or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Worse than creationism: Dualism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Worse than creationism: Dualism - Page 3

post #81 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
And this, again, is why I said earlier that this is an incredibly dangerous line of argument for believers to take. It's like they're only thinking about winning this particular argument at all costswithout any consideration for what might happen 5 or 6 moves later in the chess game.

So the ID people might discredit religion and kill it over time by insisting on creation? That would be lovely.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #82 of 195
The brain is much more than circuitry. The brain is also a matter of chemestry.
There is chemical and physical interactions coming from the everywhere.

The mind is more than simply the brain, it's the result of all the interactions with the inside (the body) and outside environnement with our brain. If we cut all the neural link, we will kill emotions, because emotions are supported by the basic duo : pain/pleasure. If someone can't feel any pain or any pleasure, he would not understand emotions.
post #83 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
The brain is much more than circuitry. The brain is also a matter of chemestry.
There is chemical and physical interactions coming from the everywhere.

The mind is more than simply the brain, it's the result of all the interactions with the inside (the body) and outside environnement with our brain. If we cut all the neural link, we will kill emotions, because emotions are supported by the basic duo : pain/pleasure. If someone can't feel any pain or any pleasure, he would not understand emotions.

Somehow I doubt that if all the neruons between my brain and the rest of my body were suddenly severed, I would stop feeling emotions.

I would be scared, then depressed, then ???.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #84 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
The brain is much more than circuitry. The brain is also a matter of chemestry.
There is chemical and physical interactions coming from the everywhere.

The mind is more than simply the brain, it's the result of all the interactions with the inside (the body) and outside environnement with our brain. If we cut all the neural link, we will kill emotions, because emotions are supported by the basic duo : pain/pleasure. If someone can't feel any pain or any pleasure, he would not understand emotions.

I agree with your premise that the mind is more than the brain, because the brain interacts with the body (e.g., triggering the stress response, perceiving pain, etc.). But I don't understand your conclusion from that. Doesn't that really makes the point that the mind = the brain? It's not the mind that produces the stress response, it's the body. The physiology of it is well understood. Same with pain: Pain perception occurs not just in the brain, but the brain can "close the gate" in the spinal cord to reduce the pain.

Or maybe you're just making a finer distinction - that the mind is the brain and its interactions with the rest of the body. I agree with that.
post #85 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Somehow I doubt that if all the neruons between my brain and the rest of my body were suddenly severed, I would stop feeling emotions.

I would be scared, then depressed, then ???.

Then dead really quick.
post #86 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Somehow I doubt that if all the neruons between my brain and the rest of my body were suddenly severed, I would stop feeling emotions.

I would be scared, then depressed, then ???.

My best guess is that you would pretty much stop being aware of anything ever again, for ever, instantaneously.

From the few accidents I've had in my life I think it is pretty clear that the awareness of a sudden injury gets shut off. Something like a sudden decapitation would most likely just results in 'lights out-the end'.
post #87 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
So the ID people might discredit religion and kill it over time by insisting on creation? That would be lovely.

Yes. That's precisely what will happen. If they keep up this line of argument, they will make religion as wondrous and miraculous as gravity.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #88 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Yes. That's precisely what will happen. If they keep up this line of argument, they will make religion as wondrous and miraculous as gravity.

Maybe I should send a donation... 8)
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #89 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
My best guess is that you would pretty much stop being aware of anything ever again, for ever, instantaneously.

From the few accidents I've had in my life I think it is pretty clear that the awareness of a sudden injury gets shut off. Something like a sudden decapitation would most likely just results in 'lights out-the end'.

I wasn't thinking of a violent cut-off, more like little magic nano-bots that cut all the nerves at once. I was thinking it would be like being in a sensory depravation tank.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #90 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell


Or maybe you're just making a finer distinction - that the mind is the brain and its interactions with the rest of the body. I agree with that.

Yes you are right for the gate control theory, wich althought occurs at different level of our nervous system.

And thanks for rephrasing what I tried to say in a much precise and concise wording. It's not always easy to express accurately what we try to mean in our native language, but it's even more complicated in a foreign language. Sometimes I am frustrated, but I am keep trying
post #91 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Yes. That's precisely what will happen. If they keep up this line of argument, they will make religion as wondrous and miraculous as gravity.

You've lost me there. These ID guys aren't even Christian in most cases.

In any event I still don't understand why the chemical evolutionists/neo Darwinists are so fired up over an issue -- the design inference -- that can't be tested either way -- it's functionally irrelevant. ID is basically just punctuated equilibrium with plausible deniability.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #92 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Somehow I doubt that if all the neruons between my brain and the rest of my body were suddenly severed, I would stop feeling emotions.

I would be scared, then depressed, then ???.

This sort of state almost really exist : it's called locked in syndrome. One people used to have this syndroma. He could only communicate via an ocular movement. His family who was very rich, buyed him a device who helped him "speak" via this way. The man wrote a book, expressing his feelings. He had some, because he was living with his souvenirs, and because he vas not entirely cut with his environnements.

Even if he was cut totally, I think that he will live in a sort of oniric (dreamy) state. In this state he will have emotions (the way we have some in our dreams). The question is that I think that a brain who never encountered external signals, could not have any emotions. Worse a brain who never encountered externed signals, canno't even work : there won't be any connections between the neurons. In order to work and develop a brain must be feed with datas.
post #93 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Worse a brain who never encountered externed signals, canno't even work : there won't be any connections between the neurons. In order to work and develop a brain must be feed with datas.

I agree with that - since children raised by wolves end up with very different brains (cannot learn language, etc).

I was thinking of a fully developed brain that was cut off.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #94 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
These ID guys aren't even Christian in most cases.

I'd like to hear of one IDer that's not Christian, let alone "most."
post #95 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I'd like to hear of one IDer that's not Christian, let alone "most."

Both Behe and Witt for starters (and they're arguably the big guns.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #96 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
ID is basically just punctuated equilibrium with plausible deniability.

No. ID is creationism in a groucho mask.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #97 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Both Behe and Witt for starters (and they're arguably the big guns.)

That's two.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #98 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
That's two.

Well then look at this way, I don't see the Discovery Institute's website merging with Answers in Genesis anything soon. Even the Christians like Gonzalez are in the Hugh Ross camp; they just don't have any problems with evolution, long ages, etc. (that might not be true for Paul Nelson).

I think to use the "creationist' tag here is just clouding the issue, in order to get to the bottom of this, the slippery-slope/strawman arguments have got to go. ID has no problem with evolution -- the problem is, to quote a letter to the editor, (I don't know if it was printed):

Quote:
Evolution has nothing to fear from ID. ID merely postulates that given considerations such as anthropic coincidence, irreducible complexity, and more the randomness of genetic variation acted upon over time by natural selection is best explained as planned. ID doesnt threaten evolution; ID threatens Materialism.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #99 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Well then look at this way, I don't see the Discovery Institute's website merging with Answers in Genesis anything soon. Even the Christians like Gonzalez are in the Hugh Ross camp; they just don't have any problems with evolution, long ages, etc. (that might not be true for Paul Nelson).

I think to use the "creationist' tag here is just clouding the issue, in order to get to the bottom of this, the slippery-slope/strawman arguments have got to go. ID has no problem with evolution -- the problem is, to quote a letter to the editor, (I don't know if it was printed):

Indeed. Evolution doesn't have anything to fear from ID. Science does. That's the whole point os this, innit? Change what science is? And then, of course, religion has everything to fear from this change, but the proponents are so determined to win the argument that they're going to wind up cutting off their faces to spite their noses.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #100 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Both Behe and Witt for starters (and they're arguably the big guns.)

So you're saying if I do a few quick google searches I won't find out that they are both, in fact, Christians?
post #101 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
So you're saying if I do a few quick google searches I won't find out that they are both, in fact, Christians?

I guess it doesn't count if Behe is a Roman Catholic. They're not Christians, are they?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #102 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Evolution doesn't have anything to fear from ID. Science does.

Now we're getting somewhere. The recognition that Evolution and science are different things. Whew. Finally! Some light at the end of tunnel.
post #103 of 195
Whoa. And Witt has a PhD in English from Kansas. And he taught at Lubbock Christian U, a school I am almost certain requires a profession of faith as part of its application process.

Um, DMZ? You wanna dig up some other examples? These don't seem to be holding up.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #104 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Indeed. Evolution doesn't have anything to fear from ID. Science does. That's the whole point os this, innit? Change what science is? And then, of course, religion has everything to fear from this change, but the proponents are so determined to win the argument that they're going to wind up cutting off their faces to spite their noses.

I wouldn't say 'Science' has anything to fear, only as far as 'Science' when it's presumed to be exclusivley Materialistic (which it wasn't for arguably the one of greatest periods of discovery.)

The other part of what you're saying is true, unless the players are honest about where there're really coming from [that this is really about materialism] then yes, this can only result in a bigger mess.

This has got to be boiled down to the point where both the Materialists and IDers are honest. One more quote from that letter I mentioned earlier:

Quote:
Given that randomness occurs in genetic variation, it follows that that randomness must be either caused or uncaused, and it is at this point that we leave the realm of science and enter the realm of metaphysics. To claim that randomness is caused or planned is to assert Intelligent Design. To claim that randomness is uncaused or unplanned is Materialism. Neither ID nor Materialism are science. Both ID and Materialism are matters of opinion and faith.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #105 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Now we're getting somewhere. The recognition that Evolution and science are different things. Whew. Finally! Some light at the end of tunnel.

Wishful thinking Chris. That's a pretty tortured interpretation of what I wrote, which was a simple statement that, in order to "win" the argument, ID proponents must change the definition of science itself.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #106 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Wishful thinking Chris. That's a pretty tortured interpretation of what I wrote, which was a simple statement that, in order to "win" the argument, ID proponents must change the definition of science itself.

Right...which the Evolutionists have already done.

EDIT: And yes, it is wishful thinking on my part that I'd get anyone here to actually admit that Evolution isn't really science. But alas...I try anyway. (Mostly) Fun sport.
post #107 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I wouldn't say 'Science' has anything to fear, only as far as 'Science' when it's presumed to be exclusivley Materialistic (which it wasn't for arguably the one of greatest periods of discovery.)

The other part of what you're saying is true, unless the players are honest about where there're really coming from [that this is really about materialism] then yes, this can only result in a bigger mess.

This has got to be boiled down to the point where both the Materialists and IDers are honest. One more quote from that letter I mentioned earlier:

Be careful, dmz, or you're going to touch the third rail with this line of reasoning and wind up recapitulating the progress of post-structuralism, which started off very much like what you're saying and then quickly got to the point where nothing was provable. So...if materialism and ID are both matters of faith, we clearly cannot know anything with certainty, right? So it's all just contingencies, as you keep pointing out.

Ergo, complete knowledgeor even a complete theory of knowledgeis impossible, and everything's relative.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #108 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Right...which the Evolutionists have already done.

Uh huh. Sure.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #109 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Uh huh. Sure.

Well it sacrificed the scientific method (you know, trivial things like experimentation) long ago. So...I'd say I'm at least partly right. To say nothing of presuming exclusively naturalistic causes.
post #110 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Be careful, dmz, or you're going to touch the third rail with this line of reasoning and wind up recapitulating the progress of post-structuralism, which started off very much like what you're saying and then quickly got to the point where nothing was provable. So...if materialism and ID are both matters of faith, we clearly cannot know anything with certainty, right? So it's all just contingencies, as you keep pointing out.

Ergo, complete knowledgeor even a complete theory of knowledgeis impossible, and everything's relative.

No, not at all, this is more to do with Science, as it is more-or-less self-defined.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #111 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well it sacrificed the scientific method (you know, trivial things like experimentation) long ago. So...I'd say I'm at least partly right. To say nothing of presuming exclusively naturalistic causes.

That's right! The theory of evolution has remain utterly, utterly unchanged since Darwin and le Marcke and those guys first proposed it in the c19! No changes whatsoever! It's just like an article of faith! And that's exactly right, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method! There is no observation! No experimentation!

I mean, really. The idea that, if a critter has a mutation that helps it have babies, get food, or defend itself, those mutations will likely be passed on to offspring...PREPOSTEROUS!

And yes! What the hell was science THINKING to presume that the only causes are natural ones? I mean, what about aliens? Invisible beings manipulating us?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #112 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
No, not at all, this is more to do with Science, as it is more-or-less self-defined.

Please clarify pronouns, relative and otherwise.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #113 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Right...which the Evolutionists have already done.

EDIT: And yes, it is wishful thinking on my part that I'd get anyone here to actually admit that Evolution isn't really science. But alas...I try anyway. (Mostly) Fun sport.

Evolution isnt a science, it's a scientific theory. Same apply for the big band theory. It's not a science, but a scientifical theory.
Science is more about methodology, and analysis than anything else.
Normally science is supposed to start by an observation. This observation has to follow strict guidelines, who define the scientifical observation. When this observation is approved, scientifics have the right to explain this observation, and thus they build a theory. Sometimes there is holes in the theory, and scientifics try to find new observations to back up their claims. That's the way Einstein did to demonstrate his theory, that nothing is faster than the speed of the light.

That's said, every scientifical theory started by one or several scientificals observations. None of them bornt from elsewhere and especially from a religious book. For example the viking theory about the word is totally insane. Same apply for the Azteks.
post #114 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Whoa. And Witt has a PhD in English from Kansas. And he taught at Lubbock Christian U, a school I am almost certain requires a profession of faith as part of its application process.

Um, DMZ? You wanna dig up some other examples? These don't seem to be holding up.

I'm surprised that you thought it might hold up. One isn't going to believe in intelligent design unless one presupposes an intelligent designer. And the converse of course isn't true for biological evolution: Many, probably most, scientists are Christians or otherwise religious.

ID is a religious movement whose purpose is to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." It's called the Wedge Strategy and they're very explicit about their goals.
post #115 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Please clarify pronouns, relative and otherwise.

Let's back up a bit -- but Don't forget, I'm playing Devil's advocate for the ID position, and trying to steer clear of AI verboten topics.

But I am trying, (as you are, when you mentioned those pushing for creationism are doing it despite their faces) to break this down as to where the real argument lies. As to bringing in epistemology into the equation, I don't think it would matter, since in practice we all put our pants on one leg at a time; since the pants exist we might as well as let some things, like knowledge, be a given.

I think that we can both agree that this isn't about evolution at all; and that this is about the definition of 'Science'.

Yes?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #116 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm surprised that you thought it might hold up. One isn't going to believe in intelligent design unless one presupposes an intelligent designer. And the converse of course isn't true for biological evolution: Many, probably most, scientists are Christians or otherwise religious.

ID is a religious movement whose purpose is to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." It's called the Wedge Strategy and they're very explicit about their goals.

Well, in my defense, I'm grading papers on Jane Austen, and...oh, wait. Wrong discussion.

well, in my defense, the claim was that they were not Christians, not that they weren't believers in some kind of God.

I'm really interested in seeing these key ID-proponents and originators in a pile. I suspect there are 5 of them, and that this is another example of the Right using its gajillion thinktanks really, really well.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #117 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
But I am trying, (as you are, when you mentioned those pushing for creationism are doing it despite their faces) to break this down as to where the real argument lies. As to bringing in epistemology into the equation, I don't think it would matter, since in practice we all put our pants on one leg at a time; since the pants exist we might as well as let some things, like knowledge, be a given.

Yes. But I liked that movie better the first time when the main part was played by René Descartes.

Quote:
I think that we can both agree that this isn't about evolution at all; and that this is about the definition of 'Science'.

Yes? [/B]

As BRussell pointed out, the ID folks are explicit about this. They want to change the definition of science so that it isn't based on materialism and, therefore, empiricism.

But I would argue that it IS about evolution. Or rather, it's about dressing creationism up anew and getting it in the front door. But that didn't work. And so now they have to change the rules of the game, which is to change what "science" "is."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #118 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
But I would argue that it IS about evolution. Or rather, it's about dressing creationism up anew and getting it in the front door. But that didn't work. And so now they have to change the rules of the game, which is to change what "science" "is."

The good thing is that if they are successful, other countries will take over scientific leadership from this lousy christian paridise.

With the religious rights power and objections to the coming biological and medical scientific progress, it was bound to happen sooner or later anyway.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #119 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
The good thing is that if they are successful, other countries will take over scientific leadership from this lousy christian paridise.

With the religious rights power and objections to the coming biological and medical scientific progress, it was bound to happen sooner or later anyway.

Well, like most issues with the religious right in America, they are really only capable of getting so far. Back when they tried to get prayer in school, everything looked groovy for them...until they tried to get down to specifics. What's that prayer going to look like? Do we get to say "father, son and holy ghost"? or do we say "Jesus, who is our Lord God"? And then the wheels come off and the whole thing falls apart, because theocracy doesn't work in the general or the abstract. When there are umpteen versions of Christianity, it's impossible to be non-denominational without pissing someone off, and then you're back where you started.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #120 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
well, in my defense, the claim was that they were not Christians, not that they weren't believers in some kind of God.

Yeah, it's possible in theory, but you know who we're talking about. If you look at the donor list they're your run-of-the-mill Christian Republicans. All of these ID-ers are Christians.

Anyway, I just realized this is in danger of becoming yet another evolution thread, so I won't say anymore about that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Worse than creationism: Dualism