Materialism

[Grey Cloud]

[altonhare]

I have additional objections to the calculation of Dawkins and Gould.

How long did they consider? 1B years? 100M? In fact, if we accept causality, then it makes no sense to place a limit on how long we give life to come about in the universe. If there is no "first cause" there is no "beginning" and there is no finite duration for life to have a chance to come about.

So by simply accepting causality we accept that life is inevitable. Indeed every possible arrangement of fundamental constituents is inevitable. The "probability" of life coming about in a causal universe is 100%.

Alton: "...all the scientific evidence states that there were little or no "good" (by which I assume you mean viable) mutations" --- keyword is "were" --- science can state nothing of a process that supposedly happened in the past unless currently observed processes support such a statement. Change this back to present tense, and my answer is "yes".
If you believe the opposite, you must presuppose your conclusion. Another "main point" of mine.

Ah, this is where we have a problem. There is no provision for observers in a scientific explanation/theory. Hopefully however life came about, it did so in a particular way whether we see evidence of that mechanism or not.

In science we just explain a phenomenon of Nature. The audience can believe the explanation or not. If we invoke observers then our theory is hopelessly biased. Like I said, hopefully something happened a specific way whether anyone observed that reason, or observed evidence for it, or not.

Are we to rule out all explanations whose evidence has been wiped out by millennia? Or one in which the evidence we are yet able to reproduce? That sounds like a good way to Nowheresville.

Also, Alton, you continue to define "causal" as antonymous to "design". Just because you define it so, does not make it so.
The inferrence of a designer, as odious as it may be to your philosophy, is not odious to the practice of science.

Tell me about your Designer, and how It did Its business. Is It essentially immortal? A conscious living entity that is capable of holding itself together indefinitely? Is it a group/race of such entities? Again, I don't ask you to show me this Designer lying somewhere, I'm just asking for an explanation. Neither of us may have observable corroboration today because these events happened so long ago. We're both just trying to think of explanations and either one can believe it or not.

[Grey Cloud]

[bboyer]

Tell me about your Designer....

overan.gif (2.49 KiB) Viewed 8080 times

Try looking into a mirror and meditate on the reflection.

[Grey Cloud]

[webolife]

No provision for observers in a scientific theory?
This is just totally wrong and in fact, impossible.

Hopelessly biased?
No, realistically and inevitably biased, hence the need for dialogue with others.

This is the reality of scientific history, past, present and future.
And if you ask me to define past, present or future, I'll probably croak

[Grey Cloud]

Seems to me that part of the problem is the false dichotomy arising from the notions of 'observer' and 'observed'. Earlier Arc-us wrote:

Try looking into a mirror and meditate on the reflection.

The Mirror Mind?

cat.jpg (10.33 KiB) Viewed 8088 times

Think big.

[bboyer]

Hey! I know those kitties. I use these 2 images on a Women's Personal Defense website we run locally.

dv-survivor.jpg (5.99 KiB) Viewed 8031 times

[altonhare]

No provision for observers in a scientific theory?
This is just totally wrong and in fact, impossible.

Hopelessly biased?
No, realistically and inevitably biased, hence the need for dialogue with others.

This is the reality of scientific history, past, present and future.
And if you ask me to define past, present or future, I'll probably croak

Event A happened a particular way whether anyone saw it happen, or sees current evidence of it, or not. Do you disagree?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Arc-us,
I 'borrowed' them from this site:
http://www.hermes-press.com/PT_menu.htm which was recommended to me by StefanR.

[bboyer]

No provision for observers in a scientific theory?
This is just totally wrong and in fact, impossible.

Hopelessly biased?
No, realistically and inevitably biased, hence the need for dialogue with others.

This is the reality of scientific history, past, present and future.
And if you ask me to define past, present or future, I'll probably croak

Event A happened a particular way whether anyone saw it happen, or sees current evidence of it, or not. Do you disagree?

(click on image to view larger version)

(click on image to view larger version)

[altonhare]

<3 your post arc-us. I agree wholeheartedly.

I think I may have even talked about the "tree falls in the forest" bit on this board somewhere.

Although I don't think that's actually what logic is about. Logic is just about non contradiction.

[bboyer]

I just thought the cartoon was funny. Personally, I hold the view that the forest in question has many ears to hear. Not only the human version. I think it was Alan Watts that said words to the effect of, "If there were no eyes to see, the sun would not be light." Ditto for the many versions of physical ears. Ok, enough meta-physics and mysticism for me today.

[altonhare]

I just thought the cartoon was funny. Personally, I hold the view that the forest in question has many ears to hear. Not only the human version. I think it was Alan Watts that said words to the effect of, "If there were no eyes to see, the sun would not be light." Ditto for the many versions of physical ears. Ok, enough meta-physics and mysticism for me today.

Exactly. My answer to this question was "define sound". If you define it as what a human perceives, then no the tree does not make a sound. If you define it as the alternating rarefaction/compression of air then of course it does. Whether something happens/happened or not, has nothing to do with who was around to observe it.

[webolife]

I agree with both alton and arc-us here... a light "ray" tugs on something, whether or not it is a human eye, however the light ray tugging on the eye receptor, would not exist without the presence of the receptor, just as a line segment is defined by its endpoints.

However my point is not about whether things can exist without an observer...
It is that we human observers are inseparable from our vantage point, particularly our philosophical vantage point, and this inevitably biases our conclusions. Hence, science [a function of human observers] per se cannot be unbiased.

In keeping with the thread topic, "materialism" biases a scientist toward a deterministic view of causality, and drives all of the conclusions based thereon. Scientists who do not hold this view, do not hold this particular bias, and do not reach the same conclusions, based on the exact same evidence.

For the sake of some common ground, let's define scientist as one who studies natural events, and tries to explain patterns discovered in them in terms of natural causation.