Friday, May 12, 2006
Sign Systems as Subsystems of the Mind
Albert Voie has a paper out entitled Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent. In it, he defends the idea that symbolic systems are products of mind, not matter.
Basically, he points out that sign systems are generally not constrained physically, but instead are constrained abstractly.
Godel showed that the mind was able to go outside of the constraints of logic systems, and establish true statements that were unprovable in any formal system. He uses this as evidence that humans are able to construct things which do not flow from a system's initial conditions (i.e. - we couldn't develop such theorems from a formal rule of logic, because such systems are not complete enough to evaluate them). He then points out "The factor of human creativity in mathematical theories seems to have been overlooked in the history of science."
So the creative ability to "think outside the box", and produce into a system something which does not follow from the system itself, is a unique power of creative agents. Likewise, the construction of abstract sign systems themselves is a product of such creativity -- the ability to create self-refferant systems requires a creation of a formal set of axioms.
He sums it up like this:
He then goes on to talk about the reliance of biochemical machinery on coded information, and likewise the reliance of coded information on the cellular machinery to process it. He then concludes:
Here is the conclusion of his paper in its entirety:
[NOTE -- it's late -- sorry if the summary is confusing, I'm tired. If the summary doesn't make sense, just go read the original paper.]
Basically, he points out that sign systems are generally not constrained physically, but instead are constrained abstractly.
It seems that it is a general acceptance as emphasized by Hoffmeyer and Emmeche [8], that "No natural law restricts the possibility-space of a written (or spoken) text". Yet, it is under strict control, following abstract rules. Formal systems are indeed abstract, non-physical, and it is really easy to see that they are subsystems of the human mind, and belong to another category of phenomena than subsystems of the laws of nature, such as a rock, or a pond.
Godel showed that the mind was able to go outside of the constraints of logic systems, and establish true statements that were unprovable in any formal system. He uses this as evidence that humans are able to construct things which do not flow from a system's initial conditions (i.e. - we couldn't develop such theorems from a formal rule of logic, because such systems are not complete enough to evaluate them). He then points out "The factor of human creativity in mathematical theories seems to have been overlooked in the history of science."
So the creative ability to "think outside the box", and produce into a system something which does not follow from the system itself, is a unique power of creative agents. Likewise, the construction of abstract sign systems themselves is a product of such creativity -- the ability to create self-refferant systems requires a creation of a formal set of axioms.
He sums it up like this:
Life is fundamentally dependent upon symbolic representation in order to realize biological function. A system based on autocatalysis, like the hypothesized RNA-world, can’t really express biological function since it is a pure dynamical process. Life is autonomous with something we could call "closure of operations" or a cluster of functional parts relating to a whole (see [15] for a wider discussion of these terms). Functional parts are only meaningful under a whole, in other words it is the whole that gives meaning to its parts. Further, in order to define a sign (which can be a symbol, an index, or an icon) a whole cluster of self-referring concepts seems to be presupposed, that is, the definition cannot be given on a priori grounds, without implicitly referring to this cluster of conceptual agents [16]. This recursive dependency really seals off the system from a deterministic bottom up causation. The top down causation constitutes an irreducible structure.
He then goes on to talk about the reliance of biochemical machinery on coded information, and likewise the reliance of coded information on the cellular machinery to process it. He then concludes:
This leaves us with two mutually dependent categories of chemical structures or events (symbols and cell machinery), which does not fit with the axioms of probability that only consider one-way dependency. Thus, the structure of life has probability zero.
Here is the conclusion of his paper in its entirety:
Subsystems of the mind as functional objects or formal systems are unique in respect to other phenomena that follows the laws of nature and are subsystems of the universe. Life express both function and sign systems, which indicates that it is not a subsystem of the universe, since chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals [26]. Quite contrary, the human mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations, the property of creativity with ability to create through choice with intent. This choice doesn’t violate any laws. It merely uses dynamically inert configurable switches to record into physicality the nonphysical choices of mind. It is therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans or symbolic number cruncher referred to by [25]. At least as observers we are left taking life as an axiom as Nils Bohr suggested in a lecture published in Nature [27] “life is consistent with, but undecidable from physics and chemistry”
[NOTE -- it's late -- sorry if the summary is confusing, I'm tired. If the summary doesn't make sense, just go read the original paper.]
Permanent Link posted by crevo @ 10:32 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
You paraphase Voie as
"Godel showed that the mind was able to go outside of the constraints of logic systems, and establish true statements that were unprovable in any formal system. He uses this as evidence that humans are able to construct things which do not flow from a system's initial conditions (i.e. - we couldn't develop such theorems from a formal rule of logic, because such systems are not complete enough to evaluate them)."
Voie is misrepresenting Gödel here. The point is that first order loguc isn't sufficient for proofs. In first order logic a statement cannot refer to a statement, including itselg, In second order logic that's possible (and why it's second order). In return second order logic allows for contradictions and is therefore not well-suited for proofs.
Since humans have self-awareness, the human mind is a second order system; but how is that relevant?
And how does it disprove evolution?
Maybe there are more possible evolutionary pathways than any baraminologist can count to, so it is only in the baraminologist mind that evolution appears to be non-true?
"Godel showed that the mind was able to go outside of the constraints of logic systems, and establish true statements that were unprovable in any formal system. He uses this as evidence that humans are able to construct things which do not flow from a system's initial conditions (i.e. - we couldn't develop such theorems from a formal rule of logic, because such systems are not complete enough to evaluate them)."
Voie is misrepresenting Gödel here. The point is that first order loguc isn't sufficient for proofs. In first order logic a statement cannot refer to a statement, including itselg, In second order logic that's possible (and why it's second order). In return second order logic allows for contradictions and is therefore not well-suited for proofs.
Since humans have self-awareness, the human mind is a second order system; but how is that relevant?
And how does it disprove evolution?
Maybe there are more possible evolutionary pathways than any baraminologist can count to, so it is only in the baraminologist mind that evolution appears to be non-true?
"The point is that first order logic isn't sufficient for proofs."
Isn't that the point, though? Materialism requires this to happen a step-at-a-time, not all at once. Materialism is essentially claiming that all phenomena are first-order phenomena, or phenomena reachable from first-order phenomena. The leap from first-order to second order is a difference in _kind_, not just degree.
"And how does it disprove evolution?"
Did I say it did? What do you mean by evolution anyway? The point is that it is an argument against _materialism_. If you equate evolution with materialism, then in that way it does. However, if you are comfortable with a non-material view of origin-of-life, then it does not disprove evolution. But I think you missed the entire point of this blog if you think baraminology is about disproving evolution.
"Maybe there are more possible evolutionary pathways than any baraminologist can count to, so it is only in the baraminologist mind that evolution appears to be non-true?"
Actually, it is the baraminologists who are open to multiple pathways, and the materialists who want to constrain the pathways to random mutation + natural selection. Again, read the blog.
Isn't that the point, though? Materialism requires this to happen a step-at-a-time, not all at once. Materialism is essentially claiming that all phenomena are first-order phenomena, or phenomena reachable from first-order phenomena. The leap from first-order to second order is a difference in _kind_, not just degree.
"And how does it disprove evolution?"
Did I say it did? What do you mean by evolution anyway? The point is that it is an argument against _materialism_. If you equate evolution with materialism, then in that way it does. However, if you are comfortable with a non-material view of origin-of-life, then it does not disprove evolution. But I think you missed the entire point of this blog if you think baraminology is about disproving evolution.
"Maybe there are more possible evolutionary pathways than any baraminologist can count to, so it is only in the baraminologist mind that evolution appears to be non-true?"
Actually, it is the baraminologists who are open to multiple pathways, and the materialists who want to constrain the pathways to random mutation + natural selection. Again, read the blog.
"Materialism is essentially claiming that all phenomena are first-order phenomena, or phenomena reachable from first-order phenomena."
That's only mechanistic materialism. Are galaxies assemblies of stars, or are stars components of galaxies? Both questions might be answered with a "yes" without needing any intelligent (or otherwise) designer.
"The leap from first-order to second order is a difference in _kind_, not just degree."
True; but where does the leap happen? The natural world is as it is, independent of human understanding of it. That the natural world does not comply with a simple first order system does not refute materialism, only that we can expect a simple axiomatic Theory-of-Everything.
"What do you mean by evolution anyway?"
A change in allele frequencies over time in a population.
"The point is that it is an argument against _materialism_. If you equate evolution with materialism, then in that way it does."
Ok, excuse me for my hasty conclusion. But I suppose that you are aware that many creationists claim that if you accept the (Darwinian) theory of evolution, then you are necessarily an ontological materialist, not merely a methodological materialist. The argument isn't new. Thomas Hobbes was accused of atheism, although around 50% of Leviathan deals with religious matters. He was not considered an atheist by declaration (since he didn't declare himself to be an atheist), but by consequence.
However, since the human mind is a second order system, it can be self-inconsistent and still manage to function.
"However, if you are comfortable with a non-material view of origin-of-life, then it does not disprove evolution."
And what would a "non-material view of origin-of-life" look like? If not read out of the Bible, that is?
"But I think you missed the entire point of this blog if you think baraminology is about disproving evolution."
Well, I am no expert on baraminology, though I happen to know a few things about Walter ReMine. Maybe my experiences with ReMine color my apprehension of baraminology in general.
"Actually, it is the baraminologists who are open to multiple pathways, and the materialists who want to constrain the pathways to random mutation + natural selection."
However some pathways are so unspecific that they aren't really pathways but rather an "anything goes". Allowing for intelligent design makes easy explanations, because apparently intelligence can do anything, and it's not necessary to explain how.
"Again, read the blog."
I'm doing that and commenting along the way :-)
That's only mechanistic materialism. Are galaxies assemblies of stars, or are stars components of galaxies? Both questions might be answered with a "yes" without needing any intelligent (or otherwise) designer.
"The leap from first-order to second order is a difference in _kind_, not just degree."
True; but where does the leap happen? The natural world is as it is, independent of human understanding of it. That the natural world does not comply with a simple first order system does not refute materialism, only that we can expect a simple axiomatic Theory-of-Everything.
"What do you mean by evolution anyway?"
A change in allele frequencies over time in a population.
"The point is that it is an argument against _materialism_. If you equate evolution with materialism, then in that way it does."
Ok, excuse me for my hasty conclusion. But I suppose that you are aware that many creationists claim that if you accept the (Darwinian) theory of evolution, then you are necessarily an ontological materialist, not merely a methodological materialist. The argument isn't new. Thomas Hobbes was accused of atheism, although around 50% of Leviathan deals with religious matters. He was not considered an atheist by declaration (since he didn't declare himself to be an atheist), but by consequence.
However, since the human mind is a second order system, it can be self-inconsistent and still manage to function.
"However, if you are comfortable with a non-material view of origin-of-life, then it does not disprove evolution."
And what would a "non-material view of origin-of-life" look like? If not read out of the Bible, that is?
"But I think you missed the entire point of this blog if you think baraminology is about disproving evolution."
Well, I am no expert on baraminology, though I happen to know a few things about Walter ReMine. Maybe my experiences with ReMine color my apprehension of baraminology in general.
"Actually, it is the baraminologists who are open to multiple pathways, and the materialists who want to constrain the pathways to random mutation + natural selection."
However some pathways are so unspecific that they aren't really pathways but rather an "anything goes". Allowing for intelligent design makes easy explanations, because apparently intelligence can do anything, and it's not necessary to explain how.
"Again, read the blog."
I'm doing that and commenting along the way :-)
"That's only mechanistic materialism."
I'm not aware of other kinds. If you can point me to them, I'd be grateful. Most people, however, who try to account for both "mind" as a real entity and call themselves materialists are really pantheists of some flavor, and not really materialists.
As for stars and galaxies, that's not really relevant to the discussion, as that can be accounted for just fine in first-order logic.
"Ok, excuse me for my hasty conclusion. But I suppose that you are aware that many creationists claim that if you accept the (Darwinian) theory of evolution, then you are necessarily an ontological materialist, not merely a methodological materialist."
I wish you had clarified "Darwinian" beforehand. The problem with Darwinian evolution, at least in its most popular conception, is that mind is just a mechanistic entity, and that there is no causal power that could be classified as "agency" -- any idea of will is simply a myth. Darwinian evolution has mind coming as a phenomena of matter. Other forms of evolution (even Davison's, though he probably is a materialist himself) can allow for agency as a distinct causal mode.
What you have to keep in mind is that, in order for mind to not be a mechanistic property of matter, you have to either assert that (a) every particle has a "mind" attribute, or (b) that "mind" has a causal history which includes mind or other non-mechanistic categories of explanation. [a] is Gaeism, not Darwinism. For [b], if mind is only the extension of the causal history of matter, then mind itself is necessarily matter. What is required is a causal history that includes more than just material causation. This can either be (a) an infinite regresses of mind, or (b) an imparting of mind somewhere in the evolutionary process (either at the beginning or later). However, Darwinian evolution represents itself to be an adequate explanation without any infusion from intelligent sources. It claims to be a somewhat complete explanation, but leaves out entirely what is perhaps the most important causal factor in the present day.
"And what would a "non-material view of origin-of-life" look like? If not read out of the Bible, that is?"
There are several. The one I am obviously interested in is the one out of the Bible. But there is also Gaeism, and many other old-Earth or old-Universe theories that have non-material origins of life. In fact, I think even Ken Miller allows for a non-material origin-of-life.
"Well, I am no expert on baraminology, though I happen to know a few things about Walter ReMine. Maybe my experiences with ReMine color my apprehension of baraminology in general."
That's entirely possible. I've never met ReMine. While he coined the term "baraminology" [well, kind of, the history of the term is more complicated than that, but he was the first to present it publicly], current baraminology is based on mostly on Todd Wood and Kurt Wise. Kurt is completely against any creationist bothering to prove evolution wrong. He gets angry when Creationary teachers teach their students flaws and holes in evolutionary theory. He got upset with me simply for wanting to attempt to introduce non-random mutations to public schools! His point, as I understand it, is that the difference between Creation and Evolution is more about the preconceptions that you bring to the facts. If we focus on individual concepts and holes in various arguments, we actually miss the point. And there is some validity in that, though I think that there is no reason not to point out some obvious flaws in specific aspects of evolutionary reasoning, especially when it could help the evolutionists develop their theory better, and perhaps move the theories closer together. That's really what I would like to see. Then it would be _more_ clear how presuppositions affect your worldview.
What current Baraminology is about is coming up with a model of origins based on and consistent with Biblical principles and Biblical history. It's not about proving the other guy wrong, but instead about developing our own model. And, if you reread this post in that light, you'll see that the point was not to say "ha! we're right and you're wrong!" but to instead point to a part of mind inferences which would be useful to people constructing Biblically-based models.
I had never thought of using Godel incompleteness as an indication of mind, but I find the argument very convincing, and am currently trying to think of ways to use that in my personal genome research.
"Allowing for intelligent design makes easy explanations"
Not really. What it does is change the questions. It actually makes questions more difficult, not easier. It also makes it easier for someone to be proven wrong. It is easier to prove wrong the statement "X can't happen" than to prove wrong the statement "X can happen, but we can't observe it presently". You are mistakenly thinking that design goes to something and says "it's designed, let's stop". But in fact, if you know that something is designed, it can lead you to think about it in new ways that weren't available before. And, if the design was mediated, you can also know the causal history, too! For an example of research as a _starting_ rather than an ending point, see Well's work on centrioles or my abstract in the latest BSG proceedings on metaprogramming and genomics (last abstract in the proceedings):
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/008.html
"I'm doing that and commenting along the way :-)"
Awesome! I enjoy having you here!
I'm not aware of other kinds. If you can point me to them, I'd be grateful. Most people, however, who try to account for both "mind" as a real entity and call themselves materialists are really pantheists of some flavor, and not really materialists.
As for stars and galaxies, that's not really relevant to the discussion, as that can be accounted for just fine in first-order logic.
"Ok, excuse me for my hasty conclusion. But I suppose that you are aware that many creationists claim that if you accept the (Darwinian) theory of evolution, then you are necessarily an ontological materialist, not merely a methodological materialist."
I wish you had clarified "Darwinian" beforehand. The problem with Darwinian evolution, at least in its most popular conception, is that mind is just a mechanistic entity, and that there is no causal power that could be classified as "agency" -- any idea of will is simply a myth. Darwinian evolution has mind coming as a phenomena of matter. Other forms of evolution (even Davison's, though he probably is a materialist himself) can allow for agency as a distinct causal mode.
What you have to keep in mind is that, in order for mind to not be a mechanistic property of matter, you have to either assert that (a) every particle has a "mind" attribute, or (b) that "mind" has a causal history which includes mind or other non-mechanistic categories of explanation. [a] is Gaeism, not Darwinism. For [b], if mind is only the extension of the causal history of matter, then mind itself is necessarily matter. What is required is a causal history that includes more than just material causation. This can either be (a) an infinite regresses of mind, or (b) an imparting of mind somewhere in the evolutionary process (either at the beginning or later). However, Darwinian evolution represents itself to be an adequate explanation without any infusion from intelligent sources. It claims to be a somewhat complete explanation, but leaves out entirely what is perhaps the most important causal factor in the present day.
"And what would a "non-material view of origin-of-life" look like? If not read out of the Bible, that is?"
There are several. The one I am obviously interested in is the one out of the Bible. But there is also Gaeism, and many other old-Earth or old-Universe theories that have non-material origins of life. In fact, I think even Ken Miller allows for a non-material origin-of-life.
"Well, I am no expert on baraminology, though I happen to know a few things about Walter ReMine. Maybe my experiences with ReMine color my apprehension of baraminology in general."
That's entirely possible. I've never met ReMine. While he coined the term "baraminology" [well, kind of, the history of the term is more complicated than that, but he was the first to present it publicly], current baraminology is based on mostly on Todd Wood and Kurt Wise. Kurt is completely against any creationist bothering to prove evolution wrong. He gets angry when Creationary teachers teach their students flaws and holes in evolutionary theory. He got upset with me simply for wanting to attempt to introduce non-random mutations to public schools! His point, as I understand it, is that the difference between Creation and Evolution is more about the preconceptions that you bring to the facts. If we focus on individual concepts and holes in various arguments, we actually miss the point. And there is some validity in that, though I think that there is no reason not to point out some obvious flaws in specific aspects of evolutionary reasoning, especially when it could help the evolutionists develop their theory better, and perhaps move the theories closer together. That's really what I would like to see. Then it would be _more_ clear how presuppositions affect your worldview.
What current Baraminology is about is coming up with a model of origins based on and consistent with Biblical principles and Biblical history. It's not about proving the other guy wrong, but instead about developing our own model. And, if you reread this post in that light, you'll see that the point was not to say "ha! we're right and you're wrong!" but to instead point to a part of mind inferences which would be useful to people constructing Biblically-based models.
I had never thought of using Godel incompleteness as an indication of mind, but I find the argument very convincing, and am currently trying to think of ways to use that in my personal genome research.
"Allowing for intelligent design makes easy explanations"
Not really. What it does is change the questions. It actually makes questions more difficult, not easier. It also makes it easier for someone to be proven wrong. It is easier to prove wrong the statement "X can't happen" than to prove wrong the statement "X can happen, but we can't observe it presently". You are mistakenly thinking that design goes to something and says "it's designed, let's stop". But in fact, if you know that something is designed, it can lead you to think about it in new ways that weren't available before. And, if the design was mediated, you can also know the causal history, too! For an example of research as a _starting_ rather than an ending point, see Well's work on centrioles or my abstract in the latest BSG proceedings on metaprogramming and genomics (last abstract in the proceedings):
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/008.html
"I'm doing that and commenting along the way :-)"
Awesome! I enjoy having you here!
"I'm not aware of other kinds. If you can point me to them, I'd be grateful. Most people, however, who try to account for both "mind" as a real entity and call themselves materialists are really pantheists of some flavor, and not really materialists."
Who are "really materialists"? J.B.S. Haldane was an evolutionist, a Marxist, and he dismissed the idea of reducing human thoughts to neurons! Why are particularly engineers (including the software variety) proponents of Intelligent Design? Possibly because of the way they work; that is, to understand Intelligent Design we need to consider sociology, in particular division of labor. This is a Marxist materialist way of thinking. It's not the human mind the controls how we work; it's how we work that controls our minds!
"As for stars and galaxies, that's not really relevant to the discussion, as that can be accounted for just fine in first-order logic."
Well, my point was, whether we start out with structures and move from them to the details, or the other way around. What yopu choose as explanation is a different question - my point was the direction of the mind, and whether it reflects the direction of the natural world. Does this make it clearer?
"The problem with Darwinian evolution, at least in its most popular conception, is that mind is just a mechanistic entity, and that there is no causal power that could be classified as "agency" -- any idea of will is simply a myth. Darwinian evolution has mind coming as a phenomena of matter."
Please allow me to disagree on this one. Charles Darwin himself certainly did not claim "that mind is just a mechanistic entity", and I am pretty certain that this is a minority position. It may be different in the U.S. than in Europe - I don't know about that. Materialist reductionism and genetic reductionism are easy enough to deal with - I wouldn't bother about them.
"What you have to keep in mind is that, in order for mind to not be a mechanistic property of matter, you have to either assert that (a) every particle has a "mind" attribute, or (b) that "mind" has a causal history which includes mind or other non-mechanistic categories of explanation. [a] is Gaeism, not Darwinism. For [b], if mind is only the extension of the causal history of matter, then mind itself is necessarily matter."
Energy is matter - yet energy is different from matter. And nobody knows, what energy is!
The relationship between mind and matter is interesting, but this far, hardly fully understood.
"I've never met ReMine. While he coined the term "baraminology" [well, kind of, the history of the term is more complicated than that, but he was the first to present it publicly], current baraminology is based on mostly on Todd Wood and Kurt Wise. Kurt is completely against any creationist bothering to prove evolution wrong. He gets angry when Creationary teachers teach their students flaws and holes in evolutionary theory."
Thank for this info!
"I've never met ReMine. While he coined the term "baraminology" [well, kind of, the history of the term is more complicated than that, but he was the first to present it publicly], current baraminology is based on mostly on Todd Wood and Kurt Wise. Kurt is completely against any creationist bothering to prove evolution wrong. He gets angry when Creationary teachers teach their students flaws and holes in evolutionary theory."
Ok, I see your point - and have more to say on this ... some other day.
Who are "really materialists"? J.B.S. Haldane was an evolutionist, a Marxist, and he dismissed the idea of reducing human thoughts to neurons! Why are particularly engineers (including the software variety) proponents of Intelligent Design? Possibly because of the way they work; that is, to understand Intelligent Design we need to consider sociology, in particular division of labor. This is a Marxist materialist way of thinking. It's not the human mind the controls how we work; it's how we work that controls our minds!
"As for stars and galaxies, that's not really relevant to the discussion, as that can be accounted for just fine in first-order logic."
Well, my point was, whether we start out with structures and move from them to the details, or the other way around. What yopu choose as explanation is a different question - my point was the direction of the mind, and whether it reflects the direction of the natural world. Does this make it clearer?
"The problem with Darwinian evolution, at least in its most popular conception, is that mind is just a mechanistic entity, and that there is no causal power that could be classified as "agency" -- any idea of will is simply a myth. Darwinian evolution has mind coming as a phenomena of matter."
Please allow me to disagree on this one. Charles Darwin himself certainly did not claim "that mind is just a mechanistic entity", and I am pretty certain that this is a minority position. It may be different in the U.S. than in Europe - I don't know about that. Materialist reductionism and genetic reductionism are easy enough to deal with - I wouldn't bother about them.
"What you have to keep in mind is that, in order for mind to not be a mechanistic property of matter, you have to either assert that (a) every particle has a "mind" attribute, or (b) that "mind" has a causal history which includes mind or other non-mechanistic categories of explanation. [a] is Gaeism, not Darwinism. For [b], if mind is only the extension of the causal history of matter, then mind itself is necessarily matter."
Energy is matter - yet energy is different from matter. And nobody knows, what energy is!
The relationship between mind and matter is interesting, but this far, hardly fully understood.
"I've never met ReMine. While he coined the term "baraminology" [well, kind of, the history of the term is more complicated than that, but he was the first to present it publicly], current baraminology is based on mostly on Todd Wood and Kurt Wise. Kurt is completely against any creationist bothering to prove evolution wrong. He gets angry when Creationary teachers teach their students flaws and holes in evolutionary theory."
Thank for this info!
"I've never met ReMine. While he coined the term "baraminology" [well, kind of, the history of the term is more complicated than that, but he was the first to present it publicly], current baraminology is based on mostly on Todd Wood and Kurt Wise. Kurt is completely against any creationist bothering to prove evolution wrong. He gets angry when Creationary teachers teach their students flaws and holes in evolutionary theory."
Ok, I see your point - and have more to say on this ... some other day.
Freez --
First of all, I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to get to know the ideas of the other side. That's really a rarity for people on all sides of this issue.
"Why are particularly engineers (including the software variety) proponents of Intelligent Design? Possibly because of the way they work;"
I wouldn't doubt this in the least. I know that it is at least partially true in my case.
"J.B.S. Haldane was an evolutionist, a Marxist, and he dismissed the idea of reducing human thoughts to neurons!"
Yes, but as far as I'm aware he left them unexplained entirely. Historically there have been reductionists who have tried to say there is no separation of mind/brain -- that your mind is just neurons, and the dualists who say that the material and immaterial are completely different, and that we needn't bother understanding the immaterial systematically.
ID takes the radical approach of saying that the immaterial is _both_ separate _and_ studiable. It may not be completely studiable in the same way, but nevertheless, it is a radical attempt at a methodology for studying a whole arena that was previously thought to be inscrutible, but without force-fitting it into a reductionist mold.
"Well, my point was, whether we start out with structures and move from them to the details, or the other way around."
But I think the point Voie was trying to make is that sign systems are not understandable either way. You have to be bootstrapped in to deal with any of it.
"Charles Darwin himself certainly did not claim "that mind is just a mechanistic entity", and I am pretty certain that this is a minority position. It may be different in the U.S. than in Europe - I don't know about that. Materialist reductionism and genetic reductionism are easy enough to deal with - I wouldn't bother about them."
I wouldn't be so sure about this. Almost all of the "big names" certainly are materialist reductionists, at least as far as I am aware. Simon Conway-Morris is the only one I can think of who might not be. But nonetheless, without some theory of ID, evolutionary theory is incomplete if it is not reductionistic.
This kind of thinking is becoming all-too-common in the sciences.
Honestly, as far as ID'ers go, it is really the reductionism that they are really, really against. See for instance, Phillip Johnson's "Reason in the Balance". I think he makes an excellent case as to what the implications are of reductionism and why it is important.
As a Creationist, my personal interests are in investigating the world from a Biblical perspective. In addition, I think it's important to show others how their assumptions play into what they think, and how Creationism makes sense given certain assumptions. Finally, there are certain ideas which I think are totally outrageous given any set of assumptions. There are other motivations and interests tucked in there as well. Part of me is upset because I missed out on becoming a biologist because it was painted as such a boring subject. If instead I would have known that you could study biology as a link into knowing how God designs, I would have jumped in it a looooong time ago. I hope to inspire other Christians to get into biology and explore those things.
Hopefully that was somewhat coherent. I stayed up too late last night playing "Axis and Allies". With an old friend from out-of-town.
Out of curiosity, if you are not a reductionist and not an ID'er, what is your view on the origin of life? Was it a purely chemical process or something else? If it was something else, how is that differentiated from Intelligent Design?
Post a Comment
First of all, I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to get to know the ideas of the other side. That's really a rarity for people on all sides of this issue.
"Why are particularly engineers (including the software variety) proponents of Intelligent Design? Possibly because of the way they work;"
I wouldn't doubt this in the least. I know that it is at least partially true in my case.
"J.B.S. Haldane was an evolutionist, a Marxist, and he dismissed the idea of reducing human thoughts to neurons!"
Yes, but as far as I'm aware he left them unexplained entirely. Historically there have been reductionists who have tried to say there is no separation of mind/brain -- that your mind is just neurons, and the dualists who say that the material and immaterial are completely different, and that we needn't bother understanding the immaterial systematically.
ID takes the radical approach of saying that the immaterial is _both_ separate _and_ studiable. It may not be completely studiable in the same way, but nevertheless, it is a radical attempt at a methodology for studying a whole arena that was previously thought to be inscrutible, but without force-fitting it into a reductionist mold.
"Well, my point was, whether we start out with structures and move from them to the details, or the other way around."
But I think the point Voie was trying to make is that sign systems are not understandable either way. You have to be bootstrapped in to deal with any of it.
"Charles Darwin himself certainly did not claim "that mind is just a mechanistic entity", and I am pretty certain that this is a minority position. It may be different in the U.S. than in Europe - I don't know about that. Materialist reductionism and genetic reductionism are easy enough to deal with - I wouldn't bother about them."
I wouldn't be so sure about this. Almost all of the "big names" certainly are materialist reductionists, at least as far as I am aware. Simon Conway-Morris is the only one I can think of who might not be. But nonetheless, without some theory of ID, evolutionary theory is incomplete if it is not reductionistic.
This kind of thinking is becoming all-too-common in the sciences.
Honestly, as far as ID'ers go, it is really the reductionism that they are really, really against. See for instance, Phillip Johnson's "Reason in the Balance". I think he makes an excellent case as to what the implications are of reductionism and why it is important.
As a Creationist, my personal interests are in investigating the world from a Biblical perspective. In addition, I think it's important to show others how their assumptions play into what they think, and how Creationism makes sense given certain assumptions. Finally, there are certain ideas which I think are totally outrageous given any set of assumptions. There are other motivations and interests tucked in there as well. Part of me is upset because I missed out on becoming a biologist because it was painted as such a boring subject. If instead I would have known that you could study biology as a link into knowing how God designs, I would have jumped in it a looooong time ago. I hope to inspire other Christians to get into biology and explore those things.
Hopefully that was somewhat coherent. I stayed up too late last night playing "Axis and Allies". With an old friend from out-of-town.
Out of curiosity, if you are not a reductionist and not an ID'er, what is your view on the origin of life? Was it a purely chemical process or something else? If it was something else, how is that differentiated from Intelligent Design?
<< Home
