Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process?

All Beuhler is really doing is the opposite of what you seem to want him to be doing. He is reducing the idea of intelligence so that it can be applied to the way in which a single cell can react positively (to its advantage) in its environment. The single cell and its parts that he describes are very much material, and this fits a view of intelligence being, ultimately, the product of chemical reactions.

quote:

---

My research for the past 30 years or so was devoted to examine whether cells have such signal integration and control center(s). The results suggest that mammalian cells, indeed, possess intelligence.

---

Far from ideas of non-material intelligence, Beuhler is suggesting that the kind of intelligence that we see as coming from our very material control centres, our brains, can in a sense be ascribed to the control centres of single cells. It's a way of looking at it, and there's nothing non-material involved, it's all chemical.Evolutionary biologists won't really have a problem with this. It would end up in a discussion of definitions of intelligence, and at what level can cells, or complex combinations of cells forming brains, be regarded as sentient.

Slightly wrong. You don't actually use the word mechanical in the O.P. To save confusion, why not stick to the word material?Here are the exact questions you asked in the O.P., and my answers. No. I'm taking your use of the word materialistic to mean what I'd call naturalistic. I say this because science is described as methodological naturalism, and nature includes forces as well as matter, and some might not see all the forces as material. Yes. And one that can (and is) easily agreed with by people with a non-materialistic philosophy, like theism, and by agnostics like yourself.

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."

---

Yes. But it's badly phrased, IMO, and doesn't illustrate the tentativity of science. "According to current evidence and observations, all organisms appear to have descended from....etc." is better. Assuming that "materialistic" is interchangeable with naturalistic, a "non-materialistic process" might be distinguished or identified by an apparent breaking of the natural laws of the universe. A genie appearing from a small lamp might be an example.At present, what you call "non materialistic processes" are also distinguished by a complete lack of evidence for them, except when you cheat to define them, by including things for which there is evidence, as in your answer to the last question, here. Our judgements and the distinctions we make change with physical damage to the brain, a material organ. A micro-organism that detects light and reacts to it does so by material, chemical processes. So, you believe that the Spaghetti monster being the driving force behind life should be taught in science classrooms if there are people who believe that. That's essentially what you're calling academic freedom. Science is based on methodological naturalism, and requires evidence.You may desire a non-material mind, or soul, and such a thing could possibly exist, as there is no conclusive proof that it doesn't. But the same goes for fairies and unicorns, and the anatomy of the unicorn is not taught in science classes because it is impossible do do science based on zero evidence.For your beliefs to be excepted as science, you need to present evidence.In the O.P., you claim that making distinctions is a non-materialistic process.So, you need to back this up with evidence. At the moment, the evidence points heavily against you. When organisms are damaged in the physical areas that have to do with decision making, the "judgements" made change, indicating that the base on which we make judgements is physical.But academia as a whole is not science, and there's nothing to stop your ideas being discussed in a philosophy class. Also, history of science would certainly cover some "I.D." type ideas.There's nothing to stop you looking for concrete evidence for them, either. I.D. type critics of the theory of evolution are very demanding when it comes to evidence that backs the ToE, but always seem to think that they are exempt from finding evidence for their own views.The Beuhler summary that you point to is just a way of describing the very material way in which single cells can behave as "intelligent", which is an interesting angle, but doesn't show non-material intelligence at all. I'm not surprised that he emphatically disassociates himself from the I.D. movement.This is hilarious: I agree. But we observe that life is made of matter, and we haven't observed life yet which is made of something else.So is it really surprising to you that scientists look for material explanations of, err, material? Or, to put it another way, natural explanations for natural phenomena?If you rub a lamp one day, and a giant green genie pops out, then I'll be the first person to agree with you that we require explanations to match the phenomenon. Non-natural, non-material explanations.Perhaps all I.D. types should be going around hopefully rubbing lamps. You've got to get your evidence from somewhere.

Yes, obviously. Actually, you are. A judgement call on a metaphysical question, yes. What about the many other possibilities? The elves did it, for example, or a divine causation of the universe as a whole, followed by the material causation of life. By which you mean, presumably, "obviously it is a person's world view that determines his or her answer."Obviously, yes. A devout Muslim might say "Allah did it" for example, expressing the cultural indoctrination of his background.Which seems to answer all your questions, but what you really seem to want to discuss is the level of subjectivity or objectivity in people's "judgement calls" on your metaphysical question. I seriously suggest you start a thread on the subject.A brief opinion here on the example of the Muslim I gave above would be that he's being highly subjective, as there's no evidence for Allah's existence, so he's going on culture based personal feelings that have no base in observed reality.The more evidence based someone's "judgement call" is, the more objective it is.On this topic, the answer to the question in the topic title:

quote:

---

Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process?

---

is No! Edited by bluegenes, : grammer!

The central EvC issue, so why not start a thread, as there'll be plenty of interest. You seem to agree, perhaps, that views that fit the evidence best are the nearest to objectivity, which was the point I was making about "judgement calls".The reason I suggest you start the thread rather than me is that it gives you the chance to choose the wording of the O.P., and that's better, because, as you know, you're likely to be outnumbered by evil evo's!"Can "evos" or "creos" world views claim objectivity on the origins of species via evidence?" might be an idea for a title.