|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 29 From: Palm Springs California Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
bertvan Junior Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 29 From: Palm Springs California Joined: |
Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process, and is neoDarwinism a materialistic explanation? More specifically is the following a materialistic explanation?
quote: 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/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
bertvan Junior Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 29 From: Palm Springs California Joined: |
Is that satisfactory?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
In short why should this present any challenge to materialism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
bertvan Junior Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 29 From: Palm Springs California Joined: |
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: 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/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
bertvan Junior Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 29 From: Palm Springs California Joined: |
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/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
bertvan Junior Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 29 From: Palm Springs California Joined: |
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/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
bertvan Junior Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 29 From: Palm Springs California Joined: |
Modulous:
quote: 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/
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024