Do you understand those on the other side?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Do you understand those on the other side?

Post #1

Post by 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? :P
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Do you understand those on the other side?

Post #131

Post by JoeyKnothead »

William wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 2:10 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: On the plants there, I can see where the heat of the sun initiates contractions and expansions, such that sunflower seeds're delicious.
Are you saying the sun is the cause of this, not the plants?
I propose evolutionary type pressures play a predominant role. Of course with the sun as a source of heat / light, we could accuse it of some guilt.
William wrote:
JK wrote: More broadly, I'm reminded of how chemicals get released, such that some plants "communicate". I think though, here, "communication", like "genetic information" is best understood as useful terms.
Are terms useful if they do not convey reality as precisely as possible?
What I'm getting at is that we're not seeing communication in the traditional sense.
JK wrote: Anticipating rebuttal, I do recognize our own human communication, vocal, can be described in relation to chemical processi... I'd argue it's the vocalizing that sets our communication apart.
Whether the communication is chemical or sound or some other thing, what is being communicated is only useful if its message is received and understood.
And so I propose it's less about understanding a message, and more about otherwise mundane chemical processes.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Do you understand those on the other side?

Post #132

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Inquirer in post #130]
How do we determine if some system (combination of parts) has "more capability" than we'd expect from just combining the parts?
By observation. If the behavior and capabilities of the system exceed those of the parts, and we know enough about the parts (eg. atoms and molecules and chemistry), then we can conclude that the system has functions and capabilities that the individual constituents do not. If we don't know enough about the characteristics of the parts then things would not be so clear.

As far as humans are concerned, we do know that we are made of molecules that combine into structures and organs and that the entire assembly is observed to be far more capable than the individual molecules that make up the structures and organs. The fact that all of these items can work together as a living system is proof of that.

When a human dies, the assembly of components loses a host of functions capabilities associated with "living", and you're back to a pile of molecules that will react chemically and eventually (barring other events) the corpse will decay naturally according to the laws of chemistry. Life itself is sufficient proof of the system being more than just the sum of its parts.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Do you understand those on the other side?

Post #133

Post by Inquirer »

DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:42 am [Replying to Inquirer in post #130]
How do we determine if some system (combination of parts) has "more capability" than we'd expect from just combining the parts?
By observation. If the behavior and capabilities of the system exceed those of the parts, and we know enough about the parts (eg. atoms and molecules and chemistry), then we can conclude that the system has functions and capabilities that the individual constituents do not. If we don't know enough about the characteristics of the parts then things would not be so clear.
Why not - more rationally - conclude that we just didn't have sufficient knowledge of the individual parts? Clearly if I claim to understand X and Y yet see something unexpected when we combine X with Y then isn't it more rational to just admit that I was wrong when I thought I understood X and understood Y? I thought that's what the scientific method did, seek understanding when we discover we are lacking in it.
DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:42 am As far as humans are concerned, we do know that we are made of molecules that combine into structures and organs and that the entire assembly is observed to be far more capable than the individual molecules that make up the structures and organs. The fact that all of these items can work together as a living system is proof of that.
If you mean a machine can do more things than any of the individual parts can do, then I agree. But if you mean the machine has capabilities are not attributable to the parts that comprise it I must disagree.
DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:42 am When a human dies, the assembly of components loses a host of functions capabilities associated with "living", and you're back to a pile of molecules that will react chemically and eventually (barring other events) the corpse will decay naturally according to the laws of chemistry. Life itself is sufficient proof of the system being more than just the sum of its parts.
No it isn't, it is surely proof that we simply do not understand the parts well enough to fully understand the effects of combining those parts.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Do you understand those on the other side?

Post #134

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Inquirer in post #133]
If you mean a machine can do more things than any of the individual parts can do, then I agree. But if you mean the machine has capabilities are not attributable to the parts that comprise it I must disagree.
I'm not arguing that the "machine" (eg. a human) has capabilities that are "not attributable to the parts", but that the parts working as an integrated system produces capabilities that are beyond those of the parts. Two very different things. A brain is clearly made of physical molecules that form structures, carry electrical signals, etc., and in a living human it creates perception,consciousness, thoughts, emotions, etc. which no individual part can do by itself. These are capabilities far beyond those of the parts. When a human dies all of these "extra" functions and capabilities go away and the pile of molecules that are left behave as a deterministic system as the corpse decays if left alone.

Either consciousness is an emergent property of a brain, or it is something else that must be magical or supernatural. My money is on the former and science is making far more progress on sorting out the details than camp magic seems to be. Can you cite any formal studies of consciousness that advance the idea that it is not an emergent property of a brain, and who support that with empirical evidence and analysis (ie. proper science)?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Do you understand those on the other side?

Post #135

Post by Inquirer »

DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2022 12:28 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #133]
If you mean a machine can do more things than any of the individual parts can do, then I agree. But if you mean the machine has capabilities are not attributable to the parts that comprise it I must disagree.
I'm not arguing that the "machine" (eg. a human) has capabilities that are "not attributable to the parts", but that the parts working as an integrated system produces capabilities that are beyond those of the parts. Two very different things. A brain is clearly made of physical molecules that form structures, carry electrical signals, etc., and in a living human it creates perception,consciousness, thoughts, emotions, etc. which no individual part can do by itself. These are capabilities far beyond those of the parts. When a human dies all of these "extra" functions and capabilities go away and the pile of molecules that are left behave as a deterministic system as the corpse decays if left alone.

Either consciousness is an emergent property of a brain, or it is something else that must be magical or supernatural. My money is on the former and science is making far more progress on sorting out the details than camp magic seems to be. Can you cite any formal studies of consciousness that advance the idea that it is not an emergent property of a brain, and who support that with empirical evidence and analysis (ie. proper science)?
We need to focus in on your informal phrase "capabilities that are beyond those of the parts" - what exactly do you mean by that? do you have an example from biology?

Does a radio have capabilities beyond that of a transistor or capacitor? Yes of course that's true.

Does a radio have capabilities that are not wholly attributable to the parts that comprise it?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Do you understand those on the other side?

Post #136

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Inquirer in post #135]
We need to focus in on your informal phrase "capabilities that are beyond those of the parts" - what exactly do you mean by that? do you have an example from biology?
Yes ... consciousness is a perfect example. This is why I used it to compare the capabilities and functions of a living person vs. those of a dead person. The living person has far more capabilities than the dead person beyond just mechanical movement of limbs, breathing, sight, etc. Consciousness, thoughts, emotions, etc. are examples.
Does a radio have capabilities that are not wholly attributable to the parts that comprise it?
Of course not ... it is a radio designed and built specifically to receive radio waves and create pressure waves by driving a speaker. A long discussion happened here a couple of years ago regarding mental images and how those arise. I can close my eyes and imagine a bicycle or a pizza very easily, because I've seen both before and can instantly "picture" one. This picture is not any sort of actual tiny picture in my brain that my visual system is looking at, but is a perception created by the workings of the brain.

I can't form a mental image of a cordenblot because I just made that word up and cannot create a mental image from memory like I can for the mental image of a bicycle that I have seen before. But however the perception of the mental image happens at the molecular level (and people may already know this who study that sort of thing), there's no reason to believe that anything is involved beyond the interactions of neurons, memory elements, electrical signalling, etc. These create the perception of a mental image that itself is not any kind of physical picture that exists in the brain as our eyes would see it externally. A thought is another example of something that is not a physical thing, but no reason to believe it isn't created by the interactions of physical things in the brain, like consciousness.

Conscious awareness in general can be the result of similar complex processes involving the whole brain, or large portions of it, working together. This is known to occur for many processes as described in the Dehaene book I refernced earlier (chapter 4). Various sections of the brain become active during subconscious awareness (eg. when shown a series of photos rapidly with one containing a family member, and the viewer does not consciously remember seeing that photo after the session), but when something crosses the threshold of full awareness (some 1/3 of a second after a stimulus lasting long enough to cross this threshold) large sections of the brain "light up" with activity in so-called P-waves. This is a physical response by the brain's components that creates the conscious awareness of the stimulus. A lot of work has been done in this area over the last 20 years.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Do you understand those on the other side?

Post #137

Post by Inquirer »

DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:16 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #135]
We need to focus in on your informal phrase "capabilities that are beyond those of the parts" - what exactly do you mean by that? do you have an example from biology?
Yes ... consciousness is a perfect example. This is why I used it to compare the capabilities and functions of a living person vs. those of a dead person. The living person has far more capabilities than the dead person beyond just mechanical movement of limbs, breathing, sight, etc. Consciousness, thoughts, emotions, etc. are examples.
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?
DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:16 pm
Does a radio have capabilities that are not wholly attributable to the parts that comprise it?
Of course not ... it is a radio designed and built specifically to receive radio waves and create pressure waves by driving a speaker. A long discussion happened here a couple of years ago regarding mental images and how those arise. I can close my eyes and imagine a bicycle or a pizza very easily, because I've seen both before and can instantly "picture" one. This picture is not any sort of actual tiny picture in my brain that my visual system is looking at, but is a perception created by the workings of the brain.

I can't form a mental image of a cordenblot because I just made that word up and cannot create a mental image from memory like I can for the mental image of a bicycle that I have seen before. But however the perception of the mental image happens at the molecular level (and people may already know this who study that sort of thing), there's no reason to believe that anything is involved beyond the interactions of neurons, memory elements, electrical signalling, etc. These create the perception of a mental image that itself is not any kind of physical picture that exists in the brain as our eyes would see it externally. A thought is another example of something that is not a physical thing, but no reason to believe it isn't created by the interactions of physical things in the brain, like consciousness.

Conscious awareness in general can be the result of similar complex processes involving the whole brain, or large portions of it, working together. This is known to occur for many processes as described in the Dehaene book I refernced earlier (chapter 4). Various sections of the brain become active during subconscious awareness (eg. when shown a series of photos rapidly with one containing a family member, and the viewer does not consciously remember seeing that photo after the session), but when something crosses the threshold of full awareness (some 1/3 of a second after a stimulus lasting long enough to cross this threshold) large sections of the brain "light up" with activity in so-called P-waves. This is a physical response by the brain's components that creates the conscious awareness of the stimulus. A lot of work has been done in this area over the last 20 years.
But as I explained already free will means completely non-deterministic, yet the parts that comprise us - atoms - are completely deterministic (else they wouldn't reliably do what they do). 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.

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.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Do you understand those on the other side?

Post #138

Post by William »

Whether the communication is chemical or sound or some other thing, what is being communicated is only useful if its message is received and understood.
[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #131]
And so I propose it's less about understanding a message, and more about otherwise mundane chemical processes.
In that, are you proposing that intelligence [understanding a message] is more about the chemical process than any intelligent understanding one might have about the process?

Are you aware that the brain interprets the information gained through the bodies nervous system and that the interpretation itself does not describe the fundamental nature of the reality being experience in this manner?

This is to say, that what the brain conveys to conscious intelligence through the chemical processes being employed is not an accurate account of fundamental realty.

This being the case, is it not a step backwards to credit more to the mundane chemical processes than to the intelligence able to understand the message?

And if the message being understood is that "the brain interprets the information gained through the bodies nervous system and that the interpretation itself does not describe the fundamental nature of the reality being experience in this manner" - while less mundane, more the step in the better [intelligent] direction?

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Do you understand those on the other side?

Post #139

Post by JoeyKnothead »

William wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2022 3:46 pm
Whether the communication is chemical or sound or some other thing, what is being communicated is only useful if its message is received and understood.
JK wrote:And so I propose it's less about understanding a message, and more about otherwise mundane chemical processes.
In that, are you proposing that intelligence [understanding a message] is more about the chemical process than any intelligent understanding one might have about the process?
I just see flowers twisting towards the sunlight, no intelligence involved.
Are you aware that the brain interprets the information gained through the bodies nervous system and that the interpretation itself does not describe the fundamental nature of the reality being experience in this manner?
Flowers don't have brains.

In humans, we do see chemical processes involved in our ability to interpret our surroundings.

This is to say, that what the brain conveys to conscious intelligence through the chemical processes being employed is not an accurate account of fundamental realty.
I never liked the term "fundamental reality. I see reality as a binary state - is or ain't.
This being the case, is it not a step backwards to credit more to the mundane chemical processes than to the intelligence able to understand the message?
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.
And if the message being understood is that "the brain interprets the information gained through the bodies nervous system and that the interpretation itself does not describe the fundamental nature of the reality being experience in this manner" - while less mundane, more the step in the better [intelligent] direction?
Again, flowers don't have brains. They've just evolved various means of acquiring energy.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Do you understand those on the other side?

Post #140

Post by William »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #139]
Flowers don't have brains.
Yet they display intelligence through behavior.

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.
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.
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.

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.

Post Reply