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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 106 of 452 (876152)
05-13-2020 10:44 AM


We need a new topic and NvC-3 is a good one
The reason why I proposed topic NvC-1 is
I(17) writes:
The premise of a theoretical system is the most important part of the theoretical system, because it determines the correctness of the theoretical system.
Because I want to judge the whole theoretical system of Naturalistic explanation of Biology, rather than individual biological process. A premise can be either right or wrong. This topic actually was over, I only found Tangle did not agree with:
I(67) writes:
Now, we are all agree that Life consists only of matter directly leads to only natural laws operate in biological processes.
that
Tangle(75) writes:
No! None of us agree with that. We say that all science has ever found is natural processes so science's working hypothesis is that it's natural processes all the way down. Unless and until that observation changes, that's the way we progress.
But, he did not provide his reason, otherwise I would continue discussion NvC-1 topic.
Therefore, we need to get a new topic to continue our discussion.
My new topic proposal of NvC-2: Information is independent of matter is not a good one. This is not a good topic for discussion and many people don’t know why to discuss it. You are right to close it.
My new topic proposal of NvC-3: What is life made of? is a good topic. Maybe a clearer proposal is NvC-3: Life consists only of matter OR Life consists of matter and information. This topic is important and people participating in NvC-1 showed their interest. Several people here presented their opinions on that life consists only of matter:
Stile writes:
a tentatively held conclusion.
JonF writes:
a strong conclusion.
Tangle writes:
The concept of naturalism in science is a conclusion not a premise.
AZPaul3 writes:
*a* premise based on observation.
I expect that they will be interested in discussion with me.
Percy(NvC-3-2) writes:
We wouldn't let an atheist start a thread that defined evangelicalism as the irrational belief in a being that doesn't exist and based upon a book of fiction, because that's a biased distortion of the word's meaning.
I replied in Re-Percy(NvC-3-2) that I did not define anything. From my opinion, as long as this topic is important and people participating in NvC-1 showed their interest, this topic is worthy to open, even I did define something in my own way, because the participants would reject my definition once they join in.
I may propose two more topics -
NvC-4: Can science explain the origin of life on Earth?
NvC-5: Are all genetic mutations random?
Just for your consideration, and I respect your decision.

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Admin, posted 05-13-2020 1:56 PM Richard L. Wang has not replied

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 107 of 452 (876153)
05-13-2020 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by GDR
05-11-2020 8:34 PM


Re-GDR(92): Thank you very much
for your reminder.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by GDR, posted 05-11-2020 8:34 PM GDR has not replied

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 108 of 452 (876154)
05-13-2020 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by PaulK
05-12-2020 12:11 AM


Re-PaulK(94): I'm interested in discussing with you
once a new thread is opened. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 05-12-2020 12:11 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 109 of 452 (876155)
05-13-2020 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
05-12-2020 6:01 AM


Re-Dr Adequate(95): so my trap is not designed very well
I'm interested in discussing with you once a new thread is opened. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2020 6:01 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 110 of 452 (876157)
05-13-2020 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Richard L. Wang
05-13-2020 10:35 AM


Re: Methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism
quote:
On this topic, some people have talked a lot about methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism, and their definitions
Of course they did. That is what this topic is about.
quote:
Take the origin of life on Earth for example. If I say that science cannot explain the origin of life on Earth, then ALL Naturalists will say No, science can.
I think that most would admit that we do not yet have a satisfactory scientific explanation. More, even philosophical naturalists are not committed to the idea that we ever will. It is certainly possible that it is too difficult a problem and that we have too little information to solve it (although there are certainly reasons to hope that we will).
Methodological naturalists can even believe that it was a miracle that never can be explained scientifically. Some, however, will think otherwise - Catholics might point out that their doctrine says that natural law is as much an expression of God’s working as a a miracle.
quote:
I won't talk about methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism
So, no more talk of DN.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-13-2020 10:35 AM Richard L. Wang has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 111 of 452 (876159)
05-13-2020 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Richard L. Wang
05-13-2020 10:35 AM


Re: Methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism
RLW writes:
Take the origin of life on Earth for example. If I say that science cannot explain the origin of life on Earth, then ALL Naturalists will say No, science can.
You keep getting really basic stuff just plain wrong.
Science can not explain the origin of life. We don't yet know how life here began. Science has a name for it - 'abiogenesis' - and it has some hypothesises but it hasn't found the answer, yet.
It does, however, assume that the answer when it is found will be a naturalistic one - because everything we've studied so far is. But that's as far as it goes.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-13-2020 10:35 AM Richard L. Wang has not replied

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 112 of 452 (876162)
05-13-2020 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Richard L. Wang
05-13-2020 10:35 AM


Re-RLW(105): Richard, you made a big mistake
ALL Naturalists will say "Yes, science can", not "No, science can." Would you please improve your English first, then join in this forum to ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-13-2020 10:35 AM Richard L. Wang has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by WookieeB, posted 05-13-2020 12:20 PM Richard L. Wang has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 113 of 452 (876164)
05-13-2020 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Richard L. Wang
05-13-2020 11:50 AM


Re: Re-RLW(105): Richard, you made a big mistake
ALL Naturalists will say "Yes, science can", not "No, science can." Would you please improve your English first, then join in this forum to ...
I am sympathetic with you RichardLWang, but that was just funny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-13-2020 11:50 AM Richard L. Wang has not replied

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


Message 114 of 452 (876167)
05-13-2020 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Richard L. Wang
05-13-2020 10:30 AM


Re: Re-Percy(NvC-3-2): I did not define anything
Richard L. Wang writes:
Which one do you think clearer and better?
Keeping things simple is often a good idea, but not to the point of error. "Life consists only of matter" is as clearly in error as "pizza consists only of dough." How would you characterize the role of ATP if life were only matter?
If I could touch on honesty just a bit, if I claimed I was an ordained minister I would be lying. My inability to display the qualities of such training would be apparent and people would question it. Would you like to come clean about anything?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-13-2020 10:30 AM Richard L. Wang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-20-2020 9:27 AM Admin has replied

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


Message 115 of 452 (876168)
05-13-2020 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Richard L. Wang
05-13-2020 10:44 AM


Re: We need a new topic and NvC-3 is a good one
Richard L. Wang writes:
I may propose two more topics -
NvC-4: Can science explain the origin of life on Earth?
NvC-5: Are all genetic mutations random?
I consider all topic proposals on the merits but informed by what I've observed thus far of the proposer's ability to engage in rational, informed and constructive discussion.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-13-2020 10:44 AM Richard L. Wang has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 05-14-2020 5:54 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 116 of 452 (876173)
05-13-2020 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by AZPaul3
05-12-2020 9:26 AM


AZPaul3 writes:
Information has no independent existence outside the physics of the human mind.
And the same status can be said of SCIENCE.
If society would allow me to dissect a few dozen human brains at precisely the moment the word was read I could most definitely tell you the exact measures, weights and matter/energy constituents of the idea of cat. I would need a few thousand victims to get the full matter/energy constituents of a good sized kitten gif but it certainly could be done as long as I’m not caught before I finish.
Merely an assertion. Scientifically, identifying specific brain activity that accounts for sensory and motor skill operations does have some validity. But also scientifically, that does NOT appear to be the case for other states of mind like consciousness, sense of self, intellect, or abstract thinking. Some tests have been done, and tests are still being done on people without the need for a dissection. And the data suggests so far that you cannot define every mental thought by means of a particular matter pattern.
Chemical reactions have no meaning, they just are what they are as defined and predicted by QED. We can see that specific reactions repeatedly have specific natural effects throughout a complex system. DNA, mRNA, tRNA and amino acids make proteins in very specific complex natural processes.
These are emergent properties of complex chemistry with no purpose or goal. They are cascades of chemistry that have no option but to perform as the universe requires.
Except the pattern of information encoded by the DNA, mRNA, and even in tRNA is not determined by the QED or any known chemical affinities. Since you are invoking a philosophy of methodological naturalism (MN), I suppose you're logical conclusion is that everything in the end boils down to matter and energy, which you have insinuated is what thought is as well. But since that is merely an assertion, and MN is an arbitrary standard for science, I guess I won't have to point out how MN as a corollary also undermines any concept that science is a valid process.
We call parts of these processes a code because we can see great consistency with these specific molecules reacting with other molecules cascading into a consistent predictable end product. The reactions we see have no more meaning than the reaction of water and potassium exploding through that natural simple process also defined and predicted by QED.
This is how we have chosen to define and organize these complex sets of natural molecular cascades we observe. Like the symbology in a written book the DNA/RNA codes have no meaning outside the brain of the human studying them.
No, we call it a "code" because the arrangement of molecules corresponds to a symbol system that is independent from and conveys information independent from any physical properties of the molecules themselves. Just like a language is not merely a set of random sounds or a grouping of random markings on some medium, but instead those sets/groupings have a meaning to them that is independent of the physical devices causing or the receiving the input. And in our experience, when the origin is known, codes are always the result of the activity of an intelligence.
The 'message' is not based on any QED nor is a predictable end product, unless you are again taking a MN stance to it's logical conclusion..... which would mean that no only is any message or information invalid as being nothing more than molecules in motion, but so is rationality, morality, thought and,..... science.
The code exists only in our minds. And given enough victims to dissect we can discern the precise physical makeup of each symbol, idea and concept.
The hypothesis thus develops that in the hundreds of millions of years and the countless billions upon billions of reaction cascades experienced, the ones we see today in the operations of protein synthesis are the few that survived the rigors of natural selection because they were beneficial to the reproduction of organisms. Countless trillions of organisms did not survive to reproduce because the chemical cascades, the codes in their systems, were not conducive to their reproduction.
You contradict yourself here. If the "code exists only in our minds", then there cannot also be "codes in their systems" that affect reproduction. See, you cannot avoid the concept of information even when you want to.
I also find it interesting that your assertions also rely completely on the existence of at least 2 independent molecular defined "codes" acted on by devices that would logically have to be built by code-independent means, all of which just happen to be present via some unknown origin. Oh wait, I forgot.... it's just the snap your it's-all-is-just-molecules-in-motion-fingers that explains it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2020 9:26 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by AZPaul3, posted 05-14-2020 2:10 AM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 123 by ringo, posted 05-14-2020 4:17 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 117 of 452 (876176)
05-13-2020 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by AZPaul3
05-12-2020 9:26 AM


AZPaul3 writes:
Information has no independent existence outside the physics of the human mind.
Just a question. Did the information that E=mc2 exist as information before Einstein discovered it?
Edited by Admin, : Fix equation.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2020 9:26 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by jar, posted 05-13-2020 8:38 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 120 by AZPaul3, posted 05-14-2020 3:04 AM GDR has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 118 of 452 (876177)
05-13-2020 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by GDR
05-13-2020 8:00 PM


LoL
No it did not. The process existed but not the information.
Dem bones dem bones dem dry bones...

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill StudiosMy Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by GDR, posted 05-13-2020 8:00 PM GDR has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 119 of 452 (876183)
05-14-2020 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by WookieeB
05-13-2020 7:18 PM


Information has no independent existence outside the physics of the human mind.
And the same status can be said of SCIENCE.
You think you said something profound, don’t you. But you are right. All abstract concepts, like your god and talking snake, are solely conjures of the human mind.
Scientifically, identifying specific brain activity that accounts for sensory and motor skill operations does have some validity. But also scientifically, that does NOT appear to be the case for other states of mind like consciousness, sense of self, intellect, or abstract thinking.
You’re behind on the state of the art. The sensitivity of EEGs can see abstract concepts flow through the brain.
Device that can literally read your mind invented by scientists | The Independent | The Independent
Brain-reading - Wikipedia
You do know those electrical signals are generated by good old physical processes, right? Fortunately I’m not a republican. I don’t believe in dissecting and killing lots of innocent people just to further my goals, economic or otherwise. Still, if I could dissect the brains at just the right time do you doubt I can catch the impulse generation in the act?
Except the pattern of information encoded by the DNA, mRNA, and even in tRNA is not determined by the QED or any known chemical affinities.
We see these molecular cascades. We chart them, quantify them, document them, label, number and name them. The only reason they exist is because they enhance the survival/reproduction of the organism. And evolution determines which few cascades of the billions tried are useful enough to survive. The only reason they are a code is because *we* call them a code. They have no more meaning as a code or anything else outside the human brain than the blood-clot cascade or the effects of a HOX gene. They are chemistry. They do useful chemistry stuff.
And QED controls and predicts *all* of chemistry.
No, we call it a "code" because the arrangement of molecules corresponds to a symbol system that is independent from and conveys information independent from any physical properties of the molecules themselves.
No, we call it a code because *we* built a symbolic system in our minds to represent the physical actions we observed and to facilitate communication with other human brains. Outside the human mind the cascades are just, as GDR likes to say, mindless particles. Just chemistry. Really long complex chemistry. Really long complex chemistry operated by the strict rules of nature we observe as quantum electrodynamics.
And in our experience, when the origin is known, codes are always the result of the activity of an intelligence.
That’s right. Only intellect can devise a system of symbolic codes to describe disparate physical processes. The physical processes themselves can’t. But the minds that study, classify and communicate those processes certainly can. Then the twisted tarnished minds of the religiously-motivated illiteratii try to credit some sky spook for the code instead of crediting the real creator, the human mind.
which would mean that no only is any message or information invalid as being nothing more than molecules in motion, but so is rationality, morality, thought and,..... science.
Now you begin to understand. One piece you miss in this almost accurate summation of yours is that we can make valid any meaning to the molecules in motion by agreeing among ourselves what that validity entails, what symbol is to convey what meaning.
In fact we *MUST* do this specifically because rationality, morality, thought, science, meaning, information and all other symbolic concepts are human constructs without any reality or manifestation outside the human brain. There can only be information and meaning when we humans agree on the concepts.
You contradict yourself here. If the "code exists only in our minds", then there cannot also be "codes in their systems" that affect reproduction.
No, not a contradiction. It was an error.
I thought I was speaking with someone who had the intellect to understand the nuances of language well enough to grasp the tongue-in-cheek meaning being conveyed. My bad.
that would logically have to be built by code-independent means
logically? In biological systems? Really?
Almost all biology is adaptive systems built on adaptive systems glommed on other adaptive systems. The only thing that matters is whether it works. Logic has nothing to do with it. Reminds me of old COBOL programs before Y2K forced everyone to clean up their shit.
Plus, after hundreds of millions of years and billions upon billions of molecular cascades to test, mix and match, coming up with a few that actually work for us is not beyond the powers of evolution except within the religious illiteratii crowd.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by WookieeB, posted 05-13-2020 7:18 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 120 of 452 (876188)
05-14-2020 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by GDR
05-13-2020 8:00 PM


Did the information that E=mc2 exist as information before Einstein discovered it?
Depends on how one defines information.
Were matter and energy interchangeable at this large constant rate before Einstein wrote it down? Yes. The sun worked.
But, until it entered the symbolic world of awareness no one knew the relationship existed.
Does this mean the "information" existed in the universe independant of human symbolic awareness? No. Information *is* symbolic awareness of an underlying relationship.
Since no one can show any awareness outside the human mind (give or take a dolphin or so) information is the sole purview of the human. Before a human devised the formula the information did not exist. What existed prior was only the mass/energy relationship, but not any awareness of the thing, ie. no information.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by GDR, posted 05-13-2020 8:00 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by GDR, posted 05-18-2020 6:55 PM AZPaul3 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