Why would physicalism reject ID? We could have been designed by aliens or programmers.
~~ Paul
Taking emergence really seriously
- Thread starter David Bailey
- Start date
~~ Paul
There may be no such substrate now, but if cognition is computable, there might be in the future.
~~ Paul
Did David have in mind aliens, programmers or was he thinking of God? ID as you know is round aboutly arguing the Christian God has a direct hand in evolution while hiding behind a thin veneer of what they call science. Does David know this? If not, he's corrupting Intelligent Design to mean something it's not.
Devane
New
So because there exists a group of people who use Intelligent Design to push their own beliefs, Intelligent Design can no longer be considered for anything other than that group's beliefs? What would you have us call it then to avoid confusion? Rational Composition?
I don't know what David was thinking, but ID can be taken as (a) a general hypothesis about design in the world, or (b) the ID movement. We can give David the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant (a), but then physicalism certainly doesn't reject ID.
~~ Paul
If I'm not talking about the ID movement, then I just call it "design." Lots of baggage with the name "Intelligent Design."
~~ Paul
Devane
New
Hmm...fair enough.
Yes. It's a few decades old rebranding of creationism. It can be anything, but not Intelligent Design to avoid confusion.
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Intelligent Design is a genuine scientific inquiry, as noted by Nagel & Josephson.
The issue comes in because IDers seem to assume design when teleological principles could suffice. That or the observer-participancy of Josephson/Wheeler/Yardley which posits ID of a sort but not in the "God did it" sense.
I actually think it's a better political strategy to accept potential flaws in the current evolutionary theory that need to be figured out. If Meyers, for example, is correct that there's increasing doubt in the secular camps then it's probably not a good idea to make it seem that it comes down to a dogmatic science versus extreme religion.
Better to already have the aforementioned options in the public mind.
Isn't this why Cardassians, Klingons, Humans, Romulans, and Vulcans all look similar?
The issue comes in because IDers seem to assume design when teleological principles could suffice. That or the observer-participancy of Josephson/Wheeler/Yardley which posits ID of a sort but not in the "God did it" sense.
I actually think it's a better political strategy to accept potential flaws in the current evolutionary theory that need to be figured out. If Meyers, for example, is correct that there's increasing doubt in the secular camps then it's probably not a good idea to make it seem that it comes down to a dogmatic science versus extreme religion.
Better to already have the aforementioned options in the public mind.
Isn't this why Cardassians, Klingons, Humans, Romulans, and Vulcans all look similar?
But to avoid confusion, I would use some other term when talking about the question of whether there is design or teleology in nature.
Yes, but how else to explain why most scientists pay no attention to the ID movement?
IDers would help themselves tremendously if they could explain how scientists are supposed to study the ID hypothesis. For example, imagine the points earned by pointing to a particular genetic events that was performed by the designer and then explaining how that was determined.
No, that's because it's expensive to make up actors to look like something else. :D
~~ Paul
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
I just think it's going to get more confusing if we add new terms.
I think your suggestion of using "design" probably works best.
I'm going to suggest brushing up on your knowledge of ID to find out why it's not science.
You might also read the 'the argument from design' argument a teleological argument which happens to be the foundation in part of the ID/creationism.
Care to outline the major points of why ID is not genuine scientific inquiry?
Michael Larkin
Member
I still don't get it. The possibility of consciousness emerging from different (presumably material) systems, not just brains, doesn't seem to support ID to me at all. Unless by "systems" you are including non-material ones: but if you are, then from the materialist viewpoint you're assuming what it denies.
With emergence, matter gives rise to consciousness.
With ID, consciousness gives rise to matter (dualistic scheme) or matter is just the appearance of process in consciousness (Idealistic scheme).
At least, that's my understanding.
Ian Thompson
Member
Remember: ID is the claim that some natural processes are the result of intelligence.
If emergence is true, then material things give rise to consciousness. Brains will be conscious, for example.
If we take a further step, then some of these consciousness brains will be intelligent. At least, they will be aware and think and plan: that what conscious brains do.
If the intelligent ones of the conscious brains make plans and build things, then we have intelligent design. Also known as: ID !!
Therefore, David Bailey concluded, emergence opens the way to ID.
ghost
New
Who or what has the power to create laws of physics and physics constants out of nothing? We can't answer that based on the scientific evidence that we have at present. Universe "from nothing" is less valuable than to just say that God created the universe. At least if we start with that premise, we can ask, "well how did God do it?" To which there is an answer. The universe emerged from the aether cosmos. By cosmos, I'm referring to something that existed before the big bang, out of which the space-time continuum blossomed. That aether-cosmos is still here. Borrowing from the idea of a Higgs field, which is a quantum field, I would define the aether-cosmos as the set of all quantum fields that extends far beyond the standard model and includes quantum fields that we have little or no contact with. Until otherwise proven, I just assume that the Creator created the space-time continuum out of aether, out of quantum field, by imprinting the laws of physics upon it. That was the first cause of our universe. What followed was the big bang.
An infinite consciousness that can create laws of physics can also subdivide its own consciousness into souls, and populate its creation in order to "experience" it. Hidden within these words is the idea that if we could figure out just how God created the laws of physics, we could modify the laws of physics to suit our needs.
An infinite consciousness that can create laws of physics can also subdivide its own consciousness into souls, and populate its creation in order to "experience" it. Hidden within these words is the idea that if we could figure out just how God created the laws of physics, we could modify the laws of physics to suit our needs.
malf
Member
Exactly. I could be reading david's op wrongly, but it looked like he was playing down the importance of the substrate.
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
As Iyace said, you may want to explain what your definition of science is and why trying to figure out if there's an intelligence behind evolution doesn't fit that definition. If you could offer a refutation of Nagel's argument posted here that'd be great.
For reasons I gave in my last post I think it would be hard to ever say anything definitive about the question. But one can still try to answer it via scientific inquiry.
Kamarling
Member
For the layman such as I, this whole area can be really confusing because everyone seems to be talking about different things.
If we listen to Steve, ID = creationism. But what is creationism? Is it the literal interpretation of Genesis? The world was made in seven days and Adam and Eve were the first humans? Isn't that called Young Earth or Biblical creationism? It seems to me that many darwinists, like Steve, would like us to believe that those sympathetic to some sort of intelligence involved in evolution are actually Young Earth Creationists. It is all a Christian plot. (By the way,the 1960 film, Inherit the Wind, is a fictionalised courtroom drama based on the Scopes trial - very good film.)
Is there another form of creationism? Is it creationism to suggest that there is some sort of spiritual influence on evolution - that we can detect the work of a creative force guiding the way organisms evolve? If so, does that also define Intelligent Design?
What about the term Intelligent Design itself? Is "intelligent" the controversial word? Or "design"? Or both? Some might say no more than there seems to be some intelligence involved in selection. Others might say that something like an eye is too complex to have evolved by so-called natural selection and that it shouts "design".
Lastly, there is the problem of consciousness - how does that arise? Can it be explained by baby-step natural selection?
As Michael pointed out, for an idealist, consciousness is fundamental so there is no need to come up with theories about how it emerges from lumps of inert matter. The nature of consciousness, how it becomes localised in me as a human, is a debate being tackled by the likes of Bernardo.
If we listen to Steve, ID = creationism. But what is creationism? Is it the literal interpretation of Genesis? The world was made in seven days and Adam and Eve were the first humans? Isn't that called Young Earth or Biblical creationism? It seems to me that many darwinists, like Steve, would like us to believe that those sympathetic to some sort of intelligence involved in evolution are actually Young Earth Creationists. It is all a Christian plot. (By the way,the 1960 film, Inherit the Wind, is a fictionalised courtroom drama based on the Scopes trial - very good film.)
Is there another form of creationism? Is it creationism to suggest that there is some sort of spiritual influence on evolution - that we can detect the work of a creative force guiding the way organisms evolve? If so, does that also define Intelligent Design?
What about the term Intelligent Design itself? Is "intelligent" the controversial word? Or "design"? Or both? Some might say no more than there seems to be some intelligence involved in selection. Others might say that something like an eye is too complex to have evolved by so-called natural selection and that it shouts "design".
Lastly, there is the problem of consciousness - how does that arise? Can it be explained by baby-step natural selection?
As Michael pointed out, for an idealist, consciousness is fundamental so there is no need to come up with theories about how it emerges from lumps of inert matter. The nature of consciousness, how it becomes localised in me as a human, is a debate being tackled by the likes of Bernardo.