Mind: emergent property or "Ghost in the machine"?

[peck74]

And how is it a 'god' exactly?

Well it's not a god. I didn't say science actually was a god, it's just elevated to that status.

Science is simply an intellectual tool to increase mankind's knowledge.

Yes, but I think scientific materialism is what many atheists use to rationalize their disbelief in God. It's their "out" so to speak, even though science says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, nor can it. Science takes God's place, because something must fill that void.

 

[Tomk80]

Well it's not a god. I didn't say science actually was a god, it's just elevated to that status.



Yes, but I think scientific materialism is what many atheists use to rationalize their disbelief in God. It's their "out" so to speak, even though science says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, nor can it. Science takes God's place, because something must fill that void.

What do you mean with "science takes God's place"? Is it worshipped like a God? Or those same attributes ascribed to it?

Sure, quite a number of atheists use science to invalidate the belief in God. What they in fact say is that God is not needed as an explanation for the existence of anything, nor do we have any evidence for the existence of a God, so it is a silly thing to believe in. And see no reason why that position would not be valid. What reason is there to believe in something for which there is no evidence?

 

[Tomk80]

Certainly there are a finite number of questions you could ask the machine. As long as you limit the conversation time to a finite number of questions (say, one google questions), the thought experiment still works. It's not practically possible to build a machine like that, but mathematically possible.

Trickster

Forgot to respond to this.

The idea with a Turing test, is for the machine to pass as human. There would be no specific limits as to the questions you can ask, because if that has to be done, this would by definition fail the test. For the questioner, the most logical course of action would, in my mind, be to immediately start asking questions that require a sense of self.

 

[peck74]

Sure, quite a number of atheists use science to invalidate the belief in God. What they in fact say is that God is not needed as an explanation for the existence of anything, nor do we have any evidence for the existence of a God, so it is a silly thing to believe in. And see no reason why that position would not be valid. What reason is there to believe in something for which there is no evidence?

hmm...personally, I think there is good evidence for believing in God. We live in a rational, ordered universe. Did it just arise this way by chance? Some would say so, but without proof of other universes besides this one, combined with spiritual teachings and countless people throughout history testifying to the existence of a spiritual realm, God is a more logical choice IMO. Even if you buy Darwinism hook line and sinker, the best you could ever be sure of at this point in science is theistic evolution, because NS wouldn't exist without natural law, and until we know the source of nature removing God from the equation just sounds like a losing bet to me.

 

[peck74]

hmm...personally, I think there is good evidence for believing in God. We live in a rational, ordered universe. Did it just arise this way by chance? Some would say so, but without proof of other universes besides this one, combined with spiritual teachings and countless people throughout history testifying to the existence of a spiritual realm, God is a more logical choice IMO. Even if you buy Darwinism hook line and sinker, the best you could ever be sure of at this point in science is theistic evolution, because NS wouldn't exist without natural law, and until we know the source of nature removing God from the equation just sounds like a losing bet to me.

Also, science can only tell us about the material world. It is not capable of telling us anything about God, so why expect to find evidence for the supernatural in the natural?

 

[Edx]

Also, science can only tell us about the material world. It is not capable of telling us anything about God, so why expect to find evidence for the supernatural in the natural?

Weird. Werent you arguing for ID in another thread?

 

[Tomk80]

hmm...personally, I think there is good evidence for believing in God. We live in a rational, ordered universe. Did it just arise this way by chance? Some would say so, but without proof of other universes besides this one, combined with spiritual teachings and countless people throughout history testifying to the existence of a spiritual realm, God is a more logical choice IMO.

But your opinion is not evidence.

Even if you buy Darwinism hook line and sinker, the best you could ever be sure of at this point in science is theistic evolution, because NS wouldn't exist without natural law, and until we know the source of nature removing God from the equation just sounds like a losing bet to me.

Which is again not evidence.

Your opinions are fine, as long as you recognize they are opinions. But reasoning the other way, that there is no evidence for God, that we have shown that random processes can give rise to order (chaos theory), and followed by selection can give rise to adaptation (Luria Delbruck experiments and genetic algorithms) is just as valid a conclusion. You want to pretend that your opinions are evidence. They are not.

 

[Tomk80]

Also, science can only tell us about the material world. It is not capable of telling us anything about God, so why expect to find evidence for the supernatural in the natural?

Because, if the supernatural has effect on the natural, this should leave evidence in the natural world.

 

[shernren]

Also, science can only tell us about the material world. It is not capable of telling us anything about God, so why expect to find evidence for the supernatural in the natural?

hmm...personally, I think there is good evidence for believing in God. We live in a rational, ordered universe. Did it just arise this way by chance? Some would say so, but without proof of other universes besides this one, combined with spiritual teachings and countless people throughout history testifying to the existence of a spiritual realm, God is a more logical choice IMO. Even if you buy Darwinism hook line and sinker, the best you could ever be sure of at this point in science is theistic evolution, because NS wouldn't exist without natural law, and until we know the source of nature removing God from the equation just sounds like a losing bet to me.

 

[peck74]

Weird. Werent you arguing for ID in another thread?

I don't argue for ID, only against Darwinism - not the same thing. Neither is provable or disprovable IMO. It’s just a choice in what you want to believe. The problem is with those that insist MET has not only been proven, but is falsifiable. Neither is true currently.

 

[Edx]

I don't argue for ID, only against Darwinism - not the same thing. Neither is provable or disprovable IMO. It’s just a choice in what you want to believe. The problem is with those that insist MET has not only been proven, but is falsifiable. Neither is true currently.

You were arguing for IC on the other thread. Thats ID. Sorry. Which is really bizzare coming from someone that also says we shoudnt expect to find evidence for the supernatural and yet also believes living systems show IC and also thinks that "there is good evidence for believing in God".

Ed

 

[peck74]

hmm...personally, I think there is good evidence for believing in God.

Not direct scientific evidence, as is easily seen by actually reading my post. Logic and reason can be used in place of direct evidence, based on science, and that's when interpretation of evidence comes into play. I don't expect to ever find God in a test tube, and I don't think I should actually have to explain something so obvious.

 

[peck74]

You were arguing for IC on the other thread. Thats ID. Sorry. Which is really bizzare coming from someone that also says we shoudnt expect to find evidence for the supernatural and yet also believes living systems show IC and also thinks that "there is good evidence for believing in God".

Ed

IC poses a huge problem for evolution. Again, please read my posts before commenting. Doesn't mean ID is true, just that Darwinism might not be. Easy to understand no?

 

[Edx]

IC poses a huge problem for evolution. Again, please read my posts before commenting. Doesn't mean ID is true, just that Darwinism might not be. Easy to understand no?

IC is intrinsically linked to ID, and its logically wrong let alone scientifcally wrong. See my post on the other thread.

But if you dont think its necessairily anything to do with ID, what would it suggest if it were as it claims to be? It cant suggest ID, and it cant be evidence of the supernatural like you yourself said. So what do you think IC would mean if correct?

 

[peck74]

But if you dont think its necessairily anything to do with ID, what would it suggest if it were as it claims to be? It cant suggest ID, and it cant be evidence of the supernatural like you yourself said. So what do you think IC would mean if correct?

Hi Edx. I think if IC is correct, it would mean "we don't know". We don't have a problem saying "I don't know" where OOL is concerned. We would have to do that until science does discover how IC systems come about, which it hopefully will. We couldn't teach ID by default though, because we don't have a way to verify it, unless we some up with a scientific way to detect biological design. I'm not aware of how to do that. It would be indirect evidence of God for many though, but not scientific evidence.

 

[Edx]

Hi Edx. I think if IC is correct, it would mean "we don't know". We don't have a problem saying "I don't know" where OOL is concerned. We would have to do that until science does discover how IC systems come about, which it hopefully will.

Then theres no point in calling it IC. "irreducible" is the key word here. If we didnt know how a snowflake came about that doesnt mean we can call it a IC structure, becuase once we know how it forms we can see it isnt an IC structure at all. By the same logic a human itself could be called a IC structure, if we didnt know how humans reproduce and grow. IC is a term coined for the sole purpose of being able to say such and such structure must have been designed.If we must have a name for these structures it should still be able to be called as such even when we find out how they form because a snowflake cant be called a IC structure once we know how its formed.

We couldn't teach ID by default though, because we don't have a way to verify it, unless we some up with a scientific way to detect biological design. I'm not aware of how to do that. .

Theres no way to detect deisgn but the ID community says IC is that evidence, yet it is logically flawed from the get go.

Ed

 

[peck74]

Then theres no point in calling it IC. "irreducible" is the key word here

Call it an anomaly then. Just don't claim it's not a problem, or that it's been solved case-closed.

because a snowflake cant be called a IC structure once we know how its formed.

A snowflake is an example of complexity, not specified complexity.

 

[Skaloop]

A snowflake is an example of complexity, not specified complexity.

What, pray tell, is "specified complexity?" And how does it apply evolution?

 

[Grummpy]

peck74

I don't argue for ID, only against Darwinism - not the same thing. Neither is provable or disprovable IMO.

Nothing in science is "provable", it's all probabilities. The probability that evolution has occured throughout the history of life on Earth is very close to one(close to that of the Earth going around the sun, IE near certainty), it is a fact undeniable by all who know the evidence(deniers are either ignorant of the evidence or deny the evidence due to prejudice). Theories explaining those facts can and do change, but the fact of evolution does not go away. But it is falsifiable given new information.

ID is not science, it is religious opinion trying to find science to support it's preconceived conclusions.

Hi Edx. I think if IC is correct, it would mean "we don't know". We don't have a problem saying "I don't know" where OOL is concerned. We would have to do that until science does discover how IC systems come about, which it hopefully will.

There are no Irreducibly Complex systems, period. I challenge you to name just one.

Grumpy

 

[shernren]

Not direct scientific evidence, as is easily seen by actually reading my post. Logic and reason can be used in place of direct evidence, based on science, and that's when interpretation of evidence comes into play. I don't expect to ever find God in a test tube, and I don't think I should actually have to explain something so obvious.

But that of course means that anyone who can't find God therefore

either does not have your evidence,
is being irrational (does not have your reason),
or illogical (does not have your logic),

so which is it?

"Interpretation of evidence" really is a very messy phrase that needs to be carefully unpacked before it is used. Why would multiple interpretations of evidence exist? When they clash, on what level do they clash? In particular, isn't it possible to have a theistic interpretation of evolutionary evidence?