Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Sapiens]

origin by spontaneous accident, sheer fluke, random chance, whatever term you prefer, - 'why' provides a power of explanation nature alone lacks, and solves what is otherwise a paradoxical infinite regression of unguided mechanisms.

Again, no one is proposing, "]origin by spontaneous accident, sheer fluke, random chance, whatever term you prefer." That is your warped view.

"Why" provides nothing or everything, but is entirely irreverent to survival and/or success. If you are happy with fables and myths ... great, keep them under your own roof and out of the agora, or at least when in public don't pretend that they provide some cosmic insight. Your particular suite of "whys" leads into illogical and unsupportable places where you are able to pretend that the paradoxical infinite regression problem is solved by the introduction, in defiance of parsimony ,of another layer of this time supernatural infinite regression that is no better explained than the previous natural one.

You would be better served to search out integrative answers than to simply paper over the existing natural mysteries with a plethora of supernatural mysteries.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Again, no one is proposing, "]origin by spontaneous accident, sheer fluke, random chance, whatever term you prefer." That is your warped view.

"Why" provides nothing or everything, but is entirely irreverent to survival and/or success. If you are happy with fables and myths ... great, keep them under your own roof and out of the agora, or at least when in public don't pretend that they provide some cosmic insight. Your particular suite of "whys" leads into illogical and unsupportable places where you are able to pretend that the paradoxical infinite regression problem is solved by the introduction, in defiance of parsimony ,of another layer of this time supernatural infinite regression that is no better explained than the previous natural one.

You would be better served to search out integrative answers than to simply paper over the existing natural mysteries with a plethora of supernatural mysteries.

That's the paradox I am referring to, if the origins of nature itself are not super-natural, if they do not transcend nature, then you propose that the laws of nature were created by those same laws.

That paradox is unique to atheist beliefs. But I do not see those beliefs as 'warped', partly because I used to hold them, but we all believe in something and the answer by definition has to be something extraordinary.

I think we are best served to avoid ruling out any explanation based on personal preference. Did we get here by chance or by design? We don't know, we have no frame of reference that tells us how universes usually develop their own consciousness to ponder themselves with! Each explanation should stand on it's own merits, there is no default.


If a gambler plays 4 royal flushes in a row, which do you suspect? chance or design?

 

[McBell]

No, this is not my claim. cosmologists claim that before the big bang, matter, physical laws, spacetime didn't exist.

you should re-read the part of YOUR post I quoted.

 

[McBell]

Why?

If you consider an example of a building or a machine, you would see order (vs. randomness). That order implies design. Design implies intelligence.

Please explain snowflakes

 

[McBell]

I suppose if you insist on it; however, order doesn't necessarily imply intelligence at all. Take the symmetry of the snowflake, which to many people appears to have been designed (If it was truly designed then one has to wonder why the designer is taking so much time designing each and every one of the mega-quadrillion snowflakes each day. You would think he had better things to do). Although exhibiting extreme symmetry there's a very simple answer for snowflake symmetry. From caltech.edu:

"While it grows, the crystal is blown to and fro inside the clouds, so the temperature it sees changes randomly with time. But the crystal growth depends strongly on temperature . . . Thus the six arms of the snow crystal each change their growth with time. And because all six arms see the same conditions at the same times, they all grow about the same way. The end result is a complex, branched structure that is also six-fold symmetric. And note also that since snow crystals all follow slightly different paths through the clouds, individual crystals all tend to look different.
source
​

And from Wikipedia:

A non-aggregated snowflake often exhibits six-fold radial symmetry. The initial symmetry can occur[9] because the crystalline structure of ice is six-fold. The six "arms" of the snowflake, or dendrites, then grow independently, and each side of each arm grows independently. Most snowflakes are not completely symmetric. The micro-environment in which the snowflake grows changes dynamically as the snowflake falls through the cloud, and tiny changes in temperature and humidity affect the way in which water molecules attach to the snowflake. Since the micro-environment (and its changes) are very nearly identical around the snowflake, each arm can grow in nearly the same way. However, being in the same micro-environment does not guarantee that each arm grow the same; indeed, for some crystal forms it does not because the underlying crystal growth mechanism also affects how fast each surface region of a crystal grows. Empirical studies suggest less than 0.1% of snowflakes exhibit the ideal six-fold symmetric shape.
​

So, while you may think that design implies intelligence, it does nothing of the sort.


.

damn.
You beat me to it.

 

[McBell]

Oh, come on, most things exist without a definitive "why," unless you want to count fables and mythology as "whys."

Is that not exactly what he is doing?

 

[McBell]

That's the paradox I am referring to, if the origins of nature itself are not super-natural, if they do not transcend nature, then you propose that the laws of nature were created by those same laws.

That paradox is unique to atheist beliefs. But I do not see those beliefs as 'warped', partly because I used to hold them, but we all believe in something and the answer by definition has to be something extraordinary.

I think we are best served to avoid ruling out any explanation based on personal preference. Did we get here by chance or by design? We don't know, we have no frame of reference that tells us how universes usually develop their own consciousness to ponder themselves with! Each explanation should stand on it's own merits, there is no default.


If a gambler plays 4 royal flushes in a row, which do you suspect? chance or design?

Do you really not understand what "I do not know" means or are you just wanting to argue?

 

[NoorNoor]

I suppose if you insist on it; however, order doesn't necessarily imply intelligence at all. Take the symmetry of the snowflake, which to many people appears to have been designed

Why the snowflakes? Yes, snowflakes are nice example of order and beauty but it's not really different than any other example. It's not about the snow flakes. It's about the forces in effect (physical laws) that controls the shape of the snowflake or any other physical element. These laws are Like a factory that makes millions of products. The factory itself is a design and same are the products.

(If it was truly designed then one has to wonder why the designer is taking so much time designing each and every one of the mega-quadrillion snowflakes each day. You would think he had better things to do)

Time is the fourth dimension of the spacetime block. God's existence (as the first cause) is necessarily beyond/external to spacetime. There is no objective flow of time. In that realm, the limitation of time would be meaningless.

 

[NoorNoor]

Is that not exactly what he is doing?

Every existence within the spacetime block needs a "why". The existence of spacetime itself needs a "why." but the series of that cascading dependencies stops at the first cause. The first cause existence is necessarily beyond spacetime. A realm where limits, dependencies or beginnings cease to exist. Beyond the limits of spacetime, The first cause would necessarily have no beginning. Spacetime existence depends on the first cause but the "first" cause wouldn't have any dependency.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Indeed, in such cases the product flows from a visualization. But ... that is not true of natural items. To say that a crystal lattice or a metabolic pathway is analogous to a cottage or a printing press is absurd.

To add to this: We can clearly document why man-made inventions were designed; were designed for a purpose; who designed them; when and where and how they were built; by whom; the steps by which this design took place; etc. We can provide empirical evidence of a given thing being designed by mankind; and provide evidence that, when compiled, leaves little doubt that "the first mass-produced automobile was designed by Ford for the purpose of profit and with the intent of providing an inexpensive automobile for every family in America".

That's the very nature of mankind; to build, create and design things for a purpose.

But when it comes to creationism and creationist claims, they can not provide a shred of this kind of evidence outside of their spiritual books that a given biological organism was "designed, created and built" by whom for what specific purpose.

It is mere belief that they hold to be on the same level as "knowledge" and often above knowledge.

Frankly, I find that terrifying ...

Without purpose, design, a desired outcome, there is no ultimate explanation for anything

This comment causes me to short circuit. I fail to see how imposing "purpose, design, desired outcome" to the Summer Solstice does a darn thing to provide any "ultimate explanation" for how (or why) the motion of our planet around our sun or their existence to begin with. Its imposing some kind of life philosophy where none is neither needed nor warranted.

solves what is otherwise a paradoxical infinite regression of unguided mechanisms.

But it is "guided"; it is "guided" by the laws of physics, gravity, biology, ecology, genetics, etc.

 

[Zosimus]

Yes, with the possible exception that experiencing colors is a spiritual experience

Ciao

- viole

But you do agree that experiencing color is a non-physical thing and thus a purely physical explanation for something fails to capture the essence of qualia?

 

[Zosimus]

No. The same parts of the brain are active in perceiving green.

If Mary cannot determine what color is being viewed by determining all physical information about the brain state, then all physical information does not constitute all information. Therefore, there is some information that is not physical. Thus, physicalism is false.

 

[viole]

But you do agree that experiencing color is a non-physical thing and thus a purely physical explanation for something fails to capture the essence of qualia?

I certainly do not agree. As I said, the fact that we cannot possibly have a perfect physical knowledge of X, does not entail that X is not physical. It entails, at best, that our brains are limited.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

I certainly do not agree. As I said, the fact that we cannot possibly have a perfect physical knowledge of X, does not entail that X is not physical. It entails, at best, that our brains are limited.

Ciao

- viole

What is it like to be a bat?

Bats, being mammals, have experiences.
This means that there is something that it is to like to be a bat.
However, the activities and even sensory system of a bat is very different from ours.
For example, bats fly around at night using echolocation to determine the size, shape, distance, and even texture of the insects that bats eat.
Given that we have no experiences that are similar to those of a bat, we cannot answer questions such as "Do bats hear echoes in color?"
This problem exists not only with bats but also with other people. Can we know what it's like to be born blind, for example?

These questions relate to the mind-body problem and the problem of physicalism.

Your answer seems to imply that people simply cannot know all physical facts (because we're human).

Let's take another example, however, which I am borrowing from Laurence Bonjour's What Is It Like To Be A Human? publication.

Imagine that a Martian comes to Earth. He is quite different from humans in that he works much as does a bat. Martians live underground and use echolocation to "see" their surroundings in fine detail. This Martian has a machine that permits him to discovery every physical fact about an object in as much detail as it desires – even down to the spin states of the electrons. Martians have no sense of right, wrong, God, ethics, or morality. Martians simply consume underground fungi and/or other Martians. Martians are unisexual and simply lay a clutch of eggs, which they immediately abandon and out of which hatches several young who fight until one has killed and eaten all of the others.

Do you think that this Martian could use this machine to determine what it's like to feel guilt? Or what it's like to see a red rose? Or what it's like to love your children so much that you sacrifice your life for them? If the answer is no, yet the Martian can use its machine to determine every physical fact, then it follows that physicalism is false.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

But you do agree that experiencing color is a non-physical thing and thus a purely physical explanation for something fails to capture the essence of qualia?

No, I do not agree. There is a subjective component to viewing this color; which could, feasibly, have measureable results in brain activity; but color, itself, is physical thing as light, itself, is a physical thing.

If Mary cannot determine what color is being viewed by determining all physical information about the brain state, then all physical information does not constitute all information. Therefore, there is some information that is not physical. Thus, physicalism is false.

Nope. This is false. There are light meters and other instruments which are used to measure color and light intensity. There are sound meters for measuring sound. There are thermometers for measuring temperature. You do not measure light with a sound meter. You do not measure sound with a light meter. You do not measure either with a thermometer. If Mary attempts to measure color (or sound) by measuring physical information about the brain state, then she is using the wrong tool for the job. Using the wrong tool for the job does not equate to materialism being false. It equates to someone using the wrong tool for the job.

 

[Zosimus]

Nope. This is false. There are light meters and other instruments which are used to measure color and light intensity. There are sound meters for measuring sound. There are thermometers for measuring temperature. You do not measure light with a sound meter. You do not measure sound with a light meter. You do not measure either with a thermometer. If Mary attempts to measure color (or sound) by measuring physical information about the brain state, then she is using the wrong tool for the job. Using the wrong tool for the job does not equate to materialism being false. It equates to someone using the wrong tool for the job.

And yet the brain can tell you what color it is experiencing. If you ask someone to imagine his or her favorite color and, although you do not know this, the brain is imagining green grass so vividly that the person is experiencing this state–perhaps recalling a picnic in the park. Can you, using a machine that determines all physical characteristics about the brain, determine that the person is thinking of green as opposed to, let's say, red.

If you say "no," then it follows that the brain can do something that something that measures all physical information cannot. Thus, a purely physical account of the brain state is incomplete because there are non-physical aspects of the experience (called qualia).

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I will not chase red herrings.

I do not discount qualia. Qualia, however, is not knowledge. I submit that she did not "learn" anything new by seeing blue for the first time She experienced something which she already knew; and experienced that affiliated qualia for the first time.

Before I flew in a light airplane, I read on the subject vivaciously. I knew what my cousin was doing and what he was about to do before he did it. I learned nothing from that flight because I already knew. I simply had a new experience.

The ability to measure her brain state is irrelevant to the question.

A crowd witnesses an event. The objective aspects of that event: Who, What, When, Why, Where and How; do not change. However, each individual will experience a unique qualia associated with that said event.

The subjective aspects of a given experience, such as flying or the event of an event or seeing blue for the first time, does not negate the objective aspects of that experience.

 

[Zosimus]

I will not chase red herrings.

I do not discount qualia. Qualia, however, is not knowledge. I submit that she did not "learn" anything new by seeing blue for the first time She experienced something which she already knew; and experienced that affiliated qualia for the first time.

Before I flew in a light airplane, I read on the subject vivaciously. I knew what my cousin was doing and what he was about to do before he did it. I learned nothing from that flight because I already knew. I simply had a new experience.

I question whether this experience is equivalent to the experience in question. Perhaps you learned nothing by watching someone else do something. In this case, however, we are asking whether Mary learns something new when she does something.

If a virgin watches porn, does he know what it's like to have sex?

The ability to measure her brain state is irrelevant to the question.

A crowd witnesses an event. The objective aspects of that event: Who, What, When, Why, Where and How; do not change. However, each individual will experience a unique qualia associated with that said event.

The subjective aspects of a given experience, such as flying or the event of an event or seeing blue for the first time, does not negate the objective aspects of that experience.

The question is not whether subjective aspects of a given experience negate the objective aspects. The question is whether subjective aspects can be accounted for in a purely physical reductionist description of brain activity.

 

[NoorNoor]

Rational philosophers have argued that qualia, the name given to internal experiences comparable to knowing what it's like to see blue

Colors do not exist beyond the individual minds. Beyond minds, it's only different wavelengths of the electromagnetic energy spectrum. Within the minds, the interpretation/perception of color exists (only for the visible spectrum). The individual perception can be totally unique. There is no way to tell. Since you are born, you learn that a specific sensation of a specific color has a name. But the question is, how your mind perceive it? Only you would know . Your are told that this color name is green but maybe you see it as blue or maybe you see it as totally different unknown color to other individuals.

The unique perception of the same wavelength by an individual mind is only known to that mind. It maybe different or same as perceived by others. There is no way to tell. In fact we do know that color blind people would have different perception of color. In addition, different animals have different color perceptions.

Colors as an internal experience, are meaningless beyond a perceiving mind.What is it like to see blue?

 

[Skwim]

Why the snowflakes?

Because they exhibit symmetry, one of the components strongly indicative of design.

Yes, snowflakes are nice example of order and beauty but it's not really different than any other example.

It's different in that we have a clear case of symmetry---a form of order---typically taken as design, but doesn't have a designer. So, it's false that order implies design, and by extension: Design implies intelligence.

It's not about the snow flakes. It's about the forces in effect (physical laws) that controls the shape of the snowflake or any other physical element.

Excuse me! but the "about," the thrust of your statement,

"If you consider an example of a building or a machine, you would see order (vs. randomness).
​

was that

"order implies design. Design implies intelligence."​

And the symmetry of snowflakes is an example of order.

These laws are Like a factory that makes millions of products. The factory itself is a design and same are the products.

So I assume that your analogy here is meant to imply that the laws of nature were designed by god. Fine, now all you have to do is provide the evidence. What is the incontrovertible evidence that god designed the laws of nature? No need to answer. . . . . god created everything. The trouble is, your claim that Design implies intelligence rests solely on the contention that god made everything, which is fine; however, the fact that god created everything doesn't speak to your particular claim that Design implies intelligence, because, as we've seen, the design of snowflakes doesn't need any intelligence. This kind of reasoning is like saying that the reason Obama is President of the United States is that his mother gave birth to him. Drifting away from the issue, as you've done here, doesn't help your case at all, NoorNoor.

Time is the fourth dimension of the spacetime block.

"Spacetime block"? Sorry, but concocting stuff like this doesn't impress at all.

God's existence (as the first cause) is necessarily beyond/external to spacetime. There is no objective flow of time. In that realm, the limitation of time would be meaningless.

And just how do you know this to be true?

Moreover, if there's no flow of time in god's realm then I have to conclude that to god everything happens at once. Right? If not, then just how does everything work.


.