Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[leibowde84]

We both know you only say to agree even when you don't agree. But why don't you follow up on what you agreed on?

And how do people decide? I mean as a matter of physics, how does a human being make a possibility the present or not?

Does this not involve matter according to you? Is the body and brain not material?

The body and brain are material, yes. And human beings use reason, instinct, and knowledge to make decisions based, to a large degree, on past experiences. We recognize patterns in our daily life that end up assisting us in every decision we make. For example, my decision to stop at a red light is based on my knowledge of traffic laws, my past experiences of getting pulled over or seeing horrific car accidents where people have gotten hurt, and my innate sense of fairness that the people who have been waiting at their red light should now have their turn to go.

Is that what you mean?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The body and brain are material, yes. And human beings use reason, instinct, and knowledge to make decisions based, to a large degree, on past experiences. We recognize patterns in our daily life that end up assisting us in every decision we make. For example, my decision to stop at a red light is based on my knowledge of traffic laws, my past experiences of getting pulled over or seeing horrific car accidents where people have gotten hurt, and my innate sense of fairness that the people who have been waiting at their red light should now have their turn to go.

Is that what you mean?

No. The physics of how choosing actually works. How it is a scientific fact that you have alternative courses of action available, choose one, and that you could have chosen the other one. What is actually happening, how does choosing actually work.

Many procesess in nature can turn out several different ways, there is freedom there, even if the freedom might not be autonomous. But what these processes in nature cannot do (much), is a sort out a best result, only a brain can do that. Ergo, that you define decisions to only occur in brains means you define choosing as sorting out the best result. But this can never be the fundamental physics of choosing, the fundamental physics of it is the spontaneity that is very evident in nature all around, and choosing in brains is just a very complicated variety of that.

A human being votes left or right, an photon turns up left or right. Fundamentally these are the same of a possibility which is made the present or not, a decision.

You said to agree before that it was important to know how things are decided. So now, put up. How does the physics of choosing actually work?

 

[leibowde84]

No. The physics of how choosing actually works. How it is a scientific fact that you have alternative courses of action available, choose one, and that you could have chosen the other one. What is actually happening, how does choosing actually work.

Many procesess in nature can turn out several different ways, there is freedom there, even if the freedom might not be autonomous. But what these processes in nature cannot do (much), is a sort out a best result, only a brain can do that. Ergo, that you define decisions to only occur in brains means you define choosing as sorting out the best result. But this can never be the fundamental physics of choosing, the fundamental physics of it is the spontaneity that is very evident in nature all around, and choosing in brains is just a very complicated variety of that.

A human being votes left or right, an photon turns up left or right. Fundamentally these are the same of a possibility which is made the present or not, a decision.

You said to agree before that it was important to know how things are decided. So now, put up. How does the physics of choosing actually work?

I would say with inanimate objects, there is no choice. Photons, for example, react to their environments. So there aren't really options for them. A rock isn't going to move unless outside forces cause it to move.

 

[metis]

I would say with inanimate objects, there is no choice. Photons, for example, react to their environments. So there aren't really options for them. A rock isn't going to move unless outside forces cause it to move.

But my pet-rock told me to tell you that he said "Hello!" and hopes to meet you soon to prove you're wrong.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I would say with inanimate objects, there is no choice. Photons, for example, react to their environments. So there aren't really options for them. A rock isn't going to move unless outside forces cause it to move.

I don't know if you are ill informed about photons and such but many experiments demonstrate that there is freedom inherent in where photons etc. end up. Then there is a question about autonomy in regards to inanimate matter, which means that left on their own the photon simply remains in an undecided state, and the possibilities can pass away undecided.

When you say react, then how does that cover that the photon can end up left or right? Re-action does not cover it. You already said that things in the universe could turn out one way or another. Rocks, does that cover planets and stars as well? All the galaxies, they have no freedom in the system, they can not turn out several different ways?

And obviously you are kicking and screaming, putting your heels in the ground, you don't really want to know anything at all about how things are chosen. Your attitude is not conducive to constructive thought, building up knowledge, on the issue. It is all obviously defensiveness of your ethical and moral system, that you do not want to know anything about it.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't know if you are ill informed about photons and such but many experiments demonstrate that there is freedom inherent in where photons etc. end up. Then there is a question about autonomy in regards to inanimate matter, which means that left on their own the photon simply remains in an undecided state, and the possibilities can pass away undecided.

When you say react, then how does that cover that the photon can end up left or right? Re-action does not cover it. You already said that things in the universe could turn out one way or another. Rocks, does that cover planets and stars as well? All the galaxies, they have no freedom in the system, they can not turn out several different ways?

And obviously you are kicking and screaming, putting your heels in the ground, you don't really want to know anything at all about how things are chosen. Your attitude is not conducive to constructive thought, building up knowledge, on the issue. It is all obviously defensiveness of your ethical and moral system, that you do not want to know anything about it.

You are confusing mysteries in quantum physics with decisions. We merely haven't figured out why photons behave seemingly irratically, but there is no reason to believe that quantum laws exist.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't know if you are ill informed about photons and such but many experiments demonstrate that there is freedom inherent in where photons etc. end up. Then there is a question about autonomy in regards to inanimate matter, which means that left on their own the photon simply remains in an undecided state, and the possibilities can pass away undecided.

When you say react, then how does that cover that the photon can end up left or right? Re-action does not cover it. You already said that things in the universe could turn out one way or another. Rocks, does that cover planets and stars as well? All the galaxies, they have no freedom in the system, they can not turn out several different ways?

And obviously you are kicking and screaming, putting your heels in the ground, you don't really want to know anything at all about how things are chosen. Your attitude is not conducive to constructive thought, building up knowledge, on the issue. It is all obviously defensiveness of your ethical and moral system, that you do not want to know anything about it.

Are you saying that because we currently do not understand the laws that photons act under we should assume that those laws don't exist?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Hey everyone, Jared Jammer is Stephen C. Meyer, one of the dishonest idiots who works for the anti-science Christian Creationist Discovery Institute, also known as Crackpot Central.

While you're right about Meyer, you're wrong about Jared Jammer. He's just a Stephen Meyer fan who posts all over the internet about great Stephen Meyer's work is. He's not actually Stephen Meyer.

 

[outhouse]

Jared Jammer is Stephen C. Meyer

No he is not, he does not have the education Stephan does.

. Meyer is a liar and a moron. Drop dead Meyer

Take it down a notch, or you will be banned.

Despite our differences here, and some of us have the ability to debate with a little more meat on the bone, we are ALL family here and we are not out for blood.

 

[Shad]

You told me you're not a hard determinist, and then you said that nothing is chosen in the universe except in brains, and that what happens in the universe is chance. To make this contrast between spontaneity of people and spontaneity in the universe means your concept of choosing must be to sort out the best result. Sortingalgorithms are typically predetermined, like a coinslot, the dime is always going to fall into the dimeslot, that's how sorting works. etc.

A non-sentient object has no choice since it is incapable of making a choice as it lack the ability to think. If you think rocks are capable of choice demonstrate it. You have setup a false comparison thus your point is fallacious.

So to make a long story short, you reject freedom is real, and you reject subjectivity in the creationist sense of those words. The creationist sense where a decision means to make a possibility, which is in the future, the present or not. And the creationist sense of subjectivity where the agency of a decision (agency of a decisions is what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does) can only be identified by choosing what it is, resulting in an opinion.

Nope. I just reject the idea that objects which can not think make choices. No one has demonstrated otherwise. However since you setup your arguments in an incoherent manner rejection of a part of it is to reject the idea your are talking about rather than just your argument itself.

You use completely different definitions for those words.

Nope. Rather you have misapplied choice to objects not capable of it then construct a strawman from it.

 

[Parsimony]

Evolution theory = social darwinism. It's not science.

Still drumming on that consequences fallacy I see.

You need to understand that you cannot separate Evolutions and Eugenics like Darwin’s The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man.

If you think that you only accepted evolution with no other doctrines attached to it, then you’re just like others who embraced anything without knowing what they’re embracing.

Then you also cannot separate the nuclear sciences from nuclear bombs. Do you accept that nuclear fission is a real phenomenon? Then you must also accept that dropping nukes on people is a good thing. Riiiight...

Tell me, do you accept that natural selection and micro-evolution (change within a species) are real phenomena?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You are confusing mysteries in quantum physics with decisions. We merely haven't figured out why photons behave seemingly irratically, but there is no reason to believe that quantum laws exist.

Authoritarian huffing and puffing. You don't know quantum physics better than I do. There are various interpretations and one of them is that it actually can turn out one way or another.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Still drumming on that consequences fallacy I see.

Then you also cannot separate the nuclear sciences from nuclear bombs. Do you accept that nuclear fission is a real phenomenon? Then you must also accept that dropping nukes on people is a good thing. Riiiight...

Tell me, do you accept that natural selection and micro-evolution (change within a species) are real phenomena?

You are a social darwinist, that's what you got yourself into with evolution theory.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

A non-sentient object has no choice since it is incapable of making a choice as it lack the ability to think.

Which means of course that you define choosing in terms of sorting out an optimal result, like every single last evolutionist. And that means that every time you made a decision you did the best by definition. It is just social darwinist egotripping, and has nothing to do with the science which describes freedom in nature.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Are you saying that because we currently do not understand the laws that photons act under we should assume that those laws don't exist?

When you look at how photons acts, then yes the evidence points to that it acts in a free way. The evidence points to it.

An electron can show up around an atom in one of many places described by a probability distribution or something. One moment to the next where it shows up, there is no relation to where it was the moment before, the relation is with the probability distribution. You are saying that we should not accept this is free, so as that later we might find some law dictating where the electron ends up. That is not reasonable. We can accept it is free now, and later we may still find some law about it.

 

[JM2C]

Natural selection is the process by which different individuals in a population survive and reproduce with differing degrees of success depending on how well they are adapted to their environment. You don't doubt that's a real thing, do you?

One’s life always defends on nature, right? If one fits in an environment then one will survive, if not, then one would or should die, right?

Let’s say for example; through natural selection, it takes 3 generations for a man to adapt into an environment where we all consider as a healthy, prosperous and progressive environment. On the other hand; through artificial selection, it takes only 1 generation to achieve a healthy, prosperous and progressive environment.

One is through natural selection, but it takes a lot of years to develop, and the other one is through artificial selection and it does not require many years to develop.

In natural selection, nature chooses its favorable variants, but it takes a lot of years to develop, while in artificial selection it’s the man who chooses the variants he wanted to form and a lot quicker than nature.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Hermann Schaaffhausen|Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” - Charles Darwin (1871)The Descent of Man.

 

[leibowde84]

Authoritarian huffing and puffing. You don't know quantum physics better than I do. There are various interpretations and one of them is that it actually can turn out one way or another.

So, you are saying that your hypothesis on the behavior of photons in quantum mechanics is completely arbitrary; that photons consciously "decide" where to go based on desire or something of that sort? If so, what leads you to believe this beyond the fact that we haven't figured it out yet? And, what would be the basis of these "decisions" made by photons?

 

[leibowde84]

When you look at how photons acts, then yes the evidence points to that it acts in a free way. The evidence points to it.

An electron can show up around an atom in one of many places described by a probability distribution or something. One moment to the next where it shows up, there is no relation to where it was the moment before, the relation is with the probability distribution. You are saying that we should not accept this is free, so as that later we might find some law dictating where the electron ends up. That is not reasonable. We can accept it is free now, and later we may still find some law about it.

"We can accept it is free now, and later we may still find some law about it."
- This illustrates my major issue with your reasoning. You have provided no reasoning for accepting something inanimate actually is "free", in that it is not bound by laws of matter or quantum mechanics, yet you are ready and willing to accept it anyways simply because an organizing law hasn't been found yet. I don't think that this is a prudent line of reasoning, and there is no reason to jump to conclusions prematurely. All we know now is that photons behave differently than we would have expected them to. This should not lead one to think that these photons are conscious or have a mind of their own or can "choose" in any way. As with every other piece of matter, photons are most likely a product of their environment and the restrictions placed on them externally. You have yet to provide any solid reasoning as to why we would assume otherwise, as you suggest we should.

In other words, you are suggesting that photons, unlike every other non-living piece of matter we have yet found, are not bound by any scientific laws but, instead, have the ability to choose. This would be OK, but you have not provided any evidence to show that this is the case. Can you at least provide a link to a study that shares this line of reasoning? I don't reject subjectivity, or any theory for that matter, but I am not gullible enough to believe anything that is not sufficiently substantiated. If I was, it would be a character flaw.

 

[JM2C]

Why don’t you bother to mention that ideas about eugenics long predate Darwin’s publishing of the theory of evolution?

Actually eugenics was Francis Galton’s theory, i.e., after the origin of species and not before. “Eugenics was put forth by Darwin's cousin,Francis Galton, in 1865 and 1869. Galton argued that just as physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, so could be said for mental qualities (genius and talent). Galton argued that social mores needed to change so that heredity was a conscious decision, to avoid over-breeding by "less fit" members of society and the under-breeding of the "more fit" ones. In Galton's view, social institutions such aswelfareandinsane asylumswere allowing "inferior" humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more "superior" humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with "inferiors."

Darwin read his cousin's work with interest, and devoted sections ofDescent of Manto discussion of Galton's theories.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

"We can accept it is free now, and later we may still find some law about it."
- This illustrates my major issue with your reasoning. You have provided no reasoning for accepting something inanimate actually is "free", in that it is not bound by laws of matter or quantum mechanics, yet you are ready and willing to accept it anyways simply because an organizing law hasn't been found yet. I don't think that this is a prudent line of reasoning, and there is no reason to jump to conclusions prematurely. All we know now is that photons behave differently than we would have expected them to. This should not lead one to think that these photons are conscious or have a mind of their own or can "choose" in any way. As with every other piece of matter, photons are most likely a product of their environment and the restrictions placed on them externally. You have yet to provide any solid reasoning as to why we would assume otherwise, as you suggest we should.

In other words, you are suggesting that photons, unlike every other non-living piece of matter we have yet found, are not bound by any scientific laws but, instead, have the ability to choose. This would be OK, but you have not provided any evidence to show that this is the case. Can you at least provide a link to a study that shares this line of reasoning? I don't reject subjectivity, or any theory for that matter, but I am not gullible enough to believe anything that is not sufficiently substantiated. If I was, it would be a character flaw.

It is bound by law, the availabe options are described by a probability distribution. Meaning as per law of nature, the electron can't turn up outside it. But within this scope it can turn up any place, one moment to the next.

You are youself making an error in reasoning. You presume all must be forced, unless there is evidence that it is free. But of course you have no warrant for the presumption that it is forced. And the available evidence points to that it is free, simply by observing one moment to the next, it is unpredictable where the electron ends up within the possibilities described by the probability distrubtion. That is reasonable evidence that it is free.

And you are obviously ideologically opposed to subjectivity. You reject subjectivity, and this is why you counter any finding of freedom found in nature.