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?

[Inquirer]

The conversation here about determinism, free will etc and consequences for morality is pretty much duplicating this thread, which is where I'll be continuing this theme.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #119]

Thinking" isn't an expression I used - "Awareness" was the expression I used.

If you're definiing awareness to be any response to external inputs then nearly everything would have that property, but not be conscious. A rock sitting in a stream can move if sufficient water flow hits it, but that is just one object acting against the force of another. The rock wasn't "aware" that water was hitting it and took any action, but it responded to the force just the same. Same with the sunflowers "following" the sun ... the asymmetric day/night stalk growth scheme that evolved to take advantage of the benefit of more direct sun isn't because of any awareness by the plant of the sun in the normal sense of something having awareness. It is just an evolved mechanism that results in a response to sunlight and darkness without the plant having any need to be aware of the process.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #120]

Free will necessitates non-determinism else any decision made is only an apparent "decision" and nothing more than an inevitable outcome due to the laws of nature.

Sure ... no one is arguing against that.

If I "decide" to go to the store, it is an illusion, I was destined all along to go to the store and have no control, in fact there can be no "I" if we are deterministic, it has no meaning.

Sure again ... IF humans were purely deterministic then they couldn't make reasoned decisions.

There is no scientific means of "making decisions" because nature shows there are no such things as decisions only laws, causes and effects. If I let go of a ball does it "decide" to fall?

The ball has no brain so it cannot "decide" anything. But there is a scientific means of making decisions if the decision making process is enabled by a brain that can analyze a situation and weigh various outcomes and draw a conclusion. That is a function of a working human brain that is not a function of the material stuff the brain is made of (my entire point in this whole discission).

Even computers do not make decisions, this is another myth, they mindlessly follow rules, and never ever ever deviate from those rules. Everything a computer does is an unavoidable and inevitable result of its history and current events.

Who thinks computers make decisions or do anything but follow rules? Maybe people who watch too many sci-fi movies?

But I don't see how that can be true. It literally means that a system can behave against the laws of nature, that its actions are not governed by the laws of nature. Yet all the parts that comprise a brain are ultimately no more than atoms and molecules and to argue that atoms and molecules in a sufficiently large agglomeration can act in a way that is not in accord with the scientific laws governing atoms and molecules is to argue magic surely?

I don't see how it can be anything but true. It doesn't at all mean that a "system can behave against the laws of nature," It simply means what I keep repeating over and over which is that a system (eg. a brain) can have more function and capability than its constituent parts. Why is that so hard to accept? How does a human body maintain homeostasis (to use something that doesn't involve active thinking or references to consciousness)? The individual atoms and molecules that make up a human do not act independently to carry out all of the tasks needed to maintain body temperature, insulin levels, CO2 levels in the blood, etc., yet the body as a system has evolved the functions needed to make this happen via a large number of very complicated pathways that have evolved to work together to maintain homeostasis.

None of this requires the atoms and molecules to act in ways that are not in accord with the laws of chemistry and physics.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #122]

A plant is noticeably different from a rock, and more similar to a human, being of biological properties and able to live and then die within comparatively short life-spans.

The link you gave even says as much, so for anyone to imply that a sunflower is the same as a rock is being rather disingenuous.

Then there is the case of the plant which leaf-cutting ants harvest in order to feed another plant which in turn produces fungi for the ants to feed upon. [clearly intelligent awareness happening in that dynamic] and the plant who's leaves are being cut by the ants, changes it's chemical process so that the leaves become toxic to the plant the ants are feeding, which in turn has the ants ceasing harvesting the leaves of the plant under attack.

Way more different than the way rocks behave in a stream? I observe so...

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #124]

A plant is noticeably different from a rock, and more similar to a human, being of biological properties and able to live and then die within comparatively short life-spans.

The link you gave even says as much, so for anyone to imply that a sunflower is the same as a rock is being rather disingenuous.

But I did not in any way imply that a sunflower is the "same as a rock." I was giving examples of something responding to an external input without being "aware" of it in the normal sense of what that word means. The rock is not "aware" of the water flow any more than the sunflower is "aware" of the sun's position in the sky. They are both reacting to external inputs without any consciousness or "awareness" of what is going on. That was my point.

Then there is the case of the plant which leaf-cutting ants harvest in order to feed another plant which in turn produces fungi for the ants to feed upon. [clearly intelligent awareness happening in that dynamic] and the plant who's leaves are being cut by the ants, changes it's chemical process so that the leaves become toxic to the plant the ants are feeding, which in turn has the ants ceasing harvesting the leaves of the plant under attack.

Countless examples of similar evolutionary symbiotic relationships. There doesn't need to be any "intelligent awareness happening in that dynamic." Why would you think that the ants have any clue about this dynamic at all. Mimicry is another example of an evolutionary development that can benefit an animal without it having any idea that it even exists.

Way more different than the way rocks behave in a stream? I observe so...

See above.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #1]
[Edit: Sorry, I did not realize this was in the "Science" section. My post is only relevant in the "Apologetics" section. I try to avoid discussions that involve "Young Earth Creationism" and "Intelligent design." The truth of evolution and the age of the Earth are too well settled to be the subject of a debate I am interested in.
When one's religious faith occludes the understanding and appreciation of scientific inquiry there is little point in debate.]

I understand the "other side" if by that we meant theists. I understand and appreciate the idea there is more to life than we can measure or observe. I like Paul Tillich's definition of faith as "ultimate concern," that understanding reality is of prime importance.
He writes, "The perception of its reality is felt as so overwhelming and valuable that all else seems insignificant, and for this reason requires total surrender."

For me and for some theists this could be reduced to caring about what is; being, ultimately, concerned with truth.

What I have a hard time understanding, or perhaps "accepting," is the unswerving devotion to a particular cult or claim on what "the truth" is. When science is rejected because it apparently contradicts some scriptural idol, this is the opposite of faith; it is a rejection of the search for ultimate reality or truth, in the service of dogmatism.

For example, rejection of the way life evolved in favor of a simplistic, anti factual 'creationism' is the direct opposite of faith. 'Faith' is having reality as one's 'ultimate concern.' Denying the evolution of the species is an example of partisanship and prejudice, not faith. Perhaps Samuel Coleridge Taylor had something like this in mind when he wrote:

He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #125]

Countless examples of similar evolutionary symbiotic relationships. There doesn't need to be any "intelligent awareness happening in that dynamic." Why would you think that the ants have any clue about this dynamic at all. Mimicry is another example of an evolutionary development that can benefit an animal without it having any idea that it even exists.

When something mimics something else, there is intelligence awareness involved in the process.
I am not saying that ants are aware of their existence in the same way humans are. I am noting that in observing ants, plants et al, that there is a definite correlation between their actions and reactions and consciousness, which is what we would expect to see displayed by that which has some degree of self awareness and intelligence.

I am able to understand in this way, because I am approaching the question from an Agnostic position - Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?
viewtopic.php?p=1081499#p1081499

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #127]

When something mimics something else, there is intelligence awareness involved in the process.

How so? Coloration mimicry does not require any intelligence or awareness on the part of the animal having the trait. It can evolve markings that make it appear to a predator as a harmful prey when in fact it is not, and this is obviously beneficial because it can prevent attacks, or reduce the number of them. It is an evolved trait ... not something that either the predator or the prey are actively aware of. Some animals evolve to look like plants (eg. the walking stick), but there's no reason to believe that they know anything about this.

I am not saying that ants are aware of their existence in the same way humans are. I am noting that in observing ants, plants et al, that there is a definite correlation between their actions and reactions and consciousness, which is what we would expect to see displayed by that which has some degree of self awareness and intelligence.

But how do you know the correlation is between their actions and reactions and consciousness, vs. it being a collection of evolved behaviors for survival and reproductive advantage with no connection to any sort of consciousness?

I am able to understand in this way, because I am approaching the question from an Agnostic position - Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?
viewtopic.php?p=1081499#p1081499

I'm not commenting as an atheist on this topic, but as a materialist. Whether or not god beings exist has no bearing (IMO) on whether or not consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. If god beings do exist, maybe they decided to allow brains to develop the capacity to create consciousness.

[William]

When something mimics something else, there is intelligence awareness involved in the process.

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #128]

How so? Coloration mimicry does not require any intelligence or awareness on the part of the animal having the trait. It can evolve markings that make it appear to a predator as a harmful prey when in fact it is not, and this is obviously beneficial because it can prevent attacks, or reduce the number of them. It is an evolved trait ... not something that either the predator or the prey are actively aware of. Some animals evolve to look like plants (eg. the walking stick), but there's no reason to believe that they know anything about this.

You still appear to be conflating human awareness with these examples as I am not saying there is reason to believe the plants and animals are aware they look like sticks et al.

What I am saying is that as a human I can identify signs of intelligent self awareness in the abilities of these creatures and these traits are not reasonably explained away by the position of Atheism.
The statement - "Coloration mimicry does not require any intelligence or awareness on the part of the animal having the trait." seems to be a claim, and if it is, you will have to provide the scientific evidence to support the claim in order for it to be more that simply an opinion of an atheist.

But how do you know the correlation is between their actions and reactions and consciousness, vs. it being a collection of evolved behaviors for survival and reproductive advantage with no connection to any sort of consciousness?

The agnostic position doesn't know either way because there is no information available [that I know about] which positively shows it to being the case. Therefore, the position of Agnosticism does not establish anything outside of this lack of knowing.

Thus, while I can say "It appears that actions and reactions observed show me that there is correlation between those and what is known about consciousness" I cannot say/claim from that observation that "Coloration mimicry does not require any intelligence or awareness on the part of the animal having the trait." until information comes to my attention which clearly and undoubtably shows me that is the actual case.

Even the idea that "a collection of evolved behaviors for survival and reproductive advantage" invokes consciousness as the only known reasonable explanation for why these plants and animals are observed doing what they do - having the abilities that they have and therefore allocating such processes as having "no connection to any sort of consciousness" is both counter intuitive [re what the eye observes] and cannot be off-handedly delegated as somehow in opposition to the evolution of behaviors - behaviors which are so obviously intelligence-based.

I also have to bear in mind that such argument as you present here is in line with what I would expect from the atheist position/Atheism, because the idea of intelligence involved with the formation of life and the action/reaction of said life-forms implies something akin to the subject of GOD/Gods, and the position - especially re hard atheism - is held primarily on the creed of 'lacking belief in GOD/Gods" - so to seriously entertain such thoughts goes against the nature of that position.

I'm not commenting as an atheist on this topic, but as a materialist. Whether or not god beings exist has no bearing (IMO) on whether or not consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. If god beings do exist, maybe they decided to allow brains to develop the capacity to create consciousness.

It does not matter whether you are presenting as atheist or materialist in this circumstance, as both have the same worldview in regard to consciousness being created by brains.

As an agnostic, I acknowledge that we [humans] do not know this is the case at all and this lack of knowing means that the only reasonable choice to make re that, is to remain Agnostic until more evidence presents itself.

From what I can gather from the data I have been exploring, consciousness may not be an emergent property of the brain but rather - in relation to the human experience - may be a co-creator with the brain, primarily creating what we call "personalities."
That aside, if you do have data to back up your statement regarding abilities evolved without consciousness awareness and intelligence, please provide this and I will look into it.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #120]

Free will necessitates non-determinism else any decision made is only an apparent "decision" and nothing more than an inevitable outcome due to the laws of nature.

Sure ... no one is arguing against that.

If I "decide" to go to the store, it is an illusion, I was destined all along to go to the store and have no control, in fact there can be no "I" if we are deterministic, it has no meaning.

Sure again ... IF humans were purely deterministic then they couldn't make reasoned decisions.

There is no scientific means of "making decisions" because nature shows there are no such things as decisions only laws, causes and effects. If I let go of a ball does it "decide" to fall?

The ball has no brain so it cannot "decide" anything. But there is a scientific means of making decisions if the decision making process is enabled by a brain that can analyze a situation and weigh various outcomes and draw a conclusion. That is a function of a working human brain that is not a function of the material stuff the brain is made of (my entire point in this whole discission).

That is not free will though. That is a process based on deterministic rules leading to and end outcome surely?

Even computers do not make decisions, this is another myth, they mindlessly follow rules, and never ever ever deviate from those rules. Everything a computer does is an unavoidable and inevitable result of its history and current events.

Who thinks computers make decisions or do anything but follow rules? Maybe people who watch too many sci-fi movies?

But I don't see how that can be true. It literally means that a system can behave against the laws of nature, that its actions are not governed by the laws of nature. Yet all the parts that comprise a brain are ultimately no more than atoms and molecules and to argue that atoms and molecules in a sufficiently large agglomeration can act in a way that is not in accord with the scientific laws governing atoms and molecules is to argue magic surely?

I don't see how it can be anything but true. It doesn't at all mean that a "system can behave against the laws of nature," It simply means what I keep repeating over and over which is that a system (eg. a brain) can have more function and capability than its constituent parts. Why is that so hard to accept? How does a human body maintain homeostasis (to use something that doesn't involve active thinking or references to consciousness)? The individual atoms and molecules that make up a human do not act independently to carry out all of the tasks needed to maintain body temperature, insulin levels, CO2 levels in the blood, etc., yet the body as a system has evolved the functions needed to make this happen via a large number of very complicated pathways that have evolved to work together to maintain homeostasis.

None of this requires the atoms and molecules to act in ways that are not in accord with the laws of chemistry and physics.

How do we determine if some system (combination of parts) has "more capability" than we'd expect from just combining the parts? Even if you could find an example I can counter that you were wrong initially to assume you knew all of the capabilities of the constituent parts.

If I combine X, Y and Z to get something "greater" than X, Y or Z then that surely means we were inaccurate in measuring X, Y or Z? that's what a scientists would conclude anyway, they would never suggest that an inaccurate knowledge of initial conditions is in fact some magical "free will".

Isn't that an Occam's razor approach? that the true reason we see something unexpected is not some magic "free will" but rather an imprecise knowledge of the constituent parts? isn't that a more rational, scientific answer?

I'm playing devil's advocate of course because I know I have free will, my point is it is incompatible with our belief that the universe is deterministic, incompatible with the belief that science can "explain" free will, its contradictory to believe that !