Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9057 total)
455 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Aussie, Dm14174, dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Phat, Pollux, Tangle, Tanypteryx (9 members, 1 guest login, 445 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,889 Year: 1,001/6,534 Month: 1,001/682 Week: 54/182 Day: 28/26 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6215
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 226 of 452 (876624)
05-24-2020 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by GDR
05-24-2020 12:19 PM


Matter and energy provide information/data that can be measured.

How do they do that? What form does this communication of information take?


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by GDR, posted 05-24-2020 12:19 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by GDR, posted 05-24-2020 12:42 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 227 of 452 (876625)
05-24-2020 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by AZPaul3
05-24-2020 12:30 PM


AZPaul3 writes:

How do they do that? What form does this communication of information take?

It is information/data that can be perceived, measured and interpreted.

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 226 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2020 12:30 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2020 2:25 PM GDR has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6215
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 228 of 452 (876629)
05-24-2020 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by GDR
05-24-2020 12:42 PM


It is information/data that can be perceived, measured and interpreted.

I contend the information/data does not exist in the object. I contend the information/data does not exist until the object is perceived and measured within the mind. I contend the information/data is created and exists only in the mind.

Then the information can be analysed, interpreted and conclusions drawn.

The object is not even an onion field until a mind concludes it is an onion field regardless of what the configuration of the matter/energy may be.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by GDR, posted 05-24-2020 12:42 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by GDR, posted 05-24-2020 4:21 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 514 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 229 of 452 (876631)
05-24-2020 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tangle
05-07-2020 5:00 PM


Re: The DN’s premise (continued 1)
Science studies what it can observe. It makes no assumptions. The concept of naturalism in science is a conclusion not a premise - you have it all the wrong way round.

Sorry, is this correct? If science did not assume that life consists only of matter, then wouldn't we have satisfactory answers to any and all data? With no constraints on theory, it's simple to overfit any finite set of data.

I think science only works because we assume that all things are guided by natural laws, and aim to discover the laws.

Edited by Ben!, : No reason given.

Edited by Ben!, : gotta get the quoting right!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tangle, posted 05-07-2020 5:00 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2020 2:54 PM Ben! has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6215
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


(1)
Message 230 of 452 (876634)
05-24-2020 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Ben!
05-24-2020 2:36 PM


Re: The DN’s premise (continued 1)
Sorry, is this correct?

Science did not assume the conclusion that everything in matter/energy before its studies.

Science concluded that everything is matter/energy after observing a whole big bunch of things and never finding anything that is not matter/energy.

That conclusion is still only tentatively held pending any further observations to the contrary. However, our confidence in that conclusion is now so high that we can logically legitimately, tentatively consider it to be true in any further study until given a strong, a very strong, reason to question it.

Science works because we assume nothing and follow the data, and only the data, wherever it goes.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Ben!, posted 05-24-2020 2:36 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Ben!, posted 05-24-2020 3:02 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 237 by Ben!, posted 05-24-2020 4:11 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 514 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


(1)
Message 231 of 452 (876636)
05-24-2020 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by AZPaul3
05-24-2020 2:54 PM


Re: The DN’s premise (continued 1)
Science did not assume the conclusion that everything in matter/energy before its studies.

Hate to be pedantic, but could you provide some support for this? As a scientist, I believe this is incorrect. Here's why:

quote:
The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.

Source: Scientific method - Wikipedia


In science, we have to start with a hypothesis. I believe the underlying hypothesis of science is: we can explain the observable universe via empirical laws. When we fail to do so, we never EVER jump to "it must be metaphysical". Instead, we keep iterating on empirical laws.

Science concluded that everything is matter/energy after observing a whole big bunch of things and never finding anything that is not matter/energy.

Easy counter-example: consciousness. No physical theories, sorry. Yet, we have not moved to assuming there's a "soul", nor accepted eastern explanations for consciousness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2020 2:54 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2020 4:02 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 232 of 452 (876637)
05-24-2020 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by AZPaul3
05-23-2020 4:45 PM


Re-AZPaul3(217): what you quoted is different from what I wrote
What I wrote in RLW(215) is
quote:
1+1=2 can be operated by electronic circuits in calculators or smartphones and biological circuits in our brains.
If only the natural laws play roles, can calculators, smartphones or our brains perform this operation?

While what you quoted in AZPaul3(217) of what I wrote in RLW(215) is

quote:
1+1=2 can be operated by electronic circuits in calculators or smartphones and biological circuits in our brains.
can calculators, smartphones or our brains perform this operation?

Have you found the difference?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by AZPaul3, posted 05-23-2020 4:45 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2020 4:06 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 233 of 452 (876638)
05-24-2020 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by PaulK
05-23-2020 5:09 PM


Re-PaulK(219): when designing/making “player piano”, do only natural laws …
When designing/making “player piano”, do only natural laws play a role?

The “1+1=2” is just for a question: do only natural laws play a role in our daily life? In fact, many issues will cause the same question.
When you write your posts in English, do only the natural laws play a role? What about English vocabulary and grammar?
When you decide to travel to A or B, do only the natural laws play a role? What do you think of these factors: schedule, transportation, weather, meal, …

These examples come from our daily life, everyone has experience. I use these issues just for asking questions. Human neural network of humans is so complex that we cannot obtain clear answers on these questions. Therefore, I’ll discuss genetic information in detail, because the processes of genetic information are essentially understood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by PaulK, posted 05-23-2020 5:09 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by PaulK, posted 05-24-2020 3:48 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17072
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 234 of 452 (876640)
05-24-2020 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Richard L. Wang
05-24-2020 3:34 PM


Re: Re-PaulK(219): when designing/making “player piano”, do only natural laws …
quote:
When designing/making “player piano”, do only natural laws play a role?

Now you are really getting into unanswered questions, and abandoning your claim that you were only going to talk about genetic information, too. I think that the question of consciousness is really going beyond the topic and too far into speculation.

Nevertheless, the player piano, like the cell phone, like the calculator functions according to natural law - and relies on natural law to function.

quote:
Therefore, I’ll discuss genetic information in detail, because the processes of genetic information are essentially understood.

Certainly they are better understood. But again, that’s where your ideas run into trouble,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-24-2020 3:34 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6215
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 235 of 452 (876641)
05-24-2020 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Ben!
05-24-2020 3:02 PM


Re: The DN’s premise (continued 1)
Science did not assume the conclusion that everything is matter/energy before its studies.

Hate to be pedantic, but could you provide some support for this?

The early scientists/alchemists like Galileo and Newton made no such assumptions but only followed their data, right? After hundreds of years study we now accept naturalism as the default but not as a dogma.

Scientific method:

quote:
First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.

--Richard Feynman


In science, we have to start with a hypothesis. I believe the underlying hypothesis of science is: we can explain the observable universe via empirical laws.

We start with a hypothesis of the problem not any hypothesis of Science.

There is no underlying hypothesis to science. I find nowhere in Popper, Hume, Feynman or any other philosopher were any "underlying hypothesis to science" is assumed.

Yes, we are quite confident that naturalism is the default but science, by its very nature, eschews any such absolute dogma.

Easy counter-example: consciousness. No physical theories, sorry.

You mean consciousness (mind) as an emergent property of the complex electro-chemical operations of a brain? That sounds pretty physical to me. See Gerald Edelman, Antonio Damasio and Daniel Dennett.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Ben!, posted 05-24-2020 3:02 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6215
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 236 of 452 (876642)
05-24-2020 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Richard L. Wang
05-24-2020 3:30 PM


Re: Re-AZPaul3(217): what you quoted is different from what I wrote
Have you found the difference?

Sorry. I'm being dense. Please explain.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-24-2020 3:30 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 514 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 237 of 452 (876643)
05-24-2020 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by AZPaul3
05-24-2020 2:54 PM


Re: The DN’s premise (continued 1)
Thanks for the replies, I appreciate the time. At the same time, my general feeling is that you're not only getting my point, you don't want to get my point.

I find good conversations steel-man each other's arguments before finding counter-examples. It's not happening here, and I have way too limited time to engage at the depth necessary to get what I wish out of this conversation.

Again, appreciate the efforts, and will look elsewhere for more collaborative conversations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2020 2:54 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2020 5:15 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 238 of 452 (876644)
05-24-2020 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by AZPaul3
05-24-2020 2:25 PM


AZPaul3 writes:

The object is not even an onion field until a mind concludes it is an onion field regardless of what the configuration of the matter/energy may be.

This sounds something like the observer principle in QM, so now we are once again way beyond my pay grade. Maybe you can help me out here Ben.

Are you saying then that we require a non-physical consciousness to create data/information?


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 228 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2020 2:25 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2020 5:19 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6215
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 239 of 452 (876645)
05-24-2020 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Ben!
05-24-2020 4:11 PM


Re: The DN’s premise (continued 1)
my general feeling is that you're not only getting my point, you don't want to get my point.

Sorry you feel that way. If I don't get your point it is not for the lack of trying. And, on such subjects, I have my own points to make.

I find good conversations steel-man each other's arguments before finding counter-examples. It's not happening here ...

Did you do this prior to your quick countering with "consciousness" to begin with?

Besides, the discussions here are not all that complex where steel-manning is more useful.

Unless you didn't express yourself properly.

You did mean to say science assumes naturalism as dogma, right? The "underlying hypothesis", yes?

Again, appreciate the efforts, and will look elsewhere for more collaborative conversations.

And I appreciate your candor. If you tire of collaborative and want more challenge then please come back and I'll see if I am up to it.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Ben!, posted 05-24-2020 4:11 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6215
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


(1)
Message 240 of 452 (876646)
05-24-2020 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by GDR
05-24-2020 4:21 PM


Are you saying then that we require a non-physical consciousness to create data/information?

I'm saying data/information are human constructs and exist in the mind not in the object.

And I very much doubt there is such a thing as a non-physical consciousness.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by GDR, posted 05-24-2020 4:21 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022