic, dispassionate overview of the controversies that have swirled around Darwin's theory of evolutionary transformation over the past 160 years. The more that science has progressed, argues Neil Thomas, the greater the dissonance between Darwinism's simplistic mechanism and the inscrutable complexities of life it seeks to explain. Thomas's open-minded interrogation of the implications for our understanding of ourselves and our world is masterly and persuasive.

"-James Le Fanu, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and winner of the Los Angeles Times Book Prize

"Taking Leave of Darwin bristles with righteous indignation. Retired British humanities professor and lifelong rationalist Neil Thomas believed the confident claims for Darwinism. Now he knows better. Writing in elegant, erudite prose, Thomas excoriates those who have robbed people of their right to grapple with our mysterious universe as best they can. I highly recommend the book.

"-Michael J. Behe, Lehigh University Professor of Biological Sciences and author of Darwin's Black Box

"Professor Neil Thomas has written a brief, courageous, spirited, and lucid book. It shows the commendable willingness of a committed agnostic intellectual to change his mind about Darwinism, the great contemporary sacred cow, in the face of the large, accumulating body of new evidence against it and also to avail himself of the insights and arguments of intelligent critics of it since the very beginning and across 160 years-including Sedgwick, Mivart, Butler, A.R. Wallace, Agassiz, Max Muller, Kellogg, Dewar, Jacques Barzun, and Gertrude Himmelfarb. His intelligent, non-specialist survey of the contemporary state of the question is enriched by references to the insights of the distinguished philosopher Thomas Nagel and the MD and award-winning science writer James Le Fanu, and by a quite moving rationalist commitment to "follow the argument where it leads," however unexpected and uncomfortable this loyalty to logic and truth has made him. He provides a gratifying and illuminating case study in intellectual courage.

"-M.D. Aeschliman, Professor Emeritus, Boston University, author of The Restoration of Man: C.S. Lewis and the Continuing Case Against Scientism"

Comment: Minds can be opened if ID is researched properly. I did it, and my mind changed. Try it. But it involves reading their material. Use nothing secondhand, which is what I supply here.

1261 views

Neil Thomas' book is out. Why not read it!!!!

https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Leave-Darwin-Longtime-Discovers/dp/1637120036/

Antony Flew, a famous atheist philosopher published his book, There is a God, in 2007. And now an English humanist is now an agnostic after reviewing ID material:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1637120036/

"A brilliantly synoptic, dispassionate overview of the controversies that have swirled around Darwin's theory of evolutionary transformation over the past 160 years. The more that science has progressed, argues Neil Thomas, the greater the dissonance between Darwinism's simplistic mechanism and the inscrutable complexities of life it seeks to explain. Thomas's open-minded interrogation of the implications for our understanding of ourselves and our world is masterly and persuasive.

"-James Le Fanu, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and winner of the Los Angeles Times Book Prize

"Taking Leave of Darwin bristles with righteous indignation. Retired British humanities professor and lifelong rationalist Neil Thomas believed the confident claims for Darwinism. Now he knows better. Writing in elegant, erudite prose, Thomas excoriates those who have robbed people of their right to grapple with our mysterious universe as best they can. I highly recommend the book.

"-Michael J. Behe, Lehigh University Professor of Biological Sciences and author of Darwin's Black Box

"Professor Neil Thomas has written a brief, courageous, spirited, and lucid book. It shows the commendable willingness of a committed agnostic intellectual to change his mind about Darwinism, the great contemporary sacred cow, in the face of the large, accumulating body of new evidence against it and also to avail himself of the insights and arguments of intelligent critics of it since the very beginning and across 160 years-including Sedgwick, Mivart, Butler, A.R. Wallace, Agassiz, Max Muller, Kellogg, Dewar, Jacques Barzun, and Gertrude Himmelfarb. His intelligent, non-specialist survey of the contemporary state of the question is enriched by references to the insights of the distinguished philosopher Thomas Nagel and the MD and award-winning science writer James Le Fanu, and by a quite moving rationalist commitment to "follow the argument where it leads," however unexpected and uncomfortable this loyalty to logic and truth has made him. He provides a gratifying and illuminating case study in intellectual courage.

"-M.D. Aeschliman, Professor Emeritus, Boston University, author of The Restoration of Man: C.S. Lewis and the Continuing Case Against Scientism"

Comment: Minds can be opened if ID is researched properly. I did it, and my mind changed. Try it. But it involves reading their material. Use nothing secondhand, which is what I supply here.

1245 views

DAVID: Neil Thomas' book is out. Why not read it!!!!
https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Leave-Darwin-Longtime-Discovers/dp/1637120036/

Allowing for meals, exercise and daytime naps, I work most days from approx. 6 am until approx 10.30 pm (including the time I spend on this forum). I’m not complaining – this is my choice, because I love the work that I do. But I do not have time to read all the books you would like me to read, and so I rely on you to reproduce the arguments. You have actually repeated the arguments from your last post, and so I will repeat my comments:

The heading is a travesty in itself. Darwin – himself an agnostic - explicitly wrote that he “saw no good reason why the views given in this book (Origin) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.” We may (and do) disagree with aspects of his theory (random mutations, and natural selection as a creative force), just as some theists might disagree with the proposal that God designed every species individually and his only aim was to design humans. But that does not mean opponents of parts of your theory or parts of Darwin's can't be theists. Darwinism allows for theistic evolution! He said so, and he should know!

DAVID: Antony Flew, a famous atheist philosopher published his book, There is a God, in 2007. And now an English humanist is now an agnostic after reviewing ID material:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1637120036/
Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design

QUOTE: Thomas's deeply personal conclusion? Intelligent design is not only possible but, indeed, is presently the most reasonable explanation for the origin of life's great diversity of forms.

DAVID: Minds can be opened if ID is researched properly. I did it, and my mind changed. Try it. But it involves reading their material.

From the very start of this website I have accepted the logic of the design argument, which is a major reason for my rejection of atheism (the other being psychic experiences). I have also rejected Darwin’s theory of random mutations, and of natural selection as a creative force.

...agnostics & atheists leaving

Does Neil Thomas reject common descent, how many agnostics and atheists have “left” what? Does this mean that Mr Thomas and the other agnostics are now theists?

I will look forward to hearing the answers when you have read the book – as I’m sure you will! :-)

1247 views

DAVID: Neil Thomas' book is out. Why not read it!!!!
https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Leave-Darwin-Longtime-Discovers/dp/1637120036/

dhw: Allowing for meals, exercise and daytime naps, I work most days from approx. 6 am until approx 10.30 pm (including the time I spend on this forum). I’m not complaining – this is my choice, because I love the work that I do. But I do not have time to read all the books you would like me to read, and so I rely on you to reproduce the arguments. You have actually repeated the arguments from your last post, and so I will repeat my comments:

The heading is a travesty in itself. Darwin – himself an agnostic - explicitly wrote that he “saw no good reason why the views given in this book (Origin) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.” We may (and do) disagree with aspects of his theory (random mutations, and natural selection as a creative force), just as some theists might disagree with the proposal that God designed every species individually and his only aim was to design humans. But that does not mean opponents of parts of your theory or parts of Darwin's can't be theists. Darwinism allows for theistic evolution! He said so, and he should know!

DAVID: Antony Flew, a famous atheist philosopher published his book, There is a God, in 2007. And now an English humanist is now an agnostic after reviewing ID material:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1637120036/
Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design

QUOTE: Thomas's deeply personal conclusion? Intelligent design is not only possible but, indeed, is presently the most reasonable explanation for the origin of life's great diversity of forms.

DAVID: Minds can be opened if ID is researched properly. I did it, and my mind changed. Try it. But it involves reading their material.

From the very start of this website I have accepted the logic of the design argument, which is a major reason for my rejection of atheism (the other being psychic experiences). I have also rejected Darwin’s theory of random mutations, and of natural selection as a creative force.

...agnostics & atheists leaving

Does Neil Thomas reject common descent, how many agnostics and atheists have “left” what? Does this mean that Mr Thomas and the other agnostics are now theists?

I will look forward to hearing the answers when you have read the book – as I’m sure you will!

What Neil Thomas seems to do is reject Darwin propaganda. Asking me to distill the book for you is an interesting request I'll consider. ;-)

1271 views

Fred Hoyle on the subject:

https://theologyonline.com/threads/some-intelligent-design-quotes-from-an-atheist-fred-...

“Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that
there are about 2000 enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them
all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously
small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe
consisted of organic soup.”

“The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program
of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic
soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”_

“Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so
utterly miniscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the
favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect
deliberate ... . It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of
intelligence must reflect ... higher intelligences ... even to the limit of
God ... such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific.”_

***

"Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have
designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my
finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly
minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and
biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.
The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming
as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Comment: Hoyle never described if he left atheism.

455 views

From a talk in 1982:

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hoyle-with-updates-from-walker-and-davie...

"The big problem in biology, as I see it, is to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules. The issue isn’t so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn’t give. The case of the enzymes is well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it’s easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. [ –> 20^200 = 1.6 * 10^260] This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is, as I see it, the biological problem – the information problem . . . .

"I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe. So try as I would, I couldn’t convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes – by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . . By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . .

"Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix."

Comment: fascinating opinion for an atheist.

446 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum