Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate

Post Reply New Topic

The thing that I'm blown away by is how many people can't see, regardless of scientific detail or economic decisions, so much of what we deem reality is a list of tags - ie. how we tag our environment, how the wires are connected between emotion and intellectual objects of reality, just rearrange a few orders of saliency and you can have a completely different outlook on life.

Seems like there's almost an infinite biom of possibilities in that range which counts as the number of non-integers someone could pull between 0 and 1. In that sense human internal reality is quite relative, and then that internal reality manifests in social behaviors, then political motivations, etc., ultimately making it part of our man-made reality. The wealth or poverty of those ideas could take us either to great heights or to self-annihilation. That's why I think we still need great minds (or brains if I want to be politically correct) working on the human condition, thinking over positive adjustments, ways to still garner richness and creativity in that its a skill that we have. It doesn't matter if there's no free will, no free thought, and no 'self', to say that these things preclude the value of all human thought is - by these very terms - like telling a river that its being illogical for taking one path rather than another.

A program is a set of states of electronic components in a computer. It is physical. Software has one or more physical manifestations. As a program in the computer. As a set of marks on a piece of paper. As a set of neurological actions in the programmer's brain. It is quite physical and it does exist.

Now where is Mind. Has it ever been detected by physical means?

ruveyn

If we all just agree - right now - that there is absolutely no such thing as a mind as separate from the brain, or simply redefine 'mind' as the neurological set of firing we feel and experience as self and self-reflection (which is likely quite a scattered network of brain pieces). If all that is given - I still don't get it - what does that have to do with philosophy and really all human thought being null and void? In an eternal sense nothing means anything, in the present sense things have plenty of meaning because we're stuck with their consequences.

Sounds good to me. Mind is one of the things Brains do. That makes Mind the physical effect of physical causes.

ruveyn

Sure, that's actually the more sensible interpretation of mind from a physicalist standpoint. There are many others, but saying "There is no such thing" would probably be the less plausible answer, because even if "mind" has non-physical connotations, then it still could have value, just like a software code has value outside of a computer and disk.

You see - creation is an ongoing process. A tech invents a microscope and all kinds of mini-critters [thank you, Mynheer van Leeuwenhoek, for giving all these previously nonexistent pathogens] pop into existence.

A problem, though. If in Beta Cygni 24 there is a civilization that can detect us - but we cannot detect them - does either of us exist? Where was the coelacanth when it did not exist, between the most recent fossil evidence and the first modern specimen caught?

I can respect what you are trying to do. Even though redefining terms for purposes of argument is repugnant to me.

But despite the position of some of my colleagues, words do not change realities, and a Baltimore Oriole does not even notice when Science combines it into Northern Oriole nor when the consensus sways and puts it back into its own species.

And whatever we use for captions, I have that in me which is neither a squishy computer nor the pattern of its programming.

It is NOT at all clear how many distinctions need to be made - it is very clear that none of the sciences has been able to get straight what and wher the cuts.

When can one assert the existence of something in the real world? When one has empirical evidence for its existence. In the absence of empirical evidence the claim is empty.

ruveyn

It occurs to me that it is a rather facile notion that the mind does not exist at all, such that only empirically verifiable objects or inferences are acceptable for claims of truly existing realities. Yet, all of the "empirical" data are subjective, phenomenological realities that we first experienced as instances of mental impressions. And the modern scientific method is a system of inter-subjective verification of reality. Due emphasis is placed on "subjective".

It is equally spurious to claim that the mind exists in a realm completely separate from material reality, and is thus somehow insulated from the brain activities in which it is based. Of course, any claim of such a freedom of will separate from the causal conditions of the universe flies in the face of evidence and logic.

The underlying problem with all of these debates is that people are actually debating a false dichotomy. It needn't be that science pose a threat to the dignity of the mind, and nor need it be that science nullify any vestige of non-empirical experience such that humanity becomes merely automata devoid of any mentality. The two realms, I believe, are fully reconcilable, and are fully embedded within this wondrous natural universe that we inhabit.

I expounded upon this idea to a more fully realized form in another post, so I'll just repost some of it here:

"I think what you're touching upon is the fact that the brain/mind is not a monolithic, unified entity, but is instead comprised of many disparate, but interconnected, centers of functioning. So, even if we accept that we are fundamentally determined beings, such that we can't simply will ourselves to be something apart from what we have generally been caused to be, it is still the case that one part of the brain/mind can in fact function as the cause of another part's changed mental trajectory. If we doubt the efficacy of our mind's ability to change itself, we only need to consider some of the refined meditative techniques developed by Eastern traditions to cultivate certain tendencies in the mind. Given the profound changes that can even be detected as changed brain states by the instrumentation of modern science, I think it is safe to say that we can change, even by pure thought, under the right circumstances.

...

If I am permitted to delve more deeply into a philosophical examination of the mind, my inclination is to reject a dualistic conception of the mind, given that I have never seen any evidence of mind existing as a separate, distinct substance apart from matter that can be measured as a force of nature. That being said, I am also skeptical of purely materialistic conceptions, since these seem to desire the reduction of all mental states into purely physical phenomena, and yet it occurs to me that the observation of brain facts by scientific instrumentation is not the the same thing as the personal experience of subjective mental states. Even as we try to understand how the brain determines our behavior, we can't fully reduce mental facts to brain facts.

My basic (and continually evolving) philosophy of mind at the present moment is that the traditional conceptions of the mind get it all wrong. It is often asked, how does the brain influence the mind, or how does the mind influence the brain? But to me, the two things are so inextricably bound to one another that the question is rendered incoherent. The basic relationship of mind to body is one of simultaneity, such that one cannot precede or cause the other. I am agnostic on the question of whether the mind exists as something separate from the brain or if they are in fact the same thing. But as I said, I believe this question is largely rendered incoherent when you understand the reality of simultaneity. I certainly think that, at least as a matter of convention, that it makes sense to place the two realms in separate categories, as long as we understand that this doesn't reflect any fundamental truth in an ultimate sense. But consider, that whenever we think, the activity in our brains has already changed, and when we take a medication, which causes a chemical change in our brains, we have no doubt that our mind has also changed."

"You make a very interesting point, however as we know language is dynamic and as of this moment the Oxford English Dictionary still defines fantastic as being "imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality" and that is what I am holding onto and I will try my hardest to prevent its meaning changing to; extremely or extraordinarily good."

Yes, yes, I can see your point I suppose. Fantastic is quite a fantastic word, isn't it? So you want to maintain it as a referent of things such a mythological beasties or imaginary realms and such. Fair enough. The World English Dictionary does list it as an informal synonym for excellent, but as you say, language is an ever evolving enterprise, and you certainly have a right to opine as to preferred usages of words.

My French teacher once shared his surprise at learning the English use of the word "terrific", because its French cognate means inspiring terror. It's interesting how words can shift meanings over time. Popular usage will win eventually regardless of what purists want.

... most of which seem to be current members of WrongPlanet.

Do you mean the bad philosophers? or those reading them? or perhaps bothy?

The point, mon vieux, is that the ability or the choice of this observer or that to ASSERT a things existence does not affect that existence.

I cannot assert the existence of a body associated with your mind - I cannot even assert the existence of your brain.

That does not make you incorporeal or brainless.

I CAN assert the existence of my brain and body - and mind. And that assertion does not make them real.

Do you believe the coelacanth did NOT exist between the Cretaceous and 1938? Or are you willing to stipulate that it existed even though no human was in a position to assert that it existed?

If you want to claim that for all we know to the contrary the world sprang Athena-like intoexistence say 5 minutes ago - I will not argue. For all I know it did. But it is a little unusual and awkward to believe things exist only while ruveyn is perceiving them.

"The point, mon vieux, is that the ability or the choice of this observer or that to ASSERT a things existence does not affect that existence."

Of course, our wishes and assertions do not affect what is actually real. I hope we can all agree upon that.

"If you want to claim that for all we know to the contrary the world sprang Athena-like intoexistence say 5 minutes ago - I will not argue. For all I know it did. But it is a little unusual and awkward to believe things exist only while ruveyn is perceiving them."

I'm not sure that this is what he is asserting. I think he is asserting that the only reliable means of determining what is "out there" is empirical evidence available to the senses. Whether or not we have evidence or data of everything extant in the universe doesn't affect if it actually exists or not, of course. I would imagine that ruveyn would assert that he does not know everything, but everything which is potentially knowable he could come to understand by empirical evidence. And since the inner world of personal, subjective experience is not accessible by scientific instrumentation, it simply can't be said to exist.

Each of us know rather little first hand. If you accept inter-subjective testimony and second hand accounts of experiments one has never performed first hand then each of us can know a lot. In any case the only way we know that something exists is when someone (or other) perceives it and reports what he perceives.

ruveyn