Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another "New" View of Creation
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 16 of 64 (515622)
07-19-2009 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
07-19-2009 10:41 AM


Re: Is this new?
RAZD writes:
We have one member here who has identified himself as a Spinoza Pantheist, iirc.
Your memory is correct as that person was me. See Message 1 and subsequent posts in that thread for more details.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2009 10:41 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 17 of 64 (515960)
07-22-2009 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Will Seamus Ennis
07-16-2009 2:16 PM


Re: re-done, let me know what you think.
Hi Will Seamus Ennis,
Interesting post. Myself, I'm a sucker for philosophy. I think you'll find, though, that a lot of people here do science and tend to ask for empirical evidence to back up claims. You say that your beliefs are meant to be a bridge between creationism and evolution but I think you'll need to be more specific if you want these beliefs to be seen as scientific or provable. Do you, or are you just speculating here? My guess is the latter, since you chose to post this in the Intelligent Design forum.
For example, how do you think that the process of creation is going on all the time -- what is the mechanism? How does it fit in with the world as we experience it? Does it work at a subatomic level? In truth I share many of your views but I doubt I'd try discussing them here because the science isn't there to bridge the gap yet. Even quantum physics can't tell us how tiny particles spinning around -- whose location we can't even pinpoint exactly, and which can be seen as frozen energy (or waves, in the case of electrons) -- turn into that table or that carpet. We know they make up atoms which constitute the table and the carpet, but not how a bunch of atoms with certain numbers of protons clumped together actually become the matter we recognise as a table or a carpet. If we don't know this, I'm not sure how you'd be able to explain how metaphysical creation which manipulates these particles is going on all the time (if indeed that is what you are saying), but you're welcome to try.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-16-2009 2:16 PM Will Seamus Ennis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-22-2009 5:59 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Will Seamus Ennis
Junior Member (Idle past 5358 days)
Posts: 13
From: Huntsville, AL
Joined: 07-08-2009


Message 18 of 64 (516025)
07-22-2009 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Kitsune
07-22-2009 12:26 PM


Re: re-done, let me know what you think.
Thanks, Linda. I'm looking for both the science and the way to see it from a philosophical POV. Some folks will say this is a waste of time, but not me.
So let's see if we can put some ideas together --like atoms, cells, etc.
In order to make up the molecules of a carpet fiber, certain atoms become linked either naturally or forced by a mfg process. Certain atoms don't. This natural affinity or repulsion is part of its signature, and is true of that type of atom no matter where in the Universe it's from. This pattern of combination is repeatable under the same conditions now or in a hundred million years.
I see this as the basic intelligence visible within that atomic structure. The Creative Process then continues based on the pattern already established.
New conditions will ...possibly... create new forms. Introducing a new pattern, (a new set of "ideas") gives a new response. Evolution is such a response, where the intelligence already existing within a bacteria, say, will create a new response based on the new conditions.
This is what I am saying, that the intelligence is inherent within the atom, cell, life form, in order for it to continue existing in the new conditions. The potential for that "new being" existed within it all along. All it took was a simple shift in conditions, or a simple new "idea" propagated within the petri dish or the colony for the new thing to happen. Isn't this the basis for genetics research? isn't this...dare I say it... Science?
What I see as a philosophy is that we, as humans, can get a new idea and it changes everything. So, again, at our supposedly high level of intelligence, we are capable of consciously (or unconsciously) working with the natural intelligence around us, and so, we're part of the continuous process of creation.
Thanks, for prompting the response...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Kitsune, posted 07-22-2009 12:26 PM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Perdition, posted 07-22-2009 6:05 PM Will Seamus Ennis has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 19 of 64 (516027)
07-22-2009 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Will Seamus Ennis
07-22-2009 5:59 PM


Re: re-done, let me know what you think.
In order to make up the molecules of a carpet fiber, certain atoms become linked either naturally or forced by a mfg process. Certain atoms don't. This natural affinity or repulsion is part of its signature, and is true of that type of atom no matter where in the Universe it's from. This pattern of combination is repeatable under the same conditions now or in a hundred million years.
I see this as the basic intelligence visible within that atomic structure.
So, when something reacts as it's physical properties make it react (like an inflated rubber ball bounces when it hits a solid surface due to its elasticity and rebound) that indicates intelligence? The fact that a round peg won't go in a square hole is a sign of intelligence? It's really just a function of reality having a set of laws. You could argue that the cause of those rules is intelligent, but the consequences of those rules are not, by any definition, intelligent themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-22-2009 5:59 PM Will Seamus Ennis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Richard Townsend, posted 07-22-2009 6:17 PM Perdition has not replied
 Message 21 by Richard Townsend, posted 07-22-2009 6:21 PM Perdition has not replied
 Message 22 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-22-2009 9:10 PM Perdition has replied

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 20 of 64 (516030)
07-22-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Perdition
07-22-2009 6:05 PM


Re: re-done, let me know what you think.
I see this as the basic intelligence visible within that atomic structure.
It seems to me that you are using intelligence to mean 'knowing how to behave consistently in a given set of circumstances'. Is that fair?
Do you believe that this is a kind of mental property, or a purely physical one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Perdition, posted 07-22-2009 6:05 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-22-2009 9:21 PM Richard Townsend has not replied

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 21 of 64 (516032)
07-22-2009 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Perdition
07-22-2009 6:05 PM


Re: re-done, let me know what you think.
I see this as the basic intelligence visible within that atomic structure.
It seems to me that you are using intelligence to mean 'knowing how to behave consistently in a given set of circumstances'. Is that fair?
Do you believe that this is a kind of mental property, or a purely physical one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Perdition, posted 07-22-2009 6:05 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Will Seamus Ennis
Junior Member (Idle past 5358 days)
Posts: 13
From: Huntsville, AL
Joined: 07-08-2009


Message 22 of 64 (516039)
07-22-2009 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Perdition
07-22-2009 6:05 PM


Re: re-done, let me know what you think.
so perdition, when, in your POV, does intelligence begin?
Is it when volition takes place? at what point of volition? Does a creature have to have brain? of what size? how do you measure it? How do you define it? Is that your opinion or scientific fact?
There have been experiments where a cell in an embryo was moved from one point in the embryo to another. Because this cell had the "programming" to become a brain cell or a heart cell, the cell moved back to its natural position in the embryo, where it could form the basis of similar cells. Is this intelligence? Is it volition? Did some outside agency move it back?
Please note that this is least as important, as nebulous, and as open to personal opinion as the question of when life begins to the abortion/choice debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Perdition, posted 07-22-2009 6:05 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Perdition, posted 07-23-2009 11:16 AM Will Seamus Ennis has not replied

  
Will Seamus Ennis
Junior Member (Idle past 5358 days)
Posts: 13
From: Huntsville, AL
Joined: 07-08-2009


Message 23 of 64 (516042)
07-22-2009 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Richard Townsend
07-22-2009 6:17 PM


Once again, trying something in place of a worthless subtitle
RIchard, for me, intelligence is defined as "a patterned response to stimuli or conditions." And I mean "patterned response" in the broadest possible terms. So it could and does happen at all levels of existence.
The more complex the "system," the more complex the response, but it's still a patterned response no matter how simple or complex.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Subtitle - Original was part of a long string of "Re: re-done, let me know what you think." New one is "Once again, trying something in place of a worthless subtitle"
Edited by Will Seamus Ennis, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Richard Townsend, posted 07-22-2009 6:17 PM Richard Townsend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Kitsune, posted 07-23-2009 2:37 AM Will Seamus Ennis has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 24 of 64 (516052)
07-23-2009 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Will Seamus Ennis
07-22-2009 9:21 PM


Consciousness?
I wonder if what you're trying to describe could better be defined as consciousness. This is an area which is not well understood scientifically. What exactly is it, and where does it come from?
I'm struggling to see how this is occurring in, say, water freezing into ice or sodium and chlorine combining to make salt. Wouldn't you say those are physical properties of the universe?
Your recent post reminded me of an article I read yesterday:
Half a brain girl recovers vision
Her brain rewired itself in utero so that she could have pefect vision in one eye. She leads a normal life and it was only discovered that half her brain is missing when she had a scan to determine the cause of her seizures (which are now under control).
You can read some similar stories here. Unfortunately these phenomena are labelled in the heading as paranormal, which is probably enough to put off 99% of scientifically-minded people. Magical forces are not invoked, just a discussion of the nature of consciousness. My favourite story is the one about the mathematics university student with an IQ of 126 and virtually no brain; I've read about it in several places as it's something of a famous mystery.
How does the brain "know" how to adapt itself in these ways, even under extreme circumstances? DNA and chemical reactions don't go very far in explaining it.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-22-2009 9:21 PM Will Seamus Ennis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Phage0070, posted 07-23-2009 6:49 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 27 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-23-2009 8:41 AM Kitsune has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 64 (516062)
07-23-2009 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Kitsune
07-23-2009 2:37 AM


Re: Consciousness?
LindaLou writes:
How does the brain "know" how to adapt itself in these ways, even under extreme circumstances? DNA and chemical reactions don't go very far in explaining it.
Why not? Whatever chemical reaction controls the linkup between optic nerves and the brain wouldn't suddenly stop working because it found the "wrong" brain tissue. I would find it more impressive if it could tell the difference and for some reason stopped working.
The size of brains is not a particularly good indicator of intelligence, although there is undoubtedly a point at which size reduction results in the loss of intelligence. For instance, whales have massive brains when compared to humans, yet there is no question that humans are smarter than whales. Of course there is the problem of measuring intelligence in the first place, which an IQ test does not really do very well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Kitsune, posted 07-23-2009 2:37 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Kitsune, posted 07-23-2009 8:33 AM Phage0070 has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 26 of 64 (516071)
07-23-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Phage0070
07-23-2009 6:49 AM


Re: Consciousness?
Hi Phage,
I said:
quote:
How does the brain "know" how to adapt itself in these ways, even under extreme circumstances? DNA and chemical reactions don't go very far in explaining it.
and you said:
quote:
Why not? Whatever chemical reaction controls the linkup between optic nerves and the brain wouldn't suddenly stop working because it found the "wrong" brain tissue. I would find it more impressive if it could tell the difference and for some reason stopped working.
The article says:
quote:
Scans on the girl showed that the retinal nerve fibres carrying visual information from the back of the eye which should have gone to the right hemisphere of the brain diverted to the left.
Our brains all grow in essentially the same way, and the mainstream view is that DNA is responsible for this. So exactly what part of the girl or her brain said "I can't put the information I need on the right hand side, so I'm going to rewire the left"? As opposed to, say, growing the optic nerve in the correct place, resulting in an inability to see objects to one side? The article suggests that "powerful algorithms" could help work this out; and while I remain open-minded, I feel skeptical that equations are going to give us a complete answer (as was similarly promised by the deciphering of the human genome).
quote:
The size of brains is not a particularly good indicator of intelligence, although there is undoubtedly a point at which size reduction results in the loss of intelligence.
So how do you explain the mathematics student with the 126 IQ who is missing most of his brain? Have a read, it's a fascinating case. I don't like IQ tests much myself, but you've got to admit that the bloke is doing all right for himself. He must obviously have good spatial awareness and logical reasoning capacity.
quote:
For instance, whales have massive brains when compared to humans, yet there is no question that humans are smarter than whales.
IMO it depends on how you define "smart." Are whales wrecking their environment or having wars with each other?
You're comparing apples to oranges though. I'm talking about people who are able to function normally even though they are missing substantial portions of their brains (and the implications of this for the nature of consciousness, referring back to what I understand the topic to be), and you mention size comparisons of animals with complete brains.
To rephrase my question: is there some consciousness in the brain, the body, or someplace else that enables the brain to rewire itself and function even when a large amount of it is missing? How does it "know" to do this? It would be interesting to hear Will Seamus' point of view too because I'm not sure if I'm on the right track regarding his ideas here.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Phage0070, posted 07-23-2009 6:49 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Phage0070, posted 07-23-2009 12:37 PM Kitsune has replied

  
Will Seamus Ennis
Junior Member (Idle past 5358 days)
Posts: 13
From: Huntsville, AL
Joined: 07-08-2009


Message 27 of 64 (516072)
07-23-2009 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Kitsune
07-23-2009 2:37 AM


Re: Consciousness?
Linda,
this is interesting stuff.
I believe that the adaptation of cells and connections within the brain is evidence of the inherent intelligence within the cells themselves. There is some sort of trigger that opens cells to make new connections possible and to seek a function for the individual, so that she could survive.
I see it as being inherent in the cells because all of this is occuring without the awareness or volition of the person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Kitsune, posted 07-23-2009 2:37 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Kitsune, posted 07-23-2009 8:49 AM Will Seamus Ennis has replied
 Message 29 by tuffers, posted 07-23-2009 9:24 AM Will Seamus Ennis has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 28 of 64 (516073)
07-23-2009 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Will Seamus Ennis
07-23-2009 8:41 AM


Re: Consciousness?
This makes sense to me in a way -- though of course it's more philosophical than scientific. So what do you believe the source within the cells to be? Or is it just . . . there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-23-2009 8:41 AM Will Seamus Ennis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-23-2009 10:15 AM Kitsune has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 29 of 64 (516077)
07-23-2009 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Will Seamus Ennis
07-23-2009 8:41 AM


INTELLIGENCE?
Hi Will
It seems to me that you are trying to use the one word, "intelligence", to describe and link at least 3 completely different things: the laws of physics, the division of organic cells, and volition.
I wouldn't claim to be an expert on any of those subjects, but I'm pretty sure that atoms, DNA code, and the mind all have very different properties that should not be classified under the same word with just one meaning. You can call certain properties of an atom "intelligence" if you so wish, but don't confuse it with the same meaning of "intelligence" that is given to the mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-23-2009 8:41 AM Will Seamus Ennis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-23-2009 10:35 AM tuffers has replied

  
Will Seamus Ennis
Junior Member (Idle past 5358 days)
Posts: 13
From: Huntsville, AL
Joined: 07-08-2009


Message 30 of 64 (516085)
07-23-2009 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Kitsune
07-23-2009 8:49 AM


Re: Consciousness?
Phage,
I believe that whales have enough intelligence within them, in their brains, and body functions, to BE successful whales. To ask them to have more intelligence, to change their functions or their responses to stimuli, they would no longer be whales, but something else.
There's exactly enough intelligence within a helium atom to BE a helium atom and respond to stimuli or conditions like a helium atom. If it had a different set of responses, it would be something else. Same with trees, humans, stars or water freezing/thawing.
And yes, I do believe that there is a direct connection between intelligence, as I define it, and existence.
Linda
As far as consciousness, that's a whole other nebulous subject that's difficult to define. For me, it's self-awareness on the individual level, Spiritual Awareness on the Infinite level, but here, I wanna concentrate on the observable for our materialist scientist friends.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Kitsune, posted 07-23-2009 8:49 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Kitsune, posted 07-23-2009 12:33 PM Will Seamus Ennis has not replied
 Message 35 by Phage0070, posted 07-23-2009 12:41 PM Will Seamus Ennis has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024