Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion,net.philosophy Subject: Fundamentalist Materialism Message-ID: <405@spar.UUCP> Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 07:25:17 EDT Article-I.D.: spar.405 Posted: Thu Jul 18 07:25:17 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 08:28:46 EDT References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> <368@spar.UUCP> <1148@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 177 Keywords: Designer Genes, Causality, Cows, Moo Xref: watmath net.origins:1872 net.religion:7252 net.philosophy:2070 Summary: > [Rich Rosen] >> [me] >> Please note that, if evolution is true [I believe it has much essential >> truth], then the present complexity was there from the beginning, only >> it was dormant -- exactly like a seed. > >That's not strictly true either, unless you once again define some "planning >force" that designed the complexity. I refer you to the much debated `Design Implies Designer' argument. Both sides have been adequately presented, and I have nothing new to add on this point. Incidentally, it is peculiar to hear the watchmaker argument coming from you, Rich. >> Science only describes objective mechanisms, not subjective things like >> `purpose' or `meaning'. As such, it will always be soulless, and its >> descriptions incomplete. But that does not mean that is wrong -- >> except when science declares itself to be All That Is. > >Pardon me for thinking, Mike, but my gut response is "What a load of crap!" >(Or, to quote a famous philosopher: Ingest excrement and self-terminate! :-) >Is it "soulless" to avoid wishful thinking presumption of intended meanings >and purposes, ... How are we in disagreement here? Why such invective -:O We both agree that science tells only How and not Why. Purpose and meaning are metaphysical concerns, yes? Likewise, we both agree that souls, if they exist, have minimal scientific existence -- they are supposed to be, after all, supernatural entities. Do you agree that science ought not to be concerned with souls? If so, we agree that science is soulless -- soul-free, if you prefer. >...or to avoid presuming their existence at all in the absence of >evidence for them? In the absence of OBJECTIVE evidence, such things MAY lack OBJECTIVE existence. We agree. But is that the only kind of existence that is meaningful? Most people attribute existence to at least a few kinds of nonobjective things -- like beauty, meaning, awareness, causality, science, schroedinger probability waves, probably `physical objects', and maybe music, time, space... Clearly SOME meaningful things exist that have little or no objective existence whatsoever. There are many things that are important to me for which the evidence is purely subjective. If we are in disagreement on any of these points, please let me know. Otherwise, your flamage would appear unprovoked. >Is it (science) "incomplete" in any sense other than that *you*, >my friend, like so many others, wish for something more that that which is? Like it or not, Rich, some, perhaps MOST of us cannot cease perceiving such nonobjective phantoms as {purpose, meaning, awareness..} -- the damn things simply have equal or greater reality than any objective entities described second-hand by science. Again and again, you offer the accusation `wishful thinking' when you really ought to be demolishing the idea presented, by means of logical argument. If you think a statement is false, please demonstrate its fallacy -- you might even shut me up! If you cannot, your estimation of my motives, witty as it may be, is a cheap substitute for real discourse. Worst of all, I think your judgement is wrong on this point. {awareness, purpose, meaning, beauty..} are not necessarily wished into existence, their reality is typically THRUST into one's experience. Another thing, Rich. You seem to believe that most people have a great deal invested in their point of view, and you are apparently dedicated to the beliefs below: The universe of science is All That Is. Science will somehow be able to describe everything. Wishful Thinking? >All the "purposes" and "meanings" ever proposed have no basis in reasoning >or fact or evidence, only in wishful thinking and presumption, never backed >by anything more than that. If I'm wrong, show me a counterexample. Uncle! Of course I cannot offer objective evidence of `purpose' or `meaning', since these are SUBJECTIVE phantoms, which, along with others like {love, beauty, awareness...} recur in every natural language and in every human being that I've ever encountered. So what they do not objectively exist? THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO!! Nor does my conscious awareness. Nor does yours. [There! have a counter-counter-example] Do you need to know WHY purpose and meaning are important to human beings? >...The tone of the beginning of the paragraph may be harsh, but I've grown >to become literally offended by that sort of "fuzzy thinking". Sorry, most subjective terms like {purpose, meaning, awareness} are very difficult to define. Notice that interest in these ideas is not restricted to religion, mysticism, metaphysics, philosophy, etc., but also encompasses modern disciplines like artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, linguistics, etc. Apparently I'm not alone in attributing great importance to such chimaera. I suppose someday we'll know more about these fuzzy concepts. For now, all we can do is grope about under the foggy subjective light of introspection. It is not totally unreasonable to deny something's existence, simply because it has proven to be resistant to the SUBSET of experience known to objective scientific analysis -- but you are mistaken to expect others to have such pure faith. >> Why evolution cannot be seen, by Christians, as a description of part >> of the mechanism God used to make the present complexity, is beyond me. >> Fundamentalist Christians and Scientific Materialists are so much alike. >> Tweedledum or Tweedledee? SMASH CAUSALITY!!! > >On the other hand, religionists of all sorts, neo-mystics, and hopeful >causality smashers are so much alike, too. (Three blind mice? Or three >something-elses?) Hopeful causality smashers? Sorry to disturb your slumber, but causality is limping badly this century: Is it possible to provide causal explanations of QM phenomena? I do not know. Van Fraassen argues cogently, on the basis of Bell's inequality and relevant experimental results, that "there are well attested phenomena which cannot be embedded in any common-cause model" (1982). It appears that causal explanations are possible only if the concept of causality is fundamentally revised. John Forge seems to evade the issue by suggesting that "a causal process is one which is governed by scientific laws (theories)" (1982). On this account of causality, every QM process becomes causal by definition simply because QM is a scientific theory. Such problems as the EPR paradox then disappear... For purposes of argument, we might adopt the following definition: {the causal net == whatever structure of relations science describes}. We could then leave "to those interested in causation as such the problem of describing that structure in abstract but illuminating ways, if they wish"... (from _Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World_ Wesley C. Salmon, Princton University Press, 1984.) >>> I did not reply to those arguments, but I believe that now is >>> the time to do so. Sure, design is subjective. But subjectivity >>> is not akin to irrational. I can't believe that a scientist >>> who prides himself in being rational, intelligent, and >>> objective can look at a world that behaves according to certain >>> laws of nature and mathematics, at a race of individuals who >>> can reason, learn, experience a myriad of emotions and argue >>> that all of this can just as reasonably be explained by chance. >>> [DAN BOSKOVICH] > >Why not, Dan? If you look only at your own little world, it seems real >remarkable. If you look at the universe at large, it is all within the >scope of probability. Thus, your bold presumption that it MUST have been >by design is irrational in the extreme. [RICH ROSEN] Sounds good both ways, Rich: If you look at your own little world, it is all withing the scope of probability. But if you look at the universe at large, it seems most remarkable. khronos ouketi estai -michael