Debunking Creationism 301 (Advanced) - Lesson 1

[Canute]

Perhaps, but the only reason it is assumed that it has a physical explanation is that the assumption is being made by scientists. They can't study anything non-physical, so their hypotheses must be physical in nature. In addition, science has a great history of explaining that which was previously unexplainable, through physical means. As this is done, the theists and idealists always have to retreat one step further back, to the next unexplained phenomenon. There will always be an out, as I don't see any way we'll ever explain everything.

I'm sorry to go back but I think what you say here is interesting, and may highlight the cause of some of the disagreements.

If you look carefully at how you've argued your case here you've done what it is always very easy to do, created what philosophers call an ignoramibus, a barrier to knowledge.

Everything you say seems correct all the way up to the last half of the last sentence. If you stop reading there, imagine that you never added the last few words, then the natural conclusion to your argument is that science is unable to understand or encompass the truth about reality. That is science, the scientific method, cannot explain reality, there will always be an 'out', something outside its explanation.

However you do not believe this, so automatically you choose to conclude that we cannot explain everything. Unconsciously you have adopted the scientific view, virtually the 'scientism' that Les was talking about earlier. I'm sure that you are trying to be logical and fair, but accidently you have taken sides.

The fact is that many of those who pursue the explanation of reality by non-scientific means claim that there is one and it can be known. You don't have to believe that but you to be strictly fair you do have to acknowledge that it might be true as far as you know, and as far as science will ever know.

 

[loseyourname]

Canute, I didn't conclude anything. I only said that I don't see a way. There may very well be a way that I don't see.

 

[loseyourname]

I guess we'll have to disagree about how accepted it is because I have seen that pre-biotic soup theory promoted as "most likely) since I was a student back in the '70's, and still see/hear it more than any other explanation offered. Only recently have some been suggesting life on Earth might have come from outer space (which, of course, begs the question).

The hypothesis that self-replicating (and expressed) molecules were built from a scaffolding of inorganic crystals that were themselves replicating (but not expressed) is gaining a lot of favor. I imagine it will be in the textbooks pretty soon.

What if sense observation isn't the way one experiences that? This, to me, relates to the original reason I questioned you in this thread, which was your statement about the value of inner experience. There have been people who've gotten quite accomplished inwardly, spent their entire lives practicing in fact. But the average science devotee posting at this site has never studied that rich history, and yet speak confidently when they say "no one has ever experienced . . . "

Look, I don't really know where to go when you start talking about extra-sensory perception. There seem to have been fairly well-documented instances of clairvoyance, but I don't really see any reason to view this as extra-sensory, if indeed the claims are verified. There may simply exist more senses than we were previously aware of.

Still, I'm not too impressed by people who meditate or introspect to come up with answers. The human mind can convince itself of just about anything, and this has been shown time and again. The power of autosuggestion, especially when in a meditative state, should not be underestimated. This is why I ask that anything claimed as truth be verified empirically or rationally- that is, though the known senses of many people or by some means of logical deduction. I'm not saying there exists no other way to verify anything; I just don't know of any other way, and until one is proven to me to be effective, I will remain skeptical.

Spiritualism might be wrong, but spiritualism (and I'd include religion) might have nothing to do with an experience of the non-physical.

I was under the impression that the definition of spirit is a non-physical locus of consciousness. Unless you are implying that the non-physical is not conscious. Even so, I don't know that all of the nature spirits postulated by animism were thought to be conscious either, so even that may not exclude spiritualism.

Gotta go, it's racquetball time! I'll work on that thread over the next few days.

Have fun. I'm struggling with a throat problem, so I won't be going anywhere.

 

[Canute]

Quote:
Originally Posted by loseyourname
Canute, I didn't conclude anything. I only said that I don't see a way. There may very well be a way that I don't see.

To be fair you said "Science cannot give all the answers, and neither can any other discipline." This is a view built on some implicit assumptions.

It's very hard to get across this gap between the 'third-person' approach of science to knowledge and the first-person approach of meditative practices. A little while ago I was just as sceptical as you and couldn't see how gazing at ones navel could help one understand cosmogeny.

This is actually one of my main interests, how the importance of self-knowledge can be explained to those who don't meditate (or contemplate seriously). I've concluded that it's probably impossible. Certainly nothing can be proved, although a mathematician called George Spencer-Brown came very close with his 'Laws of Form' in 1969. (More if you're interested).

Still, I'm not too impressed by people who meditate or introspect to come up with answers. The human mind can convince itself of just about anything, and this has been shown time and again. The power of autosuggestion, especially when in a meditative state, should not be underestimated. This is why I ask that anything claimed as truth be verified empirically or rationally- that is, though the known senses of many people or by some means of logical deduction.

I have no way of convincing you that you're wrong about this, but I would bet my life that you are. So would you if practiced with any success. Consider this. If, as so many people assert, the universe is rooted in Being, not in matter, then meditation is the only possible way of finding out.

I'm not saying there exists no other way to verify anything; I just don't know of any other way, and until one is proven to me to be effective, I will remain skeptical.

The problem is that there is no proof. If Buddhism (for instance) is true then of course no evidence will contradict it. Therefore although it is to some extent testable (and is falsifiable in theory) it is unprovable intrasubjectively, it has to be tested by you and nobody else. As you have no faith in this approach you may never do this, in which case you'll never be able to know either way. I think you're right to be sceptical, but wrong to let that stop you exploring the logic of the claims of Taoism, Buddhism etc. even if you do not meditate.

If it's any reassurance I came to believe Buddhists were right by reasoning and deduction, not meditation, and before I even knew what Buddhism was. I didn't have all the details of course but Buddhist cosmogeny is not illogical or mystical, just tricky to understand.

This is an essay you might like, which discusses the link between mathematics, consiousness and the true nature of reality. I'd be interested to know what you think about it. I only came across the author and Spencer-Brown recently.

http://www.angelfire.com/super/magicrobin/lof.htm

 

[loseyourname]

Well, to be fair, what I meant by that is that questions pertaining to purpose can't ever be answered. For instance, we'll never know exactly why there is existence. It may just be that the question is misformulated - in that there may very well not be a reason - but even in that case, I don't see how we could know.

 

[Canute]

Loseyourname

Sorry - I was doing a big edit when you posted and added a lot.

 

[loseyourname]

It's very hard to get across this gap between the 'third-person' approach of science to knowledge and the first-person approach of meditative practices. A little while ago I was just as sceptical as you and couldn't see how gazing at ones navel could help one understand cosmogeny.

It's not that I don't think it can help. I just can't see how you can trust it. I think it is only natural to trust the common perception of many people, rather than simply your own. Intersubjective confirmation (I hesitate to actually refer to it as "objective"), at least prima facie, seems far more reliable than subjective.

This is actually one of my main interests, how the importance of self-knowledge can be explained to those who don't meditate (or contemplate seriously). I've concluded that it's probably impossible. Certainly nothing can be proved, although a mathematician called George Spencer-Brown came very close with his 'Laws of Form' in 1969. (More if you're interested).

Sure, I'm interested. Is this the article at the end of your post?

I have no way of convincing you that you're wrong about this, but I would bet my life that you are. So would you if practiced with any success. Consider this. If, as so many people assert, the universe is rooted in Being, not in matter, then meditation is the only possible way of finding out.

Well, there is nothing I would bet my life on. It's not particularly easy to convince me of anything.

Even if I practiced with great success, again, how do I know that the results I achieve are not simply the result of autosuggestion? I don't know this, of course, but it seems to me that the meditation you speak of is aimed at a certain end, that is, that you already know what it is you are looking for. You expect to find that being, and not matter, is the root of all existence, and so that is what you find.

The problem is that there is no proof. If Buddhism (for instance) is true then of course no evidence will contradict it. Therefore although it is to some extent testable (and is falsifiable in theory) it is unprovable intrasubjectively, it has to be tested by you and nobody else. As you have no faith in this approach you may never do this, in which case you'll never be able to know either way.

Well, if Buddhism is correct, I have the rest of eternity to figure it out, do I not? I imagine I will at some point.

I think you're right to be sceptical, but wrong to let that stop you exploring the logic of the claims of Taoism, Buddhism etc. even if you do not meditate.

Fear not. I have investigated both Taosism and Buddhism. Not in great depth, granted, but there are a lot of other things to study. I'll get there.

If it's any reassurance I came to believe Buddhists were right by reasoning and deduction, not meditation, and before I even knew what Buddhism was. I didn't have all the details of course but Buddhist cosmogeny is not illogical or mystical, just tricky to understand.

It's consistent, an advantage it holds over most religious models, but that fact alone means very little. It is rather easy to construct a great deal of consistent models, and obviously they can't all be true.

This is an essay you might like, which discusses the link between mathematics, consiousness and the true nature of reality. I'd be interested to know what you think about it. I only came across the author and Spencer-Brown recently.

http://www.angelfire.com/super/magicrobin/lof.htm

I'll check it out. Thanks.

 

[loseyourname]

All right. I read it. That's some pretty heavy stuff. Unfortunately, I couldn't see the two axioms developed nor could I see any of the ensuing equations.

I have to ask why this is relevant to what we are discussing here. All this says is that once self-reference is possible, the linear course of cause and effect is altered into a course involving feedback. Given that consciousness does not seem to exist in all but the very highest mammals and birds, it must have been a trait that arose very late in the evolutionary history of this planet. The feedback provided would not have been significant until maybe the past 60 millions years or so (I'm guessing once the dinosaurs were gone that mammals could then have evolved consciousness).

Another point is that the vasy majority of reality seems to remain unaffected by consciousness, and indeed exists outside of consciousness, that is, no conscious being is aware of its existence. This extends even into most of our daily lives, in that, unless we are directly interacting with something, it maintains its linear causality. It is also worth pointing out, though I am certain you already know, that consciousness as a causal phenomenon is far from proven.

 

[Canute]

It's not that I don't think it can help. I just can't see how you can trust it. I think it is only natural to trust the common perception of many people, rather than simply your own. Intersubjective confirmation (I hesitate to actually refer to it as "objective"), at least prima facie, seems far more reliable than subjective.

The common view of philosophers is that intersubjective knowledge is inevitably unreliable. (Of course in reality there's no such thing as 'intersubjective knowledge').

Even if I practiced with great success, again, how do I know that the results I achieve are not simply the result of autosuggestion?

The same way everyone else does. It's not a problem when it comes to it.

I don't know this, of course, but it seems to me that the meditation you speak of is aimed at a certain end, that is, that you already know what it is you are looking for. You expect to find that being, and not matter, is the root of all existence, and so that is what you find.

It doesn't make any difference what you think or what you're looking for, you end up in same place, something for which there is clear evidence.

Well, if Buddhism is correct, I have the rest of eternity to figure it out, do I not? I imagine I will at some point.

Not necessarily.

It's consistent, an advantage it holds over most religious models, but that fact alone means very little. It is rather easy to construct a great deal of consistent models, and obviously they can't all be true.

It's not as easy as you think to create a logically consistent model of reality. In fact the non-dual one is the only one I know, and I've looked around. All the rest fall foul of paradoxes and contradictions, Goedel and Zeno, infinite regressions and so on. I'd be gobsmacked if you managed to construct one.

BTW I'm not trying to convert you, just suggesting that it's worth looking into.

There's more on GSB here if you're interested (and other stuff around)

http://www.lawsofform.org/aum/prolog.html

Given that consciousness does not seem to exist in all but the very highest mammals and birds, it must have been a trait that arose very late in the evolutionary history of this planet.

Where do you get your information? I've never heard of any evidence for this view.

Another point is that the vasy majority of reality seems to remain unaffected by consciousness, and indeed exists outside of consciousness, that is, no conscious being is aware of its existence.

What makes you say that?

This extends even into most of our daily lives, in that, unless we are directly interacting with something, it maintains its linear causality. It is also worth pointing out, though I am certain you already know, that consciousness as a causal phenomenon is far from proven.

I suspect that it's unprovable. In fact I'm sure it is. However if consciousness is non-causal, if being conscious does not affect our behaviour, then I'm very good at telling the future. I can predict all sorts of things that eventually I'm going to be caused to do.

In fact given the current state of the universe of n-billion neurons in my brain I can predict that a cup of tea is about to made by me. I wonder if I'll put sugar in.

 

[Canute]

Les - I'd be interested to know what you make of the links I gave whatshisname. They take a bit of commitment but I think you'll find them interesting. (If not don't bother).

Here they are again.

http://www.angelfire.com/super/magicrobin/lof.htm
http://www.lawsofform.org/aum/prolog.html

 

[loseyourname]

The common view of philosophers is that intersubjective knowledge is inevitably unreliable. (Of course in reality there's no such thing as 'intersubjective knowledge').

I wouldn't be so quickly to come to that conclusion. Let us not forget that the vast majority of philosophers have been wrong, in fact, the vast majority must be wrong, as so many hold disparate views that cannot all be right. In contrast, science seems to have gotten things pretty damn close, if not necessarily perfectly right. Newton's laws of thermodynamics and motion still hold today, and even his law of gravity holds up for systems not of excessive mass and not approaching the speed of light. This sort of knowledge by measurement and observation, independently confirmed, has always proven to be more reliable than knowledge attained solely through introspection. Again, this excludes self-knowledge. I am more certain than I am of anything that I believe my name is Adam, and no measurement can demonstrate this.

The same way everyone else does. It's not a problem when it comes to it.

That's pretty vague, Canute. How is it that you and others ensure you are not succumbing to autosuggestion?

It doesn't make any difference what you think or what you're looking for, you end up in same place, something for which there is clear evidence.

Who is you? I would be very surprised to find that every person who has ever meditated or introspected about the nature of reality had come to the same conclusion. If that is the case, why so much debate?

It's not as easy as you think to create a logically consistent model of reality. In fact the non-dual one is the only one I know, and I've looked around. All the rest fall foul of paradoxes and contradictions, Goedel and Zeno, infinite regressions and so on. I'd be gobsmacked if you managed to construct one.

All I'm saying is that it's possible to construct consistent models, even working models, of anything that are still wrong. Look no further than Ptolemy, whose equations for retrograde motion still predict perfectly the positions of heavenly bodies. A model that explains everything, I imagine, would be a little more difficult.

BTW I'm not trying to convert you, just suggesting that it's worth looking into.

Certainly. Everything is worth looking into.

Where do you get your information? I've never heard of any evidence for this view.

You've never heard evidence that only higher mammals and birds are conscious? The information comes largely through intelligence tests and behavioral studies. The test everyone here seems to be enamored with is the reflection-recognition test, but the ones I'm thinking of are problem solving tests. A group of animals, all of the same species, are given a problem to solve, such as a piece of food they must obtain somehow through clever means. One piece of information you get is the problem-solving ability of the animal - if he succeeds, then he is probably more intelligent (it could just be luck, but this is why the tests are performed many times) than the animal that couldn't. The second piece of information pertain to the actual approach. If every animal of a given species approaches the problem in exactly the same way, every time that and other tests are administered, then the conclusion is drawn that these are likely not thinking (or conscious) beings. If, however, one animal of a given species takes a different approach from another animal of the same species, then the conclusion is drawn that those animals are thinking, and hence likely possesses some rudimentary form of consciousness at least (how advanced it is remains up for debate).

I'm sorry that I can't provide you with any links to information about these studies. I've only read about them in journals and textbooks, but if you want a great, detailed introduction to the biology of animal behavior, you might want to pick up the book Sociobiology by Edward O. Wilson.

What makes you say that?

Simple. Take that tea you made, for instance. Before you went into the kitchen and opened the cupboard to get it out, it was still there, going about its daily life without you observing it. In fact, had there been an earthquake, it might have fallen out of the cabinet and spilled onto the floor, in a completely predictable manner following a linear causal relationship according to the laws of physics. Heck, take most archaean lifeforms. They are single-celled organism that live in extreme environments not habitable by any other form of life, such as high-salinity evaporation ponds or pressurized water that is well over 100 degrees celsius beneath geysers and hot springs and such. The vast majority of these creatures are never observed by anything, and they themselves are certainly not conscious. Or heck, if you want a more extreme example still, take the surface of the planet Venus. We've never been able to get a probe there; nonetheless, whatever is happening continues to happen without any conscious observer being aware of it.

I suspect that it's unprovable. In fact I'm sure it is. However if consciousness is non-causal, if being conscious does not affect our behaviour, then I'm very good at telling the future. I can predict all sorts of things that eventually I'm going to be caused to do.

It's provable in theory, but the information needed to do so is daunting, and probably excluded by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Still, I'm never going to argue that consciousness is non-causal, given the fact, as you point out, that it so very much seems to be. Still, as I've said, I'm rarely too impressed with the way things seem to be.

By the way, I wonder if you are familiar with the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, one of the early pre-Socratics. He seems to be the first person to ever formulate this theory that the mind is the most basic aspect of reality and brought all other distinctions into existence.

Here's a link to the only piece he ever wrote: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/anaxagor.htm

In particular, look at fragments 6 and 7.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I wouldn't be so quickly to come to that conclusion. Let us not forget that the vast majority of philosophers have been wrong, in fact, the vast majority must be wrong, as so many hold disparate views that cannot all be right. In contrast, science seems to have gotten things pretty damn close, if not necessarily perfectly right. Newton's laws of thermodynamics and motion still hold today, and even his law of gravity holds up for systems not of excessive mass and not approaching the speed of light. This sort of knowledge by measurement and observation, independently confirmed, has always proven to be more reliable than knowledge attained solely through introspection. Again, this excludes self-knowledge. I am more certain than I am of anything that I believe my name is Adam, and no measurement can demonstrate this.

Your opinion is disputed by most a great many thinkers; they agree that no scientific (or, granted, philosophic) theory has ever got it right (Popper, for example). In fact, because of that it is a common assumption that all theories today are wrong in one way or another (and really, do you think science is lacking in disparate views?). You cannot boast of science's accuracy by picking and choosing what they accurately represented, and ignoring what they inaccurately represented. The exact same thing can be said about philosophers. Actually, philosophers (Locke, for instance) were the first to recognize the importance of experience and shape the principles of scientific inquiry.

Also, you can only point to the efficacy of science on physical issues.

Who is you? I would be very surprised to find that every person who has ever meditated or introspected about the nature of reality had come to the same conclusion. If that is the case, why so much debate?

More pertinent to any such subjective question you might pose is, "who [or what] am I." Further, just like there are many ways to study reality, effective or not (science, astrology, Tarot cards, goat entrails, etc.) there are also many things people do to which they tack the label "meditation." I wouldn't be too quick to lump it all together.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les - I'd be interested to know what you make of the links I gave whatshisname. They take a bit of commitment but I think you'll find them interesting. (If not don't bother).

Here they are again.

http://www.angelfire.com/super/magicrobin/lof.htm
http://www.lawsofform.org/aum/prolog.html

Interesting. I particularly enjoyed the musical translation concepts.

Personally, I don't think there is much anyone can do to definitively demonstrate there is an inner world to experience or that it has value to the experiencer. To tell you the truth, I admire Loseyourname for being skeptical about proofs of innerness because the very nature of a proof (as he means it) is "outer." That's why I did the thread asking if consciousness studies might not be set up improperly. We are trying to prove the nature of innerness using outer verification standards!

The solution I proposed there was, since we cannot externalize consciousness for empirical study, those of us interested in the nature of consciousness might learn how to directly experience it within ourselves, and then compare notes.

 

[Canute]

Interesting. I particularly enjoyed the musical translation concepts.

Personally, I don't think there is much anyone can do to definitively demonstrate there is an inner world to experience or that it has value to the experiencer. To tell you the truth, I admire Loseyourname for being skeptical about proofs of innerness because the very nature of a proof (as he means it) is "outer." That's why I did the thread asking if consciousness studies might not be set up improperly. We are trying to prove the nature of innerness using outer verification standards!

The solution I proposed there was, since we cannot externalize consciousness for empirical study, those of us interested in the nature of consciousness might learn how to directly experience it within ourselves, and then compare notes.

I agree with your post more than any post other post I've ever seen.

I'm trying to find out more about his musical ideas, but they seem spot on. Music is not about notes it is about the relationships between them. As Rubinstein said playing the notes is easy, it's playing the gaps between them that is the difficult part. Are you a musician? It would be interesting to discuss this in musical terms.

You are right about proofs IMO. Proofs are 'out there' and nothing can be proved. Fortunately this has no bearing on what can be known, which is what I was trying to point out to Loseyourname. The truth lies outside axiomatic systems of proof, proofs by Boolean reasoning. This is an important part of what GBS's mathematics is about.

Your last paragraph seems self-evidently true to me. 'Consciousness Studies', as they are no called in western academic institutions, are ok as long it is acknowledged that they concerned only with the creation of a scientific theory consciousness, and not with gaining any understanding of it.

I'm happy to compare notes as far as I'm able to.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'm trying to find out more about his musical ideas, but they seem spot on. Music is not about notes it is about the relationships between them. As Rubinstein said playing the notes is easy, it's playing the gaps between them that is the difficult part. Are you a musician? It would be interesting to discuss this in musical terms.

Alas, I abandoned my music career at age 11 when I turned in my accordian for baseball. The stuff they had me playing would have turned off any kid (Frank Yankovich polkas ) I am into music listening big time, mostly jazz, and have a half million dollar music system decided upon once I get rich. As an adult I forgave the poor accordian for seeming so cornball after hearing someone play an electric one for both jazz and blues. Wow! I loved it. Of course, it's great in Zydeco too. Fliption is a muscian, by the way.

 

[Canute]

Yeah, I'm going to get of those when I get rich as well.