Debate with a scientist

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
John Human
Scholar
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 6 times

Debate with a scientist

Post #1

Post by John Human »

Back in December and January, I had a debate with a scientist at a forum for medieval genealogists, where people routinely ridicule the thought of directly communicating with deceased ancestors. (For an explanation of communicating with ancestors, see https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/535187/com ... -ancestors)

Toward the end of December, a “scientist and engineer� appeared and initiated a debate. For the very first time, somebody actually tried to refute me instead of the usual fare of contempt and insults. This self-identified scientist made it very clear that he dismissed my lengthy stories from ancestors as hallucinations, because of his reductionist materialist presupposition that any such communication at a distance, without some sort of physical connection, was impossible.

“Reductionist materialism� is but one solution to the so-called mind-body problem that exercised natural philosophers (“scientists�) in the 17th and 1th centuries. Are mind and body two separate things? If so, which one is primary? An overview of the mind-body problem can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem

Reductionist materialism means that things like astrology or shamanism or channeling or communicating with ancestors get summarily dismissed as “hallucinations� or “superstition.�

The conclusion of the debate (because the scientist made a point of bowing out without offering any counter-argument) came on Jan. 7. Here is the essential part of what I wrote to the scientist:
You made it clear that you consider mind to be an epiphenomenon of neural activity in the brain, and you go on to say: “To me, the mind is a function of a living brain, meaning that they’re not distinct. In my opinion, there can be no mind without some form of complex structure, like a brain.�

In response to your opinion that there can be no mind without some form of complex structure, the obvious question is, why not? I am reminded of the New York Times declaring that a heavier-than-air flying machine was impossible. Your opinion seems to be unscientific, and serves to block skeptical inquiry. It would also seem to be rigidly atheistic (denying the possibility of a transcendent deity), as opposed to a healthy skepticism when approaching questions that appear to be unknowable. Your position regarding belief in witchcraft, denying that it has anything to do with “truth,� also seems to be arbitrarily rigid and unscientific, opposed to a spirit of skeptical inquiry. However, perhaps you wrote hastily and polemically, and perhaps in general you are able to keep an open mind regarding subjects where you are inclined to strongly doubt claims that violate your pre-existing suppositions about reality.

Please keep in mind that, regarding the mind/body problem, there used to be (and still are) several different approaches, as opposed to the mind-numbing reductionist materialist view that is overwhelmingly prevalent today in science departments. Perhaps Leibniz’s approach was the most esoteric, and he was a renowned scientist and mathematician (as well as a philosopher and diplomat). His view was routinely dismissed but never refuted (as far as I am aware), but Leibniz’s influence simply disappeared from universities after protracted tenure battles in the mid-eighteenth century. However, Leibniz’s view isn’t the only possibility. I am intrigued by the thought that both matter and consciousness are manifestations of something underlying, which is not inconsistent with my own view of reality.

It seems to me that reductionist materialism (your stated belief) fails to explain the all-important phenomenon of human creativity, as measured by our ability to reorganize our environment (as a result of scientific discovery and technological progress) to establish a potential population density orders of magnitude above that of a primitive hunter-gatherer society in the same geographical area. (There is an important corollary here: Once a human society exits the Stone Age and begins using metal as a basic part of the production of food and tools, in the long run we must continue to progress or collapse due to resource depletion, especially regarding the need for progressively more efficient sources of energy. And there is another corollary as well: As a society gets more technologically complex, the minimum area for measuring relative potential population density increases.)

Is this human capability explainable in terms of matter reorganizing itself in ever-more-complex fashion? If you answer “yes� to such a question, the subsidiary question is: how does matter organize itself in ever-more-complex ways (such as the creation of human brains that then come up with the technological breakthroughs and social organization to support ever-higher relative potential population densities)? Does random chance work for you as an answer to this question? If so, isn’t that an arbitrary (and therefore unscientific) theological supposition? Or do you see the inherent logic in positing some form of intelligent design (an argument as old as Plato)? If you accept the principle of intelligent design, it seems to me that, to be consistent, the reductionist materialist view would have to posit an immanent (as opposed to transcendent) intelligence, as with the Spinozistic pantheism that influenced Locke’s followers and arguably influenced Locke himself. But if you go in that direction, where is the “universal mind� that is guiding the formation of human brains capable of creative discovery, and how does it communicate with the matter that comprises such brains? The way I see things, both the “deification of random chance� argument and the supposition of an immanent “divine� creative force have insurmountable problems, leaving some sort of transcendent divinity as the default answer regarding the question of the efficient cause of human creativity, with the final cause being the imperative for humans to participate in the ongoing creation of the universe.
The forum thread where this originally appeared is here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... yqswb4d5WA
"Love is a force in the universe." -- Interstellar

"God don't let me lose my nerve" -- "Put Your Lights On"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCBS5EtszYI

"Who shall save the human race?"
-- "Wild Goose Chase" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L45toPpEv0

"A piece is gonna fall on you..."
-- "All You Zombies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63O_cAclG3A[/i]

John Human
Scholar
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 6 times

alternatives to "natural selection"

Post #31

Post by John Human »

Guy Threepwood wrote:
the post was about the mechanism of change, whether there could be a reductionist/ materialist explanation, that's the trickier scientific question, and certainly has greater implications
Yes indeed, and that gets this digression almost full circle toward the thread's original challenge of reductionist materialism as a faulty solution to the mind-body problem. However, we're not quite there yet, so I'll add a couple of thoughts on evolution and natural selection:

First of all, saying that natural selection "creates" or "does" anything is implying consciousness or will, in effect personifying (and in this case deifying) random chance. I'll suggest that we have to be careful not to transform a metaphor into a causal agent.

Secondly, "natural selection," although it was not widely accepted for the first 60 years after its introduction, was amenable to the philosophical stance of reductionist materialism, whereas the idea of a supernatural creative force intervening in the genome producing evolutionary changes (one of the competing theories; see the wikipedia article "Alternatives to evolution by natural selection") is obviously not amenable to reductionist materialism, nor is it amenable to empirical evidence gathering. Unfortunately, when empiricism becomes elevated from a methodology to a ruling ideology, any discussion of non-material causation of material states or conditions goes out the window.
"Love is a force in the universe." -- Interstellar

"God don't let me lose my nerve" -- "Put Your Lights On"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCBS5EtszYI

"Who shall save the human race?"
-- "Wild Goose Chase" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L45toPpEv0

"A piece is gonna fall on you..."
-- "All You Zombies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63O_cAclG3A[/i]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: alternatives to "natural selection"

Post #32

Post by Divine Insight »

John Human wrote: Unfortunately, when empiricism becomes elevated from a methodology to a ruling ideology, any discussion of non-material causation of material states or conditions goes out the window.
You are passing on false information here.

Empiricism has never been "elevated" from a methodology to a ruling ideology. At least not by the scientific community. Anyone who may have done that has done it independent of the scientific community as a whole.

Also, discussions of non-material causation are more than welcome in science. The only criteria is that compelling evidence needs to be provided for both the need for such an proposal as well as a rational explanation for why it is being postulated.

Thus far no one has been able to meet either of these two criteria.

There simply is no need for such a proposal as natural evolution actually explains nature perfectly well. The only people who seem to think there is a need for it are people who clearly want for there to be some sort of intelligent purposeful designer behind it. But the truth is that there is no need to propose such an entity.

Moreover, even the proposal of such an entity become extremely problematic and self-defeating.

One of the greatest problems with proposing an intentional intervening designer is that this active agent would then need to be responsible for all the errors in nature. Defective babies, people born with terrible diseases, etc, etc, etc.

The minute we propose an intentional designer this raises all manner of questions of why the designer is being so mean to so many people. And to justify this cruelty the person proposing the designing deity then need to proclaim that every baby born with a birth defect is being punished for some terrible behavior in a previous life.

This then becomes an extreme complicated "theory" that simply has no evidence to support it. No evidence whatsoever.

So there's really no need to even consider it from any rational sane perspective.

This is also not commensurable with Abrahamic or Biblical theology because the Bible doesn't claim that humans are previous criminals being sent to earth to be punished. That's just not the Biblical story.

You'd need to move over to a theology that embraces reincarnation to justify this kind of idea. And even then what would that suggest? Shouldn't it suggest that when we see a baby being born with a terrible birth defect we should all accept this as the baby being justly punished for some horrible deeds in a past life?

That can create a situation of extreme prejudice and bigotry, all based on a superstitious belief that has absolutely no credible evidence to back it up.

None whatsoever.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Waterfall
Scholar
Posts: 410
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:08 am
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: alternatives to "natural selection"

Post #33

Post by Waterfall »

[Replying to post 32 by Divine Insight]

So because we can´t produce any evidence for it, then it is not the case? Most of us can´t remember our past life. This could be because we do not have a past life, but it could also be because it would be frustrating to remember it. Maybe there are other reasons? Lets say I was a pirate in a past life and hid a treasure somewhere...should I be aloud to remember it? It would be nice to remember something like that because I could use the money ;-)

I think we should do all that we can for anyone who is suffering.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: alternatives to "natural selection"

Post #34

Post by Clownboat »

Waterfall wrote: [Replying to post 32 by Divine Insight]

So because we can´t produce any evidence for it, then it is not the case? Most of us can´t remember our past life. This could be because we do not have a past life, but it could also be because it would be frustrating to remember it. Maybe there are other reasons? Lets say I was a pirate in a past life and hid a treasure somewhere...should I be aloud to remember it? It would be nice to remember something like that because I could use the money ;-)

I think we should do all that we can for anyone who is suffering.
Please provide evidence or at least observations that we have had past lives.
I would hate to waste time considering a falsehood, so I will await your reply before considering your words here.

In science, we need evidence. This applies no matter if you were a pirate in a past life or not.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

John Human
Scholar
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: alternatives to "natural selection"

Post #35

Post by John Human »

Divine Insight wrote:
John Human wrote: Unfortunately, when empiricism becomes elevated from a methodology to a ruling ideology, any discussion of non-material causation of material states or conditions goes out the window.
You are passing on false information here.
Um... :^o [-X
Empiricism has never been "elevated" from a methodology to a ruling ideology. At least not by the scientific community. Anyone who may have done that has done it independent of the scientific community as a whole.
We clearly have a difference of opinion here. The way I see things, as a culture we have been in effect lobotomized in the name of “science,� as empiricism has transmogrified from a methodology into an epistemological straitjacket. This most definitely happens within the scientific community, with graduate schools being the principal scene of the crime, although junior professors' fears of not gaining tenure play an important role in the culture of reductionist-materialist thought control.
Also, discussions of non-material causation are more than welcome in science. The only criteria is that compelling evidence needs to be provided for both the need for such an proposal as well as a rational explanation for why it is being postulated. There simply is no need for such a proposal as natural evolution actually explains nature perfectly well.
The way I see things, Darwin's "natural selection" puts forth a metaphor as a causal agent, which makes even less sense than Creation Science.

Perhaps you could point to one single example of a species that has been proven to have come into existence through "natural selection"? I'm waiting...
[snip] No evidence whatsoever.
:lalala: :anger: :-# Your strident tone, your evident fervent vehemence and your disinclination to consider whatever might be my point of view, all seem to be decidedly unscientific. Once again, perhaps you could point to one single example of a species that has been proven to have come into existence through "natural selection"?
If you can't do so, then the door seems to be open to entertain other potential answers to the question of how evolution happens.
"Love is a force in the universe." -- Interstellar

"God don't let me lose my nerve" -- "Put Your Lights On"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCBS5EtszYI

"Who shall save the human race?"
-- "Wild Goose Chase" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L45toPpEv0

"A piece is gonna fall on you..."
-- "All You Zombies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63O_cAclG3A[/i]

John Human
Scholar
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 6 times

evidence for past lives: the case of James Leininger

Post #36

Post by John Human »

Clownboat wrote:
Please provide evidence or at least observations that we have had past lives.
Okay, and relating it to the basic topic of this thread, I think that evidence for reincarnation tends to undermine the reductionist materialist paradigm that plagues science.

The case of James Leininger appears to be the best known of a few dozen examples of children whose past-life memories have led to the positive identification of the person being remembered.

The case study, written by Dr. Jim B. Tucker, is here: https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-stu ... 000331.pdf:
James Leininger is the son of Bruce and Andrea Leininger, a Protestant couple in Louisiana in the United States. Beginning at the age of two, he made statements and demonstrated behaviors that suggested that he remembered the life of an American pilot killed during World War II, a young man who has now been identified as one James M. Huston, Jr. The case has garnered significant attention... [snip] This report includes a more thorough review of the documentation of James's statements and behaviors that was made before the pilot Huston was identified, which is critical in assessing the evidence of a past-life connection that the case provides.
By the way, I recently started another thread, demonstrating that for millenia, orthodox Jews (including Jesus Christ himself, if we can take the gospel accounts as evidence) have believed in reincarnation. See viewtopic.php?t=35420&start=10
"Love is a force in the universe." -- Interstellar

"God don't let me lose my nerve" -- "Put Your Lights On"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCBS5EtszYI

"Who shall save the human race?"
-- "Wild Goose Chase" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L45toPpEv0

"A piece is gonna fall on you..."
-- "All You Zombies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63O_cAclG3A[/i]

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: evidence for past lives: the case of James Leininger

Post #37

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 36 by John Human]
The case of James Leininger appears to be the best known of a few dozen examples of children whose past-life memories have led to the positive identification of the person being remembered.

And how would you respond to this critique:

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4612

as far as which version of the story is most believable? Reincarnation is no more likely than things like resurrections, communicating with the dead, bending spoons with one's mind, etc.
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

Guy Threepwood
Sage
Posts: 502
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Erasmus Darwin : no mechanism for evolution

Post #38

Post by Guy Threepwood »

[Replying to post 28 by DrNoGods]
Which of the thousands of such entities humans have concocted was the one who had this lofty position of dominion? Or maybe the particular flavor of "God" that you believe exists also had dominion over all the other thousands of gods as welL? Who decides which god is at the top of the god pecking order?
Well there's a pretty big drop of after #1- but whichever one engineered the designs we see- is who I am referring to.
And new species can arise that have only relatively small physical appearance differences from other similar species, or very large differences. Where do you draw the line on which changes fall into the category of "micro" vs. which are "macro"? Is it physical appearance? Is it a certain level of genetic variation? Does it matter what time frames are involved?
that's a good question, so I will try to elaborate

As I think we agreed, the lines which separate 'species' are draw in a fairly arbitrary manner. The difference here- is that we are not drawing imaginary lines to try to categorize something for our convenience, we are talking about real inherent logical barriers, and trying to identify exactly where they occur- that's a far trickier task

Just as the hierarchy in computer code stops us from writing new software in these text boxes, we know that DNA is also organized in a hierarchical structure-

we know that the variables determining text color are limited to altering text color, as certain control genes, are limited to determining what they control

how much of the appearance of this page is determined by user defined attributes, the forum software, the web browser, the operating system, the dos, the bios, the hardware- on any particular device? You'd have to be well versed in the structure of this hierarchy to determine all this in each case, that doesn't prevent you from recognizing that these hierarchies do exist and have their limitations.
Is it physical appearance?
that's a good question in itself, the original Darwinian tree of life was based on superficial morphology, but as we touched on, DNA has revealed that very different looking animals can have similar DNA, while similar looking ones have very different DNA- so it's more of a rule of thumb than objective measure
Is it a certain level of genetic variation?
more so yes, certainly at levels where we have entirely distinct body plans and gene regulatory networks which are not flexible/adaptable- a little like the lower level software code running DOS etc

Does it matter what time frames are involved?
I'd say yes, one of the tip-offs that classical physics was fundamentally inadequate, was that the universe did not develop by slow steady accumulation of slight random variation- but in distinct, abrupt, explosively creative stages- This speaks to the existence of lots more specific information guiding these events, rather than a handful of simple 'immutable' laws (like random variation + natural selection)
You're talking as if there is some blueprint somewhere that has to exist before any new feature or function can arise via DNA
random variation can be made use of in a design, where specifically supported viable options are already provided- eye color, hair density, hemoglobin levels. - as opposed to creating eyes, hair and hemoglobin proteins

The hemoglobin protein alone involves hundreds of amino acids sequenced as precisely as the code in software- the odds against happening upon sequences like this by chance are hyper-exponential

The mutation may originally arise due to a random, blind luck event, but because it provides a benefit natural selection

of course- if we randomly altered the design plans for a new car, and it accidentally created a significantly superior design, naturally this design will be selected over the others

the monumental scale of that IF- is the problem here

and it's an objective mathematical problem, for cars or organisms- the odds of a deleterious random mutation are always going to vastly outnumber advantageous ones.

Unless again you are talking about throwing random numbers at pre-supported options that work, that's what we see in product design and that's what we can actually observe in nature, very limited adaptive variation.
And what is the source of this creative intelligence in the case of diversification of life on earth? No god beings have ever been observed, or demonstrated to exist, at any time in history. They are only hypothesized to exist.

Same for spontaneous mechanisms like multiverses, transcending physical reality as we know it, so that's a wash- What's not a wash, is their respective ability to solve the mathematical problem before us, the creation of novel information and information systems.

we only have one observed, demonstrated, tested mechanism by which such things can come into existence

John Human
Scholar
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: evidence for past lives: the case of James Leininger

Post #39

Post by John Human »

DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 36 by John Human]
The case of James Leininger appears to be the best known of a few dozen examples of children whose past-life memories have led to the positive identification of the person being remembered.

And how would you respond to this critique:

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4612

as far as which version of the story is most believable?
First of all, I think that the Skeptoid article sheds more heat than light on the subject. The author chooses to ridicule a supposition that three-year-olds are unlikely to know the names of aircraft carriers. Such a stance would seem to indicate that his target audience is "skeptical true believers� (a.k.a. zealous reductionist materialists), so the article should be read as a sort of apologetic designed to keep the “true-believing skeptical� sheep in the fold.

This impression is reinforced by the lengthy digression about Bridey Murphy. The author seems to commit the logical fallacy of thinking that by debunking the Bridey Murphy case, he can rebut by association the James Leininger case. Unfortunately, the author’s summary of the Bridey Murphy case contradicts the Wikipedia account at at least one important point, and I am not inclined to devote much time to sniffing out which one is correct. (As a once-in-a-while Wikipedia editor, I know the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia – it’s far from perfect, but often achieves a serviceable balance between opposing views.) Furthermore, the Bridey Murphy case involved so-called past-life regression therapy, which I am inclined to mistrust, and which is very different from James Leininger’s two-year-old memories.

Finally, and to me most important, although the Skeptoid article gave some passing swipes at the book written by James Leininger’s parents, it made no mention of Dr. Tucker’s sober evaluation of the evidence, an evaluation that gave special attention to what James was recorded to have said BEFORE the identification of his purported past life James Huston. For that reason, together with the problematic nature of the Skeptoid article, I conclude that the Skeptoid article is not useful as a rebuttal of Tucker’s assessment.

What do you think about Dr. Tucker’s presentation of the Leininger case?
"Love is a force in the universe." -- Interstellar

"God don't let me lose my nerve" -- "Put Your Lights On"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCBS5EtszYI

"Who shall save the human race?"
-- "Wild Goose Chase" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L45toPpEv0

"A piece is gonna fall on you..."
-- "All You Zombies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63O_cAclG3A[/i]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: alternatives to "natural selection"

Post #40

Post by Divine Insight »

John Human wrote: The way I see things, Darwin's "natural selection" puts forth a metaphor as a causal agent, which makes even less sense than Creation Science.
With a statement like this you are only demonstrating that you don't understand how natural selection works. It's hardly a "metaphor".

John Human wrote: Your strident tone, your evident fervent vehemence and your disinclination to consider whatever might be my point of view, all seem to be decidedly unscientific. Once again, perhaps you could point to one single example of a species that has been proven to have come into existence through "natural selection"?
If you can't do so, then the door seems to be open to entertain other potential answers to the question of how evolution happens.
The door is wide open John.

All you need to do is provide a rational explanation.

The claim that some invisible God did it when there is absolutely no evidence to back up that claim doesn't cut it.

If fact, I'm pretty sure I already covered that. Complaining about our current knowledge is meaningless when you obviously have nothing to offer to replace it.

Your position is crystal clear.

1. You don't understand the current scientific explanation (your comments have already proven that fact).

2. You apparently become emotionally upset when people point out that you have nothing to offer to replace the current knowledge. This is apparently because you are pushing your emotions onto me in your quote above. There is no "fervent vehemence" in my replies. This is obviously emotions you are pushing onto my replies apparently because you don't like the content.

No one would love for there to be a "Creator God" more than me John. But wanting something to be true is no reason to accept irrational guesses that fly in the face of known facts.

There simply is no reason to even postulate that our world was created by an intelligent designer. Just look around John. The world clearly isn't very intelligently designed. Unless you think it would be intelligent to design horrific diseases, birth defects, and a natural dog-eat-dog world.

What kind of an intelligent designer would pull a stunt like that? :-k

That would need to be a quite malevolent creator to be sure.

You aren't just fighting against known science. But you are also trying to support "theories" that don't even make any sense. Never mind that there isn't any evidence for them too boot.

It makes no sense that a God would design birth defects and horrible diseases. So why even bother trying to pretend that it could make sense?
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply