Debunking Creationism 301 (Advanced) - Lesson 1

[treat2]

Christian creationists put the Earth's age and the age of the Universe between 6-10,000 years old, with 6,000 being the most popularly stated number.

The stars in the Universe (except for our Sun) are MILLIONS AND BILLIONS of LIGHT YEARS away from us. How we can possibly be able to either see or just scientifically detect ANY stars?

Please explain how this obvious contradition is scientifically possible with reference to any empirical evidence.

[Royce]

1. Because they are wrong.
2. Because they are speaking about civilization on earth and not
the physical age of the earth much less the universe though some
will deny that.
3. Because it is a folk tale, myth, oral tradition of creation that
all cultures have in their background that has been taken
seriously and literally because it is written in a book that they
consider holy and inspired by God and thus must be literally
true. (because if they doubt any of it, all of it comes into
doubt, so shallow is their faith and understanding.)

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Royce
1. Because they are wrong.


Tada!

[Hurkyl]

How can we see stars that have burned out millions of years ago?

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
How can we see stars that have burned out millions of years ago?


Your kidding right?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
How can we see stars that have burned out millions of years ago? Ummmm...did your little brother hack your password?

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
How can we see stars that have burned out millions of years ago?

I think what he means is the following: if creationists were right, not only would we see light from stars that would need to have been emitted much before the universe was created, but also light from stars that were never there.

In order for that to happen, a god would need to include, in his creation plan, light coming towards us containing the depiction of the demise of these stars.

This way, such god would be using quite a contrived way of helping us believe.

[NateTG]

One of the problems with creationism is that it's not scientifically falsifiable. It's easy to create ad hoc explanations for every observation in a system that does not require completeness -- that is, any observation can be explained by 'god made it that way'. This means that creationism is worthless as a scientific theory and that it cannot be debunked.

This suggests that the appropriate tactic for debunking creationism is not to demonstrate that it is incorrect, but to demonstrate that it is superfluous.

[Zero]

Originally posted by NateTG
One of the problems with creationism is that it's not scientifically falsifiable. It's easy to create ad hoc explanations for every observation in a system that does not require completeness -- that is, any observation can be explained by 'god made it that way'. This means that creationism is worthless as a scientific theory and that it cannot be debunked.

This suggests that the appropriate tactic for debunking creationism is not to demonstrate that it is incorrect, but to demonstrate that it is superfluous. Exactly...I was telling someone the other day about how to combat pseudo-science. You can't match evidence for evidence, because they can just make stuff up, and you spend all your time chasing down each individual claim. You have to attack the true foundation, which is superstition and willful ignorance.

[Odin]

Exactly...I was telling someone the other day about how to combat pseudo-science. You can't match evidence for evidence, because they can just make stuff up, and you spend all your time chasing down each individual claim. You have to attack the true foundation, which is superstition and willful ignorance.
You hit it on the head there. In religion the "believers", follow blindly the messages that they seem to recieve from their god/gods. They call this faith. And to them without faith you are doomed for you cannot follow the god/gods. but any smart person soon realises that these "messages" are either coincidences or are made up but the founder.

[Odin]

Unfortunately due to my comp. being on the fritz I was unable to continue my last post so here goes.

Those with "faith" seem to believe that everything good that happens to them is given by their god. If something bad happens to them it is either a test by thier god, or by some sort of bad god (Just a thought, what if some of the good stuff was a test from the bad god). Not to mention the fact that either something was 'meant to be' or coincidence, with the religious the line between the two is less than paper thin and i believe these religious people get many a paper cut as they traipse their way back and forth over this line. And I have even seen evidence of some religious people saying that they had gotten a vision of two people and that they were meant to be, but those people broke up 2 years later. The only question I pose is what do we do about these people, I mean do we ignore them and their craziness? Do we prove them wrong? (This may be hard to do as proving religion wrong is about as easy as counting and grouping all the atomic material in the universe) What does anyone suggest? :confused:

[Fliption]

Exactly...I was telling someone the other day about how to combat pseudo-science. You can't match evidence for evidence, because they can just make stuff up, and you spend all your time chasing down each individual claim. You have to attack the true foundation, which is superstition and willful ignorance.

The problem with this approach is that you can use it against any view. Even legitimate ones. How will you ever know if a view is legitimate unless you look at the sited evidence 1 by 1? It's easy to assume based on prior experience that there is a biased foundation of belief but if the one guy with the real proof ever showed up, this approach wouldn't filter him out. I've seen this approach by you in the forums and I have to say it is one of the most frustrating things to me. No one will argue that this might not be a practical approach for the average religious wacko. But I've seen the line get blurry. Hell even I have been the victim of this approach and I think faith is for the birds. I think careful judgement has to be used in order to use this approach. It's too easy to be intellectually lazy and just assume anyone that disagrees with you has a biased foundation of belief.

[Odin]

Isn't it funny that everyone who has posted here has posted against religion. There has yet to be one statement for religion. So I have come to some conclusions. Nobody who is on here is truly religious. Nobody is willing to back up religion. Or it just plain can't be backed.

[physicsisphirst]

Isn't it funny that everyone who has posted here has posted against religion. There has yet to be one statement for religion. So I have come to some conclusions. Nobody who is on here is truly religious. Nobody is willing to back up religion. Or it just plain can't be backed.

I don't think this is really a religious vs non-religious issue even though historically the conflicts would seem to indicate otherwise. Many scientists are deeply religious, but they don't treat the bible as a textbook on cosmology (besides, there are plenty of other creationisms around other than that one).

NateTG has made a very profound statement a few posts up about creationism not being not scientifically falsifiable. On another forum, the debate rages, but the evolutionists are having a hard time despite presenting better scientific arguments because the other side refuses to accept them.

You don't want to fight the creationism 'fire' with fire. It's rather like trying to tell someone that an opinion is wrong.

of course, we don't have to have this conflict that has gone on for so long.
thomas henry huxley (darwin's bulldog) maintained that true reason could never quarrel with true religion - just as reason is a medium for the revelation of truth so is religion a medium for the revelation of morality:

"between science [true reason] and religion as spiritual aspiration or religion as humility, or religion as morality, he saw no conflict ..."


in friendship,
prad

[Janitor]

There is a special issue of Scientific American out right now, on a magazine rack near you. It has a painting of a T. Rex on the cover. Young-Earth creationists have the problem of explaining how all those species of dinosaurs came and went over just the first fraction of the last 10,000 or so years.

Old-Earth creationists might allow that there were dinosaurs tens of millions of years ago. But a problem for them is that there were clearly carnivorous dinosaurs, going by evidence such as shape of teeth. Biblical literalists like to say that prior to Adam and Eve there was no death, no pain, no suffering. But if a carnivorous predator like T. Rex didn't inflict pain on other living things, nothing has done so!

So do the Old-Earth creationists have to maintain that Adam and Eve lived even earlier than the earliest carnivorous dinosaurs?

The same issue has an article on a find of 25-million-year-old amber. The photos in the article show all kinds of creeping, crawling, stinging, biting, blood-sucking little vermin. Again, not a very nice thing for the Lord to have put on Earth before there was a sinful Adam and Eve for Him to blame it all on.

[Royce]

There are also creationist who don't believe in the literal intepretation of the bible, that God created the universe and all that it contains and science is simply discovering God's methods of creation, God's mind. I have often said here at the PF's; "God said let there be light. Big Bang!"

[physicsisphirst]

There is a special issue of Scientific American out right now, on a magazine rack near you..

well just to be equitable(?), here is a fascinating(?) article (posted by a creationist on another forum) from Creation Magazine that conclusively shows how Noah's Ark could have not only carried all (including dinosaurs) that was needed to start life all over again after the flood:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp

The article deals with space requirements, feeding, excrement and produces a resounding conclusion as well. Enjoy(?)

in friendship,
prad

[loseyourname]

What would you guys say to someone that refuses to believe evolution by chance mutation and natural selection alone is feasible and that intelligent intervention of some sort is the only alternative. I've effectively shown the fallacy of Dr. Murray Eden's calculations of the mathematical improbability of single-step cell construction and of the existence of hemoglobin. I've also pointed that, even if chance mutation and natural selection are improbable, it doesn't make any competing hypothesis any more probably, as Eden and his followers seem to think. This guy is very obstinate and insists that since evolution can't be proven, we must treat it the same as any other theory. Should I just give up?

[Janitor]

loseyourname- I've effectively shown the fallacy of...

Where did you show it? Some sort of publication?

[loseyourname]

Nothing that prestigious. Just another forum. A decidely non-scientific forum.

[Canute]

There are also creationist who don't believe in the literal intepretation of the bible, that God created the universe and all that it contains and science is simply discovering God's methods of creation, God's mind. I have often said here at the PF's; "God said let there be light. Big Bang!"
This is the heart of the problem IMO. As has been said above Christian creationism is unfalsifiable by science (but not necessarily unfalsifiable by other means). Until science can explain how or why anything exists then Creationists are safe, and so are theists. Science can not do metaphysics yet is built on metaphysical assumptions. When these can be shown to be true then Creationists and theists will have to give up arguing. However as we know that science cannot explain the coming into existence of the universe then they are probably safe forever.

However a Creator God seems a bit of a weak idea simply on logical grounds. It begs too many questions.

I like this -

“My own personal view is that it is useless to attempt even a "vague idea of what a designer [of the universe] would be like". Now religious people will probably take me to mean by this that the designing God is so ineffable that we cannot begin to apprehend what he "would be like". No: for I do apprehend something definite --- namely, that the term "design" is completely inappropriate to any consideration of how the universe originated. It is an anthropomorphism which can no more be applied to the universe’s origin than a white beard can be. The one conviction common to the people I regard as sane mystics is that anthropomorphisms of all kinds have to be abandoned. As Meister Eckhart put it: God is not good, I am good.”
Denis Paul, Barbour, Weinberg and the Anthropic Principle
http://www.wittgenstein.internet-today.co.uk/moreiris.html

Also there are more subtle forms of creationism than the Christian one.

[Royce]

However a Creator God seems a bit of a weak idea simply on logical grounds. It begs too many questions.


I agree with the above; however, the big bang and multi-verse theories leaves too many questions unanswered also. The fact that so many parameters and values are so precise and necessarily so for the universe to exist as it does and for life to be possible at all much less spontaneously come about by accident is a bit hard to accept at face value also. I think that this is evidence of a design and intent by a creator. I call that creator God.

What God may be like or who God is, is a question that I have no way of knowing or answering. This is no different that how or why the universe came to be or why it is as it is. Neither excludes nor disproves the other.

As there is no answer nor anyway to prove or disprove one or the other it remains for us to take our pick and accept that others have done the same.

[Canute]

I agree with the above; however, the big bang and multi-verse theories leaves too many questions unanswered also. The fact that so many parameters and values are so precise and necessarily so for the universe to exist as it does and for life to be possible at all much less spontaneously come about by accident is a bit hard to accept at face value also.
I agree.

I think that this is evidence of a design and intent by a creator. I call that creator God.
I agree it's evidence for something more than science can give us. But the big question is what you mean by 'creator' and 'God'.

What God may be like or who God is, is a question that I have no way of knowing or answering.
I'm not so sure about that.

This is no different that how or why the universe came to be or why it is as it is. Neither excludes nor disproves the other.
Agree with that bit.

As there is no answer nor anyway to prove or disprove one or the other it remains for us to take our pick and accept that others have done the same.
I wonder. The fact we can't prove it one way or the other doesn't actually entail that we cannot know the answer.

[Royce]

I wonder. The fact we can't prove it one way or the other doesn't actually entail that we cannot know the answer.

I was referring to empirical knowledge. Our personal inner subjective knowledge of God is more in line with revelation than empirical knowledge as God reveals himself to us personally.

I have, in the past, caused too much ruckus here by stating my personal religious beliefs and convictions in topics like this one, so I try to stay clear of such statements while still interjecting the philosophical implications of a spiritual cause or realm.

[loseyourname]

I fail to see the virtue in choosing between two options, neither of which can be proven, based on what feels best to you. In matters of personal choice and ethics, this obviously must be done, as we have no choice but to act in some manner. But a metaphysical model of the universe's origin is not a necessity; you can live without one. You can live simply with science and ethics. Agnosticism reigns supreme.

Is there going to be any debunking of hydroplate theory in this thread?

[physicsisphirst]

You can live simply with science and ethics. Agnosticism reigns supreme.


good combo!
huxley all the way!!

hey, can we see that refutation you did of Eden's stuff?

in friendship,
prad

[Canute]

I was referring to empirical knowledge. Our personal inner subjective knowledge of God is more in line with revelation than empirical knowledge as God reveals himself to us personally.

I have, in the past, caused too much ruckus here by stating my personal religious beliefs and convictions in topics like this one, so I try to stay clear of such statements while still interjecting the philosophical implications of a spiritual cause or realm.
What do mean by empirical here? You seem to mean 'inter-subjective', which is a quite different thing.

[Canute]

I fail to see the virtue in choosing between two options, neither of which can be proven, based on what feels best to you.
I agree. Luckily it's a complete fallacy to suppose that you can only know what's true by proving it.

In matters of personal choice and ethics, this obviously must be done, as we have no choice but to act in some manner.
What's obvious about it?

But a metaphysical model of the universe's origin is not a necessity; you can live without one. You can live simply with science and ethics. Agnosticism reigns supreme.
Yeah, that strategy's working really well isn't it.

It's based on another fallacy, namely that science is not a metaphysical model. In fact it is one for most people, as you have illustrated. The issues of knowledge and truth and morality etc are unfortunately not so simple.

Is there going to be any debunking of hydroplate theory in this thread?
Never heard of that one.

[Phi For All]

Isn't it funny that everyone who has posted here has posted against religion. There has yet to be one statement for religion. So I have come to some conclusions. Nobody who is on here is truly religious. Nobody is willing to back up religion. Or it just plain can't be backed.
I think religion is valid in one respect at least: it opens the mind to possibilities that exist outside our particle-based existence. The fact that too many zealots use religion the opposite way, to close their minds off, is just plain sad. They would rather believe their particular religion is the only way. Faith in what you can't prove or observe is not a bad thing, but assuming that you're right and everyone else is going to hell is just plain medieval.

[selfAdjoint]

Notice that PF has rules about where you can do religious arguments. The sticky that states this is in the general philosophy forum. So our experienced posters just don't bring religion up here. Maybe that means we aren't seriously champions of religion. So be it.

[loseyourname]

I agree. Luckily it's a complete fallacy to suppose that you can only know what's true by proving it.

Aside from self-knowledge, what might you attain otherwise?


What's obvious about it?

A challenge. Attempt to never do anything. Even then, you made a choice.


Yeah, that strategy's working really well isn't it.

It's based on another fallacy, namely that science is not a metaphysical model. In fact it is one for most people, as you have illustrated.

All I said was that you don't need a theory of the universe's origin to go about your daily life. I am right.


Never heard of that one.

Creation science's rebuttal to evolutionary theory is hydroplate theory. It attempts to explain the stratification of the fossil record without postulating any link between species and to refute the accepted age of the earth.

[Janitor]

Creation science's rebuttal to evolutionary theory is hydroplate theory. - loseyourname

Is that where they try to sell the idea that the fossil strata turned out that way because of the settling of dead bodies in Noah's flood?

[loseyourname]

Yes, although they do go into a little more detail.

[Canute]

Aside from self-knowledge, what might you attain otherwise?
That's a biiiig topic. Let's just say that all knowledge begins in experience.

A challenge. Attempt to never do anything. Even then, you made a choice.
I agree we make choices (although according to physical determinists we don't).

All I said was that you don't need a theory of the universe's origin to go about your daily life. I am right.
Absolutely right. But morality is arbitrary in the absence of a metaphysic so I wouldn't agree that it's the best way of going about living. .

Creation science's rebuttal to evolutionary theory is hydroplate theory. It attempts to explain the stratification of the fossil record without postulating any link between species and to refute the accepted age of the earth.
Ah. Enough said.

[russ_watters]

YEC is trivially simple to prove: God created the universe/earth so he created it to look 14 billion years old even though it is only 6,000.









....however, that's not a scientific argument, which is why the restraining order is still in effect. Religion and science are and must remain separate.

[loseyourname]

That's a biiiig topic. Let's just say that all knowledge begins in experience.

Begins, perhaps. But outside of self-knowledge, no knowledge is attained until the experience is confirmed to be repeatable by the experiences of others. I am of course assuming that different people have the same experiences when exposed to the same sensory stimuli, but I don't think that's a stretch. I think it is safe to say that the scientific method is empirical.

[Les Sleeth]

Begins, perhaps. But outside of self-knowledge, no knowledge is attained until the experience is confirmed to be repeatable by the experiences of others. I am of course assuming that different people have the same experiences when exposed to the same sensory stimuli, but I don't think that's a stretch. I think it is safe to say that the scientific method is empirical.

From the off-handed way you are referring to it, I suspect you are not recognizing how important self-knowledge is to some of us. In fact, I'd characterize most debates here as between those who think self-knowledge is most enlightening, and those who think knowledge of the external world is most enlightening.

Unfortunately, there are very few people who can talk competently, and from personal experience, about both. So what often happens is the guy who most values self-knowledge, and hasn't been very conscientious about learning empirical skills, ends up debating the guy who values empirical understanding but doesn't know squat about self-knowledge. It's an ugly sight to see :eek:!

Here at a science site, there are a lot more people who value empirical skills over anything else, so we have plenty of input on how much can be understood about externals. I always wonder how much empirical debaters know about what can be achieved with internal skills, or if they've just assumed there isn't much to it without having done their homework.

As someone who values both internal and external knowledge, I wish there were more evenly educated thinkers participating in the debates. Failing that, at least if there were more openness on both sides that would help. In these inner-outer debates, too often threads seem to end with nobody having learned anything from other perspectives.

[motai]

YEC is trivially simple to prove: God created the universe/earth so he created it to look 14 billion years old even though it is only 6,000.

That seems absurd to me... created to look older than what it is? What would God be trying to prove with that? I think some of these YECs need to plan out their theories otherwise they will be left with some ethical issues (i.e. from this past statement, it is acceptible for an omniscient entity to lie to prove its point, etc.)

[Canute]

Begins, perhaps. But outside of self-knowledge, no knowledge is attained until the experience is confirmed to be repeatable by the experiences of others.
Very true. This is why third-person 'knowledge' can only be relative and never certain.

I am of course assuming that different people have the same experiences when exposed to the same sensory stimuli, but I don't think that's a stretch.
We don't know. However even if it's true it does not mean that people have the same experiences. Many people do not explore their ability to experience.

I think it is safe to say that the scientific method is empirical. If you mean rooted in experience then I agree.

[loseyourname]

Very true. This is why third-person 'knowledge' can only be relative and never certain.

Self-knowledge is no more certain. As I've pointed out previously, the only knowledge that doesn't buckle under your extremely strenuous standards of doubt is the knowledge that consciousness exists.

We don't know. However even if it's true it does not mean that people have the same experiences. Many people do not explore their ability to experience.

What exactly do you mean by "explore their ability to experience?"

If you mean rooted in experience then I agree.

Not exactly. Empirical means that it is rooted in sensory perception. There are plenty of experiences that do not involve the five senses.

[loseyourname]

From the off-handed way you are referring to it, I suspect you are not recognizing how important self-knowledge is to some of us. In fact, I'd characterize most debates here as between those who think self-knowledge is most enlightening, and those who think knowledge of the external world is most enlightening.

Relax there, buddy. I'm referring to it in an off-handed way because it isn't relevant to a discussion of creationism.

[Les Sleeth]

Relax there, buddy. I'm referring to it in an off-handed way because it isn't relevant to a discussion of creationism.

I am relaxed, or was when I wrote what I did. I probably should have said casual rather than "off-handed." I was trying to indicate you may be considering self-knowledge irrelevant a bit too quickly.

If the discussion were limited to myths of Biblical creationism then self-knowledge wouldn't mean much. But as usual, this discussion has broadened into the more general idea of whether some sort of universal intelligence has been/is part of the evolution and maintenance of creation. For that, I believe those who've advanced the furthest in self-knowledge offer the best subjective evidence of that (evidence which is seldom cited).

I also was pointing out why these debates get hot. Often it's because no one is debating with an open mind, listening to and trying to understand the other side. It is hard to do that when one already thinks one is right. And it always shows too . . .it comes out as intolerance and condescension. I've seen lots of it, and lots of "debunking creationism" threads as well where it's just an excuse for physicalists to sneer at the illogic of Biblical creationism. Mad about one such thread, at the old PF I started a thread called "Why Materialists Can't Think Properly." That got pretty hot! But in the end I didn't see how any of it was useful to anyone.

I'd say there are those of us here who can see real problems with physicalist theory, and so think there is "something more." I am not religious, and I don't know what that something more is, but I am willing and even eager to debate those who believe physicalist models are adequate (or one day will be) to explain things.

So rather than have threads that ridicule, I would rather see strong debates between people who can represent their side with evidence and reason. And really, here at a science site, do we really need to talk about Biblical Creationism? If someone believes it, which I am not saying is wrong, this ain't the place to debate it (or ridicule it).

[loseyourname]

Do you believe in some form of intelligent intervention as the mechanism of evolution?

[Les Sleeth]

Do you believe in some form of intelligent intervention as the mechanism of evolution?

I am probably more conservative about what "extra" might be part of evolution than it might seem from my other posts. I don't want to bore PF members who've seen me argue this point a lot in the past, but where I've focused my criticism of purely physicalist theory before is on self organization.

I believe the most unexplained and most glossed over principle of physicalism is the lack of an adequate self-organizing force/principle that would get chemistry to organize the way it had to in order to "live" (and for functionalists, would get brain functions to organize as they must to create consciousness). Before you start citing Miller-Urey, crystals, auto-catalytic reactions, polymers, etc. . . . I already know all about that, and none are proper examples because the self-organization there is repetitive, while the self-organization that led to and continued evolving life is what I call progressive.

All purely physical (i.e., outside of life) spontaneous organization just goes on for a few steps in repetitive patterns, while life’s progressive organization has been essentially perpetual. That's why the potential for spontaneously forming organic molecules is not the issue (besides, biology developed out of Earth’s chemistry, so we should expect elementary bio-stuff to show up in the right conditions).

What's needed for a believable physicalist model of life is to observe in non-living chemistry the quality of self-organization that spontaneously kicks into progressive development gear; and not just progressive development, but perpetual progressive development; and not just perpetual progressive development, but of systems; and not just any system but functioning systems; and not just any functionality but hierarchally arranged functionality; and not just any hierarchally arranged functionality, but one which develops in support of the overall organization; and finally, not just any organization but one which metabolizes, reproduces, evolves, and is self-aware.

Thus far the observed potentials of chemistry to spontaneously act fall vastly short of that level of self-organization.

So, I do think there is something more needed besides known physical principles to explain life and consciousness . . . Yes, I think there might be some sort of self-organizing principle we've yet to recognize. Is that what God is? It it intelligent? Good questions. I am open to any explanation that makes sense.

[loseyourname]

What's needed for a believable physicalist model of life is to observe in non-living chemistry the quality of self-organization that spontaneously kicks into progressive development gear; and not just progressive development, but perpetual progressive development; and not just perpetual progressive development, but of systems; and not just any system but functioning systems; and not just any functionality but hierarchally arranged functionality; and not just any hierarchally arranged functionality, but one which develops in support of the overall organization; and finally, not just any organization but one which metabolizes, reproduces, evolves, and is self-aware.

You do realize it took over a billion years just for the first self-replicating molecule to develop, do you not? It may be a tad bit difficult to recreate that in a lab. Once it happens, though, natural selection is a perfectly believable process for creating all the higher levels of organization observed. Experiments in which certain steps in what Michael Behe fallaciously termed "irreducibly complex systems" were removed and subsequently reappeared after several hundred generations should be enough to demonstrate that.

Even non-replicating protobionts, complete with very simple metabolism and phospholipid bilayer membranes have spontaneously assembled in lab cultures. All that should be needed to dispel your doubt is the unguided assembly of a self-replicating molecule inside of these membrane-enclosed systems. Perhaps after another billion years of laboratory experiments, we'll have that.

[Les Sleeth]

You do realize it took over a billion years just for the first self-replicating molecule to develop, do you not? It may be a tad bit difficult to recreate that in a lab. Once it happens, though, natural selection is a perfectly believable process for creating all the higher levels of organization observed. Experiments in which certain steps in what Michael Behe fallaciously termed "irreducibly complex systems" were removed and subsequently reappeared after several hundred generations should be enough to demonstrate that.

Even non-replicating protobionts, complete with very simple metabolism and phospholipid bilayer membranes have spontaneously assembled in lab cultures. All that should be needed to dispel your doubt is the unguided assembly of a self-replicating molecule inside of these membrane-enclosed systems. Perhaps after another billion years of laboratory experiments, we'll have that.

Well, that's the excuse physicalistst always uses . . . we need another billion years. Of course, they are postulating originally abiogenesis took place spontaneously. If you factor in the intervention of consciousness in the lab actually designing and directing things, that should reduce the time expotentially.

But I am not inflexible. Just get chemistry to self-organize non-repetitively (or "progressively" as I call it) and keep on doing that on its own, and I'll admit chemistry left to its own devices can achieve life.

Remember, I am not questioning the natural selection plus genetics formula. Quite possibly once life is achieved that is enough to evolve all life forms we see. I am questioning that chemistry can alone self-organize itself into life. It is the progressive self-organizing principle which physicalists gloss over as though they've already demostrated it (i.e., because of Urey-Miller, etc.), when all they've actually shown is repetitive self-organization.

[Royce]

Do you believe in some form of intelligent intervention as the mechanism of evolution?
Just to add my $.02 worth, yes, I do. I believe the intervention is/was contained in the original DNA in the form of a direction toward more complexity and higher organization leading toward more advanced life forms. I don't believe that that direction is now dormant nor superseded by mans supposedly circumventing natural selection.
I also agree with Les Sleeeth that abiogenisis is not a proven or universally accepted fact. There is something that makes inert matter become a living organism beyond chance or accident. In my mind that something is the life force the source of which is the Creator/Designer of the universe.

[Canute]

Self-knowledge is no more certain. As I've pointed out previously, the only knowledge that doesn't buckle under your extremely strenuous standards of doubt is the knowledge that consciousness exists.
What makes you say that?

What exactly do you mean by "explore their ability to experience?"
I meant 'explore what they can experience' or 'know what they can know'.

Not exactly. Empirical means that it is rooted in sensory perception. There are plenty of experiences that do not involve the five senses.
In philosophy 'empirical' means derived from experience.

[loseyourname]

Of course, they are postulating originally abiogenesis took place spontaneously.

Sorry buddy, but that just isn't the case. Nobody postulates that anything other than a phospholipid bilayer was spontaneously assembled, and that has been demonstrated in a lab. I don't want to just leave you hanging, so I'll be back later after I find some links about actual hypotheses for abiogenesis.

[Les Sleeth]

Sorry buddy, but that just isn't the case. Nobody postulates that anything other than a phospholipid bilayer was spontaneously assembled, and that has been demonstrated in a lab. I don't want to just leave you hanging, so I'll be back later after I find some links about actual hypotheses for abiogenesis.

Oh goody, a new debate on abiogenesis! :smile: However, if we debate this here I think it would be hijacking the overall theme of this thread. So let me start a new thread where we, and anyone else interested, can debate this issue.

[FZ+]

But I am not inflexible. Just get chemistry to self-organize non-repetitively (or "progressively" as I call it) and keep on doing that on its own, and I'll admit chemistry left to its own devices can achieve life.

Watch out, loseyourname. LWS has a tendency of defining progressive self-organisation very flexibly as something akin to "repeat precisely what happened in the current run of evolution". And on its own isn't correct for life, either, given that great big thing called the sun, and the periodic impulses of the tides, volcanism, chaotic weather and so on and so forth.

[Les Sleeth]

Watch out, loseyourname. LWS has a tendency of defining progressive self-organisation very flexibly as something akin to "repeat precisely what happened in the current run of evolution". And on its own isn't correct for life, either, given that great big thing called the sun, and the periodic impulses of the tides, volcanism, chaotic weather and so on and so forth.

I don't understand your point at all. All the examples you cited -- "the sun, and the periodic impulses of the tides, volcanism, chaotic weather" -- are what I call repetitive. They organize for a few steps and then get repetitive. But life, I say, although utilizing numerous repetitive processes, overall has kept adaptively organizing for several billions years. As impressive as the sun's organization is, you cannot possibly compare its organization to that of life. So I don't understand why you gave the sun, etc., as examples which make the progressive (life) concept incorrect.

Also, your "watch out" isn't accurate. I do not define progressive self-organization as "precisely what happened in the current run of evolution." In fact, I don't care about the details of evolution at all. What I compare between non-living and living self-organization is quality. Non-living self-organization gets repetitive REAL quick compared to life, which essentially never gets repetitive overall.

[FZ+]

Weather isn't repetitive. Weather is chaotic, which by definition never repeats. Volcanism isn't repetitive either. Is it was, it would be predictable, and if you are right, you can walk out right now and claim the nobel prize. Tides are not repetitive either. Over time, the earth is getting further from the moon - indeed, that whole solar system is evolving. The sun, really, is ultimately where most of our non-repetitiveness is coming from. It is disorder at the most bottom of scales, drawn up, and exhibited in our flaws and our imperfection.

Your concept of quality, as I have encountered, is your way of saying this run of evolution. From what you asked for abiogenesis to produce, I can only presume that you believe the only quality to be the quality we subjectively see in this particular incarnation of life. Of course it is impossible to show nonliving having the same "quality", because that quality is for you life, with all its slipperiness and fuzziness.

[Les Sleeth]

Weather isn't repetitive. Weather is chaotic, which by definition never repeats. Volcanism isn't repetitive either. Is it was, it would be predictable, and if you are right, you can walk out right now and claim the nobel prize. Tides are not repetitive either. Over time, the earth is getting further from the moon - indeed, that whole solar system is evolving. The sun, really, is ultimately where most of our non-repetitiveness is coming from. It is disorder at the most bottom of scales, drawn up, and exhibited in our flaws and our imperfection.

The time and specifics of weather are unpredictable, but every time it is rain, wind, snow, hot, cold, etc., just as volcanos erupt the essentially the same way everytime, tides go in and out the same way, the moon is getting further through the same repetitive cycling. The solar system is not evolving either unless you want to call the formation of new stars "evolution." Actually it is losing its coherence overall, and even in instances of constructive change none of them come close to matching the number of constructive steps we find in life.

Rain and wind and snow do not combine to make a new system, which then transforms into a new sytem on top of that, which then transforms into a new sytem on top of that, which then transforms into a new sytem on top of that, which then transforms into a new sytem on top of that, which then transforms into a new sytem on top of that, which then transforms into a new sytem on top of that, which then transforms into a new sytem on top of that . . . seemingly ad infinitum as it does in life.

Your concept of quality, as I have encountered, is your way of saying this run of evolution.

No, that isn't my concept. I am preparing a thread that explains it better.

[Canute]

Weather isn't repetitive. Weather is chaotic, which by definition never repeats. Volcanism isn't repetitive either. Is it was, it would be predictable, and if you are right, you can walk out right now and claim the nobel prize. Tides are not repetitive either. Over time, the earth is getting further from the moon - indeed, that whole solar system is evolving. The sun, really, is ultimately where most of our non-repetitiveness is coming from. It is disorder at the most bottom of scales, drawn up, and exhibited in our flaws and our imperfection.
Are you saying that living biological systems are qualitatively indistinguishable from tides and solar systems?

[Les Sleeth]

From what you asked for abiogenesis to produce, I can only presume that you believe the only quality to be the quality we subjectively see in this particular incarnation of life.

What do you know that I don't? Is there another known "incarnation of life" I've not heard of. As far as we know, WE and none other, are the one and only, single, unique instance of life in a universe 12+ billions years old. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it.

Of course it is impossible to show nonliving having the same "quality", because that quality is for you life, with all its slipperiness and fuzziness.

:confused: Exactly correct. So what is your point? The "slipperiness and fuzziness" is a physicalist problem because they can't explain it. I am simply trying to remind them that they can't and that therefore they shouldn't continue assuming (yet) physical processes can explain life and consciousness.

[Concept]

Old-Earth creationists might allow that there were dinosaurs tens of millions of years ago. But a problem for them is that there were clearly carnivorous dinosaurs, going by evidence such as shape of teeth. Biblical literalists like to say that prior to Adam and Eve there was no death, no pain, no suffering. But if a carnivorous predator like T. Rex didn't inflict pain on other living things, nothing has done so!

So do the Old-Earth creationists have to maintain that Adam and Eve lived even earlier than the earliest carnivorous dinosaurs?

The same issue has an article on a find of 25-million-year-old amber. The photos in the article show all kinds of creeping, crawling, stinging, biting, blood-sucking little vermin. Again, not a very nice thing for the Lord to have put on Earth before there was a sinful Adam and Eve for Him to blame it all on.
Old earth creationists tend to believe that Adam and Eve came after the dinosaurs. The reason for this is certain translations of the bible. I can't speak Hebrew, but I know one of the reasons they use is just chalked up to a bad translation (God saying "replenish the earth" implying that there was something there before, the word translated as "replenish" really means "to fill") and the other one they use is where it says the world "became" without form, implying that it had form before. I'm not sure if this is a good translation or not.

[loseyourname]

Oh goody, a new debate on abiogenesis! :smile: However, if we debate this here I think it would be hijacking the overall theme of this thread. So let me start a new thread where we, and anyone else interested, can debate this issue.

Where is that thread? I've been away a week or so - did you ever start it?

By the way, if your qualm is with abiogenesis, I think it should be pointed out that you really have no complaint at all. There is no generally accepted theory of it, and it is not pertinent to evolutionary theory, which begins from the existence of self-replicating molecules. Once we have that, the rest follows, and that is all that evolutionary theory claims. There is no claim that we know just what caused the self-replicating molecule to come into existence; in that sense, we can only speculate.

[Les Sleeth]

Where is that thread? I've been away a week or so - did you ever start it?

I noticed you weren't around so I decided to discuss other things. But if you are still interested, I will work on that thread.

However, let me say your statement ". . . if your qualm is with abiogenesis, I think it should be pointed out that you really have no complaint at all. There is no generally accepted theory of it, and it is not pertinent to evolutionary theory, which begins from the existence of self-replicating molecules. Once we have that, the rest follows, and that is all that evolutionary theory claims" is not accurate.

First of all, the the issue isn't merely self-replicating molecules. Life is hardly just the replication of a single molecule; there is development and adaptation, neither of which can be explained by current physical principles. Second, there is an accepted theory, one which is quite boldly promoted to the public as "most likely." You know, "billions of years ago, in the prebiotic soup of Earth's oceans, some set of conditions 'most likely' converged to create the first self-organizing molecule which had the the ability to adapt to its environment and take advantage of available resources . . . " Want proof? Read your kid's science book, or watch science specials on TV. There you will find no mention of the fact that this "most likely" theory is utterly unconfirmed experimentally, and in reality is nothing more than physicalist propaganda. And to think how outraged the physicalists are that creationists want equal time! :eek: To someone like me, who thinks neither side can make their case, I find the physicalist outrage even more stomach-turning than creationist nonsense.

[loseyourname]

Sleeth, again, abiogenesis is not pertinent to evolutionary theory. The movement from self-replicating molecules packaged in a membrane to precursors of working cells - protobionts, they are called - has been documented. Granted, you do need DNA, RNA, replication enyzymes (in most, but not all, cases) and the membrane, but once you have that, evolution will take place.

Also, trust me when I say there is no generally accepted theory. I make my living in the biological sciences, and I can assure that what is being taught is only the most popular hypothesis. Another hypothesis gaining much ground involves the construction of self-replicating molecules from inorganic crystals, and even these two are not the only hypotheses. Just because one is being taught doesn't mean that it is accepted as fact by the scientific community. As you say, it has never been demonstrated, and there is really no evidence for it, only speculation. Again, though, evolutionary theory starts where abiogenesis ends. Perhaps I should qualify self-replicating molecules by saying that you must have molecules that both replicated rapidly (usually with the help of polymerase) and that mutate, so as to create variation. Once you have this, you have step-wise, cumulative selection, something that no one can dispute.

[Canute]

I think Les was pointing out that most people do not think that evolutionary theory does not deal with abiogenesis. They assume that it does, and often argue the case strongly. It is argued in school text books, which leads people into error. Good scientists perhaps don't make this mistake but it has become part of modern folklore that abiogenesis can be explained in wholly physicalist terms despite what you say about the actual truth of the matter.

[loseyourname]

Perhaps, but the only reason it is assumed that it has a physical explanation is that the assumption is being made by scientists. They can't study anything non-physical, so their hypotheses must be physical in nature. In addition, science has a great history of explaining that which was previously unexplainable, through physical means. As this is done, the theists and idealists always have to retreat one step further back, to the next unexplained phenomenon. There will always be an out, as I don't see any way we'll ever explain everything.

[Les Sleeth]

Also, trust me when I say there is no generally accepted theory. I make my living in the biological sciences, and I can assure that what is being taught is only the most popular hypothesis.

Just so you know where I stand, I find your comment "trust me" a bit irritating. I hope we can agree that you don't need to instruct me in science. I'm educated in science, and love it. I've debated a lot of scientism believers here and they often assume my criticism is because I am either uninformed about science or that I am religious (or both), neither of which is true. Actually I have no criticism of science at all; my criticism is people glossing over gaps in physicalist theory, or employing dubious logic so they can reach the conclusions they wish to reach. They represent themselves as "objective" when in reality they are confirmed physicalists. They refuse to admit their education is quite narrow when they claim things like "there is no evidence," and all they've looked at, and are willing to look at, is what science produces.

As for me, I am just after the truth, and I don't care if that includes God or if it means everything is purely physical. But so far, physicalist theory fails to explain certain necessary aspects of life and consciousness, and certain human experiences, and it is in those places where I am open to other possibilities besides a physical explanation.

[loseyourname]

Sleeth, educated or not, you made a false claim. I imagine you probably meant something more along the lines of what Canute said, and that's fine. I'm not trying to offend you here.

What the hell is scientism? I wouldn't be so quick to jump on people simply because they are looking for scientific explanations. That is all I am doing. One man cannot explore every avenue. Of course physicalism has gaps. Given that we don't know everything, any theory of the nature of reality will have gaps. I imagine this will always be the case. Science cannot give all the answers, and neither can any other discipline.

[Les Sleeth]

Sleeth, again, abiogenesis is not pertinent to evolutionary theory. The movement from self-replicating molecules packaged in a membrane to precursors of working cells - protobionts, they are called - has been documented. Granted, you do need DNA, RNA, replication enyzymes (in most, but not all, cases) and the membrane, but once you have that, evolution will take place.

I don't know why you are bringing up evolution, I haven't questioned that.

Perhaps I should qualify self-replicating molecules by saying that you must have molecules that both replicated rapidly (usually with the help of polymerase) and that mutate, so as to create variation. Once you have this, you have step-wise, cumulative selection, something that no one can dispute.

That doesn't do it. All PCR does, for instance, is replicate; it doesn't lead to a living system.

Perhaps, but the only reason it is assumed that it has a physical explanation is that the assumption is being made by scientists. They can't study anything non-physical, so their hypotheses must be physical in nature.

There are plenty of scientists who say they believe everything that occurs in the universe can be explained with physical principles (I have a nice library here, do I need to quote them?).

The problem is, that confidence is produced by what they are looking at. If all I study is quartz, am I justified in trying to explain everything as quartz?

The proper logic for science would be, the empirical technique I employ has only revealed physical process, therefore I am justified in concluding that empiricism only reveals physical processes (i.e., not that physical processes are all that exist). Also, all I study is the physical, therefore I am justified in concluding that my models of aspects of the universe are only able to describe their physical attributes.


In addition, science has a great history of explaining that which was previously unexplainable, through physical means. As this is done, the theists and idealists always have to retreat one step further back, to the next unexplained phenomenon. There will always be an out, as I don't see any way we'll ever explain everything.

They have a great history of explaining physical processes . . . period. What dedicated physicalists can't explain, they claim "one day we will." Yet I say there are two areas where they continue to fail that should make them question physicalist theory: life and consciousness.

Again, the argument I have for this needs a separate thread because it can't be explained easily. I'll try to finish it this weekend if you are still interested in debating it.

[loseyourname]

I don't know why you are bringing up evolution, I haven't questioned that.

I am bringing it up because that's what this thread is about. If you don't question it, I'm not sure why you ever posted in here to begin with.

That doesn't do it. All PCR does, for instance, is replicate; it doesn't lead to a living system.

PCR only replicates the DNA. No genes are ever expressed. I should have noted that you need transcriptase as well.

There are plenty of scientists who say they believe everything that occurs in the universe can be explained with physical principles (I have a nice library here, do I need to quote them?). [/QUOTE[

I am aware of this problem, and I agree that they are overstepping their bounds by saying this. Just know that your conflict is not with me.

[QUOTE]The proper logic for science would be, the empirical technique I employ has only revealed physical process, therefore I am justified in concluding that empiricism only reveals physical processes (i.e., not that physical processes are all that exist). Also, all I study is the physical, therefore I am justified in concluding that my models of aspects of the universe are only able to describe their physical attributes.

True, but it isn't much of a leap to at least guess that there is nothing more to it, given that we have never observed a non-physical process (and it is not clear whether or not conscious processes are physical or non-physical, so this may be the out I was speaking of).

They have a great history of explaining physical processes . . . period. What dedicated physicalists can't explain, they claim "one day we will." Yet I say there are two areas where they continue to fail that should make them question physicalist theory: life and consciousness.

The things is, sleeth, it has a great history of explaining physical processes that were previously thought to be the result of non-physical forces.

Again, the argument I have for this needs a separate thread because it can't be explained easily. I'll try to finish it this weekend if you are still interested in debating it.

I'd like to see what you have, certainly.

[Les Sleeth]

Sleeth, educated or not, you made a false claim. I imagine you probably meant something more along the lines of what Canute said, and that's fine. I'm not trying to offend you here.

What false claim did I make? I've yet to understand what you mean.

I don't think you are trying to offend me. I just want you to debate me without assuming I am uninformed. When you catch me being illogical or needing information I don't have, then at that time let me know. I don't mind adjusting my opinion in the slighest, and I want to find out when there is something I need to learn.


What the hell is scientism? I wouldn't be so quick to jump on people simply because they are looking for scientific explanations. That is all I am doing. One man cannot explore every avenue. Of course physicalism has gaps. Given that we don't know everything, any theory of the nature of reality will have gaps. I imagine this will always be the case. Science cannot give all the answers, and neither can any other discipline.

It's a term an issue of Scientific American coined last year to describe those who believe science can answer all answerable questions. The follow-up logic from that belief is that if science can't confirm it, then likely it's nonsense.

I don't mind someone being a physicalist as long as he is willing to debate fairly. I am leary because most of my debates in the past have been with thinkers who a priori have assumed the absolute epistomological priviledge, to use metacristi's term, of empiricism. From that perspective, they judge all statements with a standard still in question if it is capable of evaluating all that exists.

[Les Sleeth]

I am bringing it up because that's what this thread is about. If you don't question it, I'm not sure why you ever posted in here to begin with.

My involvement was first due to your statment about the value of self knowledge, which in my opinion is related to the assumption I believe I saw, and still see, that science can answer all the questions.

PCR only replicates the DNA. No genes are ever expressed. I should have noted that you need transcriptase as well.

I am not familiar with the term "transcriptase" . . . is it synthesized transcription? If so, that doesn't generate life either.

True, but it isn't much of a leap to at least guess that there is nothing more to it, given that we have never observed a non-physical process (and it is not clear whether or not conscious processes are physical or non-physical, so this may be the out I was speaking of).

That's what physicalists say alright. Again, what else are they going to observe if the method they use only reveals physical processes? Can you see the flaw in physicalist logic?


The things is, sleeth, it has a great history of explaining physical processes that were previously thought to be the result of non-physical forces.

I agree. But people used to practice alchemy and represent that as science. Are we to conclude all science is nonsense just because something is done in its name? Just because people ignorantly attributed spiritual causes to physical things doesn't mean there isn't something other than what we define as physical.

[loseyourname]

What false claim did I make? I've yet to understand what you mean.

You were wrong to claim there is an accepted theory of abiogenesis. There are only competing hypotheses, though certainly one gets more attention than any of the others.

It's a term an issue of Scientific American coined last year to describe those who believe science can answer all answerable questions. The follow-up logic from that belief is that if science can't confirm it, then likely it's nonsense.

Oh - I had never heard of that. I don't particularly like that term. Science is not meant to be a system of metaphysics.

I don't mind someone being a physicalist as long as he is willing to debate fairly. I am leary because most of my debates in the past have been with thinkers who a priori have assumed the absolute epistomological priviledge, to use metacristi's term, of empiricism. From that perspective, they judge all statements with a standard still in question if it is capable of evaluating all that exists.

Is that not logical positivism?

My involvement was first due to your statment about the value of self knowledge, which in my opinion is related to the assumption I believe I saw, and still see, that science can answer all the questions.

As long as you don't believe that I am making that assumption, given that I just stated I don't think science will ever answer everything.

I am not familiar with the term "transcriptase" . . . is it synthesized transcription? If so, that doesn't generate life either.

Trancriptase is the enzyme that transcribes DNA into mRNA so that it genes may be expressed. Remember that it is not the self-replicating molecules themselves that are alive, it is their expression that is alive.

That's what physicalists say alright. Again, what else are they going to observe if the method they use only reveals physical processes? Can you see the flaw in physicalist logic?

There is only fallacy employed if one comes to the absolute conclusion that there exists nothing of a non-physical nature. There is no fallacy in guessing that that is probably the case if we never observe anything of this nature. I don't mean that scientists don't observe it, either. I mean that no one observes it.

I agree. But people used to practice alchemy and represent that as science. Are we to conclude all science is nonsense just because something is done in its name? Just because people ignorantly attributed spiritual causes to physical things doesn't mean there isn't something other than what we define as physical.

For the most part, science has been right. For the most part, spiritualism has been wrong. They are not on equal footing. Again, I'm not saying that there is nothing in existence that we can't define as physical. I have no idea whether or not there is.

[Les Sleeth]

You were wrong to claim there is an accepted theory of abiogenesis. There are only competing hypotheses, though certainly one gets more attention than any of the others.

I guess we'll have to disagree about how accepted it is because I have seen that pre-biotic soup theory promoted as "most likely) since I was a student back in the '70's, and still see/hear it more than any other explanation offered. Only recently have some been suggesting life on Earth might have come from outer space (which, of course, begs the question).


There is only fallacy employed if one comes to the absolute conclusion that there exists nothing of a non-physical nature. There is no fallacy in guessing that that is probably the case if we never observe anything of this nature. I don't mean that scientists don't observe it, either. I mean that no one observes it.

What if sense observation isn't the way one experiences that? This, to me, relates to the original reason I questioned you in this thread, which was your statement about the value of inner experience. There have been people who've gotten quite accomplished inwardly, spent their entire lives practicing in fact. But the average science devotee posting at this site has never studied that rich history, and yet speak confidently when they say "no one has ever experienced . . . "


For the most part, science has been right. For the most part, spiritualism has been wrong. They are not on equal footing. Again, I'm not saying that there is nothing in existence that we can't define as physical. I have no idea whether or not there is.

Spiritualism might be wrong, but spiritualism (and I'd include religion) might have nothing to do with an experience of the non-physical.

Gotta go, it's racquetball time! :biggrin: I'll work on that thread over the next few days.

[Canute]

Perhaps, but the only reason it is assumed that it has a physical explanation is that the assumption is being made by scientists. They can't study anything non-physical, so their hypotheses must be physical in nature. In addition, science has a great history of explaining that which was previously unexplainable, through physical means. As this is done, the theists and idealists always have to retreat one step further back, to the next unexplained phenomenon. There will always be an out, as I don't see any way we'll ever explain everything.
I'm sorry to go back but I think what you say here is interesting, and may highlight the cause of some of the disagreements.

If you look carefully at how you've argued your case here you've done what it is always very easy to do, created what philosophers call an ignoramibus, a barrier to knowledge.

Everything you say seems correct all the way up to the last half of the last sentence. If you stop reading there, imagine that you never added the last few words, then the natural conclusion to your argument is that science is unable to understand or encompass the truth about reality. That is science, the scientific method, cannot explain reality, there will always be an 'out', something outside its explanation.

However you do not believe this, so automatically you choose to conclude that we cannot explain everything. Unconsciously you have adopted the scientific view, virtually the 'scientism' that Les was talking about earlier. I'm sure that you are trying to be logical and fair, but accidently you have taken sides.

The fact is that many of those who pursue the explanation of reality by non-scientific means claim that there is one and it can be known. You don't have to believe that but you to be strictly fair you do have to acknowledge that it might be true as far as you know, and as far as science will ever know.

[loseyourname]

Canute, I didn't conclude anything. I only said that I don't see a way. There may very well be a way that I don't see.

[loseyourname]

I guess we'll have to disagree about how accepted it is because I have seen that pre-biotic soup theory promoted as "most likely) since I was a student back in the '70's, and still see/hear it more than any other explanation offered. Only recently have some been suggesting life on Earth might have come from outer space (which, of course, begs the question).

The hypothesis that self-replicating (and expressed) molecules were built from a scaffolding of inorganic crystals that were themselves replicating (but not expressed) is gaining a lot of favor. I imagine it will be in the text books pretty soon.

What if sense observation isn't the way one experiences that? This, to me, relates to the original reason I questioned you in this thread, which was your statement about the value of inner experience. There have been people who've gotten quite accomplished inwardly, spent their entire lives practicing in fact. But the average science devotee posting at this site has never studied that rich history, and yet speak confidently when they say "no one has ever experienced . . . "

Look, I don't really know where to go when you start talking about extra-sensory perception. There seem to have been fairly well-documented instances of clairvoyance, but I don't really see any reason to view this as extra-sensory, if indeed the claims are verified. There may simply exist more senses than we were previously aware of.

Still, I'm not too impressed by people who meditate or introspect to come up with answers. The human mind can convince itself of just about anything, and this has been shown time and again. The power of autosuggestion, especially when in a meditative state, should not be underestimated. This is why I ask that anything claimed as truth be verified empirically or rationally- that is, though the known senses of many people or by some means of logical deduction. I'm not saying there exists no other way to verify anything; I just don't know of any other way, and until one is proven to me to be effective, I will remain skeptical.

Spiritualism might be wrong, but spiritualism (and I'd include religion) might have nothing to do with an experience of the non-physical.

I was under the impression that the definition of spirit is a non-physical locus of consciousness. Unless you are implying that the non-physical is not conscious. Even so, I don't know that all of the nature spirits postulated by animism were thought to be conscious either, so even that may not exclude spiritualism.

Gotta go, it's racquetball time! :biggrin: I'll work on that thread over the next few days.

Have fun. I'm struggling with a throat problem, so I won't be going anywhere.

[Canute]

Quote:
Originally Posted by loseyourname
Canute, I didn't conclude anything. I only said that I don't see a way. There may very well be a way that I don't see.

To be fair you said "Science cannot give all the answers, and neither can any other discipline." This is a view built on some implicit assumptions.

It's very hard to get across this gap between the 'third-person' approach of science to knowledge and the first-person approach of meditative practices. A little while ago I was just as sceptical as you and couldn't see how gazing at ones navel could help one understand cosmogeny.

This is actually one of my main interests, how the importance of self-knowledge can be explained to those who don't meditate (or contemplate seriously). I've concluded that it's probably impossible. Certainly nothing can be proved, although a mathematician called George Spencer-Brown came very close with his 'Laws of Form' in 1969. (More if you're interested).

Still, I'm not too impressed by people who meditate or introspect to come up with answers. The human mind can convince itself of just about anything, and this has been shown time and again. The power of autosuggestion, especially when in a meditative state, should not be underestimated. This is why I ask that anything claimed as truth be verified empirically or rationally- that is, though the known senses of many people or by some means of logical deduction.
I have no way of convincing you that you're wrong about this, but I would bet my life that you are. So would you if practiced with any success. Consider this. If, as so many people assert, the universe is rooted in Being, not in matter, then meditation is the only possible way of finding out.

I'm not saying there exists no other way to verify anything; I just don't know of any other way, and until one is proven to me to be effective, I will remain skeptical.
The problem is that there is no proof. If Buddhism (for instance) is true then of course no evidence will contradict it. Therefore although it is to some extent testable (and is falsifiable in theory) it is unprovable intrasubjectively, it has to be tested by you and nobody else. As you have no faith in this approach you may never do this, in which case you'll never be able to know either way. I think you're right to be sceptical, but wrong to let that stop you exploring the logic of the claims of Taoism, Buddhism etc. even if you do not meditate.

If it's any reassurance I came to believe Buddhists were right by reasoning and deduction, not meditation, and before I even knew what Buddhism was. I didn't have all the details of course but Buddhist cosmogeny is not illogical or mystical, just tricky to understand.

This is an essay you might like, which discusses the link between mathematics, consiousness and the true nature of reality. I'd be interested to know what you think about it. I only came across the author and Spencer-Brown recently.

http://www.angelfire.com/super/magicrobin/lof.htm

[loseyourname]

Well, to be fair, what I meant by that is that questions pertaining to purpose can't ever be answered. For instance, we'll never know exactly why there is existence. It may just be that the question is misformulated - in that there may very well not be a reason - but even in that case, I don't see how we could know.

[Canute]

Loseyourname

Sorry - I was doing a big edit when you posted and added a lot.

[loseyourname]

It's very hard to get across this gap between the 'third-person' approach of science to knowledge and the first-person approach of meditative practices. A little while ago I was just as sceptical as you and couldn't see how gazing at ones navel could help one understand cosmogeny.

It's not that I don't think it can help. I just can't see how you can trust it. I think it is only natural to trust the common perception of many people, rather than simply your own. Intersubjective confirmation (I hesitate to actually refer to it as "objective"), at least prima facie, seems far more reliable than subjective.

This is actually one of my main interests, how the importance of self-knowledge can be explained to those who don't meditate (or contemplate seriously). I've concluded that it's probably impossible. Certainly nothing can be proved, although a mathematician called George Spencer-Brown came very close with his 'Laws of Form' in 1969. (More if you're interested).

Sure, I'm interested. Is this the article at the end of your post?

I have no way of convincing you that you're wrong about this, but I would bet my life that you are. So would you if practiced with any success. Consider this. If, as so many people assert, the universe is rooted in Being, not in matter, then meditation is the only possible way of finding out.

Well, there is nothing I would bet my life on. It's not particularly easy to convince me of anything.

Even if I practiced with great success, again, how do I know that the results I achieve are not simply the result of autosuggestion? I don't know this, of course, but it seems to me that the meditation you speak of is aimed at a certain end, that is, that you already know what it is you are looking for. You expect to find that being, and not matter, is the root of all existence, and so that is what you find.

The problem is that there is no proof. If Buddhism (for instance) is true then of course no evidence will contradict it. Therefore although it is to some extent testable (and is falsifiable in theory) it is unprovable intrasubjectively, it has to be tested by you and nobody else. As you have no faith in this approach you may never do this, in which case you'll never be able to know either way.

Well, if Buddhism is correct, I have the rest of eternity to figure it out, do I not? I imagine I will at some point.

I think you're right to be sceptical, but wrong to let that stop you exploring the logic of the claims of Taoism, Buddhism etc. even if you do not meditate.

Fear not. I have investigated both Taosism and Buddhism. Not in great depth, granted, but there are a lot of other things to study. I'll get there.

If it's any reassurance I came to believe Buddhists were right by reasoning and deduction, not meditation, and before I even knew what Buddhism was. I didn't have all the details of course but Buddhist cosmogeny is not illogical or mystical, just tricky to understand.

It's consistent, an advantage it holds over most religious models, but that fact alone means very little. It is rather easy to construct a great deal of consistent models, and obviously they can't all be true.

This is an essay you might like, which discusses the link between mathematics, consiousness and the true nature of reality. I'd be interested to know what you think about it. I only came across the author and Spencer-Brown recently.

http://www.angelfire.com/super/magicrobin/lof.htm

I'll check it out. Thanks.

[loseyourname]

All right. I read it. That's some pretty heavy stuff. Unfortunately, I couldn't see the two axioms developed nor could I see any of the ensuing equations.

I have to ask why this is relevant to what we are discussing here. All this says is that once self-reference is possible, the linear course of cause and effect is altered into a course involving feedback. Given that consciousness does not seem to exist in all but the very highest mammals and birds, it must have been a trait that arose very late in the evolutionary history of this planet. The feedback provided would not have been significant until maybe the past 60 millions years or so (I'm guessing once the dinosaurs were gone that mammals could then have evolved consciousness).

Another point is that the vasy majority of reality seems to remain unaffected by consciousness, and indeed exists outside of consciousness, that is, no conscious being is aware of its existence. This extends even into most of our daily lives, in that, unless we are directly interacting with something, it maintains its linear causality. It is also worth pointing out, though I am certain you already know, that consciousness as a causal phenomenon is far from proven.

[Canute]

It's not that I don't think it can help. I just can't see how you can trust it. I think it is only natural to trust the common perception of many people, rather than simply your own. Intersubjective confirmation (I hesitate to actually refer to it as "objective"), at least prima facie, seems far more reliable than subjective.
The common view of philosophers is that intersubjective knowledge is inevitably unreliable. (Of course in reality there's no such thing as 'intersubjective knowledge').

Even if I practiced with great success, again, how do I know that the results I achieve are not simply the result of autosuggestion?
The same way everyone else does. It's not a problem when it comes to it.

I don't know this, of course, but it seems to me that the meditation you speak of is aimed at a certain end, that is, that you already know what it is you are looking for. You expect to find that being, and not matter, is the root of all existence, and so that is what you find.
It doesn't make any difference what you think or what you're looking for, you end up in same place, something for which there is clear evidence.

Well, if Buddhism is correct, I have the rest of eternity to figure it out, do I not? I imagine I will at some point.
Not necessarily.

It's consistent, an advantage it holds over most religious models, but that fact alone means very little. It is rather easy to construct a great deal of consistent models, and obviously they can't all be true.
It's not as easy as you think to create a logically consistent model of reality. In fact the non-dual one is the only one I know, and I've looked around. All the rest fall foul of paradoxes and contradictions, Goedel and Zeno, infinite regressions and so on. I'd be gobsmacked if you managed to construct one.

BTW I'm not trying to convert you, just suggesting that it's worth looking into.

There's more on GSB here if you're interested (and other stuff around)

http://www.lawsofform.org/aum/prolog.html

Given that consciousness does not seem to exist in all but the very highest mammals and birds, it must have been a trait that arose very late in the evolutionary history of this planet.
Where do you get your information? I've never heard of any evidence for this view.

Another point is that the vasy majority of reality seems to remain unaffected by consciousness, and indeed exists outside of consciousness, that is, no conscious being is aware of its existence.
What makes you say that?

This extends even into most of our daily lives, in that, unless we are directly interacting with something, it maintains its linear causality. It is also worth pointing out, though I am certain you already know, that consciousness as a causal phenomenon is far from proven.
I suspect that it's unprovable. In fact I'm sure it is. However if consciousness is non-causal, if being conscious does not affect our behaviour, then I'm very good at telling the future. I can predict all sorts of things that eventually I'm going to be caused to do.

In fact given the current state of the universe of n-billion neurons in my brain I can predict that a cup of tea is about to made by me. I wonder if I'll put sugar in. :biggrin:

[Canute]

Les - I'd be interested to know what you make of the links I gave whatshisname. They take a bit of commitment but I think you'll find them interesting. (If not don't bother).

Here they are again.

http://www.angelfire.com/super/magicrobin/lof.htm
http://www.lawsofform.org/aum/prolog.html

[loseyourname]

The common view of philosophers is that intersubjective knowledge is inevitably unreliable. (Of course in reality there's no such thing as 'intersubjective knowledge').

I wouldn't be so quickly to come to that conclusion. Let us not forget that the vast majority of philosophers have been wrong, in fact, the vast majority must be wrong, as so many hold disparate views that cannot all be right. In contrast, science seems to have gotten things pretty damn close, if not necessarily perfectly right. Newton's laws of thermodynamics and motion still hold today, and even his law of gravity holds up for systems not of excessive mass and not approaching the speed of light. This sort of knowledge by measurement and observation, independently confirmed, has always proven to be more reliable than knowledge attained solely through introspection. Again, this excludes self-knowledge. I am more certain than I am of anything that I believe my name is Adam, and no measurement can demonstrate this.

The same way everyone else does. It's not a problem when it comes to it.

That's pretty vague, Canute. How is it that you and others ensure you are not succumbing to autosuggestion?

It doesn't make any difference what you think or what you're looking for, you end up in same place, something for which there is clear evidence.

Who is you? I would be very surprised to find that every person who has ever meditated or introspected about the nature of reality had come to the same conclusion. If that is the case, why so much debate?

It's not as easy as you think to create a logically consistent model of reality. In fact the non-dual one is the only one I know, and I've looked around. All the rest fall foul of paradoxes and contradictions, Goedel and Zeno, infinite regressions and so on. I'd be gobsmacked if you managed to construct one.

All I'm saying is that it's possible to construct consistent models, even working models, of anything that are still wrong. Look no further than Ptolemy, whose equations for retrograde motion still predict perfectly the positions of heavenly bodies. A model that explains everything, I imagine, would be a little more difficult.

BTW I'm not trying to convert you, just suggesting that it's worth looking into.

Certainly. Everything is worth looking into.

Where do you get your information? I've never heard of any evidence for this view.

You've never heard evidence that only higher mammals and birds are conscious? The information comes largely through intelligence tests and behavioral studies. The test everyone here seems to be enamored with is the reflection-recognition test, but the ones I'm thinking of are problem solving tests. A group of animals, all of the same species, are given a problem to solve, such as a piece of food they must obtain somehow through clever means. One piece of information you get is the problem-solving ability of the animal - if he succeeds, then he is probably more intelligent (it could just be luck, but this is why the tests are performed many times) than the animal that couldn't. The second piece of information pertain to the actual approach. If every animal of a given species approaches the problem in exactly the same way, every time that and other tests are administered, then the conclusion is drawn that these are likely not thinking (or conscious) beings. If, however, one animal of a given species takes a different approach from another animal of the same species, then the conclusion is drawn that those animals are thinking, and hence likely possess some rudimentary form of consciousness at least (how advanced it is remains up for debate).

I'm sorry that I can't provide you with any links to information about these studies. I've only read about them in journals and textbooks, but if you want a great, detailed introduction to the biology of animal behavior, you might want to pick up the book Sociobiology by Edward O. Wilson.

What makes you say that?

Simple. Take that tea you made, for instance. Before you went into the kitchen and opened the cupboard to get it out, it was still there, going about its daily life without you observing it. In fact, had there been an earthquake, it might have fallen out of the cabinet and spilled onto the floor, in a completely predictable manner following a linear causal relationship according to the laws of physics. Heck, take most archaean lifeforms. They are single-celled organism that live in extreme environments not habitable by any other form of life, such as high-salinity evaporation ponds or pressurized water that is well over 100 degrees celsius beneath geysers and hot springs and such. The vast majority of these creatures are never observed by anything, and they themselves are certainly not conscious. Or heck, if you want a more extreme example still, take the surface of the planet Venus. We've never been able to get a probe there; nonetheless, whatever is happening continues to happen without any conscious observer being aware of it.

I suspect that it's unprovable. In fact I'm sure it is. However if consciousness is non-causal, if being conscious does not affect our behaviour, then I'm very good at telling the future. I can predict all sorts of things that eventually I'm going to be caused to do.

It's provable in theory, but the information needed to do so is daunting, and probably excluded by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Still, I'm never going to argue that consciousness is non-causal, given the fact, as you point out, that it so very much seems to be. Still, as I've said, I'm rarely too impressed with the way things seem to be.

By the way, I wonder if you are familiar with the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, one of the early pre-Socratics. He seems to be the first person to ever formulate this theory that the mind is the most basic aspect of reality and brought all other distinctions into existence.

Here's a link to the only piece he ever wrote: Anaxagoras Fragments (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/anaxagor.htm)

In particular, look at fragments 6 and 7.

[Les Sleeth]

I wouldn't be so quickly to come to that conclusion. Let us not forget that the vast majority of philosophers have been wrong, in fact, the vast majority must be wrong, as so many hold disparate views that cannot all be right. In contrast, science seems to have gotten things pretty damn close, if not necessarily perfectly right. Newton's laws of thermodynamics and motion still hold today, and even his law of gravity holds up for systems not of excessive mass and not approaching the speed of light. This sort of knowledge by measurement and observation, independently confirmed, has always proven to be more reliable than knowledge attained solely through introspection. Again, this excludes self-knowledge. I am more certain than I am of anything that I believe my name is Adam, and no measurement can demonstrate this.

Your opinion is disputed by most a great many thinkers; they agree that no scientific (or, granted, philosophic) theory has ever got it right (Popper, for example). In fact, because of that it is a common assumption that all theories today are wrong in one way or another (and really, do you think science is lacking in disparate views?). You cannot boast of science's accuracy by picking and choosing what they accurately represented, and ignoring what they inaccurately represented. The exact same thing can be said about philosophers. Actually, philosophers (Locke, for instance) were the first to recognize the importance of experience and shape the principles of scientific inquiry.

Also, you can only point to the efficacy of science on physical issues.

Who is you? I would be very surprised to find that every person who has ever meditated or introspected about the nature of reality had come to the same conclusion. If that is the case, why so much debate?

More pertinent to any such subjective question you might pose is, "who [or what] am I." Further, just like there are many ways to study reality, effective or not (science, astrology, Tarot cards, goat entrails, etc.) there are also many things people do to which they tack the label "meditation." I wouldn't be too quick to lump it all together.

[Les Sleeth]

Les - I'd be interested to know what you make of the links I gave whatshisname. They take a bit of commitment but I think you'll find them interesting. (If not don't bother).

Here they are again.

http://www.angelfire.com/super/magicrobin/lof.htm
http://www.lawsofform.org/aum/prolog.html

Interesting. I particularly enjoyed the musical translation concepts.

Personally, I don't think there is much anyone can do to definitively demonstrate there is an inner world to experience or that it has value to the experiencer. To tell you the truth, I admire Loseyourname for being skeptical about proofs of innerness because the very nature of a proof (as he means it) is "outer." That's why I did the thread asking if consciousness studies might not be set up improperly. We are trying to prove the nature of innerness using outer verification standards! :confused:

The solution I proposed there was, since we cannot externalize consciousness for empirical study, those of us interested in the nature of consciousness might learn how to directly experience it within ourselves, and then compare notes.

[Canute]

Interesting. I particularly enjoyed the musical translation concepts.

Personally, I don't think there is much anyone can do to definitively demonstrate there is an inner world to experience or that it has value to the experiencer. To tell you the truth, I admire Loseyourname for being skeptical about proofs of innerness because the very nature of a proof (as he means it) is "outer." That's why I did the thread asking if consciousness studies might not be set up improperly. We are trying to prove the nature of innerness using outer verification standards! :confused:

The solution I proposed there was, since we cannot externalize consciousness for empirical study, those of us interested in the nature of consciousness might learn how to directly experience it within ourselves, and then compare notes.

I agree with your post more than any post other post I've ever seen. :smile:

I'm trying to find out more about his musical ideas, but they seem spot on. Music is not about notes it is about the relationships between them. As Rubinstein said playing the notes is easy, it's playing the gaps between them that is the difficult part. Are you a musician? It would be interesting to discuss this in musical terms.

You are right about proofs IMO. Proofs are 'out there' and nothing can be proved. Fortunately this has no bearing on what can be known, which is what I was trying to point out to Loseyourname. The truth lies outside axiomatic systems of proof, proofs by Boolean reasoning. This is an important part of what GBS's mathematics is about.

Your last paragraph seems self-evidently true to me. 'Consciousness Studies', as they are no called in western academic institutions, are ok as long it is acknowledged that they concerned only with the creation of a scientific theory consciousness, and not with gaining any understanding of it.

I'm happy to compare notes as far as I'm able to.

[Les Sleeth]

I'm trying to find out more about his musical ideas, but they seem spot on. Music is not about notes it is about the relationships between them. As Rubinstein said playing the notes is easy, it's playing the gaps between them that is the difficult part. Are you a musician? It would be interesting to discuss this in musical terms.

Alas, I abandoned my music career at age 11 when I turned in my accordian :redface: for baseball. The stuff they had me playing would have turned off any kid (Frank Yankovich polkas :confused: ) I am into music listening big time, mostly jazz, and have a half million dollar music system decided upon once I get rich. As an adult I forgave the poor accordian for seeming so cornball after hearing someone play an electric one for both jazz and blues. Wow! I loved it. Of course, it's great in Zydeco too. Fliption is a muscian, by the way.

[Canute]

Yeah, I'm going to get of those when I get rich as well. :biggrin: