|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:07:42 GMT, Lewis Mammel
wrote: WaltBJ wrote: One big flaw in "Intelligent Design" is that the human body is itself by no means an intelligent design. A birth canal that passes through a bony ring is just plain bad engineering. And there are many more serious flaws in the design of the human body. Somehow all the ID/Creationists sedulously ignore these design flaws, when a few minutes serious thought will allow you to identify at least a dozen of them. ID? Yeah, right! I remember a comedian years ago doing a bit on improvements he'd like to see in the human body. The only two I remember a Your ears should be under your arms so you could keep them warm. Your mouth should be on top of your head so you could put a sandwich under your hat and eat it on the way to work. And your elbows should bend both ways so you could scratch your own back. Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket! |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism
Chas Brown wrote: David E wrote: Interesting, this thread supports a hypothesis that I've proposed many times befo that science fiction readers tend far more to a naturalistic worldview than others. I have little doubt that my childhood (and continuing) love of SF was one of the factors that helped ease me out of the indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity in which I was raised. As to the main claim of the origin quote: that naturalism is an essentially nihilistic worldview is there anyone here who agrees or would care to present an argument for this claim (I notice that the quote simply takes it as a give rather than presenting a case for the claim's truth). I don't in the slightest degree agree with the assertion, but I understand the basic logic of it. Suppose we take it as granted that ethical behavior is exactly that behavior which is in consonance with (by definition) the most perfectly ethical being possible - God. It follows that the denial of the existence of such a being is equivalent to stating "there is no foundation for ethical behavior". I.e., it asserts that ethics is essentially nihilistic. No, you could have some _thing_ in perhaps a higher realm, like the Platonic forms, which was nevertheless not godlike in the sense of not being conscious or powerful. This thing could be capable of telling you what was objectively and absolutely ethical. You don't exactly need god, just a sort of enduring ghost that hangs around. The concept that an individual chooses what they believe is ethical or not "by their own lights" is regarded as the evil of "moral relativism". What stops a person from claiming that killing and eating his/her neighbor's children is "morally correct"? This argument of course ignores the basic aesthetic logic given in the book review. We can choose what is ethical because "it is beautiful to do so"; regardless of the fact that certain aspects of what we consider "beautiful" doubtless have roots in our evolutionary history. Or in the intervention of the gods. Or something. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism
"*Anarcissie*" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: On 16 Nov 2006 10:53:31 -0800, "David E" wrote: Interesting, this thread supports a hypothesis that I've proposed many times befo that science fiction readers tend far more to a naturalistic worldview than others. I have little doubt that my childhood (and continuing) love of SF was one of the factors that helped ease me out of the indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity in which I was raised. As to the main claim of the origin quote: that naturalism is an essentially nihilistic worldview is there anyone here who agrees or would care to present an argument for this claim (I notice that the quote simply takes it as a give rather than presenting a case for the claim's truth). Most of us here are neither philosophical naturalists nor nihilists. Any naturalism is incidental, consequential and minor. Naturalism is the philosophical belief that everything is natural. Nihilism is the philosophical belief in nothing. A nihilist could not hold the beliefs required of a naturalist. The most common meaning of nihilism is a lack of belief in absolute or objective values. See: Both camps see a world that is constantly changing. But nihilism makes the same assumption that underlies classical objective science. Only that which remains unchanged, repeatable or predictable has ...value, meaning or supplies truth. This apparent contradiction leaves them with nothing but emptiness. But the logical contradiction is easy to see. The only truth is that everything constantly changes. So truth and meaning constantly change or evolve. Which means they are subjective and dependent on how the universe changes or evolves. It is only our inability to understand the natural processes of change that leaves us empty and confused. And this is the fault of objective reductionist, or modern, science which exalts fixed physical laws within a frame of reference of upward causation. The proper frame of reference for understanding the processes of change is through subjective methods within a framework of holistic, or systems, perspective. The basic error in our attempt to understand reality, which chaos theory is reversing, is simple and profound. This is not a minor thing to say but it is absolutely true and completely changes everything. Modern science has been attempting to find truth and meaning by starting with the smallest simplest objects of the physical universe. In the hope that will lead to an understanding of the most complex, such as life, intelligence and meaning. They start with the simplest the universe has to offer in order to understand the complex. That is perfectly backwards!!! The way to understand reality and nature is to do exactly the opposite. We should be starting with the most complex the universe has to offer in order to understand its simplicity. Or....instead of beginning with the physical universe as a source of fundamental law, we should derive fundamental laws of the physical universe from LIFE....the most complex. That's correct.....Darwin explains how the physical universe works. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The abstract properties of Darwinian evolution tell us all about how life evolves, and how physical universe evolves. Modern science has been seeking out certainty and simplicity all this time in order to make sense of it all. But we should be seeking out uncertainty and complexity instead. Then, and only then, the true simplicity of nature and the universe becomes clear. As does meaning and truth. Good is that which best mimics naturally evolving processes. Evil is that which is farthest from Nature. Morality is now a function of fitness, of context. And with clear scientific rules based on the Darwinian notions we all know and love. Simplicity in the parts leads to chaos, or complexity, in the whole. Complexity, or chaos, in the parts leads to simplicity in the whole. Random interactions, within an infinite loop, leads to increasing order evolution, life and intelligence. Our science is backwards, we live in the Dark Ages. Jonathan s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm http://www.counterorder.com/nihilism.html http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11074a.htm |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism
jonathan wrote: "*Anarcissie*" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: On 16 Nov 2006 10:53:31 -0800, "David E" wrote: Interesting, this thread supports a hypothesis that I've proposed many times befo that science fiction readers tend far more to a naturalistic worldview than others. I have little doubt that my childhood (and continuing) love of SF was one of the factors that helped ease me out of the indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity in which I was raised. As to the main claim of the origin quote: that naturalism is an essentially nihilistic worldview is there anyone here who agrees or would care to present an argument for this claim (I notice that the quote simply takes it as a give rather than presenting a case for the claim's truth). Most of us here are neither philosophical naturalists nor nihilists. Any naturalism is incidental, consequential and minor. Naturalism is the philosophical belief that everything is natural. Nihilism is the philosophical belief in nothing. A nihilist could not hold the beliefs required of a naturalist. The most common meaning of nihilism is a lack of belief in absolute or objective values. See: Both camps see a world that is constantly changing. But nihilism makes the same assumption that underlies classical objective science. Only that which remains unchanged, repeatable or predictable has ...value, meaning or supplies truth. This apparent contradiction leaves them with nothing but emptiness. But the logical contradiction is easy to see. The only truth is that everything constantly changes. So truth and meaning constantly change or evolve. Which means they are subjective and dependent on how the universe changes or evolves. It is only our inability to understand the natural processes of change that leaves us empty and confused. 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't appear to change much. And this is the fault of objective reductionist, or modern, science which exalts fixed physical laws within a frame of reference of upward causation. Not long ago I was reading in the _Scientific_American_ about possible universes in which 2 + 2 = 4 is false. Part of what I believe some have called the Quantum Froth hypothesis. Science became attractively weird in the 20th century, at least out at the edges. The proper frame of reference for understanding the processes of change is through subjective methods within a framework of holistic, or systems, perspective. Objectively proper? The basic error in our attempt to understand reality, which chaos theory is reversing, is simple and profound. This is not a minor thing to say but it is absolutely true and completely changes everything. Modern science has been attempting to find truth and meaning by starting with the smallest simplest objects of the physical universe. In the hope that will lead to an understanding of the most complex, such as life, intelligence and meaning. That is incorrect. Small objects and their interactions were originally hypothesized as part of the explanation or analysis of larger objects and their interactions. But so have very large, comprehensive "objects" like gravity or Einstein's conception of spacetime. They start with the simplest the universe has to offer in order to understand the complex. That is perfectly backwards!!! The way to understand reality and nature is to do exactly the opposite. We should be starting with the most complex the universe has to offer in order to understand its simplicity. Or....instead of beginning with the physical universe as a source of fundamental law, we should derive fundamental laws of the physical universe from LIFE....the most complex. That's correct.....Darwin explains how the physical universe works. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The abstract properties of Darwinian evolution tell us all about how life evolves, and how physical universe evolves. Modern science has been seeking out certainty and simplicity all this time in order to make sense of it all. But we should be seeking out uncertainty and complexity instead. Then, and only then, the true simplicity of nature and the universe becomes clear. As does meaning and truth. Good is that which best mimics naturally evolving processes. Evil is that which is farthest from Nature. Morality is now a function of fitness, of context. And with clear scientific rules based on the Darwinian notions we all know and love. Simplicity in the parts leads to chaos, or complexity, in the whole. Complexity, or chaos, in the parts leads to simplicity in the whole. Random interactions, within an infinite loop, leads to increasing order evolution, life and intelligence. Our science is backwards, we live in the Dark Ages. Jonathan s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm http://www.counterorder.com/nihilism.html http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11074a.htm |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:38:02 -0500, "jonathan"
wrote: Modern science has been attempting to find truth and meaning by starting with the smallest simplest objects of the physical universe. In the hope that will lead to an understanding of the most complex, such as life, intelligence and meaning. Nope. Science makes no claim about meaning. And it doesn't prespecify scales. You can apply science at any scale. One of the best examples of good science is Bernd Heinrich's "Ravens in Winter". It's a purely naturalistic study of the behavior of big black birds in New England winters. It sticks to the facts of the experiments and draws conclusions about its (admittedly fascinating) subjects. No reductionism is required. And while the book itself and the experimenter's comments are meaningful, the ravens have no cosmic meaning. Regards, Jack Tingle |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism
jonathan wrote: "*Anarcissie*" wrote in mes So truth and meaning constantly change or evolve. Which means they are subjective and dependent on how the universe changes or evolves. It is only our inability to understand the natural processes of change that leaves us empty and confused. 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't appear to change much. We were talking about reality. One idea plus one action can change the world. And the resulting effect never repeats itself exactly. And this is the fault of objective reductionist, or modern, science which exalts fixed physical laws within a frame of reference of upward causation. Not long ago I was reading in the _Scientific_American_ about possible universes in which 2 + 2 = 4 is false. Part of what I believe some have called the Quantum Froth hypothesis. Science became attractively weird in the 20th century, at least out at the edges. In all of reality there never has been, or ever will be, anything that will ever exactly repeat. Not even once in the entire history or future of the universe will anything repeat itself. We are talking about reality, not platonic constructions or blackboard mathematics. Which according to Einstein.... "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. " The proper frame of reference for understanding the processes of change is through subjective methods within a framework of holistic, or systems, perspective. Objectively proper? The basic error in our attempt to understand reality, which chaos theory is reversing, is simple and profound. This is not a minor thing to say but it is absolutely true and completely changes everything. Modern science has been attempting to find truth and meaning by starting with the smallest simplest objects of the physical universe. In the hope that will lead to an understanding of the most complex, such as life, intelligence and meaning. That is incorrect. Small objects and their interactions were originally hypothesized as part of the explanation or analysis of larger objects and their interactions. But so have very large, comprehensive "objects" like gravity or Einstein's conception of spacetime. But all those examples are still efforts to derive fundamental laws from the building blocks of the physical universe. They should be derived from the exact opposite. Our fundamental laws should be derived from the ....system properties...of life. Not the part properties of the non living universe. It's not possible to extrapolate directly from the smallest part to the whole. Each step accumulates error. You can't understand an idea begginning with particle physics. Order or life has one particular system property that defies deterministic methods. Orderly systems are characterized by chaotic behavior in the components. Chaotic means unpredictable or non repeatable. So how can our standard mathematics which relies on repeatable relationships ever hope to unravel such a system when starting with the chaotic parts??? It can't, so it keeps reducing to smaller and smaller parts in the vain hope of finding some ultimate relationship or law. But that is futile, given the nature of reality. Modern science scours one extreme or the other in search of these laws. From quarks to quasars, looking for ultimate simplicity and comes up empty. The truth is that complexity or life derives from a system which is as far from either extreme as possible. Reality, life and intelligence all flow from the random interaction of opposite extremes. Matter and energy give rise to light Gravity and cosmic expansion give rise to a universe. Genetics and mutation give rise to evolution Instincts and imagination give rise to intelligence. Laws and freedom give rise to democracy And so on, increasing order requires the complex interaction between simple components. Examining simple components will not unravel the source of complexity. So we must reverse our frame of reference. We assume there is no precision in reality. We assume subjective methods are the ideal. We begin with the whole, in order to understand the parts. Instead of reducing to the smallesst parts, we expand to the most complex system as a starting point. So, instead of searching the universe, from quarks to quasars, for meaning....we look into a mirror instead. We have to understand ourselves before we can understand reality. NOT the other way around. s They start with the simplest the universe has to offer in order to understand the complex. That is perfectly backwards!!! The way to understand reality and nature is to do exactly the opposite. We should be starting with the most complex the universe has to offer in order to understand its simplicity. Or....instead of beginning with the physical universe as a source of fundamental law, we should derive fundamental laws of the physical universe from LIFE....the most complex. That's correct.....Darwin explains how the physical universe works. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The abstract properties of Darwinian evolution tell us all about how life evolves, and how physical universe evolves. Modern science has been seeking out certainty and simplicity all this time in order to make sense of it all. But we should be seeking out uncertainty and complexity instead. Then, and only then, the true simplicity of nature and the universe becomes clear. As does meaning and truth. Good is that which best mimics naturally evolving processes. Evil is that which is farthest from Nature. Morality is now a function of fitness, of context. And with clear scientific rules based on the Darwinian notions we all know and love. Simplicity in the parts leads to chaos, or complexity, in the whole. Complexity, or chaos, in the parts leads to simplicity in the whole. Random interactions, within an infinite loop, leads to increasing order evolution, life and intelligence. Our science is backwards, we live in the Dark Ages. Jonathan s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm http://www.counterorder.com/nihilism.html http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11074a.htm |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism
"Jack Tingle" wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:38:02 -0500, "jonathan" wrote: Modern science has been attempting to find truth and meaning by starting with the smallest simplest objects of the physical universe. In the hope that will lead to an understanding of the most complex, such as life, intelligence and meaning. Nope. Science makes no claim about meaning. And it doesn't prespecify scales. You can apply science at any scale. One of the best examples of good science is Bernd Heinrich's "Ravens in Winter". It's a purely naturalistic study of the behavior of big black birds in New England winters. It sticks to the facts of the experiments and draws conclusions about its (admittedly fascinating) subjects. No reductionism is required. And while the book itself and the experimenter's comments are meaningful, the ravens have no cosmic meaning. Of course they're using reductionism. If they look at the detailed behavior of each bird in order to understand the properties of the whole, the species or flock. And of course the most fascinating aspects of living systems are the emergent properties. Behavior that seems to come from nowhere, unspoken rules, and collective behavior. The complexity that emerges from the interaction of relatively simple components. And they do have cosmic meaning. If they can teach us about behavior that is universal Boids http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/index.html That nature creates or problem solves by the countless iterations of random interactions. It doesn't matter if you're talking about a society or a solar system. Eventually, inevitably, the ideal solution will be found. Whether it's a planet just perfectly placed in the water zone. Or the perfect adapation. The ..abstract...processes responsible for each are the same. Which gives them meaning. How the universe or life go from simple components to complex systems, how systems self organize are universal to both. And since they are far easier to descern in living systems, we should start there. With the most complex the universe has to offer. The fundamental laws of the physical universe should be derived from life, not the other way around. Self organizing system FAQ http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm Dynamics of complex systems, online text http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html Regards, Jack Tingle |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism
jonathan wrote: jonathan wrote: "*Anarcissie*" wrote in mes So truth and meaning constantly change or evolve. Which means they are subjective and dependent on how the universe changes or evolves. It is only our inability to understand the natural processes of change that leaves us empty and confused. 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't appear to change much. We were talking about reality. One idea plus one action can change the world. And the resulting effect never repeats itself exactly. You might be amused by many-worlds theory. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(science) which has a good rundown of the outstanding ideas (I guess; I'm not exactly a physics connoisseur). If many-worlds is true (and what is truth?) then not only does every effect repeat itself exactly, it does so infinitely many times. And then some. And this is the fault of objective reductionist, or modern, science which exalts fixed physical laws within a frame of reference of upward causation. Not long ago I was reading in the _Scientific_American_ about possible universes in which 2 + 2 = 4 is false. Part of what I believe some have called the Quantum Froth hypothesis. Science became attractively weird in the 20th century, at least out at the edges. In all of reality there never has been, or ever will be, anything that will ever exactly repeat. Not even once in the entire history or future of the universe will anything repeat itself. We are talking about reality, not platonic constructions or blackboard mathematics. Which according to Einstein.... "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. " His buddy Gödel, however, disagreed. In their declining years they walked around stuffy little Princeton town, debating their incompataible religious theories. But when it comes to religion, every man can read the scriptures, so we can both tell them where to get off, if we like. The proper frame of reference for understanding the processes of change is through subjective methods within a framework of holistic, or systems, perspective. Objectively proper? The basic error in our attempt to understand reality, which chaos theory is reversing, is simple and profound. This is not a minor thing to say but it is absolutely true and completely changes everything. Modern science has been attempting to find truth and meaning by starting with the smallest simplest objects of the physical universe. In the hope that will lead to an understanding of the most complex, such as life, intelligence and meaning. That is incorrect. Small objects and their interactions were originally hypothesized as part of the explanation or analysis of larger objects and their interactions. But so have very large, comprehensive "objects" like gravity or Einstein's conception of spacetime. But all those examples are still efforts to derive fundamental laws from the building blocks of the physical universe. They should be derived from the exact opposite. Our fundamental laws should be derived from the ...system properties...of life. Not the part properties of the non living universe. It's not possible to extrapolate directly from the smallest part to the whole. Each step accumulates error. You can't understand an idea begginning with particle physics. Order or life has one particular system property that defies deterministic methods. Orderly systems are characterized by chaotic behavior in the components. Chaotic means unpredictable or non repeatable. So how can our standard mathematics which relies on repeatable relationships ever hope to unravel such a system when starting with the chaotic parts??? It can't, so it keeps reducing to smaller and smaller parts in the vain hope of finding some ultimate relationship or law. But that is futile, given the nature of reality. Modern science scours one extreme or the other in search of these laws. From quarks to quasars, looking for ultimate simplicity and comes up empty. The truth is that complexity or life derives from a system which is as far from either extreme as possible. Reality, life and intelligence all flow from the random interaction of opposite extremes. Matter and energy give rise to light Gravity and cosmic expansion give rise to a universe. Genetics and mutation give rise to evolution Instincts and imagination give rise to intelligence. Laws and freedom give rise to democracy And so on, increasing order requires the complex interaction between simple components. Examining simple components will not unravel the source of complexity. So we must reverse our frame of reference. We assume there is no precision in reality. We assume subjective methods are the ideal. We begin with the whole, in order to understand the parts. Instead of reducing to the smallesst parts, we expand to the most complex system as a starting point. So, instead of searching the universe, from quarks to quasars, for meaning....we look into a mirror instead. We have to understand ourselves before we can understand reality. NOT the other way around. s They start with the simplest the universe has to offer in order to understand the complex. That is perfectly backwards!!! The way to understand reality and nature is to do exactly the opposite. We should be starting with the most complex the universe has to offer in order to understand its simplicity. Or....instead of beginning with the physical universe as a source of fundamental law, we should derive fundamental laws of the physical universe from LIFE....the most complex. That's correct.....Darwin explains how the physical universe works. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The abstract properties of Darwinian evolution tell us all about how life evolves, and how physical universe evolves. Modern science has been seeking out certainty and simplicity all this time in order to make sense of it all. But we should be seeking out uncertainty and complexity instead. Then, and only then, the true simplicity of nature and the universe becomes clear. As does meaning and truth. Good is that which best mimics naturally evolving processes. Evil is that which is farthest from Nature. Morality is now a function of fitness, of context. And with clear scientific rules based on the Darwinian notions we all know and love. Simplicity in the parts leads to chaos, or complexity, in the whole. Complexity, or chaos, in the parts leads to simplicity in the whole. Random interactions, within an infinite loop, leads to increasing order evolution, life and intelligence. Our science is backwards, we live in the Dark Ages. Jonathan s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm http://www.counterorder.com/nihilism.html http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11074a.htm |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism
: "jonathan"
: Modern science has been attempting to find truth and meaning : by starting with the smallest simplest objects of the physical : universe. In the hope that will lead to an understanding of : the most complex, such as life, intelligence and meaning. That turns out not to be the case. Science started with things like "animals" and "air" and "rocks" and "weather" and so on and on, and sought explanations for these things. Seeking simplity or certainty has almost nothing to do with it (though prefering simple explantions over needlessly complex ones is a common heuristic often employed). Science has been attempting *accurate*, *useful* *models* of the things all around us. : The abstract properties of Darwinian evolution are a good case in point; Darwin didn't start with genetics and chemistry and all those "small, simple" things, he started with the animals. : Modern science has been seeking out certainty and simplicity all this : time in order to make sense of it all. But we should be seeking out : uncertainty and complexity instead. Shrug. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism
Wayne Throop wrote:
: "jonathan" : Modern science has been seeking out certainty and simplicity all this : time in order to make sense of it all. But we should be seeking out : uncertainty and complexity instead. Shrug. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. There is already a considerable supply of uncertainty and complexity at hand; we need not seek very far. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intelligent Design vs Evolution | kenseto | Astronomy Misc | 213 | March 6th 06 07:38 PM |
Intelligent Design? | glbrad01 | Policy | 3 | November 28th 05 01:58 AM |
'Intelligent Design' becoming LAW! | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | September 29th 05 01:42 PM |
'Intelligent Design' becoming LAW! | Odysseus | Astronomy Misc | 6 | September 28th 05 10:57 PM |
'Intelligent Design' becoming LAW! | Odysseus | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | September 28th 05 09:37 PM |