Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:28:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Lawrence Sica <lomifeh@earthlink.net>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020912123152.B69462-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D7FE867.C796F4B3@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > > At a fundamental level, the universe is quantized, > > > > > and this causes certain emergenet behaviours in matter. > > > > > > > > Really? What do you mean, when you say, "the universe is quantized"? > > > > > > E.g. it takes exactly 13.6 electron volts to take an electron > > > from an s orbital to infinity. Not 13.4, not 13.8. > > > > So how does this prove that "order comes from disorder"? > > That wasn't the argument we were having. The argument was that > simple systems may have complex emergent properties. > > http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/sugarscape/ Instead of this "refutation by citing someone who agrees with me", why don't you just give me a thumbnail sketch of how order comes from disorder. And yes, that is exactly the argument we were having. > > > Your _opinion_ on what's rational or not has been noted, but is > > > not really germane. > > > > Okay, I can play this game. *Your* _opinion_ on what's rational has > > been noted as well, but is not really germane. > > The reason your opinion is not germane is because you keep > making irrational conclusions without providing evidence. I've yet to see you demonstrate that any of my conclusions are irrational. You just keep asserting it. > What's your reason for your claim about my opinion? I was employing the same standards you were, which is that you disagree. That is not argument. Moreover, have yet to even attempt to give a justification let alone a description of what is rational. > > > No, you are actually right that we can't count on them in the > > > future. There's evidence that the speed of light was much > > > higher, much earlier in the life of the universe, for example. > > > > You miss the point. Without assuming the uniformity of nature, there > > *could be no* evidence about the speed of light at all. > > We have observed no evidence which contradicts the theory that > nature is uniform. Therefore, the simplest explanation is that > it *is* uniform. Barring contradictory observations, then, we > shall take this as our working hypothesis. You keep begging the question. Observational evidence or lack of it both presuppose inductive reasoning which presupposes the uniformity of nature. Using the same criteria, the hypothesis that nature is *not* uniform is every bit as valid. And in fact, in a random chance universe, is *more* valid. > > > > "Stories" seems to be an apt description. > > > > > > It is. It's why I used it. Don't confuse stories with reality; > > > it's impossible for you to directly observe reality. > > > > Really? How then is the scientific method even possible? > > Why are you implying that direct obervation of reality, rather > than a scientist's individual perceptual model of reality, is > a requirement for the scientific method to work? You have left the realm of science and entered the realm of metaphysics. The scientific method relies on certain metaphysical assumptions, but that doesn't mean we can't directly observe reality. All it means is that that we can't observe the whole of reality with our senses. > By your argument, it's impossible for a color-blind person to > know that a difference between red and green exists at all, > because they are unable to directly observe a difference by > direct observation. If everybody was color-blind in that way, it would certainly be true. But everybody is not color-blind, and the only reason that *anybody* knows the difference is because somebody observed it. > > > We have to control the conditions, because it's not possible > > > to simulate the appropriate conditions. High partial pressures > > > of CO2 and SO2 don't occur naturally on Earth any more. > > > > It's not even possible to KNOW the appropriate conditions! The whole > > exercise is one big begging of the question. > > It's funny that you claim that, but that the conditions were > decided before the experiment was run, rather than the experiment > being run iteratively over all possible conditions to find which > ones worked. 8-). Someone had a predictive theory, and their > predictions from it were not falsified by experiment. I still don't see what you think has been proven other than the production of some amino acids under controlled conditions. Acids are not life. Moreover, it is an absurdity to think that if we are ever able to truly create life in a test-tube, that this means it can just spontaneously generate. We can create lots of things far less complex than life, but we don't see them just spontaneously appearing in nature. > > > Whether you consider amino acids "life" or not is also pretty > > > irrelevant, since you are going to keep moving the finish line, > > > the deeper we get, so as to continue to be "right". 8-). > > > > What makes you think this? > > My observation of your behaviour has made it my working hypothesis. > Feel free to falsify it by providing me with contradictory > observations, in which you don't insist on drawing conclusions > which are not merited by the preceeding statements. Which observations are those? Please provide some specifics. By the way, your inductive argument can't even get off the ground until you justify your belief in the uniformity of nature. 8-) > > > We can demonstrate that complex behaviour emerges from simple > > > rule sets. Conway's game of Life and other cellular automata > > > demonstrate that (e.g. "Sugarscape"). > > > > Conway's game of Life doesn't demonstrate anything close to intelligence. > > It is insufficinetly complex. The example was only intended to > demonstrate that complex behaviour is an emergent property of > simple rule sets governing self-regulating systems, which it does. Who's game of Life? It certainly didn't "self-regulate" itself into existence. > > Once more, if you believe this, you have no reason for believing that > > your belief about the origin of intelligence is true, unless you give > > yourself a priviledged position of being right by definition. > > The priviledge of the idea, if it has any at all, arises from its > simplicity, relative to other, competing, ideas. That's rather arbitrary, not to mention begging the question again. You have not at all shown that your idea is "simple." > > > > Lets start with your own reasoning ability. To review, if you are a > > > > naturalist, all of your brain functions are due merely to physical > > > > laws acting on antecedent brain states. On your view, reason is an > > > > illusion, and you have no way of knowing whether or not your reasoning > > > > is sound, since all of it is due merely to the electro-chemical > > > > reactions taking place in your grey matter. > > > > > > How does it follow that "reason is an illusion"? You've made a > > > leap there which you haven't really justified making... > > > > For the same reason that water doesn't "know" how to flow downstream. > > If everything in your brain is the result of the laws of physics, you > > couldn't *help* but believe what you do. > > This is an insupportable statement. How would my beliefs be > dictated in this case? By the laws of physics. > > All of your reasoning is suspect. Why should *your* beliefs be > > considered "true" while a theists beliefs are considered "false"? > > I will point out once again, that the scientific method doesn't > require belief to function. It's not sorcery. It functions > whether you want it to or not. It depends on what you mean by "function". The scientific method is useless until you believe it. But anyways, exactly how is this relevent with regard to how you know *your* beliefs are true as opposed to false? > It's not a *belief*, it is a *process*. And you can be a theist > or an atheist, and it doesn't matter, it will still function. The theist has a justification for his belief that it will still function, while the atheist does not. > The scientific method is orthogonal to theism: it is totally > unrelated. It's a different axis on the graph. Says you. You haven't shown why you believe that the scientific method will continue to function in the future. You just assume it does with absolutely no justification whatsoever. The Christian has an answer here, while the atheist does not. > > Both are the result of physics, > > Theism isn't a result of physics, unless you are prepared to admit > that God does not exist apart from the universe. The comment was made on the assumption of naturalism. On the assumption of naturalism, both the atheist's view and the theist's view are completely unrelated to anything resembling "sound reason" or "truth", an intolerable conclusion for most people. > > and have nothing to do with what corresponds to any such > > notion as "right reason" or "truth". Everybody just believes what > > they believe. > > Believing that light bulbs don't work won't make them not work. 8-). No, but believing they do is not what makes them work either. > > > Yeah, "right" and "wrong" are subjective; that one of the problems > > > consensus solves for us: it gives us an external ruler. > > > > What do you mean by "problem"? If there is no right and wrong, no > > "problem" can even be defined, let alone solved. > > Here you go with another conclusion out of thin air. Say that there > is no "right" or "wrong". How the heck does it necessarily follow > that you can not define problems? The concept of a "problem" suggests that there is some undesireable situation which exists, meaning you need some objective standards by which you can determine whether or not that undesireable state needs to be corrected. More to the point: The Nazis defined the jews to be a "problem" for which the "solution" was death camps and gas chambers. Objective standards of ethics are required in order to determine whether the jews were in fact a "problem" or if in fact the "problem" lie elsewhere, such as in the desires of those who found the situtation undesireable. > > > If "randomness" was equal to "irrationality", don't you think > > > that we wouldn't have invented a second word, or that at least > > > one would be defined in terms of the other in your dictionary? > > > > Uh, no. I was counting on you to draw the necessary inference. But if > > you must have it spelled out for you, when you apply "randomness" to our > > thinking processes, what results is irrationality. > > Why? Why do you claim this? What evidence do you have to > support this claim? Please present evidence to support this > claim. You really don't see this? Why don't you explain then how introducing randomness into our thinking processes does not result in irrationality? The concept of "rational" implies applying objective standards to our thinking, and has nothing to do with "randomness". > Obviously, the reson I didn't draw this inference is that it > is an improper inference to draw. I'm beginning to think that you don't know *how* to draw an inference. *Why* is it an improper inference to draw? If you think it is improper, please explain briefly why it is improper. > > Sound reasoning involves applying objective standards to our > > thought processes, and has nothing to do with "randomness". > > You can't apply objective standards to your own thought processes; > every paranoid person believe that they are sane, and that people > really are out to get them. You've just reduced yourself to subjectivism. If we can't apply objective standards to our own thinking, all anyone could ever do is call each other heretic and go home. > > > Sure I can. I have schelling points, which I can use to establish > > > communication. > > > > By the way, Terry, what *is* a schelling point anyway? 8-) > > I've already defined it in a previous posting in this thread; > if you are going to argue, at least *read* the responses. Yeesh, what a grouch. > > Communication is not the problem. The ability to reason is > > necessary before any communication is possible. You still > > have not provided any basis for reason. Randomness does > > not get you there. > > AGAIN: Our best theory is that intelligence is an emergent > property of complex self-regulating systems over a certain > threshold density. ROFL!!! You call that a theory? All it amounts to is the assertion that intelligence comes from non-intelligence. That's not a theory, it's a belief. If you have an actual theory to explain *how* intelligence emerges from non-intelligence, you have yet to present it. Calling it an "emergent property" is not science, its a "just so" story. > Would you quit pulling the word "random" out of your butt? > Thanks. You are the one who tried to justify human reason by introducing randomness. If you are dropping that belief, I won't talk about it anymore. > > This sounds suspiciously like an attempt to justify the arbitrariness > > of your assumptions. > > Let me disabuse you of this paranoid theory. It is not that, > it is me impugning your understanding. You may be erudite, at > some level, but do not mistake that for educated in logical > discourse. Well if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black! You haven't done anything to show that my reasoning is fallacious other than lots of assertions and impugning my understanding. Impugning someone's understanding is not a valid argument. Until you can show that my reasoning is fallacious there is no basis for impugning my understanding at all. > > > This is, in the limit, the same argument that is normally > > > put forth in defense of a creator, but it's stated as "Absence of > > > evidence is not evidence of absence". 8-). > > > > Of course, I disagree with that premise as well. 8-) > > Of course you do, but you can't recreate your "evidence" under > laboratory conditions, instead we are expected to believe in it > bcause you tell us to believe in it. St. Thomas Aquinas used > this same (logically invalid) technique; it's called "begging > the question", where you must assume your result in order to > prove it. You are doing the very thing that you accuse me of! You hide behind pseudo-scientific jargon claiming that it is some kind of justification for your beliefs. Give me a break. Oh, and by the way, *all* epistemelogical views are ultimately circular, even yours. The difference between mine and yours are that yours are self-refuting, while mine are self-authenticating. Your naive empiricism undermines itself. You can't even justify your belief in the scientific method. Every attempt you have made has begged the question. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020912123152.B69462-100000>