Do you understand those on the other side?

[Jose Fly]

As I've pointed out many times (probably too many times), I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian environment. I was taught young-earth creationism from an early age, was told prayer and reading the Bible were the answer to most of life's problems and questions, and witnessed all sorts of "interesting" things such as speaking in tongues, faith healing, end times predictions, etc.

Yet despite being completely immersed in this culture, I can't recall a time in my life when I ever believed any of it. However, unlike some of my peers at the time I didn't really find it boring. In fact, I found a lot of it to be rather fascinating because.....very little of it made any sense to me. I just could not understand the people, their beliefs, their way of thinking, or much of anything that I saw and heard. When I saw them anointing with oil someone who had the flu and later saw the virus spread (of course), I could not understand what they were thinking. When I saw them make all sorts of failed predictions about the Soviet Union and the end times, yet never even acknowledge their errors while continuing to make more predictions, I was baffled. Speaking in tongues was of particular interest to me because it really made no sense to me.

In the years that I've been debating creationists it's the same thing. When I see them say "no transitional fossils" or "no new genetic information" only to ignore examples of those things when they're presented, I can't relate to that way of thinking at all. When I see them demand evidence for things only to ignore it after it's provided, I can't relate. When I see them quote mine a scientific paper and after someone points it out they completely ignore it, I can't relate.

Now to be clear, I think I "understand" some of what's behind these behaviors (i.e., the psychological factors), but what I don't understand is how the people engaging in them seem to be completely oblivious to it all. What goes on in their mind when they demand "show me the evidence", ignore everything that's provided in response, and then come back later and make the same demand all over again? Are they so blinded by the need to maintain their beliefs that they literally block out all memories of it? Again....I just don't get it.

So the point of discussion for this thread is....how about you? For the "evolutionists", can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors? For the creationists, are there behaviors from the other side that baffle you, and you just don't understand? Do you look at folks like me and think to yourselves, "I just cannot relate to his way of thinking?"

Or is it just me?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #137]

You seem to be in a self contradictory situation. You seem be saying that a quality that emerges from the parts that comprise a system is at the same time beyond the ability of those parts to exhibit that quality - you can't have it both ways! If you claim free will emerges from the combining of parts that form some system then clearly free will is not "beyond" the capabilities of those parts, so long as the parts are organized appropriately the quality will emerge yes?

(bolding mine). There's nothing contradictory about what I said. The bolded part of your last sentence is exactly what I mean, and you even use the word emerge !! Progress. The molecules that make up a brain do not by themselves have free will or consciousness, but when combined into a system (called a brain) consisting of neurons, memory elements, electrical and chemical signals, etc. properties like free will and consciousness emerge (ie. they are emergent properties of the system ... the same point I've repeated all along).

A system whose many parts are all deterministic (strictly obey the laws of nature all the time) cannot be non-deterministic...

This is the fatal error in your reasoning, as shown by the fact that humans exist who are made of deterministic atoms and molecules, yet exhibit non-deterministic behavior.

Therefore the free will, the non-deterministic agency must lie outside the physical parts that comprise me because those parts are and always are deterministic - science shows us that.

How does science show that? You keep ignoring the issue in the first part of my response above about emergent properties, even though you finally seem to admit that emergent properties can exist! You can't have it both ways.

[brunumb]

A system whose many parts are all deterministic (strictly obey the laws of nature all the time) cannot be non-deterministic, it could be unpredictable due to the sheer complexity of calculating its state but unpredictable is not the same as non-determinism and without non-determinism there can be no free will - yet I have free will.

You've made that claim a few times. How have you demonstrated the validity of that claim?

[brunumb]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #139]

Flowers don't have brains.

Yet they display intelligence through behavior.

Responding to stimuli is one of the characteristics of living things. That response may be purely the result of biochemical processes and doesn't necessarily require any intelligence to be involved.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #139]

Flowers don't have brains.

Yet they display intelligence through behavior.

I'm not one to begrudge how others wish to define stuff, but I see no intelligence in a flower seeking sunlight.

It is possible that what we identify as 'brain' [re identifying the function of] may not actually be confined to only small fatty grey-matter.
The planet itself, and the galaxy and indeed the whole universe may function in a similar manner as an animal brain. All the elements are there, so there is no reason why we should automatically take the mundane path of explanation over the intelligent path of explanation.

You can hoe that row for a month, and still not get all the weeds.

I never liked the term "fundamental reality". I see reality as a binary state - is or ain't.

Yet in reality Joey, it IS - so no binary necessary.

So calling it "fundamental" implies there's some other form of it.

It is the conscious examination of what is, which is hampered by brains interpretation of its experience of reality, relayed to consciousness. It is scientific fact that the brain places its own interpretation on reality and in doing so, befuddles consciousnesses intelligent ability to see the true fundamental nature of the reality being experienced.

If that's the case, then we can discount everyone's description of it, making further conversation futile.

Sunflowers do not seem to display the same reaction to the same reality. The reaction is still obviously intelligent, requires no obvious brain, and achieves a more harmonious outcome - aligned with the natural order of everything. Seemingly in touch with fundamental reality as they respond to it unreservedly.

I see no obvious intelligence in the biochemistry of flowers seeking energy.

[William]

Flowers don't have brains.

Yet they display intelligence through behavior.

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #144]

I'm not one to begrudge how others wish to define stuff, but I see no intelligence in a flower seeking sunlight.

I see that and understand it as the type of argument one can expect from those in the position of Atheism.

I never liked the term "fundamental reality". I see reality as a binary state - is or ain't.

Yet in reality Joey, it IS - so no binary necessary.

So calling it "fundamental" implies there's some other form of it.

Be that as it may, it is an observed and accepted scientific fact.

You can hoe that row for a month, and still not get all the weeds.

Indeed. It is one reason why I do not easily understand 'the other side' and in the case of Agnosticism, there are two 'other sides' to try and understand.
The best I can come up with is that anything which goes against well entrenched beliefs that we do, or do not, exist within a creation, is met with resistance to the approach of Agnosticism, regardless as to whether the resistance derives from Atheism or Theism positions.
The resistance doesn't make either appear overly attractive or reasonable positions to invest support in.

Flowers don't have brains. They've just evolved various means of acquiring energy.

I would say "They've evolved various intelligent means of acquiring energy." because intelligence can be observed.
So even if the overall plant species cannot be seen to have recognizable brains, and appear to be more automated, than self-aminated, intelligence is still observed, so the intelligence has to have an explanation, rather than simplistic statements such as 'evolution did it' because the position of Agnosticism cannot accept the use of such statement, while rejecting the same type statement "god did it." , coming from the position of Theism.

We know that intelligence derives from awareness and awareness from consciousness.

Also this;

I merely note that in the referenced image, flowers were turning to face the sun. I see no need to conclude they ask themselves why.

implies that I have been arguing flowers 'ask themselves why' and the reader may become misinformed re my position, by such retorts. Please take care to try and be accurate in your responses to what I am actually saying. If it is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask for clarity.

It is the conscious examination of what is, which is hampered by brains interpretation of its experience of reality, relayed to consciousness. It is scientific fact that the brain places its own interpretation on reality and in doing so, befuddles consciousnesses intelligent ability to see the true fundamental nature of the reality being experienced.

If that's the case, then we can discount everyone's description of it, making further conversation futile.

We could.

That would be the sulky way...perhaps even the way in which the subset position Apatheism, might handle hard problems. [ Apatheism [the attitude of apathy towards the existence or non-existence of God. It is more of an attitude rather than a belief, claim, or belief system.]

Agnosticism does not choose that way, as having lack of information to establish either way, does not mean that information is not available, or may not become available at some later time.
There is certainly more than enough information to sort through in order to see if any coherent picture might form in the here and now.
Also to note, the brain is an organ with sensory appendages relaying data to it, and the data - while interpreted by the brain [the brain makes up the colors and sounds and sights and tastes and smells] it is consciousness which the interpretation is delivered to and it is consciousness which has used its intelligence to work out that the brain is doing the interpreting and realized that the interpretation of the data of an external reality is based upon sensory input. The reality is sensed by the brain, and exists. It is simple the case that what exists is not being faithfully interpreted by brains, and therefore consciousness is being given false knowledge to work with, which - while certainly complicating the situation - does not necessitate us all throwing our arms up in the air and declaring "What's the point!"

I needn't discount your description of reality, or the way in which you interpret that reality any more than anyone else's. Agnosticism allows for a smoother ride, while the data is being sorted.

Sunflowers do not seem to display the same reaction to the same reality. The reaction is still obviously intelligent, requires no obvious brain, and achieves a more harmonious outcome - aligned with the natural order of everything. Seemingly in touch with fundamental reality as they respond to it unreservedly..

I see no obvious intelligence in the biochemistry of flowers seeking energy.

Yet I do and I have given reasonable statements as to why I do. If someone says 'evolution did it' or 'god did it' then better overall accompanying explanation is required before I can accept such [refined] statement, as reasonable.

As your current statement stands, you being unable to see any obvious intelligence in the biochemistry of flowers seeking to live, is - in and of itself - not all that significant.

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #143]
ftfy
Responding to stimuli is one of the characteristics of living things. That response may be purely the result of biochemical processes and may not necessarily require any intelligence to be involved.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #143]
ftfy
Responding to stimuli is one of the characteristics of living things. That response may be purely the result of biochemical processes and may not necessarily require any intelligence to be involved.

Please explain how you observe intelligence.

[brunumb]

Agnosticism does not choose that way, as having lack of information to establish either way, does not mean that information is not available, or may not become available at some later time.

Agnosticism does not choose (?) anything. Your use of the term is incredibly strange. It merely describes a position relating to knowledge of God/supernatural.

Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."[2]

The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

One can approach the examination of data or information in search of the truth regardless of their theism or atheism. One just hopes that biases will not influence exactly how that is approached and that one is able to maintain an open mind. All this talk of agnosticism just muddies the waters.

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #143]
ftfy
Responding to stimuli is one of the characteristics of living things. That response may be purely the result of biochemical processes and may not necessarily require any intelligence to be involved.

Please explain how you observe intelligence.

I observe the fact of life on this planet, the characteristics of living things and observe through that, intelligence. Therefore - while these intricate processes may not require intelligence in a fundamental way in order to become what they become, they certainly are observed having intelligence at the near-completion of their form.

[Since intelligence is required at some point in that process, consciousness is also required at some point prior to that, in order for intelligence to become.]

We know that if we stand on the moon, and look at the planet, there is no immediate evidence of the planet being an intelligent entity, producing myriad forms of intelligent life.

It is when we get closer to it - and find life and examine life and see the intelligence therein, that we can return to the moon and observe an intelligent planet. Not because it looks any different from the way it did when we first observed it from the moon - but rather - because we accumulated a lot of information about it through closer examination, and the effect of that data in that interim, changed our original perceptions of the Earth.

[William]

Agnosticism does not choose that way, as having lack of information to establish either way, does not mean that information is not available, or may not become available at some later time.

[Replying to brunumb in post #148]

Agnosticism does not choose (?) anything. Your use of the term is incredibly strange. It merely describes a position relating to knowledge of God/supernatural.

Agnosticism does not choose that way, as agnostics having lack of information to establish either way, does not mean that information is not available, or may not become available at some later time.
[ftfy]

Please read all of my post that you quoted from brunumb, and you should get the gist.

We know we are all talking about the positions...and when the obvious functions of intelligence present through those positions, we know we are speaking of the folk who support those positions.