Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 150 (11890)
06-20-2002 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Philip
06-20-2002 1:48 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
Is there no 'quick & dirty' answer to the topic's central query:
How intelligent must a designer be ?
--Infinitely so I’m afraid, i.e., based on the data Above.

Sorry, I have better things to do than parse thru a suspect mass pasting.
I am asking specific questions. Why are you afraid of answering these specific questions ?
Do you not understand the crap you pasted well enough to form your own words & sentences and explain how Intelligent Design would address them ?
[b] [QUOTE] So far, We've been given no methodology to evaluate an ID's IQ
which may be a good thing since we've been given no evidence to evaluate.
--How can a finite mortal evaluate such exhaustive evidence of an infinite God?
[/b] [/QUOTE]
That is what I would like to know. Science is ill-suited to evaluate the intangible.
How is this alleged exhaustive evidence indicative of an infinite God ? You skipped over that part and just loaded the question to suit your ends.
What exhaustive evidence suggests it was a god ?
What exhaustive evidence suggests it was a Particular god ?
What exhaustive evidence suggests this alleged god was infinite ?
What exhaustive evidence suggests this alleged god even exists ?
What exhaustive evidence suggests a finite entity could not be responsible ?
What exhaustive evidence suggests there are no reasonable natural explanations ?
If cut-n-pastes are all you have to explain this ‘ theory’ then you’ve explained nothing. ( Much like ID itself )
[b] [QUOTE] Perhaps you’d assume INFINITE evidence is no evidence
[/b] [/QUOTE]
I assume nothing. It is YOU who is making assumptions without thinking it necessary to substantiate the reasoning/evidence that supports themor even suggests them.
[b] [QUOTE] since the evidence should be finite by naturalistic rules.
[/b] [/QUOTE]
Which ‘naturalistic rules’ ? Are you being intentionally vague just in case you have to move the goal posts again ?
[b] [QUOTE] Or you just didn’t see any evidence in the Above! I don’t believe you, respectfully.
[/b][/QUOTE]
I asked the members of this MB to consider specific questions. If you are unable to respond, please do not feel obliged to spam the thread with prefabricated hyperbole, like so much buck-shot, in blind hopes of answering ALL perceivable questions.
If you care to parse thru that paste job, and retrieve any responses pertinent to my questions, I would be most appreciative, respectfully.
[b] [QUOTE] Is the Intelligent Design theory found to be stillborn because it cannot answer one if its own assumptions ?
-- Is the ToE found to be stillborn because it cannot answer one if its own assumptions ? I.e., the myriads of gap assumptions described Above?
[/b][/QUOTE]
Such as.?
[b] [QUOTE] Of course there are faith biases involved in both theories.
[/b][/QUOTE]
If it gives you a feeling of false security to portray science in such a manner, by all means, do so. I don’t have ‘faith’ in science any more than I faith that Tuesday will follow Monday, or my keys will hit the ground if I drop them. It is sad that you must ‘pretend’ something in order to accept reality and it certainly undermines your credibility to speak on scientific matters. Scientists do not require ‘faith’ to investigate and understand the universe. Its unnecessary baggage to science, but apparently an intrinsic emotional crutch for some.
[b] [QUOTE] Do IDers attempt to substantiate the one God of the Bible ... only to have their theory suggest an army of dim-designers; each responsible for only one organism ?
--‘Dim-designers’, where does this concept play in?
[/b][/QUOTE]
I asked that the ‘intelligent’ element of ID be quantified.
Let’s discuss the entire range of intelligence from Infinitely intelligent designers, to moderately intelligent designers to flat-lining brain dead designers. Have you ruled out the possibility of ‘Dim-designers’ ? Have you established the requirement of an infinitely intelligent designer ?
Why would you avoid this discussion ?
[b] [QUOTE] Probably for all advocates of the Mega-Toe, if honest.
[/b][/QUOTE]
or perhaps for those who would rather ‘believe’ than to understand ? I see you’ve noticed a need to divert attention from the topic at hand and launch personal attacks. A robust ‘theory’, indeed!
[b] [QUOTE] Why do you look at this like its crazy? Your faith biases are anti-design based on a hyper-naturalistic perspective.
[/b][/QUOTE]
I am faith neutral when it comes to science. My personal ‘beliefs’ are none of your business and purposefully excluded as they are irrelevant to the discussion.
Your baseless assertion that I am ‘anti-design’ will have to remain just that: baseless.
I will apologize, however, if your pet ‘theory’ is unable to answer to its own assumptions. I wasn’t aware ID was THAT fragile.
[b] [QUOTE] Your ingenious anti-design design of words is proof enough that design is both intelligent and real.
[/b][/QUOTE]
How so ? Please elaborate what you mean. How do my words offer ‘proof’ that rocks & snowflakes need to be designed ? But please first tell us you determined something was designed and then further determined it must be ‘intelligently’ designed. I’d like to know how science measures such things, if that’s not too difficult for ID.
[b] [QUOTE] --The question is OEC (god(s) of the gaps) or YEC.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Actually, there is no reason or evidence presented to suggest this is an either-or scenario. The origins of species isn’t a coin toss where there are only two possible options. Objective science must go with the best rational explanation until a better one is presented. If the ToE is falsified, it doesn’t make YECism the correct paradigm by default. YECies will still have to make their case with EVIDENCE. That is, IF they want it to be considered science.
[b] [QUOTE] You inadvertently suggest OEC, to refute the Bible.
[/b][/QUOTE]
No, you inferred that. I suggested no such thing.
I merely asked HOW the intelligent element of ID was measured and determined.
Do you know the difference ?
[b] [QUOTE] But the author, Louw Alberts, (Above), himself, is an OEC. You 2 seem to differ only by degrees; albeit, you appear to design an anti-design theory.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Really ? By simply asking questions of the ID theory, I have constructed a separate, opposing theory ?
Where did you learn science ? Theories are explanations; they are supposed to explain the evidence — to answer the questions. Tell us how ID can assert intelligent design and then ignore the Intelligent aspect ?
[b] [QUOTE] Does the complexity and efficiency of a design suggest how Intelligent the designer must be ?
if yes - how so ? ‘
--Yes, take one of his products, you for example complex, efficient, intelligent.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Whose Product ?
How complex ? Do all organisms share the same level of complexity ?
How efficient ? Do all organisms share the same level of efficiency ?
With all of the differing spectrums of complexities and efficiencies of living things, why can we not assert there are multiple designers of varied intelligence involved ? That is a valid question.
[b] [QUOTE] if no - why not ?
--A ‘hyper-naturalist’ may argue no because high universal quantities of ‘slime’ supposedly produces ‘much higher events’ (if there be such a thing) by random chance, etc.
[/b][/QUOTE]
WOW~!!
You don’t understand the ToE at all, do you ? Or perhaps you choose NOT to understand it. You seem to enjoy attacking the cartoon version too much. Boy, you really kicked the straw out of that straw man! Well done !
Might I remind you that ‘slime’ is also a creation of God ( according to the Bible, He did it ALL ) ? Which of God’s misunderstood creations will you ridicule next ? Women ? The Platypus ? Parasitic worms ? Malaria ?
Who are YOU do denigrate ANY of God’s creations ? Are you THAT consumed with vanity and human arrogance to think ‘slime’ is somehow beneath humanity ?
Sorry, I’m MUCH too humble to share that stance with you.
[b] [QUOTE] ...and since I asked this question from a scientific perspective
( since IDists want ID to be scientific too ) why are we speculating on such intangibles as sin, redemption, ethics & morality ? Has any science made conclusions on these concepts ?
--Because they too are observed in nature, everywhere, as we’d expect
HERE)
[/b][/QUOTE]
Really ? Where * I * would expect it to be..?
Is there sin on Neptune ? [ yeah I thought about itI ain’t goin’ there =0) ]
Can you share with us the sin and redemption of a Fichus tree ? Tell us how field mice resist temptation.
What in the heck are you talking about ?
Sin is a product of culture. It is a sanctionable behavior, subjectively determined by the culture that espouses it.
Do you now claim ALL cultures share the exact same values ? Some ancient cultures practiced human sacrifice. Eskimos used to share their wives with respected visitors as a compliment or a gesture of etiquette. These weren’t sins, according to them.
Would YOU consider that a sin ?
If so, why isn’t there an absolute standard of morality ?
Why is morality so subjective to the culture that practices it ?
[b] [QUOTE] Can Altruism be found scientifically sound according to Nuclear Physics ?
-- Can the ToE be found scientifically sound according to Nuclear Physics?
[/b][/QUOTE]
No, but no scientist ever claimed that ethics & morality was a scientific endeavor, since they are so subjective.
There are no absolutes, no standard of measure.only relative opinions. This is the realm of theology, not empirical science.
[b] [QUOTE] Like the ToE, the ToCCaR (Theory of Christ Crucified and Risen) is not pertinent to Nuclear Physics.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Learn something new every day !
I didn’t realize there was a theory for death & resurrection.
Pray tell, what evidence was discovered that required such a theory for explanations ?
Is there any ? What purpose does such a theory serve ?
What about the concept of faith ? Do you require MORE than simple faith ? Do you have a need to validate your religion, scientifically ? I suppose it could be done, but it doesn’t say much for your faith.
How about those Christians who acknowledge God and God’s Word on faith alone ? Are they misguided ?
[b] [QUOTE] After all, isn’t morality a cultural product and therefore culturally subjective ?
-- After all, isn’t the ToE a cultural product and therefore culturally subjective. All faith biases are culturally subjective.
Philip
[/b] [/QUOTE]
Feel free to call Evolution a faith bias — it seems to give you comfort. For that matter, why don’t you call evolution a Filet Mignon with a seltzer chase ? You see, you don’t change the facts by pretending the facts are different. By ignoring the topic at hand and indulging yourself in this juvenile fantasy, you just make your self appear foolish.
If you really think science is a cultural manifestation, why are there scientists from virtually every other religion and denomination who accept the ToE ?
Where is the universal culture that subjectively propounds evolution ?
You can’t name it.can you ?
Do you care to retract the claim, then ? or will you continue to live in denial ?
Think before you answer.
jeff
------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Philip, posted 06-20-2002 1:48 AM Philip has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 32 of 150 (12188)
06-25-2002 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by John
06-20-2002 10:14 AM


John, I appreciate your replies; this a meager work-up of the psyche/soul that you demand. Jeff, Quetzel, and anyone else may critique this as well.
I. HYPOTHESIS
Humans have a supernatural apperceptive 'heart' and/or 'soul' (...'mind' ... and/or 'strength')
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
A Non-Dogmatic Observed Mental Physiology of Some Human Apperceptive Faculties With:
a) Description
b) Some (proposed) Mental Physiological Organs
c) Synonyms and/or sub-apperceptions
Inferences will be made on the data via these sub-headings, to wit, whether humans empirically have an apperceptive 'heart', 'soul', 'mind', and/or 'strength' ... and, if they appear beyond naturalistic explanation. The term 'you' may appear 'begged' to some but will be used on grounds of parsimony, here.
This is to be a non-dogmatic arbitrary classification of the mental physiology of human apperception.
III. OBSERVED DATA
1) HEART/AFFECTIONS
a) 'Feeling that you feel', 'Desiring to lust', etc.
b) Limbic, thalamic, visceral, hormonal, hypothalamic-pituitary system, reticular activating system (mid-brain).
c) Emotion(s), desire(s), lust, etc.
2) SOUL/PERCEPTIONS/SENSES
a) 'Perceiving that you sense', 'Perceiving that you are known'
b) Postero-lateral cerebrum, frontal cortex(es), Cortical-spinal tracks
c) Psyche, consciousness, sub-conscious, conscious memory, sensation/proprioception, cerebellum,
3) MIND/SPIRIT
a) 'Knowing', 'Knowing that you know', 'Knowing that you know that you perceive that you know', etc.
b) Cortical (frontal lobes), Memory centers (posterior-lateral and/or temporal lobes)
c) Will, cognition, etc.
4) STRENGTH/MOTION
a) 'Acting in your consciousness', 'Running in your dreams', etc.
b) Basal Ganglia, Cerebella, Medulla, Spinal-thalamic tracks,
c) Motivation, power, energy, libido, etc.
IV. TESTING AND RESULTS
The above divisions might just as well be renamed under other schemes, e.g., eliminate number 4 (Strength) and/or 3 (Mind) and include them in 1 (heart/affections) and/or 2 (soul/perceptions), or similar scheme(s). Biblical schemes and naturalistic schemes alike seem to invoke semantically problems. For example, calling the 'apperceptive mind' a 'brain' or 'soul' is both bad science and oversimplified biblical metaphysics.
Yet, these apperceptive phenomena do exist as extremely real, dynamically complex, and interdependent entities. Yet, they certainly are expected to exist to a profound extent in humans, as demonstrated by profoundly abstract verbal and written communications. As such they appear to suggest enormously peculiar systems of harmony, symmetry, and proportion, i.e., parallel universes: Art, music, theater, friendships, ethics, politics, religion, etc. They appear to have no conclusive scientific explanation for their existence whatsoever.
Many apperceptions are indeed enhanced and inhibited, to varying extents, by complex neural-hormonal systems (above). Yet observe:
--They are observed to produce neuro-hormonal effects via metaphysical-physical feedback loops (similar to those described by Descartes). Example: cortical-thalamic tracks/thalamic-hypothalamic and adrenal-pituitary feedback loops during emotional stress and cognition.
--They 'exist' outside the head, i.e., invisibly outside neuro-matter.
--The 'known you' (vs. 'you the knower') is observed to exist in a parallel universe. For example, 'you' are observed via telecommunication, email, etc. while 'imprisoned' somewhat by 'your body'.
--'You the knower' also exists outside the head (outside neuro-matter).
--Apperceptions operate in their own space-time continuum(s) and parallel universe(s). These may be hallucinogenic yet very real to 'you'.
--That 'significant other' is apperceptive in nature (soulish), not a body, not a mental-physiology, not a straw man, etc.
It utterly appears here that human apperceptions are not produced explicitly by naturalistic phenomena of neuroscience, and that they are merely enhanced and inhibited by neural-matter.
--Unlike perceptions, apperceptive phenomena appear immeasurable by empirical methods. Albeit brain-wave activity may suggest the presence of apperceptions, such a correlation may imply mere arbitrary linking together of brain waves with perceptions and/or apperceptions.
Apperceptions cease to varying extents in sleep, unlike perceptions, reflexes, sensations, etc. which continue independently. Interestingly, many young children fear to go to sleep, knowing, perhaps, that their 'joy of life' (to stay up) is ending.
Apperceptions 'resurrect' upon awakening from sleep under most circumstances. That a 'person' anticipates his 'soul' with all its apperceptive faculties to awaken 'every morning' is seen and expected everywhere in nature.
V. CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION
Humans, thus, DO possess an apperceptive 'heart', 'soul' ...'mind' ... and/or 'strength', that is, essentially, a fearfully complex yet excellent parallel universe. A soul's existence as such is supernatural, even unexplainable by naturalistic science.
The phenomenon of apperceptive mental physiology is mysterious to all men, but we observe and expect these faculties to be empirically present, albeit, to varying extents.
Neuroscientists consistently fail to apply appropriate parameters and mental physiologies for the human soul/apperceptive phenomena. As such, they often inadvertently confuse the psychological with the neuro-physiological. For example, 'conscious apperception' is often thought to be produced by the brain; but in reality it is merely modulated, to various extents, by some complex neuro-hormonal feedback loops. The fallacy is that apperceptive faculties reside, somehow, inside the perceptive faculties and/or somehow operate by the natural perceptive faculties. In reality, they are separate phenomena.
The Bible seems also non-dogmatic and variable in actually defining the human apperceptive faculties. But, most biblical writers do strongly suggest their immense value in an unprecedented manner, even asserting their immortality and a God-like nature.
To hypothesize and prove that the apperceptive 'you' is immortal is beyond the scope of this discourse. Immortality proofs, however, may be strongly suggested in nature, even by the miraculous and supernatural appearing apperceptions, their collaborative evidences, their 'awakenings' and 're-awakenings', and/or other 'redemptive' observations we ubiquitously and continuously expect to see everywhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by John, posted 06-20-2002 10:14 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 06-26-2002 8:32 AM Philip has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 33 of 150 (12189)
06-25-2002 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by John
06-20-2002 10:14 AM


John, I appreciate your replies; this a meager work-up of the psyche/soul that you demand. Jeff, Quetzel, and anyone else may critique this as well.
I. HYPOTHESIS
Humans have a supernatural apperceptive 'heart' and/or 'soul' (...'mind' ... and/or 'strength')
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
A Non-Dogmatic Observed Mental Physiology of Some Human Apperceptive Faculties With:
a) Description
b) Some (proposed) Mental Physiological Organs
c) Synonyms and/or sub-apperceptions
Inferences will be made on the data via these sub-headings, to wit, whether humans empirically have an apperceptive 'heart', 'soul', 'mind', and/or 'strength' ... and, if they appear beyond naturalistic explanation. The term 'you' may appear 'begged' to some but will be used on grounds of parsimony, here.
This is to be a non-dogmatic arbitrary classification of the mental physiology of human apperception.
III. OBSERVED DATA
1) HEART/AFFECTIONS
a) 'Feeling that you feel', 'Desiring to lust', etc.
b) Limbic, thalamic, visceral, hormonal, hypothalamic-pituitary system, reticular activating system (mid-brain).
c) Emotion(s), desire(s), lust, etc.
2) SOUL/PERCEPTIONS/SENSES
a) 'Perceiving that you sense', 'Perceiving that you are known'
b) Postero-lateral cerebrum, frontal cortex(es), Cortical-spinal tracks
c) Psyche, consciousness, sub-conscious, conscious memory, sensation/proprioception, cerebellum,
3) MIND/SPIRIT
a) 'Knowing', 'Knowing that you know', 'Knowing that you know that you perceive that you know', etc.
b) Cortical (frontal lobes), Memory centers (posterior-lateral and/or temporal lobes)
c) Will, cognition, etc.
4) STRENGTH/MOTION
a) 'Acting in your consciousness', 'Running in your dreams', etc.
b) Basal Ganglia, Cerebella, Medulla, Spinal-thalamic tracks,
c) Motivation, power, energy, libido, etc.
IV. TESTING AND RESULTS
The above divisions might just as well be renamed under other schemes, e.g., eliminate number 4 (Strength) and/or 3 (Mind) and include them in 1 (heart/affections) and/or 2 (soul/perceptions), or similar scheme(s). Biblical schemes and naturalistic schemes alike seem to invoke semantically problems. For example, calling the 'apperceptive mind' a 'brain' or 'soul' is both bad science and oversimplified biblical metaphysics.
Yet, these apperceptive phenomena do exist as extremely real, dynamically complex, and interdependent entities. Yet, they certainly are expected to exist to a profound extent in humans, as demonstrated by profoundly abstract verbal and written communications. As such they appear to suggest enormously peculiar systems of harmony, symmetry, and proportion, i.e., parallel universes: Art, music, theater, friendships, ethics, politics, religion, etc. They appear to have no conclusive scientific explanation for their existence whatsoever.
Many apperceptions are indeed enhanced and inhibited, to varying extents, by complex neural-hormonal systems (above). Yet observe:
--They are observed to produce neuro-hormonal effects via metaphysical-physical feedback loops (similar to those described by Descartes). Example: cortical-thalamic tracks/thalamic-hypothalamic and adrenal-pituitary feedback loops during emotional stress and cognition.
--They 'exist' outside the head, i.e., invisibly outside neuro-matter.
--The 'known you' (vs. 'you the knower') is observed to exist in a parallel universe. For example, 'you' are observed via telecommunication, email, etc. while 'imprisoned' somewhat by 'your body'.
--'You the knower' also exists outside the head (outside neuro-matter).
--Apperceptions operate in their own space-time continuum(s) and parallel universe(s). These may be hallucinogenic yet very real to 'you'.
--That 'significant other' is apperceptive in nature (soulish), not a body, not a mental-physiology, not a straw man, etc.
It utterly appears here that human apperceptions are not produced explicitly by naturalistic phenomena of neuroscience, and that they are merely enhanced and inhibited by neural-matter.
--Unlike perceptions, apperceptive phenomena appear immeasurable by empirical methods. Albeit brain-wave activity may suggest the presence of apperceptions, such a correlation may imply mere arbitrary linking together of brain waves with perceptions and/or apperceptions.
Apperceptions cease to varying extents in sleep, unlike perceptions, reflexes, sensations, etc. which continue independently. Interestingly, many young children fear to go to sleep, knowing, perhaps, that their 'joy of life' (to stay up) is ending.
Apperceptions 'resurrect' upon awakening from sleep under most circumstances. That a 'person' anticipates his 'soul' with all its apperceptive faculties to awaken 'every morning' is seen and expected everywhere in nature.
V. CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION
Humans, thus, DO possess an apperceptive 'heart', 'soul' ...'mind' ... and/or 'strength', that is, essentially, a fearfully complex yet excellent parallel universe. A soul's existence as such is supernatural, even unexplainable by naturalistic science.
The phenomenon of apperceptive mental physiology is mysterious to all men, but we observe and expect these faculties to be empirically present, albeit, to varying extents.
Neuroscientists consistently fail to apply appropriate parameters and mental physiologies for the human soul/apperceptive phenomena. As such, they often inadvertently confuse the psychological with the neuro-physiological. For example, 'conscious apperception' is often thought to be produced by the brain; but in reality it is merely modulated, to various extents, by some complex neuro-hormonal feedback loops. The fallacy is that apperceptive faculties reside, somehow, inside the perceptive faculties and/or somehow operate by the natural perceptive faculties. In reality, they are separate phenomena.
The Bible seems also non-dogmatic and variable in actually defining the human apperceptive faculties. But, most biblical writers do strongly suggest their immense value in an unprecedented manner, even asserting their immortality and a God-like nature.
To hypothesize and prove that the apperceptive 'you' is immortal is beyond the scope of this discourse. Immortality proofs, however, may be strongly suggested in nature, even by the miraculous and supernatural appearing apperceptions, their collaborative evidences, their 'awakenings' and 're-awakenings', and/or other 'redemptive' observations we ubiquitously and continuously expect to see everywhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by John, posted 06-20-2002 10:14 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by John, posted 06-26-2002 10:19 AM Philip has replied
 Message 38 by Jeff, posted 06-26-2002 10:39 AM Philip has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 34 of 150 (12198)
06-26-2002 3:48 AM


This is kind of a non-sequitur, so I am not replying to any particular message. Could someone please define "aperceptive" for me in the context of this conversation? The only reference I've ever heard for this term is "aperceptive agnosia", a rare brain disorder that leads to blindness (IIRC). The root word means "lack of perception" or "lack of the ability to perceive", so I don't really understand the term as Philip and John are using it. Pardon my ignorance if there is some accepted definition. Thanks.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 06-26-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by John, posted 06-26-2002 9:35 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 41 by Philip, posted 06-28-2002 12:58 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 150 (12209)
06-26-2002 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Philip
06-25-2002 11:45 PM


Philip, I "challenge" you to "construct" a "reply" which doesn't "rely" on quotations to give you "wiggle room" with regards to the "meanings" of the "words" you "use".
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Philip, posted 06-25-2002 11:45 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Philip, posted 06-28-2002 12:59 AM nator has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 150 (12211)
06-26-2002 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Quetzal
06-26-2002 3:48 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
This is kind of a non-sequitur, so I am not replying to any particular message. Could someone please define "aperceptive" for me in the context of this conversation? The only reference I've ever heard for this term is "aperceptive agnosia", a rare brain disorder that leads to blindness (IIRC). The root word means "lack of perception" or "lack of the ability to perceive", so I don't really understand the term as Philip and John are using it. Pardon my ignorance if there is some accepted definition. Thanks.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 06-26-2002]

Phillip threw me with this one too. If you scan the thread you'll see some discussion on the definition, but basically it means, in context, something like "there is more going on inside or heads than logic. ie.. we have emotions, etc."
Take care.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Quetzal, posted 06-26-2002 3:48 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Quetzal, posted 06-26-2002 11:17 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 150 (12213)
06-26-2002 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Philip
06-25-2002 11:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:

IV. TESTING AND RESULTS
Yet, these apperceptive phenomena do exist as extremely real, dynamically complex, and interdependent entities.

Assumption. You haven't demonstrated this.
quote:
As such they appear to suggest enormously peculiar systems of harmony, symmetry, and proportion, i.e., parallel universes: Art, music, theater, friendships, ethics, politics, religion, etc. They appear to have no conclusive scientific explanation for their existence whatsoever.
What?
Art-- transmission of information (an important survival factor for humans)
theatre-- same as art
friendship-- survival value. humans are social animals, culture is our primary means of adaptation, without it we ain't too fit
ethics-- same as friendship
politics-- same as friendship
religion-- same as friendship
quote:

--They are observed to produce neuro-hormonal effects via metaphysical-physical feedback loops (similar to those described by Descartes). Example: cortical-thalamic tracks/thalamic-hypothalamic and adrenal-pituitary feedback loops during emotional stress and cognition.

Why does you example have nothing metaphysical in it?
quote:

--They 'exist' outside the head, i.e., invisibly outside neuro-matter.

You haven't demonstrated this, Phillip. You haven't even gotten close.
quote:

--The 'known you' (vs. 'you the knower') is observed to exist in a parallel universe. For example, 'you' are observed via telecommunication, email, etc. while 'imprisoned' somewhat by 'your body'.

Phillip.... geez! Now email is a parallel universe? This has nothing to do with any sort of metaphysical 'known you' It is purely physical transmission of data.
quote:
--'You the knower' also exists outside the head (outside neuro-matter).
I'm getting tired of responding to this assumption.
quote:
--Unlike perceptions, apperceptive phenomena appear immeasurable by empirical methods.
Then by what methods do we know they exist?
Your arguments look no better when dressed up all pretty-like than they did in there work clothes. In fact, I honestly can't find anything I'd call an argument. All I can find are repetitions of assumptions-- repetitions of assumptions I've called you on several times already on this thread.
I see Plato in your thought processes. I see Descarte. I see Kant. And you desperately need to get a grip on David Hume. Not to be a jerk but the problems inherent in the philosophies of these named gentlemen are apparent in your philosophy as well. You might find it useful to research the criticisms of those philosophies.
Take care.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Philip, posted 06-25-2002 11:45 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Philip, posted 06-28-2002 1:01 AM John has replied

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 150 (12214)
06-26-2002 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Philip
06-25-2002 11:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:

III. OBSERVED DATA
1) HEART/AFFECTIONS
a) 'Feeling that you feel', 'Desiring to lust', etc.
b) Limbic, thalamic, visceral, hormonal, hypothalamic-pituitary system, reticular activating system (mid-brain).
c) Emotion(s), desire(s), lust, etc.
2) SOUL/PERCEPTIONS/SENSES
a) 'Perceiving that you sense', 'Perceiving that you are known'
b) Postero-lateral cerebrum, frontal cortex(es), Cortical-spinal tracks
c) Psyche, consciousness, sub-conscious, conscious memory, sensation/proprioception, cerebellum,
3) MIND/SPIRIT
a) 'Knowing', 'Knowing that you know', 'Knowing that you know that you perceive that you know', etc.
b) Cortical (frontal lobes), Memory centers (posterior-lateral and/or temporal lobes)
c) Will, cognition, etc.
4) STRENGTH/MOTION
a) 'Acting in your consciousness', 'Running in your dreams', etc.
b) Basal Ganglia, Cerebella, Medulla, Spinal-thalamic tracks,
c) Motivation, power, energy, libido, etc.

Wouldn’t this apply to any animal with higher cognitive functions ? i.e. intelligent mammals like elephants, dolphins, apes and to a lesser degree, dogs and cats ?
After all, the differences in consciousness or intelligence between humans and the examples above are only a matter of degree. According to your hypothesis, we humans have enormous ‘souls’ or conscious entities dwelling within us and my dogs have smaller souls with less intelligence.
But these animals are still conscious; possess the ability to express emotion, react to stimuli, form rudimentary plans, work together as a team in a highly organized social hierarchy.
So according to your claims, all — or most — animals have a consciousness much like our own, only to a lesser degree. Where do these ‘souls’ go after death ?
If a dead squirrel and a dead human were lying next to each other, will you claim the dead squirrel is somehow ‘deader’ than the dead human, because it wasn’t invited to the big dance in the sky ?
It certainly seems that cognitive powers of abstract thought are strictly relational to brain mass and brain mass to body mass ratios. The more gray matter one has, the more highly developed the ‘soul’ appears to be.
It’s beginning to sound as if Materialistic Naturalism is getting a handle on explaining this.
regards,
jeff
------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Philip, posted 06-25-2002 11:45 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Philip, posted 06-28-2002 2:39 AM Jeff has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 39 of 150 (12216)
06-26-2002 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by John
06-26-2002 9:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
Phillip threw me with this one too. If you scan the thread you'll see some discussion on the definition, but basically it means, in context, something like "there is more going on inside or heads than logic. ie.. we have emotions, etc."
Take care.

Ahh, thanks John. Now I've got it. He's using aperceptive in the context of some intrinsic, non-physical, immaterial property of living organisms. Something that literally cannot be perceived. I thought I recognized the argument. Philip just managed to drag in a new term again that threw me. It's the old essentialist argument I ran across in the other thread - the unproven and unprovable existence of a vague Platonic "essence" in all things (a triangle has a ineffable essence of triangle-ness, a horse an essence of horse-ness, etc). The soul, in this case, I suppose. Archimedes himself couldn't move him off that platform, no matter how long the lever. Good luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by John, posted 06-26-2002 9:35 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by John, posted 06-27-2002 11:20 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 150 (12281)
06-27-2002 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Quetzal
06-26-2002 11:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
quote:
Originally posted by John:
Phillip threw me with this one too. If you scan the thread you'll see some discussion on the definition, but basically it means, in context, something like "there is more going on inside or heads than logic. ie.. we have emotions, etc."
Take care.

Ahh, thanks John. Now I've got it. He's using aperceptive in the context of some intrinsic, non-physical, immaterial property of living organisms. Something that literally cannot be perceived. I thought I recognized the argument. Philip just managed to drag in a new term again that threw me. It's the old essentialist argument I ran across in the other thread - the unproven and unprovable existence of a vague Platonic "essence" in all things (a triangle has a ineffable essence of triangle-ness, a horse an essence of horse-ness, etc). The soul, in this case, I suppose. Archimedes himself couldn't move him off that platform, no matter how long the lever. Good luck.

Right-o.... very Platonic with some Kantian noumena and an insistence upon the term 'empirical'
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Quetzal, posted 06-26-2002 11:17 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 41 of 150 (12317)
06-28-2002 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Quetzal
06-26-2002 3:48 AM


quote:
By Quetzel
Could someone please define "aperceptive" for me in the context of this conversation?
--Aperceptive or Apperceptive in the way I use it is not found in all dictionaries. It has been defined essentially as "conscious perception". But I am use it to express a 'consciously abstracting and re-abstracting perceptiveness', as a psychological usage of the term. To my meager knowledge this is the closest word I can think of to describe the phenomenon. I welcome rebuke or rebuttal of this term to replace it with a more appropriate term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Quetzal, posted 06-26-2002 3:48 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 42 of 150 (12318)
06-28-2002 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by nator
06-26-2002 8:32 AM


quote:
By Shraf
Philip, I "challenge" you to "construct" a "reply" which doesn't "rely" on quotations to give you "wiggle room" with regards to the "meanings" of the "words" you "use".

Duly noted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 06-26-2002 8:32 AM nator has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 43 of 150 (12319)
06-28-2002 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by John
06-26-2002 10:19 AM


P: IV. TESTING AND RESULTS
Yet, these apperceptive phenomena do exist as extremely real, dynamically complex, and interdependent entities.
J: Assumption. You haven't demonstrated this.
P: "Extremely real" appears demonstrated enough by the observed data. Your psyche exists, what part of it is not demonstrated to exist? My pathetic BA in psychology also seems to testify to that. My mother, a psychiatrist, testifies to it all day as well. "Dynamically complex", the psyche's abstracting and re-abstracting powers of sensation, thought and affection are beyond my meager comprehension. Consider also the vast sea(s) of the subconscious. "Interdependent entities" are the abstracting and re-abstracting thoughts and emotions, especially in written communications, rebuttals, re-rebuttals, constructive plans, programming, song-writing, etc., etc. The apperceptive psyche with its faculties designs concrete and abstract designs with emotions, thoughts, sensations, perceptions, etc. that seems interdependent enough.
--One example: The portrait artist draws a girl's head: He must abstract and re-abstract the girl's facial cosmetics into color, contour, harmony, symmetry, proportion, likeness, feeling -- if his intent is emotional, redemption -- if his intent is to atone for blemishes, etc., etc.
____________________
P: As such they appear to suggest enormously peculiar systems of harmony, symmetry, and proportion, i.e., parallel universes: Art, music, theater, friendships, ethics, politics, religion, etc. They appear to have no conclusive scientific explanation for their existence whatsoever.
J: What?
Art-- transmission of information (an important survival factor for humans)
theatre-- same as art
friendship-- survival value. humans are social animals, culture is our primary means of adaptation, without it we ain't too fit
ethics-- same as friendship
politics-- same as friendship
religion-- same as friendship
P: Attributing these phenomena exclusively to 'survival of the fittest' alone seems:
1) Over-simplified in that many apperceptive abstractions seem to go beyond survival, not related to survival, and/or impertinent to survival: E.g., Art for arts sake, friendship for loneliness sake, religion for cursedness and guilt, etc.
2) Psychologically Projected (i.e., an individual's peculiar perspective generalized upon others)
3) Motive-oriented vs. mechanism-oriented: The denied mechanism being a non-naturalistic psychological mechanism.
______________________
P: They are observed to produce neuro-hormonal effects via metaphysical-physical feedback loops (similar to those described by Descartes). Example: cortical-thalamic tracks/thalamic-hypothalamic and adrenal-pituitary feedback loops during emotional stress and cognition.
J: Why does you example have nothing metaphysical in it?
P: Descartes (I believe) first postulated metaphysical feedback occurring in the hypothalamus or pituitary gland of the mid-brain, where metaphysical thoughts could interact with naturalistic organs of the brain. A more accurate statement today might be:
1) Metaphysical (apperceptive, abstracting, and/or re-abstracting) thoughts interact (feedback) with the gray matter of the cerebral cortex for an organism's computational functions. These in turn relay via the usual neurological tracks to other areas of the brain, endocrine system(s), spinal white matter, other areas of frontal-lobe gray matter, and/or to the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal neural-harmonal complex (A.K.A HPA-Axis).
2) Metaphysical (apperceptive, abstracting, and/or re-abstracting) emotions interact (feedback) with the limbic system of the brain, with metaphysical thoughts, the APA-Axis, etc., etc.
--If you refer to the products of metaphysical thoughts and emotions (art, music, literature, etc.), there are already numerous academics that deal with these as metaphysical and/or non-naturalistic events. Then there's philosophy, theology, theistic-evolutionism, Haitian Voodoo, and other innumerable other disciplines that attempt to deal with one's supernatural metaphysics.
________________________
P: They 'exist' outside the head, i.e., invisibly outside neuro-matter.
J: You haven't demonstrated this, Phillip. You haven't even gotten close.
P: I will agree that they appear trapped inside the space-time coordinates of the brain, notwithstanding the supposed out-of-body experiences of about 25% of humans.
--But the gray matter is no different than an extremely complex computer. That the non-material apperceptive you, me, Jeff, Shraf, or Quetzel are material electromagnetic brain waves is erroneous, even from a naturalistic perspective. Or which evolutionist would state that you and I are light?
But if you even cite that the Bible states "the life (of Christ) was the light of men" (John 1.4 KJV Bible), that light is a redemptive phenomenon, i.e., an enlivening (metaphysical) spirit.
--OK, some of you are even still professing we are a transient naturalistic form of light itself, housed and actuated by gray matter. Granted friend, light is extremely complicated phenomena, but light follows naturalistic science laws nonetheless. Are you brain plus light? How might we further beg the question? Add a little more computational gray matter, and the abstracting-re-abstracting psyche spontaneously generates, ... i.e., beyond the dog or monkey level?
Back to your being a merely natural form of light ... I won't deny the naturalistic possibility. But your light still shines INSIDE and OUTSIDE the dark gray matter of your brain, and that in an incomprehensible manner.
--The 'known you' (vs. 'you the knower') is observed to exist in a parallel universe. For example, 'you' are observed via telecommunication, email, etc. while 'imprisoned' somewhat by 'your body'.
________________________________
J: Phillip.... geez! Now email is a parallel universe? This has nothing to do with any sort of metaphysical 'known you' It is purely physical transmission of data.
P: The email transmission is naturalistic; the target of this email is the you-as-knower and the you-as-known. I equate both-of-you (knower and known) as a separate (parallel) universe that may or may not be inside your head, I concede, I cannot tell. Semantics are difficult. Your mental universe is extremely great. Perhaps finite and mortal to varying extents is the immense entity that you are, ... but not to the mere arrangement of your gray matter.
________________________________
P: Unlike perceptions, apperceptive phenomena appear immeasurable by empirical methods.
J: Then by what methods do we know they exist?
Your arguments look no better when dressed up all pretty-like than they did in there work clothes. In fact, I honestly can't find anything I'd call an argument. All I can find are repetitions of assumptions-- repetitions of assumptions I've called you on several times already on this thread.
I see Plato in your thought processes. I see Descarte. I see Kant. And you desperately need to get a grip on David Hume. Not to be a jerk but the problems inherent in the philosophies of these named gentlemen are apparent in your philosophy as well. You might find it useful to research the criticisms of those...
P: By immeasurable, can mean any universe, the outside-our-head universe exists though we can't measure it empirically; i.e., without resorting to general relativistic theories that contain repetitions of assumptions, too. Likewise, an outer-darkness exists outside the megaverse(s) that seems immeasurable. Likewise time itself, from its eternities, is immeasurable. There are infinitely immeasurable variations of music, drama, color, sound, light, size, etc. that are real as well. Hume's empirical limitations on explaining psychological phenomena is not the big picture. The 2 don't marry.
--Now, I apologize for crudeness of terms. 'Supernatural' is a term that denotes different meanings. So does the word 'immeasurable'. Often my corrupted faith-biases betray appropriateness in scientific methods. All your points are well taken and duly noted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by John, posted 06-26-2002 10:19 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by John, posted 06-28-2002 2:16 AM Philip has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 150 (12325)
06-28-2002 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Philip
06-28-2002 1:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
P: "Extremely real" appears demonstrated enough by the observed data.
There isn't any data for these things to be independant entities.
quote:
Your psyche exists, what part of it is not demonstrated to exist?
I really should ask you to define 'psyche' because I have a feeling that it means something to you that it does not mean to me. But for the record, the psyche itself as anything external to our brains has not been demonstrated.
quote:
My pathetic BA in psychology also seems to testify to that. My mother, a psychiatrist, testifies to it all day as well.
...testifies that you and your mother's brains are doing more or less what they are supposed to do.
quote:
"Interdependent entities"
pseudo-entities perhaps.... these are not things, just phantasms, mental notes
quote:

P: Attributing these phenomena exclusively to 'survival of the fittest' alone seems:
1) Over-simplified in that many apperceptive abstractions seem to go beyond survival, not related to survival, and/or impertinent to survival: E.g., Art for arts sake, friendship for loneliness sake, religion for cursedness and guilt, etc.

People are complicated. My point is about origins, not application. People often apply ideas developed for one reason to seemingly unrelated problems. The same can be said of biological evolution in a sense.
[QUOTE][b]
2) Psychologically Projected (i.e., an individual's peculiar perspective generalized upon others)[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Maybe, but you stated that there was NO naturalistic reasons. I gave you naturalistic reasons.
[QUOTE][b]
3) Motive-oriented vs. mechanism-oriented: The denied mechanism being a non-naturalistic psychological mechanism. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
I'm not sure I follow this, but I think my answer to #2 applies.
Are psychological mechanisms non-naturalistic? This is what we have been discussing yes?
[QUOTE][b]1) Metaphysical (apperceptive, abstracting, and/or re-abstracting) thoughts interact (feedback) with the gray matter of the cerebral cortex for an organism's computational functions. These in turn relay via the usual neurological tracks to other areas of the brain, endocrine system(s), spinal white matter, other areas of frontal-lobe gray matter, and/or to the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal neural-harmonal complex (A.K.A HPA-Axis). [/QUOTE]
[/b]
Thoughts are outside the brain and interact with grey matter? Where is your evidence, Phillip?
quote:
--If you refer to the products of metaphysical thoughts and emotions (art, music, literature, etc.), there are already numerous academics that deal with these as metaphysical and/or non-naturalistic events. Then there's philosophy, theology, theistic-evolutionism, Haitian Voodoo, and other innumerable other disciplines that attempt to deal with one's supernatural metaphysics.
There is no evidence that any of one's supernatural metaphysics are supernatural or metaphysical. You are back to assuming your conclusion.
P: They 'exist' outside the head, i.e., invisibly outside neuro-matter.
J: You haven't demonstrated this, Phillip. You haven't even gotten close.
quote:
That the non-material apperceptive you, me, Jeff, Shraf, or Quetzel are material electromagnetic brain waves is erroneous, even from a naturalistic perspective.
Why?
quote:
Or which evolutionist would state that you and I are light?
This is a fallacy called reductio ad absurdum. It is an appeal to the emotions. You've also got some equivocation going on there with the meaning of light and the meaning of electromagnetic brain waves.
[QUOTE][b]P: the target of this email is the you-as-knower and the you-as-known. I equate both-of-you (knower and known) as a separate (parallel)universe[/QUOTE]
[/b]
hmmm..... why?
Take care
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Philip, posted 06-28-2002 1:01 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Philip, posted 06-28-2002 3:15 AM John has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 45 of 150 (12329)
06-28-2002 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jeff
06-26-2002 10:39 AM


Jeff, you might glance at my reply to John concerning grey matter per se.
But, consider the animal psyches then the human ones. Whales seem stupider than my gray parrot (extremely communicative); while whales have a lot of computational gray matter (presumably for sonic effects and stunning of their prey) African Grey Parrots have a brain not much bigger than a pea. The gray matter in whales (frontal lobes, neocortex, etc.) seems worthless for apperception, abstracting, re-abstracting, etc. Gray matter is not proportional to abstracting apperception, but may be somewhat correlated with computational powers.
Now natural man, mammals, birds, and some other organisms do seem to have abstracting apperception, I grant you. But animal psyches are extremely less apperceptive, abstracting, and re-abstracting. Human’s re-abstract and re-abstract to seemingly infinite levels while planning, organizing, designing, reading, programming, crying, smiling, and/or dreaming, etc.
Immortality of one vs. the other has always been difficult for me. My statements while sincere are tentative. Redemptive observations are detected (subjectively and objectively) in man’s apperceptions to a higher extent than in animals (sorrow, forgiveness, kindness, compassion, multi-tiered love, etc., etc.). Animals, while surviving-for-the-fittest, seem moreover, innocent of the knowledge of good and evil, as are children. Animals may be heroically kind, compassionate, cheerful, self-sacrificing for humans, etc. with these Christ-like phenomena observed in real time.
Now it may be that real Christ-like redemptive apperceptive phenomena implies eternal life wherever it is manifest ... whether in innocent animals, children, redeemed persons, Muslims, (supposed) Atheists, or whatever. Some redemptive aspects of organisms may be more pneuma than psyche, that is, more angelic-spirit (of God) than a redeemed soul. Why organisms might have angelic-pneuma is beyond me? I welcome your speculation here.
Problems still exist with my hypothesis, like, redemptive observations are extremely apparent in the naturalist universe, too. But entropy damns the natural universe to outer darkness, eventually. My faith biases would hypothesize that redeeming pneuma (not merely a redeemed psyche) is immortal SANS the cursed universe, i.e., as per the Biblical apocalyptic restoration model. Again, some other redemptive theist here might explain it better.
Here’s more workup on immortality of redeemed (human) souls.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jeff, posted 06-26-2002 10:39 AM Jeff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Jeff, posted 06-28-2002 3:21 PM Philip 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