Materialism

[altonhare]

Its quite the word chess game you all got going on.


Its all chinese to me, but I think Alton got checkmated.

"Explicitly state ignorance on topic A, but express opinion on topic A anyway"

Three reasons I can see for this:

1) I generally disagree with a person involved in the debate on the topic, so I'll throw my admittedly uninformed ignorant opinion in that direction, per the status quo.

2) One person appears to have the upper hand, and I like to be on the winning side, so I'll throw my admittedly uniformed ignorant opinion in that direction, per making me look good.

3) A total gambit strategy where some debates involve only a handful of perceived sides. If I guess one I can have a 1/2 or 1/3 chance of being right. If a consensus/resolution is drawn that coincides with what I said I can always quote my prescience later. If it doesn't coincide with mine I stay quiet about it and hope no one really notices I was dead wrong. In this way I hope to make people generally notice when I'm right and generally not notice when I'm wrong, making myself appear to have good judgement, without ever needing to think or understand the issues!

I donno which one it is here.

Alton,
I'm concerned about your fairly narrow definiton of "life" as essentially "unpredictable locomotion". What about the component of intelligence, ie DNA code?

unpredictability = measure of intelligence of a self-locomotive entity

Random alterations to the sequence (mutations) invariably result in an overall loss of information, function, and/or viability of the organism, or become recessive/unexpressed characteristics which may (and occasionally do) appear later in disease, dysfunction or uselessness.

Some "random" alterations result in increased function, viability, etc. Whether an alteration is a "loss" of information depends on how you're defining information. Where some see order others see chaos and vice versa.

The protein synthesis process directed by the DNA code is irreducibly complex, and depends upon the presence and action of the very proteins, enzymes and processes which it prescribes.

Are you sure it's "irreducibly complex"? Are you predicting that nobody will ever understand protein synthesis via DNA of any organism, ever?

This "specified" aspect of the informative DNA code suggests to me not only "meaning" but purpose, and I allow the term "design".

Just because you see "information" does not make it so. A series of causal events gave rise to an entity that tends to perpetuate itself. If it did not perpetuate itself it wouldn't be so common.

[altonhare]

You also make your own definition of predictability. My dictionary says that to predict means "to state. tell about, or make known in advance, especially on the basis of special knowledge." But you are talking about "conscious perception/reaction". Well. I can see no foretelling in that...

Allow me to make it clearer.

When the bear smells (perception) the honey, then runs (reaction) to the bee hive, we say he "guessed" that, when he arrived at location Y, there would be honey there.

When a person hears a gun (perception) shot and ducks (reaction), we say they guessed/predicted/foretold that a bullet would intersect their head's location.

When you see (perception) the baseball bat in front of your face with Big Bubba behind it, then jump (reaction) back, we say they probably guessed/predicted/foretold that the baseball bat was going to intersect your head's location.

This is often called Laplace's demon. Not a bad name. Only a supernatural being would be able to know everything in the past and the future. And thus, altonhare, your "materialism" ends up with a god as good as any.

Some hypothetical omniscient being has to know what's going to happen a certain way in order for things to happen a certain way? You must be kidding.

Let's assume an omniscient but impotent being (all knowing but cannot influence the universe) exists.

Now let's assume he doesn't exist.

Are you really saying that, in the former case, state A is followed by state B but in the latter case its indeterminant?

I said before, determinant has nothing to do with predictable. Determinant simply means that identical situations give identical results. Whether you believe identical situations ever arise is another matter.

Even if identical situations never arise, there is still a single state/situation A that is followed by a single state/situation B, B is always caused by A, even if there is only one B ever. This implies that, if there is only one B ever there is only one A (one cause).

webolife,
If you disagree, then how do you engage in any meaningful scientific inquiry? If you try to explain phenomenon A as being a result of B, but phenomenon A also happens as a result of B,C, D, E, .... etc. how will you ever explain any phenomenon of Nature? How will you know when to stop looking for additional causes? Is 2 enough? 3, 4, 5...? How will you learn anything if, when you set up B, sometimes it gives A and sometimes not? If you agree that every state/situation is a direct result of its previous one and can be a result of no other, then what do you mean by "nondeterminant"? Do you simply mean "unpredictable"? In that case we're in agreement, I do not think a conscious entity will ever reduce Nature down to 100% predictability.

This is the standpoint of a scientist. If situation A did not yield B as it did the day before, it means the scientist made a mistake and this is not really situation A. A scientist may try to explain the new situation as caused by C. Although s/he knows that the universe cannot be 100% predictable, s/he can engage in meaningful inquiry.

The only form of motion altonhare seems to be able to conceive is an object moving from A to B. It becomes apparent right from the beginning of his post.

It's the only form of motion anyone can conceive of, I'm just honest about it.

If you disagree then illustrate for me your alternative for "motion". Let's forgo wordy definitions that we'll just argue and debate over, just show me pictures. If you can't show me you're just bluffing.

This is far more mechanistic than the gravity-based Big Bang. The universe is reduced to some kind of a 3D billiards game with a lot of bouncing balls. No room for EU there...

Wrong. EU is first and foremost about explaining natural phenomena. Currently the stance is that many phenomena are a result of (or have a component of) electrical and magnetic behavior. These behaviors can be explained "mechanicstically".

"The blanket statement" is of course just an initial statement. Engels immediately fills this "blanket" with numerous examples. Not mentioned here by altonhare.

You should read the quotes you post of me. I summarized my objection to his subsequent examples, and made this clear:

In his ensuing argument he forgets about the immutability and fundamental necessity of a fundamental constituent...

Notice the keyword "ensuing", referring to what he says AFTER his blanket statement. You didn't comment on my argument at all.

But now, we have altonhare's theory of identity.

This is called an "example". Not a "theory". I gave an example of the application of identity.

Except maybe for the obvious flaw in his theory: Dorothy's body was dorothy's body and dorothy's head was dorothy's head even before she was beheaded.

Again you call an example a theory. There is no "theory of identity". If you say that something doesn't have a specific identity, what something are you talking about? Does it have identity? It doesn't? But what's "it"? What are you referring to? You have to use identity (specify something) to argue against it. It's not a theory.

Also, I never said Dorothy didn't have a head/body beforehand, so you're attacking a straw man.

Perhaps my example was unclear:

Dorothy=Dorothy
Dorothy'sbody=Dorothy'sbody
Dorothy'shead=Dorothy'shead

Dorothy's_decapitated_head=Dorothy's_decapitated_head
Dorothy's_headless_body=Dorothy's_headless_body

Engels argues against "the old abstract standpoint of formal identity, that an organic being is to be treated as something simply identical with itself, as something constant". This is A=A. Engels want to replace this with an identity that includes change. And the changes he has in mind, is first and foremost internal changes. Relocation can sometimes be part of an identity, but normally it is not. Internal changes, however, is always present.
These changes are inherent to identity, but does not lead to an immediate change of identity. Given time, however, the identity will change. A simple example: The small, almost unobservable changes in an egg will finally lead to a chicken

If Engels is proposing that something's identity involves change, then he will have tell us when something has identity. Is it in a year, or once X happens? Or is he talking about past changes? How many past changes does an entity need to have before it has identity? If Engels can tell us this, where does he get the numbers? Is the egg an egg because it was an egg the moment before, or because it will be a chicken next? Is every egg different that results in a different chicken? We have egg_that_will_result_in_chicken_A and egg_that_will_result_in_chicken_B, etc.? Or do we have egg_produced_by_chicken_A, egg_produced_by_chicken_B, etc.? But this is no better/different than what I argue!

Is Engels really proposing that something doesn't have identity until a particular change happens? Then what was it before the changed happened? An identity-less 'thing'? Does something have identity only because of the changes that WILL happen? Does it not have identity in the meanwhile?

Now, back to altonhare. He is actually arguing for a third theory: Change immediatelylead to new identity. In his desperate eager to save his mantra, he ends up disproving it!
OMG, he just won the million dollars!!!

Care to actually show how this "disproves" identity? Or would you rather just keep flingin' crap?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:
Just because you see "information" does not make it so. A series of causal events gave rise to an entity that tends to perpetuate itself. If it did not perpetuate itself it wouldn't be so common.
If one sees information then surely it is information one sees? Whether it is correct or incorrect information is a different matter. Conversely one can fail to see information when there is in fact information there to be seen.
If there is a series of causal events then surely there must be a first cause? Or, put another way, what caused the series of causal events? Now, I'm guessing that you will say that this series has been going on for eternity or otherwise had no beginning.
[Assuming the 'it' in the final sentence is DNA then] How do you know it perpetuates itself?

[bboyer]

Alton,
I'm concerned about your fairly narrow definiton of "life" as essentially "unpredictable locomotion". What about the component of intelligence, ie DNA code?

unpredictability = measure of intelligence of a self-locomotive entity

Perhaps I misunderstand. It would seem that the more unpredictable of our human species, for example, are locked up in, umm ... "institutional facilities." By your definition above, this would mark the societal, criminally insane and psychotic as the more intelligent amongst us? I have often heard the remark about the "thin line" between genius and madness, but to you the degree of purely mechanical, unpredictable action marks the degree of demonstrated intelligence? How about unpredictable action by a self-locomotive entity due to a chronic or acute emotional or physical (illness or disease) instability? Not sure I'm following your line of reasoning.

[junglelord]

Its quite the word chess game you all got going on.


Its all chinese to me, but I think Alton got checkmated.

"Explicitly state ignorance on topic A, but express opinion on topic A anyway"

Three reasons I can see for this:

1) I generally disagree with a person involved in the debate on the topic, so I'll throw my admittedly uninformed ignorant opinion in that direction, per the status quo.

2) One person appears to have the upper hand, and I like to be on the winning side, so I'll throw my admittedly uniformed ignorant opinion in that direction, per making me look good.

3) A total gambit strategy where some debates involve only a handful of perceived sides. If I guess one I can have a 1/2 or 1/3 chance of being right. If a consensus/resolution is drawn that coincides with what I said I can always quote my prescience later. If it doesn't coincide with mine I stay quiet about it and hope no one really notices I was dead wrong. In this way I hope to make people generally notice when I'm right and generally not notice when I'm wrong, making myself appear to have good judgement, without ever needing to think or understand the issues!

I donno which one it is here.

None of the above. I fully understand the thread.


OMG Alton, you make me giggle inside.
You take things so literally, especially from me, on this thread....well thats so funny, you missed the sarcasm.
It was pure sarcasm and it was to make people laugh.


klypp was quite sharp and I agree with his analysis.


Having said that, Its a word game and one that makes me laugh.
The effort is chinese to me, not the thread.
thanks for the giggles.

[altonhare]

If one sees information then surely it is information one sees? Whether it is correct or incorrect information is a different matter. Conversely one can fail to see information when there is in fact information there to be seen.

Point conceded. If one looks at something and names it "information" then, well, it's information.

It's the conclusions drawn from this observation that I should be discussing. Webolife asserts that, because he sees a special pattern, that there must have been a conscious designer. This is plausible, perhaps there was a very intelligence living entity that went into his/her/its lab and synthesized DNA. Then it put this DNA into a glob we call a cell and gave it all kinds of fantastic proteins and structures designed to work with the DNA. Then the alien seeded earth with huge numbers of these just when Earth's ecosystem was ready. Certainly that is a plausible explanation for "where DNA comes from". I'm making this up as an example, I don't know exactly what webolife believes, just that he invokes the term "design" or "designer".

This does, of course, beg the question of how the creator came to exist. If one does not ascribe to a first cause/creation event then maybe one could say it's just always been that way, that a living entity designed other living entities, with no "first life". That's an interesting take. I'll have to meditate/analyze this scenario for a bit.

If there is a series of causal events then surely there must be a first cause? Or, put another way, what caused the series of causal events? Now, I'm guessing that you will say that this series has been going on for eternity or otherwise had no beginning.
[Assuming the 'it' in the final sentence is DNA then]

Yes, I will say exactly that. I see no reason for a "first cause" because this is a self-contradiction, an express violation of the definition of "cause" itself. Every cause has a cause and every effect has an effect, so to speak.

How do you know it perpetuates itself?

I speak loosely for the sake of avoiding excessive verbage. I don't "know" DNA perpetuates itself, this is an explanation of an observation. Specifically I observe that a collection of molecules I term "DNA" are found within entities I identify as "living". I further observe that sometimes this DNA is found in different arrangements. One of the arrangements is "split apart", with a copy (or nearly so) between the two original pieces. I further observe that living entities tend to avoid those situations/effects which would cease my identification of them as "living". I further observe that living entities tend to rearrange the constituents of themselves and their environment such that additional living entities, similar to the original, are created.

I explain these observations succinctly by saying "DNA tends to perpetuate itself".

Perhaps I misunderstand. It would seem that the more unpredictable of our human species, for example, are locked up in, umm ... "institutional facilities." By your definition above, this would mark the societal, criminally insane and psychotic as the more intelligent amongst us? I have often heard the remark about the "thin line" between genius and madness, but to you the degree of purely mechanical, unpredictable action marks the degree of demonstrated intelligence? How about unpredictable action by a self-locomotive entity due to a chronic or acute emotional or physical (illness or disease) instability? Not sure I'm following your line of reasoning.

First off, with any definition you try to give for "intelligence" you'll find that it is highly relative to the entity doing the observing.

Second off, are you sure sure of your conclusions? The therapist/psychiatrist who works with "insane person A" finds their behavior remarkably predictable. Persons diagnosed with specific illnesses are often found to progress on a course written in a textbook almost to a "tee". Many people marked as "crazy" are so habitual that you can predict when/where they'll do something down to a few minutes. You may think the madman cradling himself and murmuring is "unpredictable" but the psychiatrist saw the flash of lightning in the window and knows this particular madman's ailment tends to produce this exact behavior in response to sudden noises and lights.

Many serial killers get caught precisely because they become so predictable. On the other hand, some serial killers have been thought of as brilliantly intelligent, continuously able to baffle police.

So obviously you need to determine just how predictable this entity is by observation before you can decide on its level of intelligence. You may choose to accept the psychiatrist's opinion of "not very" and go on with your life. Or you may decide to observe it. At some point you decide you've "observed enough" and you conclude on some relative level of intelligence.

If you decide that the madman's behavior appears unpredictable and that's enough observation to conclude the madman is intelligent, that's your business.

I submit that, if you were exposed to a sampling of the humans on earth (so that you can observe them but not vice versa) in order to "get to know them", you would find them less predictable than a similar sampling of humans dubbed "demented" or "mentally deficient". Similarly you'd find the original set of humans less predictable than, say, a frog. Indeed, the majority of "insane" people tend to spend most of their time "just sitting there". You'll find the occasional "freak out" but even these tend to be predictable if one learns what sets them off. More normal folks will be thinking coherent thoughts, making decisions, and acting upon them. Your inability to predict these actions is based on your inability to guess what they're thinking, due to a level of intelligence.

[altonhare]

OMG Alton, you make me giggle inside.
You take things so literally, especially from me, on this thread....well thats so funny, you missed the sarcasm.
It was pure sarcasm and it was to make people laugh.

You're trying to tell me that you stating, in an active debate, that "Person A got checkmated" shouldn't be taken seriously by person A? Do you think about the meaning what you say has to others?

[junglelord]

Lighten up dude, its 2009 and everythings fine.


Believe what you want my friend, sarcasm is the root of all evil....MUUUHHHAAA


But seriously the time/effort is like chinese food, it goes right through me.
You wax serious with the other members, I am way to happy not to bother.


You got 28 day cycles to look forward too, then menopause, all for the sake of love.
May God give you patient, as the man of silence is the man of power....and sarcasm at the wrong time will be a no-no.
Good thoughts to ponder as you enter marriage.

[niin]

The subject of free will has exercised the world's greatest minds for several thousand years (at least).
A slightly more sophisticated definition than yours:

The question of free will is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions. Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether the laws of nature are causally
deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not — determinism versus indeterminism — and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not — compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, 'hard determinists' argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible.
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held
morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical
thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

This is just a more complicated and unscientific definition. You can’t use that definition consistently.
Well ,what can you expect from an unscientific site like Wikipedia? Sure it's a nice site, but It just as lost as most everyone ells is when it comes to philosophy.
I know a lot of great minds don’t believe in free will, but that is irrelevant. Free will exists by definition.

You wrote:

There is no evidence for an objective meaning to life and there is evidence against it.

What, non-subjective, evidence do you have?

Well, none. It’s all subjective.
In my life there is not objective meaning. I make my own meaning. I'm free to do what i want. I don't have to do anything.

I don't 'worry' about meaning. I do however contemplate upon the subject frequently. In answer to the last part, I would imagine that
life would still have meaning to the Universe itself at the very least.

The universe can’t experience meaning. The universe is a concept. It is not alive.

You haven't defined what you mean by 'life'.

I can’t come with an easy definition right now, but I will think about it.

To me, everything in the Universe has meaning. Whether I or any other human understand that meaning is another matter.

To you…that means that without you that meaning disappear. It’s subjective.

Animals can't understand concepts, only humans can do that.

Really? They can't understand danger, hunger, thirst, etc?

Yeah. Animals can’t understand concepts. They still feel emotions, but they don’t understand intellectual concepts.

[junglelord]

You ovbiouly have no knowledge of Koko, the sign language gorilla. She ponders death...is that not intellectual?

[niin]

You ovbiouly have no knowledge of Koko, the sign language gorilla. She ponders death...is that not intellectual?

That is correct. But even if there was such an exception...that doesn't mean that gorillas, in general, understand concepts. Even if we said that all monkeys, gourillas and dolphins understood concepts, there would still be alot of animals that didn't. And bacteria (which is alive) wouldn't understand concepts either.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

This does, of course, beg the question of how the creator came to exist.

You are looking at the problem through a modern Western lens (i.e. one with an Abrahamic tint). You assume that there are three entities involved: Man, Universe and Creator. What if there is only one entity involved - the Universe? (This latter is the way I currently view things).

If one does not ascribe to a first cause/creation event then maybe one could say it's just always been that way, that a living entity designed other living entities, with no "first life". That's an interesting take. I'll have to meditate/analyze this scenario for a bit.

Here's a snippet from the Rig Veda:

6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm

I speak loosely for the sake of avoiding excessive verbage.

What is it with you Americans? The word is 'verbiage' and you are the third American I have pulled on this one.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Niin,
You wrote:

This is just a more complicated and unscientific definition. You can’t use that definition consistently.

The defintition is more complicated because the issue of free will is more complicated than you make out. As I stated previously, this isssue has exercised the minds of the world's great thinkers for millenia, if it were as simple as you think then it would have been settled long ago.
I used wiki for convenience, I do not get my philosophy from there, preferring the Greeks and Nietzsche. Why does the definition have to be scientific? Was your's?

It just as lost as most everyone ells is when it comes to philosophy.

Would you care to inform us all how everyone else is lost when it comes to philosophy and how you are not?

I know a lot of great minds don’t believe in free will, but that is irrelevant. Free will exists by definition.

By what defintion other than your own?

In my life there is not objective meaning.

How do you know that?

I make my own meaning.

How do you know that you are not just a brain in a vat being stimulated via electrodes?

I'm free to do what i want.

Do you want to grow old and die? Will you fall in love when you decide?

I don't have to do anything.

So there?

The universe can’t experience meaning.

You know the Universe well enough to make this statement do you?

The universe is a concept.

Define concept.

It is not alive.

Yet you are alive and live in the Universe drawing your sustenance from it?

I can’t come with an easy definition [of life] right now, but I will think about it.

A complicated one will do, indeed it would be quite welcome after the overly simplistic comments you have so far come up with.

Yeah. Animals can’t understand concepts. They still feel emotions, but they don’t understand intellectual concepts.

You haven't defined concept yet but is a concept different from an intellectual concept? Have you actually read any biology/zoology/animal
studies? How do you explain e.g. chimpanzees using tools? Have you never seen a squirrel problem solving to get at food?

[webolife]

You ovbiouly have no knowledge of Koko, the sign language gorilla. She ponders death...is that not intellectual?

That is correct. But even if there was such an exception...that doesn't mean that gorillas, in general, understand concepts. Even if we said that all monkeys, gorillas and dolphins understood concepts, there would still be alot of animals that didn't. And bacteria (which is alive) wouldn't understand concepts either.

Koko's "intelligence" was [she is dead] a function of her training, and is actually a proof of the intelligence of her trainer, just as was the "intelligence" of the 800-word-vocab parrot who also is no longer in the land of the living. The parrot could carry on a "intelligent" sounding conversation for several minutes with her training with only the brains of a ...well... bird.
And obviously, only those ponder death are capable of knowing what they are pondering, so none cn rightly say that Koko pondered death. The interuption of daily routine, and possibly confusion resulting from that interuption, showed that Koko missed her dead pet. "Missing" a pet does not equal "ponderance" in my view.

As for "determinant" or "non-determinant", Alton, you must understand that I do not equate determinism with causality.
In fact, I believe that a "designer" model is a better fundamental solution for causality than a materialistic model. You don't understand "how" I can do science without being a materialist, but it is quite simple, enlightening, and enriching, I assure you.

Some "random" alterations result in increased function, viability, etc. Whether an alteration is a "loss" of information depends on how you're defining information. Where some see order others see chaos and vice versa.

What some "see" vs what others "see" is exactly the point of my signature line. However, I invite you to show any random alteration that has resulted in increased information, functionality or viability of an organism.
In order to do this, you must:
1. Demonstrate that the DNA code was actually "altered", as opposed to having been "programmed from the start".
2. Prove that the alteration was "random", not an intentional intervention into the protein synthesis process, as by a scientist or some other intelligent being.
3. Show that the result of the alteration was beneficial in some way to the organism.

As for squirrels or chimpanzees using tools, GC, I would add to the list birds, spiders, and several other allegedly "simpler" animals... would you allow a "nurse log" as a tool for new seedlings in a rainforest? I would then submit that these are not evidences of "intellect" of the organism, as the intellect of the designer.

[altonhare]

You are looking at the problem through a modern Western lens (i.e. one with an Abrahamic tint). You assume that there are three entities involved: Man, Universe and Creator. What if there is only one entity involved - the Universe? (This latter is the way I currently view things).

Do you deny the existence of humans, atoms, grass, trees, etc. which comprise the entity "universe"? When I say the "entity universe" I'm referring to every object with location. Viewed from afar this entity may look like a sphere, a ball of chain, a yarn ball, a glob, etc.

Also, I like to differentiate between the anthropomorphic creator entity by using a lowercase "c" and the shapeless Creator concept using an uppercase "C".

I read your snippet:

THEN was not non-existent nor existent:

First line, which kinda spoils it for me, for obvious reasons.

That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

I understand, there is one entity that exists (has shape). Although, I'd argue, if there is literally nothing else it doesn't have location (there is no distance from it to everything else).

However it states it's "breathed by its own nature" i.e. it is entirely self-sufficient. I'll concede the "location" argument for the moment and go with it.

Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.

Why is all "indiscriminated chaos"? Was there no causality, no identity?

All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

Everything that existed was void (nothing) and formless (shapeless)?

I appreciate the reference but I can't help but see myriad self-contradictions, unless you can translate it for the better.

What is it with you Americans? The word is 'verbiage' and you are the third American I have pulled on this one.

I donno, just unbred, uncultured, and uneducated rednecks I guess . The way I hear the word doesn't have any "i" sound.