Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:51:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Lawrence Sica <lomifeh@earthlink.net>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020911150151.C45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D7E5E08.2DB903C6@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > At a fundamental level, the universe is quantized, > > > and this causes certain emergenet behaviours in matter. > > > > Really? What do you mean, when you say, "the universe is quantized"? > > E.g. it takes exactly 13.6 electron volts to take an electron > from an s orbital to infinity. Not 13.4, not 13.8. So how does this prove that "order comes from disorder"? > > And what do you mean by "certain emergent behaviours in matter"? > > You seem to think that quantum physics can do all things, like > > reconcile the irrational. To say that order comes from disorder, > > no matter how much you try to dress it up is still irrational. If, > > on the other hand, you mean there never was disorder in the first > > place, I can buy that. > > Your _opinion_ on what's rational or not has been noted, but is > not really germane. Okay, I can play this game. *Your* _opinion_ on what's rational has been noted as well, but is not really germane. > > > We call > > > the properties that cause this "universal constants", like the > > > value of PI, the value of "e", the Planck length, etc.. We don't > > > have to define an origin for these numbers for them to make > > > themselves evident to us. > > > > Maybe you don't think so, but if you believe that then you can't > > count on them continuing to be constants in the future. We're right > > back to David Hume and the problem of induction. > > No, you are actually right that we can't count on them in the > future. There's evidence that the speed of light was much > higher, much earlier in the life of the universe, for example. You miss the point. Without assuming the uniformity of nature, there *could be no* evidence about the speed of light at all. > > > > 3) Life came from non-life. > > > > > > This is actually a reasonable assumption, given empirical > > > observations. We have a number of stories to describe the math > > > of how this could be so. > > > > "Stories" seems to be an apt description. > > It is. It's why I used it. Don't confuse stories with reality; > it's impossible for you to directly observe reality. Really? How then is the scientific method even possible? > > > It also begs the definition of "life"; > > > if you mean self-assembly of complex chemical compounds, we can > > > do this in a laboratory, under controlled conditions, creating > > > amino acids from conditions which simulate our best guesses at > > > those present early in the life of the Earth. > > > > The key phrase here is "under controlled conditions". Self-assembly > > is a contradiction. Moreover, no, I do not consider amino acids to > > be "life". > > We have to control the conditions, because it's not possible > to simulate the appropriate conditions. High partial pressures > of CO2 and SO2 don't occur naturally on Earth any more. It's not even possible to KNOW the appropriate conditions! The whole exercise is one big begging of the question. > Whether you consider amino acids "life" or not is also pretty > irrelevant, since you are going to keep moving the finish line, > the deeper we get, so as to continue to be "right". 8-). What makes you think this? > > > > 4) Intelligence came from non-intelligence. > > > > > > Our best theory is that intelligence is an emergent property of > > > complex self-regulating systems over a certain threshold density. > > > > This just sounds like so much baloney. Basically what you just > > said is that our best theory is merely the assertion that "intelligence > > emerged from non-intelligence." Yeah, I already know you believe that, > > but believing it and showing it to be the case are two different things. > > We can demonstrate that complex behaviour emerges from simple > rule sets. Conway's game of Life and other cellular automata > demonstrate that (e.g. "Sugarscape"). Conway's game of Life doesn't demonstrate anything close to intelligence. Once more, if you believe this, you have no reason for believing that your belief about the origin of intelligence is true, unless you give yourself a priviledged position of being right by definition. > > Lets start with your own reasoning ability. To review, if you are a > > naturalist, all of your brain functions are due merely to physical > > laws acting on antecedent brain states. On your view, reason is an > > illusion, and you have no way of knowing whether or not your reasoning > > is sound, since all of it is due merely to the electro-chemical > > reactions taking place in your grey matter. > > How does it follow that "reason is an illusion"? You've made a > leap there which you haven't really justified making... For the same reason that water doesn't "know" how to flow downstream. If everything in your brain is the result of the laws of physics, you couldn't *help* but believe what you do. All of your reasoning is suspect. Why should *your* beliefs be considered "true" while a theists beliefs are considered "false"? Both are the result of physics, and have nothing to do with what corresponds to any such notion as "right reason" or "truth". Everybody just believes what they believe. > > You could never know that > > your views were right and that somebody else's views are wrong, unless > > you give yourself the priviledged position of being the only person for > > whom evolution granted perfect reasoning. > > Yeah, "right" and "wrong" are subjective; that one of the problems > consensus solves for us: it gives us an external ruler. What do you mean by "problem"? If there is no right and wrong, no "problem" can even be defined, let alone solved. If there is no objective right or wrong, any attempt to define the problem will be totally arbitrary. You have to have an objective standard of right and wrong before you can even know if there *is* a problem to be solved. > > Moreover, you cannot save > > reason by introducing randomness, as all this does is try to save > > rationality by introducing irrationality. Morever, whether or not you > > think reason is determined by physical laws or by chance, it is still > > determined, and has nothing to do with "sound reasoning" or "truth". > > If "randomness" was equal to "irrationality", son't you think > that we wouldn't have invented a second word, or that at least > one would be defined in terms of the other in your dictionary? Uh, no. I was counting on you to draw the necessary inference. But if you must have it spelled out for you, when you apply "randomness" to our thinking processes, what results is irrationality. Sound reasoning involves applying objective standards to our thought processes, and has nothing to do with "randomness". > > Yeah, I know, you don't believe in moral absolutes. I'll just point > > out one more problem with your view, and then drop it. You could > > never come to a meaningful consensus without reasoning, and since > > your reasoning is suspect due to the above, you could never actually > > come to any meaningful consensus. > > Sure I can. I have schelling points, which I can use to establish > communication. By the way, Terry, what *is* a schelling point anyway? 8-) > Even if you seperate people so that they can not otherwise > communicate, and you make them play "interative prisoner's > dilemma", you provide them feedback, and they can therefore > use their gameplay to establish a communications channel. > > Read "The Evolution of Cooperation". Communication is not the problem. The ability to reason is necessary before any communication is possible. You still have not provided any basis for reason. Randomness does not get you there. > > > Believing in a creator is not the same thing as falsifying > > > evolutionary theory. > > > > No, it is not, but at this point I think you would do well to > > read Phillip Johnsons book, "Darwin on Trial". The philosophical > > and scientific problems with evolution are quite numerous. > > I've read the book; I disagree with some of the premises on which > his arguments are built. They are, not coincidently, some of your > premises, as well. The counterargument basically comes down to > "your inability to conceive of something doesn't make it any less > true". This sounds suspiciously like an attempt to justify the arbitrariness of your assumptions. > This is, in the limit, the same argument that is normally > put forth in defense of a creator, but it's stated as "Absence of > evidence is not evidence of absence". 8-). Of course, I disagree with that premise as well. 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020911150151.C45696-100000>