Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process?
bertvan
Junior Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 29
From: Palm Springs California
Joined: 09-10-2007


Message 1 of 38 (457930)
02-26-2008 11:54 AM


Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process, and is neoDarwinism a materialistic explanation? More specifically is the following a materialistic explanation?
quote:
"all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; . the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for living systems."
One doesn’t have to be a materialist to accept the above explanation from The Meanings of Evolution by Stephen C. Meyer and Michael Newton Keas, page 137. I am a non-materialist who accepts materialistic explanations of weather. More primitive societies once attributed non-materialistic forces to weather, but having learned more details, most of us accept that weather can be explained materialistically. I may have once believed life to be a material process, but having learned more details, I have concluded that non-materialistic forces such as volition, motivation, and fallible free choice are intrinsic aspects of all living processes. The amount of choice available to some living organisms may be extremely limited, but Beuhler argues that even single cultured cells display a degree of volition, of intelligent free choice.
http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/summary.htm
How can a materialistic process be distinguished from a non-materialistic process? Answer: judgment. Making such a distinction is itself a non-materialistic process, a subjective, fallible, free-judgment choice. And since choices would not be free without the option of being wrong, no such conclusion will ever be universally accepted.
Edited by bertvan, : Edited to add source of quote
Edited by Admin, : Make title of Meyer paper into a link.

No webpage found at provided URL: http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-26-2008 1:40 PM bertvan has replied
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 02-27-2008 11:35 AM bertvan has replied
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 12:31 PM bertvan has replied
 Message 16 by bluegenes, posted 02-27-2008 3:33 PM bertvan has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 38 (457944)
02-26-2008 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bertvan
02-26-2008 11:54 AM


You need to provide attribution for your quote. It appears to come from The Meanings of Evolution by Stephen C. Meyer and Michael Newton Keas, page 137.
Please post a note when you're done editing your opening post.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bertvan, posted 02-26-2008 11:54 AM bertvan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by bertvan, posted 02-26-2008 3:09 PM Admin has not replied

  
bertvan
Junior Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 29
From: Palm Springs California
Joined: 09-10-2007


Message 3 of 38 (457961)
02-26-2008 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
02-26-2008 1:40 PM


Is that satisfactory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-26-2008 1:40 PM Admin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 38 (458102)
02-27-2008 9:46 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 5 of 38 (458117)
02-27-2008 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bertvan
02-26-2008 11:54 AM


Buehler's argument seems very tenuous, all he seems to show is that cells respond to their environment which shouldn't come as news to anyone. I don't know anyone who would consider cell migration to be generically random, although it may appear so in certain circumstances, maybe this idea was popular in the late 70's when Buehler started his research.
There is a large disjunction between this and showing volition, motivation and free choice. His evidence is highly circumstantial at best.
Your own argument seems to rest solely in essentially throwing up your hands and giving up on ever knowing anything. There seems to be no evidence that the 'forces' you list as non-materialistic are any such thing. What reason is there to suspect that given sufficient further details these won't seem material processes just as the weather does?
You go on to say that your subjective view on this matter may be wrong but as yet you don't appear to have provided any evidence at all to suggest that your conclusions on this matter are right.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bertvan, posted 02-26-2008 11:54 AM bertvan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by bertvan, posted 02-27-2008 2:00 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 6 of 38 (458125)
02-27-2008 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bertvan
02-26-2008 11:54 AM


How can a materialistic process be distinguished from a non-materialistic process? Answer: judgment. Making such a distinction is itself a non-materialistic process, a subjective, fallible, free-judgment choice.
So says the dualists. However, there must be more to this than what you claim.
  1. Is a judgement made by a simple computer visual processor non-materialistic?
  2. Is a judgement made by a zombie non-materialistic?
In short why should this present any challenge to materialism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bertvan, posted 02-26-2008 11:54 AM bertvan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 1:16 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 11 by bertvan, posted 02-27-2008 2:04 PM Modulous has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 7 of 38 (458139)
02-27-2008 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
02-27-2008 12:31 PM


In short why should this present any challenge to materialism?
Why don't you just answer his issue or question, is it a judgement call or not?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 12:31 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 1:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 8 of 38 (458146)
02-27-2008 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object
02-27-2008 1:16 PM


Why don't you just answer his issue or question, is it a judgement call or not?
Is what a judgement call? I asked him what would count as a judgement call that would require some non-materialistic cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 1:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 2:03 PM Modulous has replied

  
bertvan
Junior Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 29
From: Palm Springs California
Joined: 09-10-2007


Message 9 of 38 (458152)
02-27-2008 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Wounded King
02-27-2008 11:35 AM


Hi WK,
I would argue that is the materialists who have thrown up their hands. Motivation, volition, free will and creative intelligence are non deterministic, can’t be weighed or measured, and are only statistically predictable. Because materialists don’t know how to deal with such non-deterministic forces, they seem to have concluded such forces must be ignored. Or, if they exist, volition/free choice can play no active role in living processes.
ID, on the other hand argues that motivated intelligent choice is an intrinsic aspect of all living systems. Fortunately, there will always be a few scientists who will pursue such difficult questions regardless of efforts by the establishment to discourage them.
quote:
What reason is there to suspect that given sufficient further details these won't seem material processes just as the weather does?
Since enough details aren’t yet available to satisfy all of us, it’s an open question as to whether life is a mechanistic device. You and I apparently interpret what details are available differently. I would urge both sides to openly pursue their investigation. However at this point neither you nor I would be justified in imposing our interpretation upon society as “scientific truth”.
Edited by bertvan, : No reason given.
Edited by bertvan, : No reason given.

No webpage found at provided URL: http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 02-27-2008 11:35 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 02-27-2008 5:53 PM bertvan has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 10 of 38 (458154)
02-27-2008 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Modulous
02-27-2008 1:46 PM


Is what a judgement call?
The phenomena of nature: is it caused by materialistic based processes or non-materialistic based processes? I don't think he was advocating both or any type of dualism. He was probing how judgements, which are the result of intelligence, conclude for one or the other. His conclusion was that whatever one decides the same is subjective.
Once more: in case it might have escaped you, his point is very good, which is: since a judgement is not a materialistic based process, but a non, or intelligence based process, then the judgement that the phenomena of nature is the result of a materialistic based process is "subjective, fallible" etc.etc.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 1:46 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 2:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
bertvan
Junior Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 29
From: Palm Springs California
Joined: 09-10-2007


Message 11 of 38 (458155)
02-27-2008 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
02-27-2008 12:31 PM


I would argue that neither computers nor zompies make independent judgments. They spit out the answer they are programmed to make.

No webpage found at provided URL: http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 12:31 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 2:19 PM bertvan has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 12 of 38 (458157)
02-27-2008 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by bertvan
02-27-2008 2:04 PM


I would argue that neither computers nor zompies make independent judgments. They spit out the answer they are programmed to make.
So how does that differ in our case? A zombie is a highly advanced robot that appears to respond exactly as if it were making independent judgements. At what point is some non-materialistic force required and why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by bertvan, posted 02-27-2008 2:04 PM bertvan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by bertvan, posted 02-27-2008 3:21 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 13 of 38 (458160)
02-27-2008 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object
02-27-2008 2:03 PM


The phenomena of nature: is it caused by materialistic based processes or non-materialistic based processes?
As far as I can tell, materialism can explain decision making in nature.
I don't think he was advocating both or any type of dualism
He is saying that materialist explanations work for things like weather, but that non-materialist explanations are needed for intelligent decision making. That is essentially Cartesian dualism. Very few, if any, philosophers who study intelligence, decision making etc etc ascribe to this kind of thing.
since a judgement is not a materialistic based process...then the judgement that the phenomena of nature is the result of a materialistic based process is "subjective, fallible" etc.etc.
I thought that the philosophy of science had already concluded that fallibility and tentativity were integral to epistemological claims. If the point was being raised in the 18th Century, perhaps Kant would be interested in it - but I don't think this point is worth a lot of discussion now.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 2:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by bertvan, posted 02-27-2008 2:57 PM Modulous has replied

  
bertvan
Junior Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 29
From: Palm Springs California
Joined: 09-10-2007


Message 14 of 38 (458167)
02-27-2008 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Modulous
02-27-2008 2:25 PM


Is it your argument that dualism and the concept of mind as something separate from the brain are "out of fashion" among philosophers?

No webpage found at provided URL: http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 2:25 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 3:41 PM bertvan has not replied

  
bertvan
Junior Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 29
From: Palm Springs California
Joined: 09-10-2007


Message 15 of 38 (458172)
02-27-2008 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Modulous
02-27-2008 2:19 PM


Modulous:
quote:
A zombie is a highly advanced robot that appears to respond exactly as if it were making independent judgements. At what point is some non-materialistic force required and why?
As you say, a zombie appears to respond as if making independent judgments. (The word “exactly” seems out of place in this sentence.) I realize children who don’t understand programming might see robots as independent judgments. I didn’t know some adults regard what robots do as “making real decisions”. The point that a non-materialistic force would be required would be when new, unforeseeable information was introduced, which the robot would be required to interpret for itself. If a programmer interprets the new information and tells the robot how to react to it, the programmer is making the decision - not the robot. (Yes, I consider the mind of a human programmer a non-materialistic force.)

No webpage found at provided URL: http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 2:19 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 4:17 PM bertvan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024