Pharyngula

Posted by: Sili | July 1, 2009 6:00 PM

So he couldn't even send you the book and tell you to your face, what he thinks?

I give up. For some reason I still had a little hope left for Mooney, but this ... he's no different from the marquis de Coiffure at all.

Shhhsssh

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 1, 2009 6:03 PM

If the masses prefer their silly religion to science, well then, we shall give them a neutered science, a weak science, an inoffensive science that does not challenge anyone's beliefs.

On the other side they worry that it yields a neutered religion, while being oddly unconcerned about science.

And seriously, they're almost certainly right.

Probably they don't respect science as much as it deserves, but then they're unlikely to do so anyway, not really understanding it.

Say what you will, the compromise seems to undercut religion more than it does science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 1, 2009 6:06 PM

That's pretty lame. He knows you are going to eventually find out / read about it he could at least have the decency to stand up and send you a copy so you'd be getting the info from the horse's mouth.

Posted by: That German Guy | July 1, 2009 6:08 PM

Well, he's right in one sense: I am not aware that science has refuted every single one of the multitude of diffuse deisms,stly because we don't know enough... *yet*.

You are however right in saying that no part of scienence in any way, shape or form supports any religious idea, whatever that idea may be.

Posted by: shyster | July 1, 2009 6:12 PM

Sorry, PZ, but the whole crackergate incident was like Ivory soap. I agree with you 99.94% of the time. This fell into the .06%.
I found crackergate a little offensive myself. It may be a silly, indefensible and illogical fairy tail (like the book and story it is based on) but it is their "rite" to believe it and revere the holy Ritz.
After a point I felt that you were being rude for the sole purpose of being rude. Raised in the South, I was taught better manners than that.

Posted by: Cameron | July 1, 2009 6:12 PM

Prediction: Mooney will say that he has no control over who gets review copies, thus explaining why Myers never received one.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 1, 2009 6:18 PM

Dear Professor Myers,

I'm sure Christopher Mooney didn't mean to snub you by not sending you his next book to review, or by dissing you in print without giving you chance to respond or defend yourself, rather I think he probably didn't want to hurt your feelings.

While I am myself a Christian, I can see that atheists would find his "New Atheist" semantics dishonest, naive and patronizing, but again, in his defense, I believe his frothing accommodationist stance is something both innate and fundamental.

Imagine if you had been named "Christopher Mooney"--so your first name meant "one who bears Christ within", while your second name sounds to the ear like a cult that associaties itself with "unification"—wouldn't you be driven to reconcile the profoundly unreconcilable?

In this regard Christopher Hitchens is much more fortunate, because his name allowed him to recognize from an early age that there was a 'hitch' in the whole religion thing.

So a plea to all you frothing hell-bound "New" Atheists on this blog, don't be too hard on ChristMooney, blame those who named him for his tendency to love the old and fear the new.

Yours in special pleading

Smoggy

Posted by: adobedragon | July 1, 2009 6:20 PM

Yuck. More whiny, "New Atheists mustn't hurt the god botherers' sensitive little fee-fees" bullshit.

You would think, from Mooney's comment, that the evil New Atheists are holding guns to the heads of believers, forcing them to read The God Delusion; threatening to behead cute little kittens if believers don't visit Pharyngula.

Truth is, most believers haven't even heard of "New Atheists" or Crackergate, for that matter. And if they have, it's because their pastor/priest preached on the subject, not through direct exposure to all those scary, godless ideas.

The only significant difference (and it is significant to the god botherers) between a New Atheist and...what?...an old atheist (?), is that New Atheists are more likely to own up to their lack of belief and sometimes gather with like-minded individuals on public forums to discuss the lunacy that is religion.

But for the most part, the vast majority of atheists (including P.Z., I suspect), still keep their mouths shut when faced with day-to-day of religiousity (at weddings, funerals, etc.) (In my case, I work for a Christian church.)

No one is forcing the poor little believers to give up their supernatural fantasies. If they can't bear to see their sacred cows slain, they should stay away from blogs like this one.

Posted by: Azkyroth | July 1, 2009 6:22 PM

...still?

Posted by: Lunacrous | July 1, 2009 6:23 PM

After a point I felt that you were being rude for the sole purpose of being rude.

Yup. The Great Jeez-it Desecration was in no way a response to the attempts to get a student expelled from his university for "stealing" a cracker, nor an excellent way of highlighting the insanity of those behind that campaign. It was just PZ being randomly rude for absolutely no reason at all.

Posted by: Kel | July 1, 2009 6:24 PM

Third time lucky...

People think that saying magic words turns a cracker into the flesh of God-incarnate

Posted by: QrazyQat | July 1, 2009 6:28 PM

So Mooney thinks I'm gonna agree with Catholics that it's not a cracker? When I see a Catholic approaching I'm gonna have to prepare myself by reminding myself over and over again: "It's not a cracker. It's not a cracker. It's not a cracker!"

Sorry Chris, the Segway is a scooter and the cracker is just a cracker. Any power the cracker has is just in peoples' minds. At least the Segway is a really nifty scooter; but the crackers is not someone's flesh, they're just crackers. And anyone who thinks they're not is a little crackers too.

Posted by: Jason A. | July 1, 2009 6:32 PM

#21:

There can be no fundamental problem with either of their approaches to science.

How can someone believe in miracles and not have a problem with their approach to science? Perhaps it doesn't manifest in their specific research, but that's just their compartmentalization.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 1, 2009 6:34 PM

Sorry, PZ, but the whole crackergate incident was like Ivory soap. I agree with you 99.94% of the time. This fell into the .06%. I found crackergate a little offensive myself. It may be a silly, indefensible and illogical fairy tail (like the book and story it is based on) but it is their "rite" to believe it and revere the holy Ritz. After a point I felt that you were being rude for the sole purpose of being rude. Raised in the South, I was taught better manners than that.

Do you know the whole story?

Posted by: zaardvark | July 1, 2009 6:36 PM

The problem really does lie with theists wanting it both ways. They want to say "I'm a scientist, and I look at the world as it really is, and try to discover its laws" and "I'm religious, and I just know in my heart that the world was created by a loving god who watches over us, who will account for every injustice, who can read our minds, and who could alter anything at all about our universe with the flick of his nose."

No amount of hand-waving can reconcile those two sentiments.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 1, 2009 6:41 PM

I have to agree with Mooney, PZ, if only because he shows more tact. If your goal is to anger and insult people out of spite, continue desecrating their spiritual symbols; but if your goal is to bring an appreciation for the elegance of the physical universe and a deeper understanding of the scientific method to the public, I suggest you try altering your posture a bit. Science is a method for gathering certain types of facts, not a metaphysical belief system meant to pronounce upon all matters of human existence; it is not synonymous with atheism or materialism. I think it is disingenuous, or at least philosophically misinformed, to argue otherwise. You've been accused of scientism in a recent debate with Dennis Alexander, and while you admit the scientific method is not the best way to read poetry or make moral judgments, you still seem to imply that the only valid knowledge one can have of reality is that derived from empirical measurement. Empiricism and quantitative measure are wonderful tools, but they leave a great deal of reality untouched. Religion and spirituality (though I'd be the first to agree there are degenerative forms) are methods people use --and always will use-- to relate themselves and their communities to the larger cosmos in a meaningful way. Science can and should inform these methods, but it is in no way in conflict with such spiritual pursuits (unless you've confounded it with materialism).

Posted by: lose_the_woo | July 1, 2009 6:43 PM

Atheism is not the logically inevitable outcome of scientific reasoning...

Neither is atoothfairyism, or aleprechaunism, necessarily. What is logically inevitable is the realization that skepticism is the only rational default position to take when evaluating truth claims. If that was not the case, then there is no basis to question the truth of any claim. Anything anyone stated as fact, would be assumed to be fact. That is not how reality works, which is a truth claim can be shown. Faith is not to be extolled while be doubt derided. It's just the opposite that makes the scientific method so powerful at gaining and refining knowledge.

There are plenty of reasons to doubt the existence of toothfairies, leprechans, and deities. Not one reason to think they exist.

And regarding the thin-skinned hyper-defensive religionists who want their views held above criticism: no one has the right to not be offended. My personal view is that if you think deities are real, you're thinking like a child.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | July 1, 2009 6:47 PM

be doubt = doubt be

Posted by: Salamander | July 1, 2009 6:51 PM

Jason A.,

How can someone believe in miracles and not have a problem with their approach to science? Perhaps it doesn't manifest in their specific research, but that's just their compartmentalization.

You are confusing science with methodical naturalism. I would also add that if you read their accounts of theistic evolution it is entirely compatible with their own personal faith (how could it not be) and science. Conway Morris argues on the back of convergence (about which Dawkins backed him as opposed to Gould). For more on Miller (and he is scrupulous in not maintaining that each mutation is not a "miracle" etc.) see

http://www.millerandlevine.com/evolution/Coyne-Accommodation.htm.

CJO,

PZ called Conway Morris a garden variety creationist while going on to completely miss the point of an editorial he published and failing to distinguish between sarcasm and his actual position.

For those interested in how this position can be compatible (and many believe that it is) I suggest you have a look at some of these lectures by reputable scientists on the issue at the Faraday Institute (the director, in a recent debate, forced Myers into a hasty retreat as regards to accommodationism and it was actually quite embarrassing listening).

Lectures:
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Multimedia.php (under evolution heading)

Posted by: Thanny | July 1, 2009 6:58 PM

Those of you criticizing PZ for "Crackergate" really need to get a clue. A college kid was physically assaulted and threatened with expulsion for not immediately eating a cracker.

PZ did not randomly decide to throw a pierced wafer in the trash - he was making a statement about the insanity (I, too, mean that literally) displayed by the Catholics over the harmless actions of the student in question.

Posted by: Azkyroth | July 1, 2009 7:03 PM

I have to agree with Mooney, PZ, if only because he shows more tact.

Style over substance. Excellent lead-in to what borders on a courtier's reply.

If your goal is to anger and insult people out of spite, continue desecrating their spiritual symbols;

Out of spite?! Please summarize for us the events preceding the cracker desecration, if you're going to make that sort of claim, because right now you don't appear to be on speaking terms with reality.

but if your goal is to bring an appreciation for the elegance of the physical universe and a deeper understanding of the scientific method to the public, I suggest you try altering your posture a bit.

*yawn*

Science is a method for gathering certain types of facts, not a metaphysical belief system meant to pronounce upon all matters of human existence; it is not synonymous with atheism or materialism.

No one said otherwise; however, many of the facts science has gathered are difficult to reconcile with any even-sorta-vaguely-testable belief system other than atheistic materialism. And I think you know this.

I think it is disingenuous, or at least philosophically misinformed, to argue otherwise.

You mean like willfully distorting an opponent's position and lying by omission at length about the circumstances behind the actions you're criticizing?

You've been accused of scientism in a recent debate with Dennis Alexander,

What does that even mean?

and while you admit the scientific method is not the best way to read poetry or make moral judgments, you still seem to imply that the only valid knowledge one can have of reality is that derived from empirical measurement.

Why do you think this is inconsistent?

Empiricism and quantitative measure are wonderful tools, but they leave a great deal of reality untouched.

Examples?

Religion and spirituality (though I'd be the first to agree there are degenerative forms) are methods people use --and always will use--

That's a pretty big claim; any chance you'll defend it?

to relate themselves and their communities to the larger cosmos in a meaningful way.

Shouldn't more of the products of religion be "meaningful" then?

Science can and should inform these methods, but it is in no way in conflict with such spiritual pursuits (unless you've confounded it with materialism).

Except when it discovers facts that falsify the premises on which systems of spiritual "knowledge" are founded, but let's just ignore that inconvenience...

...can we please get some more creative concern trolls?

Posted by: Azkyroth | July 1, 2009 7:05 PM

I'm all for whatever it takes to teach our kids to rely on reason, logic and the scientific method in their interpretation of reality.

The people at the front lines of this effort, the people with the knowledge and experience as to the best strategies, are the people at NCSE. Since they advocate and utilize an accomodationist stance, I cannot help but disagree with PZ and the confrontational approach.

...fail.

Posted by: BJN | July 1, 2009 7:08 PM

"Ah, yes, the policy of cowardice. We are weak, and the loons are numerous and strong, and therefore we must avoid telling them the truth. If the masses prefer their silly religion to science, well then, we shall give them a neutered science, a weak science, an inoffensive science that does not challenge anyone's beliefs."

Are you rationalizing being inflammatory and obnoxious as practicing strong science? I missed the part about hostility and offensiveness being part of the scientific method.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 1, 2009 7:11 PM

I can't help but see this entire debate in terms of who wears the collars and who holds the leashes. There always seem to be vastly more subs than doms.

Posted by: Sastra | July 1, 2009 7:15 PM

Matthew Segall #32 wrote:

Religion and spirituality (though I'd be the first to agree there are degenerative forms) are methods people use --and always will use-- to relate themselves and their communities to the larger cosmos in a meaningful way. Science can and should inform these methods, but it is in no way in conflict with such spiritual pursuits (unless you've confounded it with materialism).

What makes religion and spirituality different than poetry, community spirit, ethical imperatives, and aesthetic appreciation? The supernatural claims concerning some sort of deliberate, creative intelligence at the center or beginning of reality. That's not just important to the definition of religion -- it's important, period. And if a person's religion really matters to them, they ought to care whether it's true or not.

Yes, science is a method -- it's a method which attempts to weed out subjective, biased, human errors. If, then, one considers the existence of God (or spiritual realities) as a hypothesis, and examines and analyzes it seriously in light of modern discoveries concerning biology, neurology, cosmology, and human psychology, then the hypothesis fails.

I think that one ought to consider the question this way, if
1.) the person cares about what's true
and
2.) is concerned with avoiding personal errors which might be caused by biases

Are the accomodationists suggesting that religious people are not interested in those 2 goals? Or that they are not capable? Or that they are not ready? Or that they don't need them, because they're infallible?

All the alternatives seem disrespectful of the religious to me.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 1, 2009 7:18 PM

Category: Kooks

ouch

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 1, 2009 7:22 PM

I missed the part about hostility and offensiveness being part of the scientific method.

It's not necessarily part of it. But sometimes it is necessary in defense of it.

Posted by: thalarctos | July 1, 2009 7:25 PM

I'm all for whatever it takes to teach our kids to rely on reason, logic and the scientific method in their interpretation of reality. This is the best hope for humanity. I believe that takes getting evolution early into the schools, elementary and high schools, and taught without compromise. The people at the front lines of this effort, the people with the knowledge and experience as to the best strategies, are the people at NCSE. Since they advocate and utilize an accomodationist stance, I cannot help but disagree with PZ and the confrontational approach.

I think your "one-size-fits-all" approach falls short; there are different situations where different approaches are called for.

At the more conciliatory end, I teach anatomy in a massage school (vo-tech level), where I go out of my way to introduce examples from other species to promote learning--for example, we just did brain anatomy, so I brought in some interesting vertebrate examples. When we did other systems, the Lucy exhibit was in town, and I put on a continuing education class on comparative human anatomy, free to anyone who could produce their ticket from having attended the exhibit. I just present evolution as a fact; I'm not looking for confrontation here in this situation, as they paid to learn human anatomy to pass a licensing test, and stamping out creationism is outside of the mission of the class. By planting a seed that may or may not take later on, I'm doing my bit in that venue for promoting critical thinking down the road.

On the other hand, I'm writing a book for massage practitioners on reading scientific research articles, and there, and in the letters section of our professional journals, I make very clear the necessity for methodological naturalism in biomedical investigation. There's a lot of very bad research out there, passing as "proof", and addressing that issue more assertively than in an anatomy class that people are just attending to get their ticket punched is an appropriate tactic. In that venue, drawing a clearer line than in a vo-tech anatomy class is appropriate.

And finally, when some dumbass creationist dentist ("Dr. Steve", some several hundred threads ago) holds himself out as a "scientist", it's not only fun, but absolutely appropriate as well, to eviscerate him, especially when, as a dentist, he *ought* to get how endothermic reactions such as dental plaster undermine his entire argument, yet clearly doesn't. But he asked for it, by showing up on PZ's blog and making asinine, counterfactual assertions, wrapped in his own assumed authorits. Letting those go unchallenged would just send him (and observers) the wrong message, much as letting my cats crap wherever they want to without consequences would teach them wrong. In "Dr. Steve's" case, public correction is called for, and when he refuses to look at the evidence, mockery and ridicule is a totally appropriate reaction.

To treat my anatomy students, who show a great deal of interest in science, but who--due to school having previously failed them--say some uninformed things without even realizing it, exactly like "Dr. Steve", would be a tactical, not to mention, an ethical error, and would turn them off to any further openness to learning about science and the natural world at their own rate.

So a variety of tactics, tailored to the audience and the context is called for. For that reason, your calling out PZ for going after the creationists on the grounds of science education and his own blog in the service of some uniform accommodationist tactic, is every bit as misguided as you claim PZ is being. PZ spends most of his time operating at one end of the spectrum; NCSE at another, and some of us go back and forth among multiple contexts, and tailor our approach accordingly.

defective robot and the Rev. already said what I wanted to say about the ethics of Chris publishing that, and not letting PZ know, so I'll just add "what they said".

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 1, 2009 7:27 PM

BJN #46

Are you rationalizing being inflammatory and obnoxious as practicing strong science? I missed the part about hostility and offensiveness being part of the scientific method.

The two are completely different things, asswipe. I'm not a scientist yet I can be offensive to fucktards like you. Likewise a scientist might not call you a dickhead.

The problem is the accomdationists just don't like the "New Atheists" (jayzus, I hate that name) rocking the goddists' boat. Mooney et al get the vapors if something's said that they think might be upsetting to goddists. "Oh my Aunt Bertha in Des Moines would be ever so flabbergasted and possibly even dismayed if she knew that PZ Myers thought that Ken Ham is a stupid idiot, so PZ should just shut up about Ham."

Posted by: Watchman | July 1, 2009 7:32 PM

America is a very religious nation, and if forced to choose between faith and science, vast numbers of Americans will select the former.

Yeah, it's a very religious nation for a first-world Western nation, but vast numbers of Americans won't be fooled into making the false "choice" that Mooney describes, for relatively few will feel that they are being "forced" to choose. No matter what goes on here in the culture war, most will engage in their weekly mainstream religious activities and believe their perfunctory, lukewarm beliefs, while accepting the validity of the sciences (note the plural) as normal part of their material world.

Posted by: Strider | July 1, 2009 7:32 PM

Holy Crap! I used to have grudging respect for him but now...What a douche!

Posted by: Rick | July 1, 2009 7:33 PM

PZ,

My viewpoint is this: I think that an individual's ability to choose is much more limited that many people believe. While you and I happen to have similar beliefs regarding the most likely nature of life, the universe, and everything, we cannot know with 100% certainty that we are correct and we should not mock others who have different beliefs.

By all means, we should defend and advocate our viewpoint, but ultimately, we should not be offensive about it. While there is absolute truth, you can't guarantee that you have it and your opponent does not. Instead, all are served better by a degree of tolerance and understanding and encourages honest inquiry.

Posted by: Josh | July 1, 2009 7:36 PM

thalarctos @55: well fucking said.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 1, 2009 7:38 PM

Folks,

Please don't feed the troll. He plays one note on his little tin horn and it's flat. If you ignore the troll, he'll find another bridge somewhere else.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 1, 2009 7:42 PM

Did I miss something? Are scientists standing up in churches and demanding that sermons be changed to meet scientific findings?

I'm going to guess that we aren't. But we are seeing religious types dictating to scientists when reality is at odds with their antique superstitions. So why the hell should scientists bend over backwards to avoid hurting their feelings or threatening the security blanket that their inane belief provides?

It seems fairly simple to me. When science can show that God exists, then God can be included in discussions about science. Until then, God - and those who believe in him - should keep their beliefs to themselves.

Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | July 1, 2009 7:49 PM

Posted by: Pissed Herself | July 1, 2009 6:38 PM

Please don't feed the troll. He plays one note on his little tin horn and it's flat. If you ignore the troll, he'll find another bridge somewhere else.

PH's definition of "troll":

Anyone who does not fellate Herr Führer Hansen on command.

By the way, PH, I see you are still projecting. Please seek help for this mental disease.

Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | July 1, 2009 7:51 PM

Posted by: Pissed Herself | July 1, 2009 6:38 PM

Please don't feed the troll. He plays one note on his little tin horn and it's flat. If you ignore the troll, he'll find another bridge somewhere else.

PH's definition of "troll":

Anyone who does not fellate Herr Führer Hansen on command.

By the way, PH, I see you are still projecting. Please seek help for this mental disease.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 1, 2009 7:55 PM

Can we not feed the troll, please? PZ will eventually remove all of its fecal matter.

Rick wrote:

Instead, all are served better by a degree of tolerance and understanding and encourages honest inquiry.

But religion isn't about honest inquiry. They've already got what they think is the answer - that God exists - and all they're doing is trying to deflect people away from pointing out that, based on absolutely everything we know about any field of science, there's no evidence whatsoever to support that.

If it were about 'honest inquiry', anyone religious would become agnostic until evidence for god appeared.

Posted by: ERV | July 1, 2009 7:58 PM

PZ-- The focus of his ire? Crackergate.
*giggle* That was SO last year. Whats Mooneys next book going to be about? The evolution of dance? What happens when you mix Diet Coke and Mentos? Maybe the most logical path up Candy Mountain?

lol internet faux pas, Mooney.

Posted by: Jim Wynne | July 1, 2009 7:59 PM

Methinks Salamander (@21 & 38)is our old pal Kwok.

Posted by: Fly | July 1, 2009 8:02 PM

Well, you posit a very good point, PZ. I'm amazed that certain (other) humans can't see the truth and dichotomy in their presumptions.

Posted by: Salamander | July 1, 2009 8:09 PM

Jim Wynne,

As my high-school physics teacher will tell you (Harvard graduate 87), I am not John Kwok ;)

Now give me a camera.

Posted by: Ron Sullivan | July 1, 2009 8:15 PM

Querty in #58 saved me a whole lot of typing. What you said, and YES!, and Thanks.

Plus, the oddest thing: You know when somebody remarks about an abusive parent, or a crazy family-of-origin, and says, "Man, that's nasty!" You know how heartening that is, even when you're an adult and well out of the situation and strong and independent have shaken the dust off your shoes and all that?

Well, Crackergate was like that. Someone who's been raised to be self-questioning (a good thing) and trusting of authority (not such a good thing) even over one's own perceptions (a very bad thing) can always use a dose of that, just by way of confirming that one's not really delusional.

I'd buy PZ another beer for that alone. I'd buy you one too, Querty. And you too, Thalarctos.

Posted by: Sastra | July 1, 2009 8:22 PM

Salamander #77 wrote:

These beliefs aren't merely a fad restricted to one era (e.g., homeopathy): most if not all societies have believed in a God. The vast majority of the world still does.

I think it would be more accurate to say that most cultures have believed in supernatural entities or forces. Asking whether these entities or forces really exist is not only reasonable, it's honest. And honest questions require an honest method -- one that may not give the answer that's wanted.

This is really one issue anti-science and only predomionately only in America.

I think that creationism is only the tip of the iceberg. Magical thinking -- and the happy belief that science can be jettisoned whenever it's inconvenient -- has lead to many forms of pseudoscience and irrationality. You mentioned homeopathy, so look at alternative medicine. Its advocates take full advantage of the protection given to religious beliefs, and claim truth status without the need for those pesky controlled studies.

The problem isn't that a few people have gotten carried away with faith. The problem is that faith itself has no limits, no checks, and no rules. If you cut it down in one area, it will pop up in another. Addressing each problem one by one, as if it sprung from nowhere, is a poor strategy.

I really don't see it as being detrimental to science and further I think the very real link that has been made between evolution and atheism is a non-starter in terms of persuading people of it's validity.

Are you sure? Philosopher Austin Dacy offers a possibility he calls the Dawkins hypothesis. "The presence of messages of science-religion conflict make messages of science-religion harmony better known and more palatable to religious believers."

Basically, he claims that the public has a tendency to think that the moderate, middle position is the most reasonable one. Intelligent Design proponents have traded on this, by framing their stance as the one between the extremes: young earth creationists on one side, and theistic evolutionists on the other side. Micro-evolution, not macro. Evolution, but miracles here and there. Not too much God, not too little God: just enough God. They think this strategy is effective at making their views seem comfortable.

Dacy suggests that the so-called new atheists, who turn scientific scrutiny on God, make up a new "extreme" -- and suddenly the theistic evolutionists are in the Happy Middle Ground. After reading Dawkins and Myers, they can escape to Collins and Miller. If all they read is Collins and Miller, they will escape to The Discovery Institute.

The accomodationists may need us for pragmatic reasons. We're not just the voice of conscience.

Is this right? I don't know. But it's plausible, and could be the case.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 1, 2009 8:29 PM

But the fact we have not a complete answer does not mean the answer is god.

simbol hits the nail right on the head. The only involvement religion has in science is to insist there are things that we haven't found complete explanations for and demand we accept that that's where god must be.

Posted by: Dale | July 1, 2009 8:31 PM

Salamander wrote...

Your position,
that there is no God, is not spoken to by science. It is a philosophical position and it is utterly wrong to, as Coyne does, claim that evolution necessitates atheism. Surely you must see that this is wrong not only tactically but also technically.

I disagree. To say "there is no evidence for this proposition" is typical science, with the implied unsaid message of "this doesn't mean it isn't real".

However when science says "Of all the many, many claims made by the many, many religions we find no evidence, and everytime we investigate those claims we find better, alternative explanations" I think we are in a different category. One where science can say "there almost certainly is no god (so stop worrying about i and get on with your life :-)"

Posted by: SC, OM | July 1, 2009 8:33 PM

most if not all societies have believed in a God.

What a bullshit claim. Citation needed.

Posted by: Michael | July 1, 2009 8:36 PM

Looks like PZ got himself expelled again, this time from a book pre-screening.

Posted by: Kel | July 1, 2009 8:39 PM

It is a philosophical position and it is utterly wrong to, as Coyne does, claim that evolution necessitates atheism.

Posted by: Sastra | July 1, 2009 8:48 PM

Gwydion #93 wrote:

I just think we all need to be asking ourselves whether overtly aggressive gestures like Crackergate are going to teach true believers anything.

You have to understand the purpose of Crackergate in context. Imagine that someone burns an American flag -- to protest the passage of a Flag Burning Amendment. Imagine that magazines print and reprint the Mohammad cartoons -- to protest the riots which took place when the cartoons were first printed.

In both cases, people are deeply offended. But also, in both cases, the point of the offense was not to show that "America sucks" or "Mohammad is a false prophet." It was to show that it is okay to say those things. It is not a crime. And nobody is harmed. No symbol should be "sacred." Ideas need to be treated as ideas, not dogma.

Crackergate was not ultimately about religion. It was about freedom of speech. Unless you understand this as the -- excuse the expression, "frame" -- you won't be able to properly address the issue.

It sounds very much as if Mooney did not see or understand the issue as one of defending freedom, not advocating atheism. If he's really concerned with placating the reasonable religious people, he ought to emphasize the frame. Point it out to them. I think that a lot of people who would abhor someone burning a flag to protest an American policy could accept and understand the value of burning a flag, to protest an attempt to prevent flag burning.

I also suspect that many religious people would be more comfortable with Crackergate, if it were presented to them this way. It's odd that Mooney (whom I otherwise like and admire) is apparently trying to make the situation worse, when he could help smooth it over.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 1, 2009 8:58 PM

Sastra (#100):

It's odd that Mooney (whom I otherwise like and admire) is apparently trying to make the situation worse, when he could help smooth it over.

Almost as if he can't portray himself as the nice guy without trying to make somebody else look bad by comparison.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 1, 2009 9:01 PM

I couldn't believe this was the same guy who wrote American Fascists.

Uh, it isn't. :)

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 1, 2009 9:06 PM

Y'know, when you think about the sheer volume of personal abuse which gets pumped through the Intertubes, it starts to look like the only difference between "Crackergate" and any other blog post is that this one pissed off somebody who has made a career out of being pissed off, and who has a ready-made audience of uneducated listeners who like to feel persecuted.

(Also, I'd like to apologize to the generation which lived through the Nixon administration for our devaluation of the "-gate" suffix. Yeah, making Bill Donohue mad and corrupting the entire goddamn federal government are real fuckin' comparable. Sometimes it seems like our language betrays our lack of perspective on scandal.)

Posted by: Mark | July 1, 2009 9:09 PM

Fuckem if they can't take the evidence

Posted by: Caine | July 1, 2009 9:13 PM

The apologists would happily apologise us back to medieval practices. Then we could all burn together because the church (pick one, doesn't matter) never had a problem burning their own.

Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 1, 2009 9:17 PM

The magical cannibal cookie reference brings to mind another bit of similar magical woo I learned for the first time today on running across someone who believes it: there are some Jews that believe that there is a magical, indestructible, immortal bone near the base of the skull from which they will be some day cloned. It strikes me how this claim is-- unlike so many religious claims-- perfectly disprovable. Simply burn or dissolve a corpse until there is nothing left. When there is nothing left, ipso fat toe, there was no magical indestructible bone there!

http://ohr.edu/ask/ask215.htm#Q3

Posted by: Carlie | July 1, 2009 9:22 PM

How much more effective might we be at furthering the cause of rational humanism if with patience and kindness we helped them disassemble that scaffolding, and repair the structure underneath it?

Not that much, since there are a lot of people on that scaffold who will kick you away from the scaffold and trample you underfoot. Since you're being so polite, you'll let them, and they'll be totally ok with that since you let them.
Please give me any example from history where being patient and kind worked to achieve social change.

Posted by: Josh | July 1, 2009 9:25 PM

Still. At. The. Office. 9:12 PM

Oh man, that sucks. I have a .doc open and am editing, so that's maybe a lame version of solidarity. But fuck it, I'm going to go pour a couple of fingers in your honor right now.

Posted by: Tongue of Groucho Marx | July 1, 2009 9:31 PM

My take on Crackergate:

As far as people being offended by it, I don't give a single shit about them. The religious do not need to be appeased; our political parties do that enough already.
However, the time you spent on desecrating a piece of bread could have been spent giving us interesting science information, or a well-constructed argument for atheism.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 1, 2009 9:39 PM

The Tongue Of Groucho Marx does not work as well as it use to. Just an other smug dumbass who just has to complain that there is not enough science. The Tongue should go back top the grave. I would rather keep my found memories of Rufus T. Firefly.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 1, 2009 9:44 PM

121 and counting,going strong.....

Tonight I should be getting into some nice single malt scotch, but got a long day of work before that.

On the other hand, it's almost lunchtime now and I have the day off, it's tempting..:-)

Posted by: Rorschach | July 1, 2009 9:50 PM

How much more effective might we be at furthering the cause of rational humanism if with patience and kindness we helped them disassemble that scaffolding, and repair the structure underneath it?

This statement is suffering from the same weird idealism that seems to live in the Mooney's out there.
As if by being nice and patient and explaining to the zombies where their thinking took a wrong turn, anyone could unravel the voodoo and make them into rational beings.
I mean,it's a nice thought, but it doesnt work.
The history of science is testament to that, rational thinking makes the baby jebus cry,and introspection makes religionists deeply uncomfortable.They'd rather not.

Posted by: Geoff | July 1, 2009 10:00 PM

Whatever respect I had for Chris Mooney has now left the building.

Posted by: Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM | July 1, 2009 10:07 PM

I can take Mooney in a bare breasted oatmeal match.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 1, 2009 10:11 PM

there are some Jews

And also Muslims.

that believe that there is a magical, indestructible, immortal bone near the base of the skull from which they will be some day cloned. It strikes me how this claim is-- unlike so many religious claims-- perfectly disprovable. Simply burn or dissolve a corpse until there is nothing left. When there is nothing left, ipso fat toe, there was no magical indestructible bone there!

But that would be desecration of a corpse!!!

Actually, I remembered hearing of this legend, except that it wasn't near the base of the skull, but at the base of the spine.

Some Google research showed me that both claims are made - some say that the luz is (or is part of) the coccyx; others say that the luz is (or is part of) the seventh cervical vertebra (C7). Who knows? Did anyone think to try testing this, in all the centuries that the legend has been around? Ha.

Lovely.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 1, 2009 10:13 PM

Who said that? Take two.

Posted by: Gwydion | July 1, 2009 10:18 PM

I respectfully disagree with those who doubt the ability for a more kind and patient approach to be effective in de-converting believers. In fact, I would argue that kindness and patience and forebearance have been the ONLY effective means of achieving change throughout history; change is mostly a record of failure, until through repetition and persistence there is finally success.

Yes, there are people trying to kick me off the scaffolding... which is why I wear armor when I approach them and try to teach them the error of their thinking.

I respect those of you -- including PZ -- who take a more aggressive approach; I've just outgrown it myself.

Posted by: Andy Groves | July 1, 2009 10:19 PM

#103

Why does religion get special protection from being undermined by reality?

Here are some ideas:

1. Religion has been around for a very long time and is culturally embedded.

2. The propagation of that embedding starts at an early age.

3. As a result of (1) and (2), there are lots of religious people. They are consequently under less peer pressure to change their minds and abandon their faith.

4. People find religion comforting and are fine with being in denial if it makes them happy.

5. Denial is a universal human behavior and does not just apply to religion. It's just that the denial behavior is more organized in religions, and buttressed by the concept of faith.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 1, 2009 10:22 PM

I respect those of you -- including PZ -- who take a more aggressive approach; I've just outgrown it myself.

How very patronizing of you.
Arrogant jerk.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 1, 2009 10:26 PM

And I’m sorry to be a troll, I didn’t realize PZ’s blog could only be commented on by those who applaud him.

You are a troll not because you do not throw rose petal on our overlord. You are a troll because you are long winded and tedious.

PZ Myers’ apparently saw this as an opportunity to get some attention for his cause, and so decided to insult Catholics for no other reason than out of spite.

If this were truly the case, that PZ just did it out of spite, he could do this sort of action at any time. He would not need the excuse of Webster Cook. Also, if it is just spite, it would seem it would be directed at the Lutheran Church, that is the faith he was brought up in.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 1, 2009 10:30 PM

@50 Sastra,

Religion/spirituality, like poetry, community spirit, morality, aesthetics, and science are all aspects of cultural life. But God, or the spiritual, the numinous, the awesome, etc., are not scientific hypotheses, at least as far as I am concerned. They are experiences, which I’d be willing to admit are subjective experiences. But I do not believe that all subjectivity is something to be “weeded out,” though of course bias and error should be kept as far from science as possible. I think we live in a universe that has both exteriors and interiors, and so shows both objective and subjective faces. Spirituality concerns the subjective side of reality, while science focus on the objective. We should not turn the scientific method into a metaphysical belief system by asserting that only the objective aspect of reality is real simply because that is all science can study empirically. Every scientist cares about what is true, and their spiritual leanings do not necessarily conflict with their laboratory investigations. Don’t forget that science itself began because very religious people (like Newton and Descartes) wanted to know and understand God’s creation.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 1, 2009 10:33 PM

Matthew Segal, you wrote both this:

He wanted to annoy religious believers, plain and simple.

None of this is to say I in any way condone the death threats that Cook and Myers’ apparently received.

You don't see the two as somewhat contradictory?

A young man was assaulted, threatended with further physical violence, death and the end of his educational career for not adhering to the petty demands of the religious.

PZ spoke up about this and received similar threats.

In order to advertise this fact, and seize an opportunity to illustrate the ridiculous nature of Christian beliefs and the hypocrisy of the Christians holding those beliefs, he chose to act in an inflammatory way.

How can you possibly describe that complex series of events as 'wanting to annoy believers, plain and simple'?

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 1, 2009 10:35 PM

@140 Janine, OMnivore

Sorry to be long winded and tedious, but it always seemed to me that discussions concerned with the ultimate meaning of the universe deserve at least some attention to detail.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 1, 2009 10:40 PM

Dear Brother littlejohnson @ 123 wrote: "Smoggy, I think only you can be of assistance. I don't know why."

The reason only I can help, Brother Littlejohnson, is that as far as I am aware I am the only human with a direct, uninterrupted, unmediated connection with the Holy Trinity.

With regards to your problematic sobriety, I judged the appropriate member of the Trinity to consult would be the Holy Spirit.

"Spirit," I prayed. "What can we do about littlejohnson's troubling sobriety."

"That's easy, Smoggy," replied the Evanescent One. "All LJ needs to do is pray to me, and I will fill him."

"That sounds a little invasive, Oh Divine Essence," I responded in alarm.

"Only at first," replied the Ghostly Godbody. "But any Born Again Christian will tell you that being filled by the Holy Ghost produces the most wonderful sensation of euphoria. Just go to any Charismatic Fundy Church of an evening, and you'll find grown people writhing around screaming: "Yes! Yes! Oh...yes! Oh God! Oh Jesus...yes...Yes...YES! Come into my heart Holy Spirit!"

"Say what?" I said. "You come in people's hearts?"

"Only for my favored ones. The coming in the heart isn't a service I would ever offer to a fresh-off-the-boat believer. You need to be pretty experienced in the touch of Jesus and the potent eruption of the Holy Spirit in your life, to be able to handle it."

"Wow...I said. Being a Christian is...so...exciting! But what about littlejohnson. He's a hell-bound atheist. Can you offer him anything?"

"Drambuie. Three fingers. No ice. Straight down. Repeat as often as necessary. It's what God prefers."

"Hallelujah," I whispered. "Praise His Holy Single-Malted Name!"

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 1, 2009 10:41 PM

Sorry to be long winded and tedious, but it always seemed to me that discussions concerned with the ultimate meaning of the universe deserve at least some attention to detail.

That is, like, so huge and stuff. And here I thought you were here to complain that PZ is a big old meanie who just wants to insult your delicate sensibilities.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 1, 2009 10:43 PM

@Rorschach -- while I agree that the statement I made was arrogant (and apologize for it), I must also say that arrogance is precisely what PZ has been accused of as well.

So now "is" and "is accused of" are identical?

Religion/spirituality, like poetry, community spirit, morality, aesthetics, and science are all aspects of cultural life. But God, or the spiritual, the numinous, the awesome, etc., are not scientific hypotheses, at least as far as I am concerned. They are experiences, which I’d be willing to admit are subjective experiences. But I do not believe that all subjectivity is something to be “weeded out,” though of course bias and error should be kept as far from science as possible. I think we live in a universe that has both exteriors and interiors, and so shows both objective and subjective faces. Spirituality concerns the subjective side of reality, while science focus on the objective.Bleh. Garbage. If you claim your subjective experience as evidence of some objective reality, the onus is on you to provide evidence of it.

Posted by: Citizen Z | July 1, 2009 10:43 PM

I would defend PZ's right to do it again and again with every power I could bring to bear. I agree with the fundamental ideas -- that the idea of transubstation is insane and laughable -- behind it. I also think it provoked a terrific amount of healthy debate and awareness. It was also, however, overly in-your-face, confrontational, and abrasive.

It was a wafer in a trash can.

Posted by: articulett | July 1, 2009 10:46 PM

You can't lead people out their "demon haunted world" without obliterating their other invisible companions in the process. Science owes no more deference to god belief then it does to belief in demons. Such beliefs often go hand and hand and these imagined beings incite real suffering.

My heroes are those, like PZ, who won't defer to those who try to shame them for speaking the truth. I suspect PZ is responsible for a lot more critical thinking than his critics. I can't help but notice the much higher average intelligence and education level of respondents on PZ's blog as opposed to Mooney's. Surely, this is evidence against Mooney's assertion that the "new atheists" are partially responsible for scientific ignorance.

Plus, these "new atheists" seem to have a sense of humor that the accomodationist lack. In addition to being intellectually stimulating, the "new atheists" are much more fun to read! (What do I need to do to become recognized an official "new atheist"--prefably a "militant" one?)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H74ckoCYq3c

Posted by: Victor | July 1, 2009 10:48 PM

I find it strange that everyone forgets that crackergate was the reaction. Church members making death threats over some kid's stupid stunt was the start of it. Sure, it may have been a bit rude, but it was no where near the crazy violent reactions of the faithful.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 1, 2009 10:51 PM

@ 152,

"If you claim your subjective experience as evidence of some objective reality, the onus is on you to provide evidence of it."

I didn't claim this. I said there are subjective and objective aspects to reality and that spirituality concerns the subjective elements while science concerns the objective. I'm not a dualist, and so of course the line between the two is not ultimate. But nor am I a materialist; I think scientific findings are better interpreted by other metaphysical systems (ie, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy)

Posted by: Rorschach | July 1, 2009 10:52 PM

Don’t forget that science itself began because very religious people (like Newton and Descartes) wanted to know and understand God’s creation.

Science began when stone age hunters figured out how to glue sharp stones on the tip of the spears to kill animals more efficiently.Or take any other example that advanced survival chances.
Because even hunter-gatherers had figured out that their deities didnt deliver the food on plates, even when prayed upon heavily.

Posted by: Dust | July 1, 2009 10:53 PM

@ Andy Groves, your list could be rounded out with fear. Many believers are fearful-any challenge to religion they hear, or read or come across on a blog scares them. Not towing the religious line causes fear, so they are willing to give religion special protection. That is what I've observed and also felt (when I was religious.)

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 1, 2009 10:55 PM

Dear Brother Baron Aaker @ 153,

According to God, you are not here to talk about stunts with crackers, but because you are seeking delivery from the "Demon of Spoonerism".

Jesus says that all you have to do is say " I love Myers' cunning stunt" twenty times quickly and you will be cured.

Praise the Lord!

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 1, 2009 10:57 PM

But nor am I a materialist; I think scientific findings are better interpreted by other metaphysical systems

Oh dear, sciences have to be held back by his own religious belief.

Posted by: gdlchmst | July 1, 2009 11:01 PM

He couldn't tell you to your face that the stunt with the cracker was a piece of obnoxious exhibitionism? I guess that's what I'm here for.

Wow, you are so important! Obnoxious git.

Posted by: truthspeaker | July 1, 2009 11:06 PM

He regards destroying a sacred symbol to be inflammatory and obnoxious

He almost makes that sound like a bad thing. Almost.

Psst. Typekey. When I check "keep me logged in on this computer", I really mean it.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 1, 2009 11:08 PM

@167,

If metaphysics is imaginary mental masturbation, then the epistemological justifications for the scientific method are made of sacred splooge. Science cannot exist without philosophy as the constant critic of its abstractions (but of course, philosophy is better off today then in antiquity because it can check its ideas with scientific data).

@168,

I wish to hold back no scientific discoveries. Metaphysics concerns how we interpret the data that science provides us with. Without fitting the facts into a larger general scheme of reality, they are meaningless. My only claim is that materialism as a larger scheme does not in anyway help us explain the features of our universe, such as the fact that it should exist at all, or the fact that it moves toward increasing complexity, that life has emerged, that intelligence has emerged, or that consciousness should exist at all. Darwinian selection could work perfectly well in the absence of conscious awareness. Why does it exist? In a materialistic universe ruled purely by blind mechanism, we would not expect any of what we see. "God" is obviously not a scientific hypothesis, and I have not claimed it to be. I am only arguing that it is just as deceitful for scientists to tell the public that materialism or atheism have somehow been proven as it is for preachers to tell their congregation that the theory of common descent is the devil's work.

Posted by: Brian X | July 1, 2009 11:10 PM

Janine:

I was an an argument with two posters over at RationalWiki earlier this week where both were arguing precisely that, specifically that God was immune to scientific inquiry. They were NOMA NOMAing so furiously you could have sung a Romanian pop tune to it.

Posted by: dinkum | July 1, 2009 11:13 PM

Is there such a thing as a Solipsism Troll?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 1, 2009 11:16 PM

Aaron Baker wrote:

I think...

Oh, I doubt it.

...to be a concern troll, you have to pretend to be concerned for someone while you're doing something very different, like insulting him.

Wrong. Laughably so.

So if I simply say that you're a dolt who uses expressions he doesn't understand, that's not concern trolling

You would be correct in principle - but you're still wrong; I'm not a dolt, nor am I using an expression I don't understand. Unlike your ignorant self.

that's just a statement of fact.

Wrong.

Are you starting to get it?

What, that you're a vapid pissant clown shoe? Oh, I worked that out from your first comment. You didn't need to reinforce it.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 1, 2009 11:16 PM

@177

Metaphysical principle #1 is the law of identity, that A=A, which you are employing in your attempt to discredit metaphysics. No doubt metaphysical speculation is sticky, complex territory; but we cannot avoid it, especially if scientific investigation is to be grounded upon anything.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 1, 2009 11:21 PM

Whenever someone says metaphysics, I do two things. One, grab my wallet so it can't be picked. Two, don't believe anything the woomeister says. They have no logic and reason.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 1, 2009 11:23 PM

No doubt metaphysical speculation is sticky, complex territory

Condescending arrogance noted.

but we cannot avoid it, especially if scientific investigation is to be grounded upon anything.

You know,I just watched the Venter-Dawkins chat,and those 2 giants seem perfectly happy to just ground it on curiosity, the quest to better people's lifes, and survival of the species.
As far as I can tell,no need for metaphysical woo.

Aaron Baker,

a hint : it helps around here if you look up those big words before you use them,like, "statement of fact", or "concern troll" .
Makes you look slightly less of an idiot.
Too late now.

Posted by: bob | July 1, 2009 11:31 PM

I'm confused ... aren't us "New Atheist" types supposed to be the arrogant, condescending ones?

Posted by: gdlchmst | July 1, 2009 11:34 PM

They have no logic and reason.

But metaphysics is beyond logic and reason. Or maybe it plays twister with them... I forgot which. Perhaps Matthew Segall can clarify.

Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | July 1, 2009 11:38 PM

Hi PZ,

Most of these comments are directed at Chris, but we co-wrote Unscientific America and I noticed your post tonight.

We're two weeks before the official publication date and most review copies are going out now. No one at ScienceBlogs has received it yet as far as we know. Be assured it's on the way and I hope you'll reserve judgment until you've read the book.

Best,
Sheril

Posted by: Sastra | July 1, 2009 11:39 PM

Matthew Segall #142 wrote:

But God, or the spiritual, the numinous, the awesome, etc., are not scientific hypotheses, at least as far as I am concerned. They are experiences, which I’d be willing to admit are subjective experiences.

God is an "experience?" Or you infer that God exists through an experience, or because of an experience?

If it's the first, then it seems as if you're using the term "God" as a sort of descriptive adjective. It's not a being, entity, force -- it's a way of feeling, an emotion, an expression of taste or preference. Any number of other words could be substituted, and used by an atheist-materialist with no contradiction.

If it's the second, then you're making an empirical claim. Teillard de Chardin's progressive evolution is an empirical claim, and open to scientific scrutiny. It could be true or false. We can predict consequences from its truth, and their absence would count against them.

How are you defining God? You seem to be trying to straddle some sort of line between God being a subjective internal state of feelings about God, and God being something separate from your feelings about God.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 1, 2009 11:41 PM

Wowblogger,

The site you linked to gives five definitions of "concern troll." I guess it was too much effort to work your way down to no. three: "person who lurks, then posts, on a site or blog, expressing concern for policies, comments, attitudes of others on the site. It is viewed as insincere, manipulative, condescending."

As for "vapid pissant clown shoe," I guess I'd be offended if I knew what the hell it meant. I prefer clarity of expression: e.g. You're an idiot.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 1, 2009 11:44 PM

are you saying the posted quotes from Ophelia's blog are not accurate, or missing context?

and/or maybe she's saying that she wrote that part?...

Posted by: Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM | July 1, 2009 11:49 PM

#196 - Aaron Baker - To Wowbagger,OM - You're an idiot.

Hey Aaron, fuck you.

Posted by: Kel | July 1, 2009 11:55 PM

I really don't get why anyone is defending the desire to maintain sacred symbols over the right to freedom of speech/expression. Should we refrain from critising religious bigots because we should respect that their book calls homosexuality an abomination and therefore any discrimination against gays is okay?

It's so nice that we are so tolerant that we will side with those who are explicitly intolerant and have no desire to change. Game theory shows this is a losing strategy, why aren't we working towards reciprocal altruism?

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 1, 2009 11:57 PM

Dear Brother Baron @ 196

I too am a lover of clarity of expression. And after reading your posts I feel I need to say (clearly) that you have your head so far up your ass you can see the pinot noir pouring down.

Of course, being a Christian, I'd never actually say such a thing. But my need is great.

Yours in Christian clarity,

Smoggy

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 2, 2009 12:02 AM

@183 John Morales wrote: "Matthew Segall apparently is one of those "new agers" to which Sastra has previously referred.

He's clearly not a materialist or a dualist; he's some sort of mystical ineffabilist. Woo-hoo!

Better than a religionist, I suppose... ;)"

Yeah, I suppose I'd have a hard time shaking that label. New Age I am, at least when in the company of all you sober scientists ; )

I actually share the sense I assume most regulars here have that evolutionary biology and contemporary cosmology have a more urgent message to convey to the public than institutionalized religion. The knowledge we currently have of the universe we live in and the processes that have produced us is absolutely astounding to anyone who understands it. This knowledge most definitely has public policy implications (ie, knowing about the actual nature of our universe implies possessing a certain moral perspective about it--more on the whole false "is" v. "ought" dichotomy below). I assume I share the sentiment with most of you that 13.7 billion years of creative emergence is far more elegant, and TRUE, an explanation for our existence than 6,000 years as the slaves of some immoral--no, monsterous amoral father in the sky. Really, if Darwin was right about anything, it was cultural evolution--his theory explains wonderfully why human beings would imagine a divine source as jealous, self-interested and vengeful as Yahweh.

Where we probably disagree is on the relationship between what we call "human imagination" and what you sober scientists like to call "objective" or "material" reality. This is where the "is" v. "ought" dichotomy becomes relevant... science is a cultural activity, embedded just as much as religion in day-to-day human socio-historical realities. The scientist cannot say to the public that the universe is "mindless" without making a value judgment. We can all agree that human imagination is a product of the universe--but would you also agree that the universe can't help but be human? Cosmologists call this the anthropic principle. It is basically a pantheistic interpretation of science, which I would certainly argue is just as reasonable an interpretation as materialism (actually, I'd argue it is more so--and not just because Einstein was sympathetic to it).

I think contemporary scientific knowledge of the universe (at least, to the best of my knowledge) has spiritual implications. Materialism is a cop out, an attempt to avoid the responsibility of --not only one's human-- but one's cosmic existence. Atheism is more interesting, because I believe it to be something every person experiences at some point. No theist could possibly understand the meaning of faith without also having experienced genuine doubt.

Another New Ager talking about atheism in the name of God: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE5M8743a1s

Posted by: John Morales | July 2, 2009 12:07 AM

Aaron:

As for "vapid pissant clown shoe," I guess I'd be offended if I knew what the hell it meant.

Prepare to be offended, O disingenous troll.

vapid: Lacking significance or liveliness or zest.
pissant: An insignificant person.
clown: A person who amuses others by ridiculous behaviour.
shoe: Footwear.
clown shoe: A type of shoe of exaggerated and impractical proportions, deliberately absurd in design and used by clowns.

In short, you're being called an insignificant object of derisive amusement. It is a well-earned and most appropriate sobriquet, IMO.

(BTW, the apparent redundancy is a mode of rhetorical emphasis, by the way.)

Posted by: littlejohn | July 2, 2009 12:14 AM

My darling Smoggy,

There is really no reason for you to go on with your cute "littlejohnson" pet name. At least not after your recent anal reconstruction surgery.

Everyone here is capable of spotting irony when... oh jebus, the unicorns! Who said they could fly?

My "doctor," Ok, my neighbor, said it wasn't acid. Jebus, the slugs! They can talk. They're telling me to go to bed.

So is my lover, Janine.

Goodnight, my lovelies! Oh god, the mammoths! My house is far too small. Stop that! Dammit!

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 2, 2009 12:17 AM

I think LJ has found Jesus.

Posted by: Kel | July 2, 2009 12:20 AM

Actually, I’d argue quite the contrary, that the story science is telling us about the dynamics and development of our universe creates serious problems for any standard-brand materialism. The fine-tuning

Firstly, what would a non-finely tuned universe look like? What would we see in a universe that isn't finely tuned so that we know that this one is?

Secondly, how does this discredit materialism? Even if the laws of nature were finely tuned, how does that impact at all on materialism?

Thirdly, what finely-tuned the laws of physics? How does supersymmetry get broken? How did the laws of physics come to be as they are now? Can there be any other options for the laws of physics?

What I don't get about the fine-tuning argument is that the whole premise seems to be "we exist, therefore God" because if things were any different then we wouldn't be here, and since we are here then it's staggeringly improbable therefore God. This is nothing more than anthropic deism, somehow this 13,700,000,000 year old universe that is 93,000,000,000 light years wide was all made so one species of billions on one planet around one insignificant star in a universe where there are more stars than grains of sand on all the beaches of the world - we still need to satisfy our urge to say we are more significant than we are. Evolution should have put the issue to bed, but it seems the gap for God is at Plank time.

Posted by: John Morales | July 2, 2009 12:29 AM

Matthew @206, thanks for the response, I give you credit for engaging me substantially.

Good first two paragraphs, though rather than 'TRUE' I would say 'supportable' or 'sustainable' or 'justifiable' or the like.

Where we probably disagree is on the relationship between what we call "human imagination" and what you sober scientists like to call "objective" or "material" reality. This is where the "is" v. "ought" dichotomy becomes relevant... science is a cultural activity, embedded just as much as religion in day-to-day human socio-historical realities.

No, I agree that our apprehension of and narrative about reality is a construct of our imagination — but I do disagree that science is a cultural activity, or in any utilitarian sense comparable to religion.
Science is a self-correcting, bias-annulling and iterative process for acquiring knowledge about reality; religion is wishful thinking and empty 'explanations'.

The scientist cannot say to the public that the universe is "mindless" without making a value judgment.

Nor does the scientist say so; the scientist says 'there is no evidence of telos when examining the universe'. Note that to say something is a value judgement here is trite; any expression of a conclusion or judgement is de-facto a 'value judgement'.

We can all agree that human imagination is a product of the universe--but would you also agree that the universe can't help but be human? Cosmologists call this the anthropic principle.

What?
First, the universe is anything but 'human'. Rather than trying to interpret that, I instead encourage you to rephrase it so that it's meaningful.
Second, you'd better look up anthropic principle, for I suspect you don't understand it.

I think contemporary scientific knowledge of the universe (at least, to the best of my knowledge) has spiritual implications.

See my #201; what is this 'spirit' of which you speak?
(Remember, you claim not to be a dualist.)

Atheism is more interesting, because I believe it to be something every person experiences at some point.

It's not particularly interesting, anymore than non-stamp collecting or non-football fanaticism is. And yes, every person has experienced it — it is the tabula rasa, or normal state before religious indoctrination/imaginative wishful thinking occurs.

Atheism is, at base, non-atheism; i.e. no belief in deities (or deity, for monotheists).
There are different kinds of atheism, but this is the core meaning.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 2, 2009 12:31 AM

Aaron Baker, vapid pissant clown shoe, in your post explaining what you thought a concern troll was, you wrote this:

I think to be a concern troll, you have to pretend to be concerned for someone while you're doing something very different, like insulting him.

While definition number 3 from the definitions is this:

person who lurks, then posts, on a site or blog, expressing concern for policies, comments, attitudes of others on the site. It is viewed as insincere, manipulative, condescending.

Is English not your first language? If not, then I understand. However, if it is then you've got some serious comprehension issues, as what you wrote does not even slightly resemble that definition.

You stated the the concern was for the person - 'concern for someone' was the exact phrase you used - and not the issue; you also believed that this was insulting - yet the definition does not include the word 'insult' or any of its variants.

Want to take another stab at it? Here's a hint: try looking for words you used that appear in the definition provided.

Sheesh.

As for "vapid pissant clown shoe," I guess I'd be offended if I knew what the hell it meant. I prefer clarity of expression: e.g. You're an idiot.

You want clarity of expression? How's this: fuck off, you ignorant, clueless dickhead. You're punching way above your weight and getting the shit kicked out of you.

Clear enough for ya?

As for the term 'clown shoe'; maybe it is a bit obscure but hey, it's not like it's rocket science; it's an insult. Get hold of a copy of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Kevin Smith may not be the brightest or deepest guy in the world but the fucker can do dialogue well, and insults better than most.

Posted by: Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM | July 2, 2009 12:37 AM

I am one of the Queens of gutter language, thank you. And I don't give a fiddler's fuck what you think of PZ or Wowbagger. They are right and you are the idiot. Do yourself a favor and piss off.

The only thing lower than a concern troll is a christian, wanna go two for two?

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 2, 2009 12:38 AM

@ 194 Sastra writes: “God is an "experience?" Or you infer that God exists through an experience, or because of an experience?”

I’m not a Catholic, but in this case I would say that God is three things: experience, that existing through experience, and that existing because of an experience. God could also be described temporally as the past (experience), the present (existing through), and the future (effects). God is everything, which I describe a bit more gently in my last response to John Morales. I’m also a panexperientialist, which is to say that I don’t believe there is anything real aside from experience. If you have at least some empiricist leanings, we might be able to agree on some version of this idea (that there is nothing real outside experience).

Teilhard’s law of complexity/consciousness is an empirical claim. It can be tested. The emergence of the internet seems awfully similar to what we would expect of a noosphere, don’t you think? But it is also a law meant to describe natural history. It can be tested like so many other evolutionary explanations, by retrospective correlation. I think that if you perform this experiment of remembering the universe as science tells us it has unfolded, you will see that the law holds.

Sastra writes: “How are you defining God? You seem to be trying to straddle some sort of line between God being a subjective internal state of feelings about God, and God being something separate from your feelings about God.”

As I said above, lump me in with the pantheists (at least unless you’re willing to even discuss pantheist-type metaphysics with me; if so I’ll try to convince you of panentheism). I do not think there is any ontological gap separating subject from object. We distinguish between the internal and external worlds based on conventions, not scientific fact. I’m influenced not only by Teilhard, but by Whitehead, who argued that the universe was in fact full of feelings. All is experience, which is to say that all is feeling. Our scientific knowledge of the universe is a complex organic feeling being experienced by the universe itself.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 2, 2009 12:39 AM

We can all agree that human imagination is a product of the universe--but would you also agree that the universe can't help but be human? Cosmologists call this the anthropic principle. It is basically a pantheistic interpretation of science, which I would certainly argue is just as reasonable an interpretation as materialism

oy. I don't even quite know how to handle this one... how does one anthropomorphize an entire universe...?

Posted by: MadScientist | July 2, 2009 12:48 AM

"if forced to choose between faith and science, vast numbers of Americans will select the former. The New Atheists err in insisting that such a choice needs to be made."

Two canards with one stone!

I am not aware of any atheists running up to religious people and saying: "you've got to be an atheist or else quit your work in science". Maybe I'm living in the wrong hick town.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 2, 2009 12:52 AM

I am not aware of any atheists running up to religious people and saying: "you've got to be an atheist or else quit your work in science".

No,it's usually the other way round, at least in the U.S., especially if you want to be elected into some official function.

But they tend to overlook that.

Posted by: John Morales | July 2, 2009 12:56 AM

Jadehawk,

how does one anthropomorphize an entire universe...?

Must be New Age stuff, very ineffable.

Clearly, the Universe is of the
Domain: Eukarya
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Hominina.

Yup, that makes sense! </sarcasm>

(Seriously, I think it was a not well-thought out expression of a sentiment that works in his usual milieu — alas, this is Pharyngula and such gets called here.)

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 2, 2009 12:57 AM

how does one anthropomorphize an entire universe...?

Jadehawk, here is one way of trying to do it.

Aaron Baker: Fuckity fuck fuck!

Posted by: Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM | July 2, 2009 1:03 AM

Dammit! Janine is twirling faster than me.

Posted by: Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM | July 2, 2009 1:10 AM

Aaron Baker - My real name is Patricia - so what.

So you don't like PZ's treatment of a cracker, you don't like it that Wowbagger points out that you are an idiot, and I use gutter language.

Too fucking bad.

Don't read this blog. Again, you are free to fuck off.

Posted by: Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM | July 2, 2009 1:18 AM

I don't lurk either.

Every chance I get, I peek!

Posted by: Kel | July 2, 2009 1:26 AM

A username is just a unique identifier. Just see how many "Mike"s or "Mark"s or "Eric"s there are on here and the case is made to pick a handle that is unique. Hell, I'm not the only Kel who posts (I'm unique by my blog link). Rorsharch and Wowbagger have been here for as long as I remember, they definitely aren't hiding behind a handle.

Complaining about anonymity on the internet is, well, redundant. The best you could do with a person's name is cyber stalk them, so it really doesn't matter too much.

Posted by: Tomecat | July 2, 2009 1:33 AM

America is a very religious nation, and if forced to choose between faith and science, vast numbers of Americans will select the former.

And?

Some Americans will choose the latter. While I am expected to respect religious values, I have yet to find a religious person who considers my views when demanding this choice.

Posted by: Wowbagger (and proud of it), OM | July 2, 2009 1:38 AM

I've never understood the criticism of people not using their 'real' names. What's a name but what someone else decided you should be called? I don't happen to like my name - it's boring and unrepresentative of me as a person - and for almost all my adult life I've gone by one or more nicknames.

Seems to me it's only ever a complaint by someone who's unable to come up with a substantive refutation of the nym-user's arguments.

Posted by: Azkyroth | July 2, 2009 1:46 AM

"Seven years old, so you'd think, watching him
Though GIWAS' mommy says he's a genius
God Big Oil on his side, and his head up his ass
Compensating for a tiny penis
And he sneered, and he whined, and he trolled, and he lied
And he never did learn a damn thing, but
This you must realize: a life spent spreading lies
Is 'a life that's well spent' to a wingnut."

(To the tune of "1916")

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 2, 2009 1:50 AM

"And everyone knows pretty much exactly what the others stand for,because other than you,most people on this thread have been doing this for a long time."

I've been posting on this website for at least five years, Rorschach; I find your proprietary attitude very amusing.

As for the alleged badness of my arguments, we've mostly just been insulting one another (I don't have any exalted illusions about the activity). But if you want my actual reasons for disapproving of Myers's cracker caper, see #243 above.

Posted by: John Morales | July 2, 2009 2:00 AM

Aaron @243, this was well and truly thrashed out during 'crackergate'; you've missed the boat.

You make a good case regarding your status, though — you're not just a concern troll, you're a slow-witted and tardy concern troll. At least you're marginally amusing — I'll give you that.

And "As for "vapid pissant clown shoe," I guess I'd be offended if I knew what the hell it meant. I prefer clarity of expression: e.g. You're an idiot." is clearly either disingenous or outright obtuse.

You cannot have failed to know what it meant, if you had any wit; that is contra-indicated by the evidence*, hence you're disingenous.

Furthermore, to call you an idiot is nowhere near as pithy or expressive as the expression that was used is. It would not have done you justice; 'idiot' is commonplace, but you well and truly transcend such a simple description. 'Idiot' is too etiolated a term for such as you.

Now, Wowbagger, or whatever your name is [...]

Heh. Good shovel-work there, Aaron Baker or whatever your name is. ;)

PS Please, do show us how you can cause anguish. Try it on me, Patricia has retired for the night.
I am aquiver and adread with anticipation.

--
* That's a compliment, of a sort. We call it "faint praise".

Posted by: Rev. Bigdumbchimp | July 2, 2009 2:03 AM

Rev. Bigdumbchimp is my real name

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 2, 2009 2:06 AM

Re #247: And you prove, Rorschach, that actually posting my argument was a complete waste of time, as you won't address it.

That's enough for one night. If you actually have something substantive to say, maybe you'll come up with it tomorrow . . . but I don't think I'll be there waiting.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 2, 2009 2:08 AM

@ 201 John Morales writes: “those assumptions (of science) are that there is an external reality, and that it is consistent, and that only the senses can convey information about that reality.”

You must have left out the other necessary assumption on accident? I mean, that there be in addition to external reality, an internal consciousness capable of consistently observing, measuring, and formalizing all that sensory data into meaningful scientific theories? I would never deny the existence of the external world, but I would argue there is absolutely no sense (reasonable or empirical) to be made of any supposed pre-given, objective material world. The external world is always already together with the internal. Consciousness wasn’t parachuted into a sterile, mindless universe as if from outside; it grew right out of the center of what is actually more of an organic universe still in the process of creating itself. Based on my understanding, our scientific knowledge of the universe not only doesn’t disprove, but actually supports the idea that it is a directed (not “designed,” but lured by recognizable laws, like entropy or Teilhard’s complexity/consciousness), experiential universe, which is all that I am arguing for here (not for the existence of “God”).

John Morales writes: “you claim not to be a dualist, yet you refer to "spirituality". Q: What is this 'spirit' concept (presumably you don't mean mind), and why do you apparently consider it is not amenable to scientific scrutiny?”

I don’t bring up spirit because I want to annul matter, nor because I think the two are irreconcilably enemies or ontologically distinct substances. To tell you the truth, I don’t think we need to talk about anything but matter—but I think matter is more than brute stuff devoid of self-enjoyment. I think all organized material bodies feel the rest of the universe in an increasingly intense way depending on their complexity (I didn’t add above that we also need to talk about time, which is where this “increasingly complex” business comes from). Hydrogen feels gravitational gradients, stars feel magnetic fields, bacteria feel nutrient gradients, human beings feel the need to understand the universe. I think these feelings are leading the universe somewhere: time’s influence on matter is not merely accidental; to argue that it is to contradict the plainly evident pattern of natural history. If we had to separate matter and spirit for the sake of metaphor, I’d say that “spirit” describes what we call “matter” is evolving toward. We might also swap “novelty” for spirit and “habit” for matter, so long as we see that the two are really part of a single process called the universe and that no actually existing thing/event is ever one or the other exclusively. The universe is creative process--it is not entirely determined by the past but has spontaneously emerged to higher states of order on multiple occasions. I can only assume it will continue to do so. Science cannot scrutinize the idea that ours is a reasonable, a purposeful universe. If it were not such a universe, the scientific enterprise would not be possible. Reason has emerged in our universe—this is a fact. I do not think mechanistic materialism can account for this, other than to say it is a complete fluke. This leads us to the anthropic principle.

@216 John Morales writes: “you'd better look up anthropic principle, for I suspect you don't understand it.”

Perhaps I don’t understand it. I’ve yet to hear it described by any two people exactly the same way. When I say that our universe can’t help but be human, I mean only that we necessarily exist in a universe whose processes were potentially, and are now actually intelligent.

John Morales writes: “the scientist says 'there is no evidence of telos when examining the universe'. Note that to say something is a value judgement here is trite; any expression of a conclusion or judgement is de-facto a 'value judgement'.”

As I said above, for the scientific enterprise (which I believe to be a cultural activity—I’m not sure where you’d begin arguing otherwise? More below) to be possible, human beings must be rational creatures in a universe which conforms to certain reasons (ie, purposes, causes, laws). Even Darwin’s theory of evolution invokes telos. Natural selection only does theoretical work if we take the analogy of human and natural selection quite literally. The scientist has every reason not to deny the universe is reasonable and purposeful. If he/she does, I don’t see how he/she can avoid erasing causality itself from the picture. It is only the materialist who argues based on any number of non-scientific motivations that the universe lacks all telos.

John Morales says: “Science is a self-correcting, bias-annulling and iterative process for acquiring knowledge about reality;”

Yes, science is that cultural institution which has proven itself to be the most progressive yet devised by the human spirit, at least in terms of technological advance. I don’t think this means civilization can thrive without other value spheres having a share of power, however. For instance, we have pressing moral decisions to make about how scientific knowledge ought to influence the way we relate to the rest of the non-human earth community. A materialist response to these moral issues (I think materialism is as much a moral, as a scientific stance) is usually either supportive of or indifferent to industrial growth capitalism, which is pushing us into the largest mass extinction since the meteorite that killed the dinosaurs according to E.O. Wilson. Science can and should help us make moral decisions about human-earth relations; a materialist wouldn’t seem to have a stake in the matter, because how can one argue that non-human nature has value independent of human desires if it is all just a blind mechanism? Economics becomes just another science concerned with objective facts with no ethical implications.

John Morales writes: “every person has experienced it (atheism)— it is the tabula rasa, or normal state before religious indoctrination/imaginative wishful thinking occurs.”

Actually, recent developmental psychology might show otherwise, that children are originally quite open to spirituality, and only as adults become self-described atheists: http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=128

I’ll admit this is open to debate, mostly for semantic reasons concerning how you prefer to use the word “atheist.” You say it means the lack of a belief in deities, but when a child says “God did it!,” I don’t think they mean the same thing that, say, Jerry Falwell did.

Posted by: Kel | July 2, 2009 2:31 AM

Actually, recent developmental psychology might show otherwise, that children are originally quite open to spirituality

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 2, 2009 2:36 AM

Once more unto the breach . . . .

Wowbagger, I AM AN ATHEIST. I AM EVEN AN ATHEIST CONCERNED BY MYERS'S BEHAVIOR. THAT WASN'T A PLOY. I explained my reasons for disapproving of the cracker business on this site, back when it happened. I've repeated my reasons in #243 above. What else do you need?

As for definitions: yes, my first effort at a definition sucked. Are you happy now?

Apparently, some people here have decided that a bare statement of disagreement with P.Z. is an unacceptable provocation. I haven't noticed Myers to get too upset by this sort of thing; but I'll certainly keep it in mind in the future. I've only been posting here since 2004; I'm obviously a mere interloper who needs to watch himself with old hands like you. But I want to be very clear on this: I tend to repond to insults with, well, insults. Not admirable, maybe, but I think it is something beyond gall to attack me, completely groundlessly, as a concern troll, and then jump on me, a la Rorschach, for responding in kind.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 2, 2009 2:42 AM

Wowbagger, I AM AN ATHEIST.

Mate,dont you get it???
I have heard better arguments from Xtian fundies here over the years.
I personally dont give a shit if you are a mormon,xtian,jew,hindu or whatever,just for fuck's sake make an effort to put together a decent argument.
And then let's look at it and have a debate.
But not this shit.Srsly.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 2, 2009 2:47 AM

What exactly is the physiological mechanism responsible for turning chemical reactions into conscious existence? If you're curious, I solve the problem by never artificially separating mind and matter in the first place

Shorter Matthew S,

POOF

Thanks for playing.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 2, 2009 2:50 AM

Re: @ 258 Kel,

Perhaps you'd argue that evolution explains how the mind/brain came to be. I've argued elsewhere that based on a materialist ontology and a reductionistic Darwinian biology, there is no reason sentience ought ever to have emerged in the biosphere. The mechanism of differential survival/natural selection would work just as well if organisms were mere automatons without any interiority or mentality.

Posted by: articulett | July 2, 2009 2:55 AM

Most life forms on our planet are not sentient... sentience just developed in the species in which sentience provided a selective advantage.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 2, 2009 3:02 AM

@ 267 Kel,

I suppose you don't have to deal with the "hard problem," I just figured it might be relevant. In one sense I agree, there is nothing immaterial about mind (as I said above, mind and matter are aspects of a single process). In another sense, I think there is obviously something unobservable about the experience of observation itself. We cannot experience our own brains in action but by being those brains. We can have someone else look at our brain from the outside while we are experiencing the world and make all sorts of correlations between what I report seeing and what they measure. This in no way explains the "observering" aspect of the situation, the fact that a brain is both an object and a subject.

Obviously, brain and mind are deeply related. I dispute, however, that mind can somehow be reduced away to some entirely mechanical epiphenomenon.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 2, 2009 3:06 AM

We can have someone else look at our brain from the outside while we are experiencing the world and make all sorts of correlations between what I report seeing and what they measure. This in no way explains the "observering" aspect of the situation, the fact that a brain is both an object and a subject.

I thought Descartes had sorted that one out ca 1650 A.D.

Posted by: Kel | July 2, 2009 3:13 AM

We cannot experience our own brains in action but by being those brains.

Was watching the Daily Show from monday with Oliver Sacks on it, and they were showing his brain when he listened to both Bach and Beethoven. His pleasure centres were lighting up for Bach but not Beethoven. How is that not measuring is brain in action?

Posted by: Kagato | July 2, 2009 3:23 AM

Holy crap, more "metaphysical" "philosophical" gibberish.
A veritable wall of the stuff!

I'm quoting the whole damn thing here, so I can highlight all the bits that don't make any goddamn sense (yellow), and the plain stupid (pink).
In many cases the choice was arbitrary; I'll leave the specific reasoning as an exercise for the reader.

But for sanity's sake, I'll reduce the font size so as not to dominate the page with this crap too much.

@ 201 John Morales writes: “those assumptions (of science) are that there is an external reality, and that it is consistent, and that only the senses can convey information about that reality.”

You must have left out the other necessary assumption on accident? I mean, that there be in addition to external reality, an internal consciousness capable of consistently observing, measuring, and formalizing all that sensory data into meaningful scientific theories? I would never deny the existence of the external world, but I would argue there is absolutely no sense (reasonable or empirical) to be made of any supposed pre-given, objective material world. The external world is always already together with the internal. Consciousness wasn’t parachuted into a sterile, mindless universe as if from outside; it grew right out of the center of what is actually more of an organic universe still in the process of creating itself. Based on my understanding, our scientific knowledge of the universe not only doesn’t disprove, but actually supports the idea that it is a directed (not “designed,” but lured by recognizable laws, like entropy or Teilhard’s complexity/consciousness), experiential universe, which is all that I am arguing for here (not for the existence of “God”).

John Morales writes: “you claim not to be a dualist, yet you refer to "spirituality". Q: What is this 'spirit' concept (presumably you don't mean mind), and why do you apparently consider it is not amenable to scientific scrutiny?”

I don’t bring up spirit because I want to annul matter, nor because I think the two are irreconcilably enemies or ontologically distinct substances. To tell you the truth, I don’t think we need to talk about anything but matter—but I think matter is more than brute stuff devoid of self-enjoyment. I think all organized material bodies feel the rest of the universe in an increasingly intense way depending on their complexity (I didn’t add above that we also need to talk about time, which is where this “increasingly complex” business comes from). Hydrogen feels gravitational gradients, stars feel magnetic fields, bacteria feel nutrient gradients, human beings feel the need to understand the universe. I think these feelings are leading the universe somewhere: time’s influence on matter is not merely accidental; to argue that it is to contradict the plainly evident pattern of natural history. If we had to separate matter and spirit for the sake of metaphor, I’d say that “spirit” describes what we call “matter” is evolving toward.We might also swap “novelty” for spirit and “habit” for matter, so long as we see that the two are really part of a single process called the universe and that no actually existing thing/event is ever one or the other exclusively. The universe is creative process--it is not entirely determined by the past but has spontaneously emerged to higher states of order on multiple occasions. I can only assume it will continue to do so. Science cannot scrutinize the idea that ours is a reasonable, a purposeful universe. If it were not such a universe, the scientific enterprise would not be possible. Reason has emerged in our universe—this is a fact. I do not think mechanistic materialism can account for this, other than to say it is a complete fluke. This leads us to the anthropic principle.

@216 John Morales writes: “you'd better look up anthropic principle, for I suspect you don't understand it.”

Perhaps I don’t understand it. I’ve yet to hear it described by any two people exactly the same way. When I say that our universe can’t help but be human, I mean only that we necessarily exist in a universe whose processes were potentially, and are now actually intelligent.

John Morales writes: “the scientist says 'there is no evidence of telos when examining the universe'. Note that to say something is a value judgement here is trite; any expression of a conclusion or judgement is de-facto a 'value judgement'.”

As I said above, for the scientific enterprise (which I believe to be a cultural activity—I’m not sure where you’d begin arguing otherwise? More below) to be possible, human beings must be rational creatures in a universe which conforms to certain reasons (ie, purposes, causes, laws). Even Darwin’s theory of evolution invokes telos. Natural selection only does theoretical work if we take the analogy of human and natural selection quite literally. The scientist has every reason not to deny the universe is reasonable and purposeful. If he/she does, I don’t see how he/she can avoid erasing causality itself from the picture. It is only the materialist who argues based on any number of non-scientific motivations that the universe lacks all telos.

John Morales says: “Science is a self-correcting, bias-annulling and iterative process for acquiring knowledge about reality;”

Yes, science is that cultural institution which has proven itself to be the most progressive yet devised by the human spirit, at least in terms of technological advance. I don’t think this means civilization can thrive without other value spheres having a share of power, however. For instance, we have pressing moral decisions to make about how scientific knowledge ought to influence the way we relate to the rest of the non-human earth community. A materialist response to these moral issues (I think materialism is as much a moral, as a scientific stance) is usually either supportive of or indifferent to industrial growth capitalism, which is pushing us into the largest mass extinction since the meteorite that killed the dinosaurs according to E.O. Wilson. Science can and should help us make moral decisions about human-earth relations; a materialist wouldn’t seem to have a stake in the matter, because how can one argue that non-human nature has value independent of human desires if it is all just a blind mechanism? Economics becomes just another science concerned with objective facts with no ethical implications.

John Morales writes: “every person has experienced it (atheism)— it is the tabula rasa, or normal state before religious indoctrination/imaginative wishful thinking occurs.”

Actually, recent developmental psychology might show otherwise, that children are originally quite open to spirituality, and only as adults become self-described atheists: http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=128

I’ll admit this is open to debate, mostly for semantic reasons concerning how you prefer to use the word “atheist.” You say it means the lack of a belief in deities, but when a child says “God did it!,” I don’t think they mean the same thing that, say, Jerry Falwell did.

Posted by: Dan L. | July 2, 2009 4:14 AM

@Matthew Segall:

I tried to follow your link to the wikipedia page on process philosophy. It was broken because you included a ")". When I did a search again without that character, I found this prominently displayed across the top of the article:

This article needs additional citations for verification.

The same could be said about almost everything you've posted here.

Yes, obviously consciousness would be evolutionarily advantageous to any creature which developed it. But the question still stands, how did matter become experiential if it began as mere mindless stuff? We can evoke an adaptationist just-so story, but it hardly satisfies my scientific curiosity concerning the emergence of an entirely novel domain of reality. Consciousness isn't just another trait like a sharper beak or a longer claw, it throws a totally new ontological layer into nature.

You're begging the question here, especially with "novel domain of reality." You're assuming that experiences are real in the same sense that atoms are real. That simply isn't the case.

I've already written a lot tonight (elsewhere) about why materialism handles abstraction and complex behaviors just fine using the analogy of a computer. A computer bootstraps incredibly complex behaviors from quite conceptually simple material elements, and it does so without any mystery involved. The object oriented languages used to design applications do not operate in a "novel domain of reality," but are merely reducible to lower-level operations that can ultimately be reduced to hardware (and thus material) operations.

Likewise, the quite complex internal representations of the human mind could -- with perfect logical consistency -- be reduced to lower-level representations until we arrive at the level of perceptions themselves, or qualia if you prefer. These would essentially be the machine language or primitives upon which the higher-order behavior is predicated.

If the fact of electronic computers doesn't debunk materialism (and it doesn't), then the fact of biological computers doesn't either. In fact, the human brain is just about exactly the sort of computer I would expect evolution to "invent."

As for consciousness, I suspect neither you nor Chalmers can come up with any sort of satisfying definition of such a phenomenon. Philosophers of the mind have a major problem to overcome before they figure out how brains work -- they need to stop thinking like philosophers and start thinking like scientists.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 2, 2009 4:29 AM

since I seriously don't have the patience to deal with the woo point-by-point, I'll instead post a little theory of woo-ist thinking that came to me when remembering a conversation I had with a friend a few years back about sexiness.

The gist of the conversation was basically that men often find lingerie sexier than total nudity because the lingerie is a bit of a tease and a bit of a mystique, leaving things to the imagination, while complete nudity is... well, it just is, plain, unmysterious and normal.

So anyway, I figured that religionists (and New Age woo-ists too, apparently) like their reality the way they like their women: covered from head to toe, leaving as much as possible to the imagination; plain naked truth just isn't very "sexy" to them, so they prefer to veil it in sophistry and magical thinking.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 2, 2009 4:34 AM

Haruhiist, it's a ridiculously complicated and involved story, but it all started with a kid who wanted to show his non-Catholic friend, whom he invited to join him in church, a eucharist. so instead of eating it, he wanted to take it back to his pew. except that drama ensued immediately and the poor kid even got death-threats for not eating the damn cracker.

Posted by: Kel | July 2, 2009 4:37 AM

But the question still stands, how did matter become experiential if it began as mere mindless stuff?

If you are looking for me to answer why I'm conscious, I cannot give you one beyond talking about brain activity. But I'll echo the sentiments of Richard Feynman and say that I would prefer to know than to believe in what might be. I don't know what the feeling of consciousness is, but it doesn't change the fact that we have the material to work with. We have a material brain that works through electrical impulses firing through particular pathways that are crafted both by our genes and our experiences and it seems our consciousness is nothing more than brain patterns firing in patterns that otherwise have different functionality.

In short, I have nothing to suggest that the mind is not material and I find questioning reality on something that is so clearly a product of evolution where we humans have but qualitative differences as opposed to quantitative differences in terms of our sentience to other animals in the animal kingdom is nothing but using our personal incredulity to posit something fantastical. Consciousness is mysterious, but it doesn't necessitate throwing anthropic thinking when physics and biology show anthropic reasoning to be flawed and there are biological / psychological explanations for why anthropic thinking exists in the first place.

Plausibility before parsimony, and I don't think your explanation meets plausibility yet. How does your position solve the problem? Does it mean that rocks and water has this innate consciousness? If so, then why has our evolutionary path led to such a massive increase in brain-size? Before modern medicine, one in five (20%) of women would die giving birth. Consider how important a mother is in our species, so why would we have evolved a bigger brain if it weren't needed? And given how much our higher thinking plays in the survival of our species, surely we can see how such a process would be selected against...

But it goes further, just what part of consciousness cannot be explained by the hijacking of other parts of functionality to the brain? The perception of signals from the nerves, image and aural processing, language, chemical reactions, etc. Isn't it obvious that the effects of drugs on consciousness show that its material? Same goes for brain injury, again we can see how injury affects consciousness. And as I mentioned above, we can scan peoples brains and see different centres light up as certain stimuli and reactions take place. And with that we see brain effects before conscious awareness, suggesting that consciousness is a feedback loop rather than a driving force.

And this is all in the context that we have observed the fundamental building blocks of the universe. All matter is energy. There appears to be nothing of consciousness beyond life itself, and there's a distinct correlation between brain size / body size and mental skills. With everything we have observed in physics, in biology, in neorology, how can we discard all that and posit a whole new reality to solve a problem that only exists for a particular subset of one facet (life) of reality?

So forgive my bluntness when I say this, the mind being material is so well supported that although we don't know everything about the mind, we can extrapolate that there needs no higher explanation. Adding woo to the universe to solve the human condition makes no sense in light of physics or biology, and that psychology shows just why we would think otherwise. Until such time as there's established that there is an immaterial component, the concept is not plausible let alone parsimonious. It may turn out to be the case, but what is going to solve it is evidence. And that's what you should be chasing instead of using personal incredulity and ignorance to posit a whole new reality on top of this one.

Posted by: Kel | July 2, 2009 4:42 AM

Without any introducing texts, it seems like PZ is just trying to see what responses he would get if he did something he knew would anger catholics.

Of course it is easier to maintain outrage if one remains ignorant of the course of events. It looks far worse than what it was without context.

Posted by: Haruhiist | July 2, 2009 4:52 AM

Kel @288:
Thanks, this is what I was looking for :)
Looks like the situation was more complicated than that, as I expected (or perhaps hoped is the better word).

Posted by: raven | July 2, 2009 5:35 AM

matthew segall:

Perhaps you'd argue that evolution explains how the mind/brain came to be. I've argued elsewhere that based on a materialist ontology and a reductionistic Darwinian biology, there is no reason sentience ought ever to have emerged in the biosphere.

Completely irrelevant argument. This is just the common fallacy, Argumentium from ignorance and personal incredulity. "I can't see how my foot evolved, so goddidit." "I can't see how sentience evolved, therefore goddidit." Proves nothing, maybe you are just dumb.

In point of fact, we are the dominant species on the planet. No other species even comes close. Right now the nearest contenders are all human commensuals. They include the "dog", the "cat", the "cow", and the "maize". The evolutionary advantages of intelligence are overwhelming, 6.7 billion humans, about 1/2 of the planetary large animal biomass.

As Arthur C. Clark pointed out, it remains to be seen if tool using bipeds are a long term success. But evolution is blind, it doesn't care about the long term or the short term.

If you mean by "mind/brain" central nervous systems, these are ancient, Cambrian or earlier. CNS's would evolve for and by the same reason anything else does, RM + NS, evolution.

If you mean consciousness, we have little idea what that is right now. Available and recent data implies that consciousness is also ancient, arising in and being maintained and produced by the reptilian hindbrain. Rare humans are born missing all or most of their cerebral cortex. They aren't very bright. They do appear to be conscious.

Posted by: raven | July 2, 2009 5:48 AM

matthew segall:

Consciousness isn't just another trait like a sharper beak or a longer claw, it throws a totally new ontological layer into nature. .

I'm trying to be polite since you do not seem to be a deliberate troll. You are making it very hard. This is bullcrap.

This isn't so. You are making a bald assertion without any proof whatsoever. You can get away with this in philosophy, which is why it has become largely irrelevant in recent centuries and a joke for good reasons to the average person. No one cares what philosophers say because it simply doesn't impact the real world or people's lives. You can't get away with this in science.

Where is the proof of this assertion? It doesn't exist. If recent research is correct, my cat is conscious. So were our common ancestors a hundred million years ago.

It is at least believable. Anyone who has had pets notices sooner or later that they seem to be conscious, self aware individuals. It isn't human grade of course, but so what, things have to start somewhere.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 2, 2009 5:54 AM

Consciousness isn't just another trait like a sharper beak or a longer claw, it throws a totally new ontological layer into nature. .

Well,and even if that were true, it does not follow that the answer is "therefore god" ,or "therefore spirituality and metaphysics".

The burden of proof is still on the one making the extraordinary claim.

Posted by: raven | July 2, 2009 6:21 AM

aaron baker;

Without any introducing texts, it seems like PZ is just trying to see what responses he would get if he did something he knew would anger catholics. That seems a little different from what I've come to expect from PZ, so can someone enlighten me?.

Yes, sure, we can enlighen you. You are a moron and an idiot troll. But you already know that.

I was one who was opposed crackergate at first. Reasoning that going out of one's way to insult other people is pointless.

The reactions of the xians and catholics changed my mind. While PZ might have been violating social norms and morality, the xians were orders of magnitude worse about the same social norms and morality. Point to PZ and point made.

1. Besides the usual abuse and insults, the death threats, of which he got hundreds, were an eye opener. Equating a cracker with a nail through it as justifying putting a bullet through someone's head to kill them is just plain, blatantly wrong.

Not that religious people wouldn't do that. They do it every day somewhere in the world. Lesson 1, Xian morality is a myth.Without secular laws xians would kill in a heartbeat for no real reason. Alleged witches, heretics, other religions, doesn't matter. They, in fact, did this for centuries.

2. How much do the catholics and xians really believe of their bronze age kludgy fairy tales? Probably very little.

Supposedly, to RCC's the cracker is jesus. Well whatever. Jesus created a 13.7 billion year universe in 6 days. He killed all but 8 humans once because he was mildly annoyed for some reason, in a flood.

So why doesn god/jesus need defending by mere humans? He is all powerful and all seeing. If the cracker was god/JC, he could turn PZ into a frog in no time flat if he chose.

Let the supreme creator of the universe take care of himself. If he can't deal with a professor in Minnesota, is he really the source of everything and worth worshipping? I think most xians figured it out subconsciously one second after they were told the cracker was god. It is just a cracker anyway, no matter what anyone claims or pretends.
,

Posted by: MosesZD | July 2, 2009 6:42 AM

Posted by: Rick | July 1, 2009 7:33 PM

PZ,

My viewpoint is this: I think that an individual's ability to choose is much more limited that many people believe. While you and I happen to have similar beliefs regarding the most likely nature of life, the universe, and everything, we cannot know with 100% certainty that we are correct and we should not mock others who have different beliefs.

There are no leprechauns, fairies, zombies or any other supernatural creatures either. That the vast majority of us no longer believe in those superstitious beliefs, but still carry others (diminishing from generation to generation) only means some superstitious beliefs are stronger than others, not that they may be correct.

By all means, we should defend and advocate our viewpoint, but ultimately, we should not be offensive about it. While there is absolute truth, you can't guarantee that you have it and your opponent does not. Instead, all are served better by a degree of tolerance and understanding and encourages honest inquiry.

Bullshit. Social progress is not made by being a simpering accommodationist! As history has taught us all to well: you have to fight for your rights and beliefs.

You ever here of Cluadette Colvin? No, you haven't. But you have (probably) heard about Rosa Parks. Colvin, like Parks, refused to give up her seat on the bus in 1955. But no movement started behind her act of civil disobedience and so discrimination continued on, unabated and unchallenged for nine more months, until it coalesced behind Parks in December of that year.

You argue we should be Colvins. History says we should be like Parks.

Posted by: MosesZD | July 2, 2009 7:01 AM

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 1, 2009 10:15 PM

@42 Azkyroth,

Az writes: “Out of spite?! Please summarize for us the events preceding the cracker desecration, if you're going to make that sort of claim, because right now you don't appear to be on speaking terms with reality.”

It is my understanding that Webster Cook took the host from Mass in an attempt to protest the fact that the student government of UCF (a state school I also happen to have graduated from in 07) voted to fund the campus group responsible for organizing the event.

Major Fail.

Actually, he was a Catholic and wanted to show his friend the Eucharist. Which is NOT required to be eaten immediately and many Catholics, like my mother-in-law, do not immediately eat but take back to their seat and contemplate before eating.

Anyway, he was assaulted by at least one of the catholic staff who assisting with the pointless ritual for not immediately eating it. He then popped it in his mouth. He then went to his seat to show his friend, and more "hilarity" ensued with the staff.

At that point it became a War. The Catholics and their freak-show, death-threatening apologists vs one single student. PZ simply put counter-pressure on the kook brigade in order to keep Cook from being EXPELLED.

Posted by: Kel | July 2, 2009 7:13 AM

My viewpoint is this: I think that an individual's ability to choose is much more limited that many people believe. While you and I happen to have similar beliefs regarding the most likely nature of life, the universe, and everything, we cannot know with 100% certainty that we are correct and we should not mock others who have different beliefs.

Dawkins once said "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite". I propose we change that to being on the internet. Because holding people to an impossible standard (absolute certainty) as the grounds by which to be vocal and derisive about the beliefs that exist in the memosphere is an absurdity. You know as well as any person possibly can that such a position is untenable.

Posted by: MosesZD | July 2, 2009 7:21 AM

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 1, 2009 10:45 PM

@ 144 Wowbagger, OM

It is my understanding that PZ got the death threat/s from some obviously misguided individual/s who were unaffiliated with the student organization or Catholic League AFTER he stuck a rusty nail through the wafer.

As for the "assault" on Cook, a church attended grabbed his hand to get the wafer. I probably wouldn't have appreciate it, but then again, I'm not the type to disturb religious rituals in protest of funding they received via perfectly legitimate means. As I said, there are more appropriate ways that Cook, being a member of student government himself, could have addressed the issue.

You still have a head full of fail. Cook was not there for any reason but to participate in his faith in a manner that many, many Catholics do... Take the Eucharist and eat it from his seat.

The reason he was taking the Eucharist back to his seat was to show a non-catholic friend what it looked like before he ate it. He did this in RESPECT of his faith so his non-catholic friend wouldn't take communion.

Do you understand? He was defending his faith by keeping a non-catholic from taking communion. That's one of the irony's here.

Then the powers-that-be went nutsy-fagen on his ass and it went downhill from there. Because of their massive over-reaction to a NORMAL Catholic practice.

Cook's attack on religious funding came LONG AFTER the catholic assault on Cook which included a physical assault, threats and intimidation, death threats, and an attempted expulsion followed by a Kangaroo Court that removed him from the student government.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 2, 2009 7:47 AM

PZ,you should move to Germany !

Much better timezone-wise for us Aussies !!

:-)

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 2, 2009 8:33 AM

Wowbagger & Rorschach:

In the cold light of day, still twits. My arguments are bad (though again, nothing substantive is said about my actual position), and because I've responded to their insults with insults, I guess I'm a fucking clownshoe, because it's bad to be a troll, unless my name is Wowbagger or Rorschach . . . or something.

"Moral equivalence." Maybe I should have phrased what I said this way: "committing an evil in response to another evil." I said nothing about the two evils being equivalent.
Also, it's important to remember that in tossing out the host, Myers wasn't punishing whoever had made the threats in question; he was causing distress to any number of people who were completely innocent of threatening anybody.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 2, 2009 8:50 AM

Aaron Baker, you have said nothing to convince me that PZ wasn't correct in doing what he did. Nobody should be required to respect other peoples irrational beliefs. The person should be respected, but the belief. That is why you are wrong.

Posted by: Sastra | July 2, 2009 9:07 AM

Matthew Segall #222 wrote:

I’m also a panexperientialist, which is to say that I don’t believe there is anything real aside from experience. If you have at least some empiricist leanings, we might be able to agree on some version of this idea (that there is nothing real outside experience).

You have said that you're not a dualist, but a monist. As I understand it, there are two basic forms of monism: one version claims that everything is patterns of matter and energy in motion; the other claims that everything is mind and consciousness. The first view has mind emerging from matter; the second view has matter emerging from mind. Materialism on one side: Idealism on the other.

Since these are "metaphysical" theories of everything, it's common to state that neither one is provable, and there's nothing to choose between them. Science would have nothing to say in support of either, or against either one.

But would the universe look exactly the same under both situations? No, I don't think so. Neither do you. If you really thought so, you would not be able to make your arguments against "materialism." I note that you're using science to do so. This means that we can bring in science to examine your assertion as well. We are not limited to the realm of philosophy.

Teilhard’s law of complexity/consciousness is an empirical claim. It can be tested. The emergence of the internet seems awfully similar to what we would expect of a noosphere, don’t you think? But it is also a law meant to describe natural history. It can be tested like so many other evolutionary explanations, by retrospective correlation. I think that if you perform this experiment of remembering the universe as science tells us it has unfolded, you will see that the law holds.

You misunderstand what a scientific "test" is; it's not retrofitting events into a narrative form to see if they can fit. They can and will, when you approach from that direction and with the intention to discover.

So let me put it this way: what would have to happen in order to falsify your theory?

I'm not asking what could have falsified your theory ("if human minds had not evolved, then Tielhard's law of complexity/consciousness would have been wrong"), but what sort of evidence would force you to admit you've been mistaken, and change your mind?

I'll give an example on my end. My working theory of (non-reductive) materialism would not be able to sufficiently explain strong evidence that mind and its capacities were separable from their physical substructure: ESP, OBEs, PK, and so forth. The existence of such phenomenon would instead point to a universe where consciousness is not simply the working of the material brain.

Your turn.

I do not think there is any ontological gap separating subject from object. We distinguish between the internal and external worlds based on conventions, not scientific fact. I’m influenced not only by Teilhard, but by Whitehead, who argued that the universe was in fact full of feelings. All is experience, which is to say that all is feeling. Our scientific knowledge of the universe is a complex organic feeling being experienced by the universe itself.

Researchers have discovered that, when mystics meditate, parts of the parietal lobe near the top and rear of their brains becomes less active. The distinction between self and other originates in this section. Thus, the felt sensation is that of a loss of boundary, a "feeling of oneness with the universe" -- and there is no sensed gap between self and other, inner and outer, subjective and objective. It will feel as if "everything is feeling."

This, however, is in error. And a materialist explanation can account for the error, and do so parsimoniously.

Saying that no, a plausible materialist explanation and mechanism for the sense of "oneness" is also predicted by the theory that everything really IS one is not parsimonious. Scientifically speaking, it makes the theory unfalsifiable, and rather meaningless.

Posted by: thalarctos | July 2, 2009 9:21 AM

Also, it's important to remember that in tossing out the host, Myers wasn't punishing whoever had made the threats in question; he was causing distress to any number of people who were completely innocent of threatening anybody.

Well, if you have any suggestions about responses PZ could have taken instead, that are 100% sensitive (teaching the abusers that they cannot get away with that behavior) and 100% specific (causing absolutely no distress to any innocent party), we'd be eager to hear it.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 2, 2009 9:49 AM

"What a wonderful excuse! Remember, when you say grace or bow your head in prayer for any reason, you are causing distress to any number of atheists who are completely innocent."

Are you distressed to anything like the degree that a religious person is when you spit on one of his symbols? I suspect not. And, once again, you've stated no benefit from your action that would make it worth the distress you caused.

And Thalarctos: of course you can't avoid distressing innocent parties. Of course you can't tailor actions so that they always and everywhere target only the culpable. So what? We're talking about an act that assaulted the sensibilities of a bunch of innocent people without, I'll say it once more, accomplishing anything of value.

Posted by: Carlie | July 2, 2009 9:56 AM

without, I'll say it once more, accomplishing anything of value.

That's entirely your opinion, not backed up with any facts whatsoever. How do you know how this action affected people? Maybe a lot of Catholics realized how bad it is to be a zealot for stupid things. Maybe some Christians were appalled at the death threats that came out of it and slid into a more moderate version of their faith. Maybe it inspired some atheists to come out to their families and stop lying about their lack of faith. You have no idea what may have resulted from Crackergate.

Posted by: thalarctos | July 2, 2009 10:01 AM

And Thalarctos: of course you can't avoid distressing innocent parties. Of course you can't tailor actions so that they always and everywhere target only the culpable. So what?

But isn't that exactly what you were just criticizing PZ for? You said:

Also, it's important to remember that in tossing out the host, Myers wasn't punishing whoever had made the threats in question; he was causing distress to any number of people who were completely innocent of threatening anybody.

If you can't tailor actions to avoid distressing innocent parties, then the only thing PZ could have done in response to the actions against Webster Cook that would be acceptable to you, it seems, is nothing.

We're talking about an act that assaulted the sensibilities of a bunch of innocent people without, I'll say it once more, accomplishing anything of value.

In your opinion of what constitutes value. In the opinion of many other people, standing up to abusive behavior *is*, per se, accomplishing something of a great deal of value.

Posted by: thomas | July 2, 2009 10:14 AM

"We're talking about an act that assaulted the sensibilities of a bunch of innocent people without, I'll say it once more, accomplishing anything of value."

Aaron Baker, maybe you're talking about something different to other people then.
I'd bet safely that most people are talking about an act that was motivated by absurd irrationality and hostility directed towards a student. This student did not do anything to deserve such a response.
It wasn't an act that "assaulted the sensibilities of a bunch of people..." that was completely unmotivated by preceding events. Get some perspective and context on the situation.

And how is it that you can actually venture your words as an argument? Suffering offence through ignorance is hardly meritous.

A child who throws a tantrum because his parents don't set an extra plate for his imaginary friend at dinner, or a child who throws a fit when others don't accord him the power of invisibility in his batman suit - is not deserving of any particular deference or respect (despite how "innocent" he is).

As the parent, you may well humour the child temporarily - until it grows up.

There is no obligation to keep humouring people who ought to have grown up long ago. We're not their parents and they're not six anymore. It really doesn't matter how much "distress" they suffer through completely innocuous acts. It's called the world. Live in it.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 2, 2009 10:46 AM

Re #325: He calmly and deliberately desecrated a host, and he advertised the fact far and wide while he was doing it. That's not what I've argued for at all.

Re #320: "That's entirely your opinion, not backed up with any facts whatsoever." Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you: show me one example of a person being swayed by this stunt.

Thalarctos, if you can't see the difference between an action that's targeted, as well as possible, against a culpable party, and an action that's meant to cause maximal offense to all and sundry, that's completely untargeted as far as culpability is concerned, then I don't know what else would convince you. It strikes me as a very strange sort of standing up to abusive behavior.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2009 11:02 AM

Thalarctos, if you can't see the difference between an action that's targeted, as well as possible, against a culpable party, and an action that's meant to cause maximal offense to all and sundry, that's completely untargeted as far as culpability is concerned, then I don't know what else would convince you. It strikes me as a very strange sort of standing up to abusive behavior.

Will you stop gabbling and tell us who these innocent people who were so offended are. Once you have taken out Catholics, and we must since no Catholic can lay claim to be innocent since it was their church that assaulted Cooke, who do we have left to be offended ?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2009 11:45 AM

Can I second Thalarctos here, Aaron Baker.

Your refusal to tell us who all these "innocent" people who were offended by PZ's actions are is offensive to me.

I therefore request you follow your own advice and shut the fuck up.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 2, 2009 11:56 AM

"Will you stop gabbling and tell us who these innocent people who were so offended are. Once you have taken out Catholics, and we must since no Catholic can lay claim to be innocent since it was their church that assaulted Cooke, who do we have left to be offended?"

This is a joke, right? You actually think all Catholics are culpable when other Catholics, or the Catholic Church, does something wrong? Do you think guilt is contagious, like the flu? With this primitive notion of responsibility, you should join a religion yourself.

And you want me to shut the fuck up? Not happening.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2009 12:11 PM

This is a joke, right? You actually think all Catholics are culpable when other Catholics, or the Catholic Church, does something wrong? Do you think guilt is contagious, like the flu? With this primitive notion of responsibility, you should join a religion yourself.

And you want me to shut the fuck up? Not happening.

Yes, if the Catholic Church does something wrong then all Catholics, unless they make it clear they dissent, do share culpability. The Catholic Church only has the power it does by virtue of the number of member's it claims to have.

Now we have made it plain to you that you are being offensive to us. You have made it clear that is not a reason for you to shut up. Can you not see you are being inconsistent here, in that you demand PZ shuts up because he causes offence ?

I note you still are not able to tell us just who all these "innocent" offended people are. I have asked you several times, so I will no assume you cannot answer the question and will take you refusal to do so as an implicit admission you were being dishonest.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 2, 2009 12:23 PM

@ 280 Dan,

Yes, I am assuming experience is just as real as atoms. That is pretty much what panexperientialism entails. There are no atoms outside of experience. The idea that there are such things independent of experience is just that, an abstract idea with no empirical grounding. I think part of being scientific is not inventing extra-experiential realms or objects -- what's real is what is concrete and experiential.

I claim experience to be a novel domain of reality only in relation to a materialist ontology, which posits that matter is inert stuff lacking all experience. Only in this case would I insist that experience is totally other than matter. As a panexperientialist, however, my conception of matter is that it is always and everywhere permeated by feelings, more complex depending on the degree of physical organization (ie, rocks possess almost no experience, while multicellular organisms possess quite a bit).

As for the computer/mind metaphor, I think it fails. Cognitive science and philosophy are moving away from considering consciousness or the brain to be about information-processing. Check out Hubert Dreyfus' books on the matter, or watch these videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99iTDUcBuRQ

Instead of a computer, cognitive scientists (like Evan Thompson in his new book "Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind") are tending toward a more embodied account of consciousness, one where the brain doesn't process abstract information, or symbolic representations, about a pre-given world but is always already embedded in a world that it is structurally coupled with (and so doesn't need to informationally represent). A lot of this work comes out of the phenomenology of Heidegger. His account of human experience makes it quite difficult and cumbersome to continue trying to reduce it to some sort of informational algorithm.

Scientists (as opposed to philosophers) can continue to think of the mind as a computer if they like, and while they may succeed in inventing some marvelous computing technologies, I don't think they will better understand the human brain aside from learning that it is not at all like a computer.

Regardless of its failure as a metaphor, even if the brain were like a computer, the software/hardware analogy still wouldn't account for experience, which again in a standard materialist ontology most definitely would be a novel domain of reality. You can only reduce experience to hardware by ignoring it.

As for the relationship between science and philosophy, I think philosophy's job is to be the critic of scientific abstractions. If science looses touch with philosophy and phenomenlogy, it looses touch with human experience and becomes meaningless but for the technologies it engineers.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 2, 2009 12:35 PM

I've never yet demanded that P.Z. "shut up," so there's no inconsistency whatsoever.

So the miasma of guilt spreads to everybody in a given body if they don't register a dissent to wrongdoing by that body (or to be more accurate, some members of that body). Does this principle apply to people who've never heard of the misdeed in question? Are you responsible for every misdeed of the U.S. government, unless you've particated in a demonstration on the subject? And what is it about your dissent that inoculates you against responsibility? Also, does this reasoning apply only to highly centralized and hierarchical organizations (over which ordinary members typically have NO control)?

Obviously, the innocent people I'm talking about are Catholics offended by P.Z.'s antics. My implication was obvious all along, and I stand by it.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 2, 2009 12:42 PM

@ 294 Raven,
@ 296 Rorschach,

I would think the notion that experience is quite different from specific body parts/physiological adaptations would be self-evident. Material things as we normally conceive of them are extended in space, whereas experience is not (though it is of course related to extended bodies, you won't be able to simply locate it like you can an organ).

Also keep in mind that I am nowhere arguing for the idea that "God did it." I am arguing that materialism is an inadequate ontology and that other perfectly rational metaphysical assumptions are warranted based on the scientific facts we already have. It would take a book length argument to fully justify this claim, and so all I can do at the moment is direct you to such a book: A. N. Whitehead's "Process and Reality."

Posted by: CJO | July 2, 2009 12:52 PM

a more embodied account of consciousness, one where the brain doesn't process abstract information, or symbolic representations, about a pre-given world but is always already embedded in a world that it is structurally coupled with (and so doesn't need to informationally represent).

Please explain "structural coupling" and how this strange process obviates the need for organisms with sufficiently complex nervous systems to represent their environments.

FWIW, I'm not hostile to "a more embodied account of consciousness," and I'm not sure either that the hardware/software analogy illuminates much, but I find the claim that the brain doesn't process information laughable.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2009 12:58 PM

Am I alone in thinking Segall is talking pretentious bollocks ?

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 2, 2009 1:09 PM

@ 342 CJO,

Re: structural coupling - it is a term developed in cybernetics and systems theory by neurologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. From Encyclopedia Autopoietica:

"Structural coupling is the term for structure-determined (and structure- determining) engagement of a given unity with either its environment or another unity. The process of engagement which effects a "...history or recurrent interactions leading to the structural congruence between two (or more) systems" (Maturana & Varela, 1987, p. 75). It is ‘...a historical process leading to the spatio-temporal coincidence between the changes of state..’ (Maturana, 1975, p. 321) in the participants. As such, structural coupling has connotations of both coordination and co-evolution.

During the course of structural coupling, each participating system is, with respect to the other(s), a source (and a target) of perturbations. Phrased in a slightly different way, the participating systems reciprocally serve as sources of compensable perturbations for each other. These are ‘compensable’ in the senses that (a) there is a range of ‘compensation’ bounded by the limit beyond which each system ceases to be a functional whole and (b) each iteration of the reciprocal interaction is affected by the one(s) before. The structurally-coupled systems ‘will have an interlocked history of structural transformations, selecting each other’s trajectories.’ (varela, 1979, pp. 48-49)

Structural coupling, then, is the process through which structurally-determined transformations in each of two or more systemic unities induces (for each) a trajectory of reciprocally-triggered change. This makes structural coupling one of the most critical constructs in autopoietic theory. This is particularly true when approaching the phenomenological aspects of the theory. For example, structural coupling is the foundation for Maturana’s account of linguistic interaction as ‘languaging’ (Maturana, 1978)

The key reference points on the subject of structural coupling are: Maturana (1975, pp.322-326; 1981, pp. 23-29); Maturana & Varela (1980, pp. 78-82; pp. 98-99); 1987, pp. 75-80); and Varela (1979, pp. 32-33); p. 48ff.)."

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 2, 2009 1:14 PM

@ 343 a_ray_in_dilbert_space,

Experience is definitely deeply related to organized patterns of neural firing, but you cannot simply reduce the experiential aspect to the neural aspect. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not a dualist; but it is clear that "there is something it is like to be a brain," as Thomas Nagel might put it. The brain isn't simply an object, it is also a subject. The subjective aspect is not best described as extended in space, as the objective object might be.

Posted by: Stu | July 2, 2009 1:17 PM

Why couldn't I say that a materialist has an overactive parietal lobe, and so falsely assumes they are separate from the rest of the universe?

You could say that, yes. What do you have to back it up? Hell, what do you have to back up anything you say?

Yes Matt, I agree.

Oh, by the way, Matthew, something "loses", not "looses". Thanks.

Posted by: raven | July 2, 2009 1:26 PM

I would think the notion that experience is quite different from specific body parts/physiological adaptations would be self-evident.

It isn't in the least. Science says mind is a product of brain and dualism was dead a century or two ago. It is making a comeback mostly because Xians think the soul exists somewhere and science should find it for them.

A lot of philosophy is just riding a mental merry go round. You go in circles, it is amusing to some people, and in the end it isn't too terribly important.

Various "philosophers" have "proved" that I have no free will, no conscious mind, and it doesn't matter because there is no Real World. About that time, I turn off and ignore it because it seems like obvious bullcrap. My time is limited and valuable to me and there are a zillion better things to think about and do.

Posted by: Sastra | July 2, 2009 1:28 PM

Matthew Segall #345 wrote:

This is no less an assumption than the one I make about Teilhard's law. It is retrospective correlation.

No, the theory of evolution is not a sort of 'just so' story which goes back into the past and tries to find an explanation which ties it all together (assuming this is what you're saying.) It made predictions, and could have been (and can still be) falsified. Evolution is a very robust theory, one which ties together many disciplines, generating research in all of them, and changing as new information is incorporated. I don't think you can compare it to what you're calling 'Teilhard's law." I don't think that idea has gone anywhere, or lead to any new scientific discoveries. From what I can tell, it helps make people feel special. That's a different kind of useful.

I asked a very specific question in my post at #314. I asked:

what would have to happen in order to falsify your theory?

I am still interested in the answer.

I find it difficult to understand how one could claim that a feeling of oneness with the universe (it is a "universe" after all, isn't it?) is an error. Why couldn't I say that a materialist has an overactive parietal lobe, and so falsely assumes they are separate from the rest of the universe?

I wrote poorly. I should have made it clear that the feeling itself was not an error: a feeling is what it is. Drawing the conclusion that, because one feels as if one is joined with the entire universe, therefore one really is at one with the entire universe, which is conscious like we are, is not called for. The more parsimonious explanation, consistent with the rest of our data, is that this is not the case.

Posted by: Knockgoats | July 2, 2009 1:35 PM

And my only point was that any feelings are necessarily feelings of the universe. - Matthew Segall

That point is, depending on how one interprets it, either false or trivial.

it is clear that "there is something it is like to be a brain," as Thomas Nagel might put it.

No it isn't. Experience depends on the interaction of the brain with the rest of the body, and the external world. Nagel, BTW, is a champion obfuscater: we can actually say quite a lot about what it is like to be a bat. Tell me, Matthew, do you believe in the possibility of zimboes? (A zimbo is a hypothetical being that behaves just like a human being, says it is conscious, maybe philosophises about how experience is "a whole new ontological level", but is not actually conscious.)

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 2, 2009 1:38 PM

Instead of a computer, cognitive scientists (like Evan Thompson in his new book "Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind") are tending toward a more embodied account of consciousness, one where the brain doesn't process abstract information, or symbolic representations, about a pre-given world but is always already embedded in a world that it is structurally coupled with (and so doesn't need to informationally represent).

All of which goes to show nothing except that these particular cognitive scientists have an overly restrictive definition of "computer" and "informational representation". It's like their definition of what a "computer" is stopped with von Neumann.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 2, 2009 1:50 PM

"Catholics are responsible for the actions carried out by the Catholic church. It is not [a] hard concept, but one that seems to be beyond your understanding." I understand the concept just fine; but I don't think it's true.

"Are you responsible for every misdeed of the U.S. government, unless you've partic[ip]ated in a demonstration on the subject?

Why would I be?"

If you're a citizen of the United States, why wouldn't you be, on your reasoning? If you're not a U.S. citizen, plug in the country you are a citizen of, and imagine it committing a misdeed. Why wouldn't you be responsible? It's a hierarchical organization (whether dictatorial or not), of which you can choose or not choose to be a member, and it derives some fraction of its strength (however minute) from your membership. And if you are responsible, why would a verbal repudiation of the misdeed, or a protest march, or what have you, absolve you of responsibility?

As for honesty, let's review what happened. I don't know whether this summary by Wikipedia is correct or not. If you know it isn't, let me know how it's wrong:

"controversy arose in July 2008 over a Pharyngula blog entry written by Myers expressing amazement at news reports of death threats issued to University of Central Florida Student Senator Webster Cook. On June 29, 2008, Cook attended a Catholic Mass being held in the student union at UCF by a Catholic student group that receives funding from the student government. Cook received the Catholic Eucharist host but did not consume it immediately. He said later that he wanted to take it back to his seat to show a friend, but when stopped he put it in his mouth until back at his seat, then a church leader made forcible attempts to take the host from him.[24][25] Cook stored the host at his home, then returned it one week later after receiving e-mail threats and pleas.[24][26] Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League, described the student's actions as "beyond hate speech" and said that "All options should be on the table, including expulsion."[27]"

I would say: 1) Bill Donohue is not a member of the Catholic hierarchy; so he has no power (even on your reasoning) to make other Catholics responsible for his idiotic behavior. 2) The church leader who made forcible efforts to get the wafer back was within his rights to recover it. Suppose, however, for the purposes of discussion that in doing so he committed battery. The criminal complaint would properly have his name on it, not the Catholic Church.

As for threats of expulsion, well, if some of those came from actual Catholic officials rather than Donohoe, why is an organization not entitled to determine what conduct will disqualify one for membership? As for death threats, I doubt very much that any of those came from the Catholic hierarchy.

Now what were you saying about honesty?

Posted by: TomJoe | July 2, 2009 1:57 PM

I'll have to be brutal.

I'm sure they'll lose lots of sleep over this comment.

Posted by: Sastra | July 2, 2009 2:20 PM

Matthew #359 wrote:

Teilhard's law is descriptive. It is an attempt to offer a description of cosmological evolution, and posits some possible reasons it may have taken the shape that it has.

Do you think you could set it out for us in a sentence or two?

Teilhard also offers predictions, which can be falsified, though we may have to wait quit a while to see how the emergence of the noosphere continues to play out. Being that it is such a general and cosmic theory, there is no specific experiment we could perform right now which would falsify it.

I wasn't asking for a specific experiment; I wanted to know what sort of observation or discovery could, in theory, tell against it, and possibly count then in favor of 'materialism.'

If it's so general and cosmic that it can explain and include any possible set of circumstances, then I don't think it can be considered a theory. Perhaps it's a sort of poetic attitude, and it can't compete with or be included among actual theories with some substance to them.

I did not say the universe was conscious like we are. I said feeling and experience are a product of all matter, with varying degrees of intensity depending on physical complexity.

How would one measure, describe, or even determine the degree of intensity of feeling and experience in, say, a rock? If it's too small to be noticeable -- and has no brain or neurons -- why not just say it has none?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2009 2:21 PM

"If you're a citizen of the United States, why wouldn't you be, on your reasoning? "

Er, I am quite willing to to share the responsibility for the actions of MY government. I am not willing to do so for other governments.

Quite why you assumed I was American escapes me, other than you are not that bright and cannot comprehend the fact PZ gets readers from around the world. I must conclude a degree of xenophobia is at play.

"1) Bill Donohue is not a member of the Catholic hierarchy; so he has no power (even on your reasoning) to make other Catholics responsible for his idiotic behavior."

Correct. Donohue is a not a member of the Catholic hierarchy. However members of the Catholic hierarchy are on record as supporting his views, and not one has spoken out against his villification of PZ. However the Catholic Bishop who called accused Cooke of a hate crime most certainly is part of the hierarchy.

"2) The church leader who made forcible efforts to get the wafer back was within his rights to recover it. Suppose, however, for the purposes of discussion that in doing so he committed battery. The criminal complaint would properly have his name on it, not the Catholic Church."

Incorrect on two grounds. First if someone breaks the law acting within an official capacity then they are individually accountable for their actions. Also the organisation they represent are also liable.

Second, taking a host back to your seat is not an unknown practice amongst some Catholic congregations in the US. Nor once the host has been given to Cooke can it reasonably be considered church property. An obnoxious person just assaulted him without any legal grounds, and did so acting as an official of the church. Had the church immediatly distanced itself from the actions of the official, by either dismming her at least suspending her, then you would have a point with regards culpiblity of the church. They chose instead to endorse her actions.

Posted by: raven | July 2, 2009 2:32 PM

I find it difficult to understand how one could claim that a feeling of oneness with the universe (it is a "universe" after all, isn't it?) is an error.

It may not be an error but feelings aren't real useful for understanding the real world. We had a guy jump off a 5 story building while under the conviction he could fly. It took hours to clean up the mess. So much for his feelings.

Materialism is a philosophical system, and so if scientific facts are going to be given interpretations, I don't see how we can avoid doing philosophy. Science does not prove that mind is a product of brain: materialism argues this.

No. Got that wrong. And don't equate materialism with science. They aren't the same. Science uses methodological naturalism as a matter of practicality, reasoning that only things observable and measureable can be studied scienctificly.

Dualism is dead except for philosophers who want to draw errroneous conclusions from false premises. As far as we know, mind is a product of brain and there are mountains of data for this. Drink a 6 pack of beer and see what happens to your mind.

Dualism is an extraordinary claim, and it is up to anyone claiming this to prove it. It hasn't been done in centuries and most people now assume it false and pay no more attention to it than they do to the witchcraft theory of disease.

You are creating false premises to draw faulty conclusions. This is why most philosophy is a ride on a mental merrry go round and otherwise quite useless.

Posted by: Knockgoats | July 2, 2009 2:43 PM

Matthew Segall@361,
OK, thanks, that tells me a bit more about where you're not coming from. I'll go back and reread your comments to see if I can work out what viewpoint you are advancing. However, I must admit I'm pessimistic. What exposure I've had to Teilhard, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Maturana and Varela inclines me to think there are an awful lot of words there, saying very little.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 2, 2009 4:08 PM

By the way, to PZ and others who have called into question my account of the crackergate incident... I know only hearsay and so don't pretend to have the definitive story. As I said, I graduated from UCF and heard various accounts of what exactly was motivating Cook. I don't pretend to be able to read minds. I condemn any and all threats of violence to Cook or to PZ. I respect and would protect PZ's right to make fun of whatever religious symbols and traditions he pleases; my original post here was only trying to say I think his ultimate mission (or what I assume it to be at least, ie increasing the public understanding of science) would be better served by fostering a sense of awe concerning the universe and our current understanding of it, rather than constantly insinuating that all religious/spiritual people are necessarily dumb or confused. The latter approach will get him nowhere, and may in fact only succeed in increasing the fervent (and I'll agree sometimes irrational and dangerous) beliefs of fundamentalists. I am just as disturbed by attempts to teach the Bible as science in public classrooms, but I am also against teaching materialism. Materialism is not the only possible interpretation of scientific findings, and anyone who says it is is a fundamentalist ideologue no less dogmatic than those who deny common descent because of Biblical passages.

Posted by: Aquaria | July 2, 2009 4:24 PM

o the miasma of guilt spreads to everybody in a given body if they don't register a dissent to wrongdoing by that body (or to be more accurate, some members of that body).

Aaron seems to be under some delusion that being Catholic isn't a voluntary action, little more than belonging to a country club with some weird rules, while being a citizen by virtue of living on a particular chunk of geography, isn't quite so voluntary. Yeah, you can emigrate, but that's a lot more expensive and harrowing than leaving the Catholic church. At least if you leave Catholicism, there's a no man's land you can go to, and you don't have to meet a lot of rigid rules to go there. You just go. There isn't a piece of geography that doesn't "belong" to some nation-state, somewhere, with rules you have to obey to get in.

So if a Catholic keeps going to mass and keeps giving money to the Vatican skirts in the face of lies, scandals, and abuses, when he does it knowing full well he can leave, anytime he has the gumption to--yes, it's fair to say such a Catholic supports those things. If he doesn't support them, then why keep going to mass, and keep giving money to the people who are committing lies, scandals and abuses?

Posted by: cdx | July 2, 2009 4:37 PM

But to sum it up here, "This law simply states that there is an inherent compulsion in matter to arrange itself in more complex groupings, exhibiting higher levels of consciousness. The more complex the matter, the more conscious it is."

Vitalism lives!

And yes, you're bending off toward mysticism, really. Teilhard -> Henri Bergson, Henri Bergson -> Evelyn Underhill.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 2, 2009 5:00 PM

@ 376 cdx,

Just curious to know if you've read any of Bergson's work? He actually criticizes vitalism as much as he does mechanism in "Creative Evolution," unequivocally denying that there is any need for an immaterial cause of life or consciousness. His is a critique of the materialistic account of time as mere succession. He elaborates the notion of time as duration, which is where the creative impetus of evolutionary change is derived (not from an immaterial force).

Teilhard's position is similar to Bergson's, who influenced him greatly. Leveling the charge of "vitalist" on anyone who disagrees with materialist reductionism is all too easy, but I fear the philosophical issues at stake are more complicated.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 2, 2009 5:22 PM

@ 377 Sastra writes: "Neurologists and biologists have, I assume, various tests they make for measuring consciousness."

No such test has been invented to the best of my knowledge.

Sastra writes: "So saying that some things (such as materialist scientists) are conscious, and other things (such as stars and planets) are not conscious -- is dualism?"

I would describe consciousness as an advanced form of experience, which develops as material bodies complexify over evolutionary time. I'm arguing that a materialist who says matter begins as totally lacking experience and somehow acquires it, Poof!, because of the way it comes to be arranged (say, as a brain) is a covert dualist. Even if mind is described by a materialist as epiphenomenal, this is still a form of dualism. There is no reason any extra, entirely non-causally influential consciousness should exist atop matter at all. If matter is just brute stuff devoid of interiority, experience becomes an unexplained miracle (unless you know of some explanation for how neuronal networks create phenomenal experience ex nihilo?).

Sastra writes: "If you are going to claim that measurements of brain activity are not valid ways to measure all forms of consciousness, then I think you have to provide some good, clear examples of things which have no brain, and yet are conscious."

As I said above, consciousness is a very advanced form of experience that requires a structure equal in complexity to mammalian brains. I think there are gradients of experience, ranging from the rational consciousness of humans, to the emotionality of mammals, to the impulses of reptiles, to the primitive sentience of motile bacteria. So organisms without certain types of nervous tissue cannot be said to be conscious, but they do possess some form of experience, no matter how primitive. There is no way to empirically measure this; we have to infer it (just as you infer your friends and family are conscious) based on behavior (though I do think discoveries like "mirror neurons" mean these inferences are usually unconscious--we feel the sentience of other beings way before having to deduce it logically).

I am not an idealist nor a supernaturalist; I think everything that is real can be experienced (though not always empirically through the outward facing senses).

Sastra writes: "As regards Teilhard's Law, what other "spheres of human inquiry" here are you talking about -- and how does one use them to check that one is not deceiving themselves?"

I mean, for instance, that art and morality are just as valid as science when it comes to pronouncing upon reality, at least so far as human beings are able to experience and understand it. You mentioned that Teilhard's was a poetic view, and indeed it is. I don't see any reason, though, to compartmentalize one's aesthetic sense and one's scientific sense. I think they can and should inform one another. There are not many Nobel winning scientists who didn't praise the power of imagination and intuition in helping them devise their theories. We avoid deceiving ourselves not by decreeing from the beginning that reality is solely objective and external, but by bringing critical inquiry (though not so critical that we become trapped in skeptical solipsism) to our ongoing and open-ended exploration of human experience, in whatever sphere it be focused upon in any given instance (art, science, spirituality, etc). We must always be willing to grow in our understanding and never assume we've found a final truth.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 2, 2009 5:40 PM

Philosophy is certainly "a lot of words" as Knockgoats says at #370. But then so is science... anyone read PZ's post about Werner Arber's Molecular Darwinism theory yet?

But the molecular darwinism theory has the advantage of being interesting.

Posted by: Knockgoats | July 2, 2009 6:10 PM

I would describe consciousness as an advanced form of experience, which develops as material bodies complexify over evolutionary time. I'm arguing that a materialist who says matter begins as totally lacking experience and somehow acquires it, Poof!, because of the way it comes to be arranged (say, as a brain) is a covert dualist. Even if mind is described by a materialist as epiphenomenal, this is still a form of dualism. There is no reason any extra, entirely non-causally influential consciousness should exist atop matter at all. If matter is just brute stuff devoid of interiority, experience becomes an unexplained miracle (unless you know of some explanation for how neuronal networks create phenomenal experience ex nihilo?). - Matthew Segall

A necessary (and perhaps sufficient) condition for it to make sense to talk of an entity's experience is the existence of some form of representation of the external world, and of its own goals and goal-directed actions, within it. We can, then, sensibly talk about what it is like to be that entity. Most matter is not in forms that can support such representations. Of non-living matter we know of, only some machines might currently qualify. What you say about experience being an "unexplained miracle" would equally apply to such physical properties as solidity. In the moments after the big bang, there were no solid objects. Now there are, and they came into existence "ex nihilo" - that is, when there were no such things before.

I have to break off here, but if I get time over the next few days, I'll describe some work I've done on John Conway's "Game of Life" cellular automata that shows how fundamentally new properties can emerge in a deterministic, particulate "universe" far simpler than our own.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 2, 2009 9:29 PM

@ 383+384 Knockgoats writes: "My complaint was not about a lot of words, but a lot of words saying very little. Your quote from Maturana and Varela seemed (admittedly out of context) to be a good example of this."

That is my fault, I should have searched for a better description of the concept of structural coupling. A less technical description would be to say that organism and environment co-evolve, and so are and have always been dynamically coupled to one another. The idea is that, for instance, my brain does not need to "re-present" the ground internally, as it is already there for my body to engage directly. If the brain were actually a representational information-processor that needed to internally model every feature of a pre-given external reality, I think our moment-to-moment adaptive coping with the world would be a lot more cumbersome (sort of what you see in all attempts to get robots to navigate simple environments; there is just too much information that needs to be processed in too short a time for the sort of things we take for granted as biological agents, like playing catch with a variety of objects, to be possible).

Knockgoats writes: "I've studied philosophy of mind and epistemology at graduate level, and read a fair bit around "emergentism" more recently; and I've not seen any coherent alternative to materialism that is also compatible with scientific findings about mental phenomena..."

I earned my undergraduate degree in cognitive science and am currently in graduate school for philosophy and cosmology. I try to read in as many fields as possible, as I think cosmology and consciousness studies are about as interdisciplinary (if not trans-) as you can get. Granted, this may lead to knowing very little about a lot, but I try (and continue to try) to ground myself as well as possible in the basic sciences.

It would seem to me that some form of emergentism is a must for any attempted materialist account of conscious experience (or experience generally). That said, while I do think some sort of emergence is at play in the move from, say, molecular soup to a self-organizing cell, I don't think emergence can account for experience or consciousness if we're beginning with standard materialist assumptions (ie, that matter is inert stuff). For alternatives to materialist attempts to account for experience that take scientific findings into consideration, I suggest beginning with the following authors: Varela and Thompson (already mentioned), Alan Wallace, David Griffin, Olav Bryant Smith, Christian de Quincey (

Knockgoats writes: "So far as time is concerned, I'm not convinced philosophers have anything useful to say about it unless they thoroughly understand modern physics - which I don't myself, I hasten to add."

I also concede that I have only a non-mathematically inclined understanding of the basic principles of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, chaos, and complexity theories. I think I understand the philosophical underpinnings of each well enough to speculate about the meaning of the results of these fields for biology and psychology, however. Of those philosophers and scientists listed above, I can assure you that Varela and especially Whitehead have a quite thorough understanding of post-Newtonian physics.

Knockgoats writes: "A necessary (and perhaps sufficient) condition for it to make sense to talk of an entity's experience is the existence of some form of representation of the external world, and of its own goals and goal-directed actions, within it."

As I explained above, I don't think the representational paradigm has much life left in it. I wouldn't haggle you too much if you wanted to describe cognitive systems in 3rd person terms as representational (ie, if you wanted to describe how cognition works from the outside), but when you consider 1st person phenomenology (which is, after all, what we're actually trying to understand), representationalism and the computer/mind metaphor begin to break down. I would agree that goal-directed action is a clear sign of experience in an organized material body. We see this in bacteria swimming up sucrose gradients, and I'd argue, in the attraction between hydrogen atoms that form stars. It was common sense in Newton's age to think of atoms as simple and inert billiard balls, but we now know they are in fact complex energetic events best described as self-organizing systems.

Knockgoats writes: "What you say about experience being an "unexplained miracle" would equally apply to such physical properties as solidity."

I think solidity is well accounted for by electromagnetic and chemical relationships between atoms and molecules, respectively. Experience refers to a domain of interiority that is entirely superfluous to the mechanical interaction of surfaces required in a materialist ontology. To account for it, a materialist can only say it "emerged" when brains evolved because... well, I don't know why. Do you?

Knockgoats writes: "In the moments after the big bang, there were no solid objects. Now there are, and they came into existence "ex nihilo" - that is, when there were no such things before."

I do think that our universe is creative, in the sense that it has repeatedly emerged to higher states of order (ie, quantum foam to sub-atomic particles, to atoms, to stars and galaxies, to solar systems, to simple life, to complex life, to intelligence, etc). Emergence helps us understand this. But I don't think experience can be explained this way, because as I said above, interiority is ontological distinct (though not necessarily separate) from extended properties like solidity or shape.

I'm familiar with Conway's game of life from Dennett's books, and look forward to reading about your work.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 2, 2009 9:42 PM

P.Z wrote:

"This conversation is over, then. There is no right not to be offended by something; we all do things that we regard as our privilege that other people will find offensive."

I never said anyone had a right not to be offended, P.Z. I argued that one should not intentionally offend others (particularly when the offense is likely to be extreme) 1) just for the sake of offending them; or 2) without some purpose that's likely to bring any actual benefit.

That's all. I know you've encountered self-righteous Christians who've gone out of their way to wound you (verbally). If the wounding's restricted to speech, you don't have the right to stop them; but I'm having a hard time seeing why you're so unconcerned about behaving in a similar way.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 2, 2009 10:21 PM

Shorter Aaron Baker: You're being mean you big meanie. I don't want you to be mean to those poor, persecuted Catholics. Don't be mean again or I'll hold my breath until I turn blue. PS, did I say you were a meanie?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 2, 2009 11:09 PM

Aaron Baker wrote:

Please don't argue law with a lawyer.

Good grief. With the lack of insight you've demonstrated in this topic I sincerely hope no-one is depending on your prowess for their liberty or financial well-being.

You think PZ is a big meanie, fine; that's how you feel. But you can't justify it beyond that and each time you attempt to do so - via weak, inappropriate analogy or substandard argument - you're just wasting your time and ours.

Posted by: windy | July 2, 2009 11:25 PM

It would seem to me that some form of emergentism is a must for any attempted materialist account of conscious experience (or experience generally). That said, while I do think some sort of emergence is at play in the move from, say, molecular soup to a self-organizing cell, I don't think emergence can account for experience or consciousness if we're beginning with standard materialist assumptions (ie, that matter is inert stuff).

I'm sorry, I don't really get this attitude: we have something that happened once that we know of, billions of years ago, versus a process that appears to take place over a hundred million times a year. We don't understand the details of either process very well, but you and many others are convinced that it's the second process that is more mysterious and can't be purely material. WTF?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 2, 2009 11:41 PM

I'm sure you appreciate it when others refrain from laughing at your obvious mental disability.

My, you're as dull and lacklustre with your insults as you are with your arguments - and, considering you've implied that you've been reading posts on this site for many years, it reiterates the point I made earlier regarding your inability to learn.

And how embarrassing it must be for you to keep being trounced by someone you claim has a mental disability!

Hmm, if lay church members actually have less control over their Church than do citizens in a democracy over their country, it's LESS justifiable to hold these laypersons responsible for what their church does than to do so of citizens in a democracy. If you want to make my points for me, that's fine; but these sudden shifts are a little dizzying to watch.

If I were making points for you, well, that'd make one of us.

But I'm not, despite your desperate attempt to make it seem so - though I can't imagine anyone (other than you) would interpret it as such. Level of control was never the issue.

If you don't like the government you have the power to act to change it. In the church you don't have the power to change it via democratic means - but you can leave the church. And if enough people do either of these, change will be effected. Hence, your analogy fails.

Do you get it now, or would you like me to try and dumb it down even further? I'm not much of an artist, though, so I can't promise to draw you any pictures.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 3, 2009 12:21 AM

@394 windy writes: "I'm sorry, I don't really get this attitude: we have something that happened once that we know of, billions of years ago, versus a process that appears to take place over a hundred million times a year. We don't understand the details of either process very well, but you and many others are convinced that it's the second process that is more mysterious and can't be purely material. WTF?"

The emergence of life is quite amazing, not a supernatural miracle, but am amazing fact about what matter is capable of doing. Human birth and development, which I assume is the second thing you're talking about, is no less amazing and no less natural. I see them as natural, but I think nature is almost self-evidently more than mere mindless, inert matter in motion. It is self-evident to me, at least--and I do think I have a reasonably good understanding of most significant scientific findings. I think the knowledge we have of the large scale evolution of our universe and of the emergence and development of life on our planet is as spiritual a set of discoveries/revelations as humanity has ever been received. And by spiritual, I don't mean anything supernatural, I mean the creative element underlying space-time and material/experiential development.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 3, 2009 1:02 AM

Ho hum, Wowbagger,

Keep saying I'm stupid enough times and I guess it must be true.

" . . . but you can leave the church."

You didn't say that earlier, so am I supposed to have magically intuited your point? Since you bring it up now, yes, people (at least some) can leave a church if they don't like its policies. But when Bill Donohue (not a representative of the Church) is left out of the discussion, it suddenly becomes a lot less clear that anything happened that warranted mass defections from Catholicism. Cook appears to have stolen a communion wafer; and Church officials reacted pretty much as one would expect them to. You strike me as inconsistent: you rain no end of abuse down on people you regard as "ridiculous"; but you get strangely bent out of shape when they vent their indignation.

Anyway, that's all. You're boring, and my legs work.

Posted by: Anri | July 3, 2009 1:42 AM

Matthew Segall sez:

"I'm arguing that a materialist who says matter begins as totally lacking experience and somehow acquires it, Poof!, because of the way it comes to be arranged (say, as a brain) is a covert dualist. Even if mind is described by a materialist as epiphenomenal, this is still a form of dualism. There is no reason any extra, entirely non-causally influential consciousness should exist atop matter at all. If matter is just brute stuff devoid of interiority, experience becomes an unexplained miracle (unless you know of some explanation for how neuronal networks create phenomenal experience ex nihilo?)."

Ok... so, is a single fertilized (human) egg cell conscious? Does it have experience?

Is a newborn conscious? Does it have experience?

If you perceive any difference in the states of these being's levels of consciousness, please explain this difference in a way that does not arise from matter self-organizing in their brains.

Or, to put it another way: at what point, and by what method, in a child's development, does whatever it is that causes consciousness (since it's not just the matter of the brain - right?) cause that consciousness?

Please show your work.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Kagato | July 3, 2009 2:02 AM

I think nature is almost self-evidently more than mere mindless, inert matter in motion. It is self-evident to me, at least

Well clearly it's not self-evident to everyone else, or there wouldn't be any argument over it, would there?

Sounds like an "ought, therefore is" argument to me -- the universe ought to be more than mindless matter, therefore I believe that it is...

Take a moment and imagine that it's not a "given" that the universe must be as you describe it. What actual evidence is there to come to your conclusion, other than incredulity that it could be otherwise?

I think the knowledge we have of the large scale evolution of our universe and of the emergence and development of life on our planet is as spiritual a set of discoveries/revelations as humanity has ever been received. And by spiritual, I don't mean anything supernatural

Then for the love of all that is good in the world, stop using that bloody word!

If you're not actually talking about "spirits" of some sort, the word is ambiguous to the point of utter meaningless!

(And even then it's probably too vague. If you're talking about ghosts, or souls, or gods, then call them ghosts, souls or gods! Use a bit of blasted precision! Of course, precision is often the last thing people want when they're getting all hand-wavy about their "spirituality"...)

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 3, 2009 4:04 AM

@ 404 kagato writes (in response to my having said: "I think nature is almost self-evidently more than mere mindless, inert matter in motion. It is self-evident to me, at least"):

"Well clearly it's not self-evident to everyone else, or there wouldn't be any argument over it, would there?"

Granted.

kagato continues: "Sounds like an "ought, therefore is" argument to me -- the universe ought to be more than mindless matter, therefore I believe that it is..."

I don't think it ought to be this way, but that it is this way (ie, a teleological, experiential universe). I would have to add, though, that the "is" v. "ought" distinction shouldn't necessarily be taken as anything more than a useful fiction, or worse a metaphysical contrivance (yes, I am weary of such things, though I'm sure most of the readers of this blog probably think all I do is metaphysically contrive). Knowledge of the true, judgment of the beautiful, and desire for the good are interrelated aspirations. Or at least I find it necessary to live my life as if this were the case (maybe that makes me a religious kook?). I cannot make a claim about the way the universe is (ie, that it is mindless) without also making a moral and an aesthetic claim. You could say this is my fate as a limited human being, or you could say that it is the result of human's being a product of the universe (so we can't pronounce upon it in anything like a purely disinterested, objective way--we're too deeply related to it!).

kagato continues: "Take a moment and imagine that it's not a "given" that the universe must be as you describe it. What actual evidence is there to come to your conclusion, other than incredulity that it could be otherwise?"

I think the belief that materialism (the strict kind that says there is only mindless matter in blind motion) is somehow explanatory of the current state of our universe is absurd. So yes, I am making an argument against materialism that is in some sense a result of materialism being too incredible to take seriously. I can't disagree with you there. As for evidence for my worldview, you have to keep in mind that we are both trying to retroactively account for the existence and structure of the universe. You can't test theories of natural history. They are largely descriptive. The only "test" you can do is compare how well it describes what we know about the past, how well its general principles account for what we currently see and experience. I think a process ontology and panexperientialist cosmology account much better for our universe than materialism.

kagato continues: "If you're not actually talking about "spirits" of some sort, the word is ambiguous to the point of utter meaningless!"

Ok, I won't use spiritual, but replace that word with "the creative element underlying space-time and material/experiential development."

Posted by: John Morales | July 3, 2009 5:28 AM

Sigh. I should research before posting... 'sentialism' is apparently a term already in use!

Oh well.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 3, 2009 6:03 AM

And I expect you wonder why lawyers in the US are held in such contempt. Do your professional ethics allow you to lie like this ?

Oh, he's a lawyer?
To be honest, I fail to see what difference that would make Matt, or why that should be relevant.He is stating a personal opinion that you and I think is factually wrong and a load of bollocks,but I dont really care whether he is a lawyer or not,and it shouldnt matter IMO.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 3, 2009 7:16 AM

Oh, he's a lawyer? To be honest, I fail to see what difference that would make Matt, or why that should be relevant.He is stating a personal opinion that you and I think is factually wrong and a load of bollocks,but I dont really care whether he is a lawyer or not,and it shouldnt matter IMO.

Well he seemed to think it was relevant as he was one who claimed the fact that he a layer was supported his argument.

Posted by: Knockgoats | July 3, 2009 8:18 AM

Experience refers to a domain of interiority that is entirely superfluous to the mechanical interaction of surfaces required in a materialist ontology. - Matthew Segall

No, it doesn't. This was the point of my question about zimboes. Natural selection favoured, in some lines of descent, increasingly sophisticated behaviour, and experience is an inevitable concomitant of such behaviour. If you don't believe that, then you do indeed believe in the possibility of zimboes - you believe we could have all the behaviour, including discussions of materialist ontology and whether zimboes are possible, without actually experiencing anything.

My "materialist ontology" includes experiences, just as it includes (for example) prime numbers, computational algorithms for discovering such numbers, and instances of these algorithms being run. None of these are physical objects or events, in the sense that they are not defined in terms of their physical properties. Would you claim they are incompatible with a "materialist ontology"? If not, why not?

Posted by: Tulse | July 3, 2009 11:00 AM

I was raised Catholic. What I was told was that the host symbolized the body of Christ and the wine symbolized his blood. I was never told that the ritual was anything but symbolic. Most of my friends are Catholic, and I'm pretty sure they don't believe the Eucharist is literally the body of Christ.

You should sue your catechism teachers. Did they not teach you about the doctrine of transubstantiation?

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 3, 2009 11:37 AM

Penfold:

"Cooke went to receive communion. He was a confirmed Catholic and so was entitled to do so. He took the wafer back to his seat to show his friend. Again taking the wafer back to your seat is not unknown. He was then assaulted by a Catholic official, who tried to prise the wafer from his hand. Cooke then chose to leave rather than use force to defend himself. A rather commendable chose in my view.

To you Cooke is a thief and deserved to be attacked. And I expect you wonder why lawyers in the US are held in such contempt. Do your professional ethics allow you to lie like this ? Or do you think God gives you special dispensation to be dishonest?"

As I said before, your account of what happened makes the church official's forcible effort to get the wafer back an act of spontaneous malice, with no obvious motivation. The story at least makes sense if Cook appeared to be trying to leave the church at the time he was accosted. And, once more and slowly, Cook did leave the church with the wafer. Maybe he had the noble motive you impute to him; but again, what the church official did on this account of events simply makes no sense. A factfinder in a legal proceeding could reasonably conclude that (whether accurately or mistakenly) the church official thought Cook was trying to remove the wafer, even that Cook probably was trying to remove it, at the time he was stopped.

It's not a lie to say that one party's account of the sequence and motivation of an occurrence doesn't make a ton of sense (or to recall that the accounts of participants are ALWAYS self-serving).

And, for the umpteenth time, Cook did take the wafer home with him. So saying that he stole it is a reasonable description of what he did. If you think "stole" is too prejudicial (which is a bit much coming from someone who tosses "attack" and "assault" around with abandon), then let it go. He "took" the wafer; and the next issue is whether the entirely predictable reaction by church officials was unreasonable or immoral.

In this discussion, some (cough, cough, Wowbagger) have consistently conflated 1) Bill Donohue's threats; 2) death threats by unnamed, obviously unhinged people; and 3) official Catholic responses. (You do at least seem to be sharper than that.) What I'm not seeing a lot of hard evidence of, is what exactly these official responses amounted to. For the reasons I've already said, a refusal to hang out to dry the church worker who accosted Cook isn't blameworthy. Beyond that, what did church officials say or do? Someone here alleged an official effort to get Cook expelled from school; I've said that was reprehensible if in fact it happened, but given the penchant here for confusing Donohue with church officials, I can't say with certainty that it did. Apparently, a church official called what Cook did a "hate crime." An over the top reaction, yes, and blameworthy to the extent that it might have enouraged violence by the unhinged--though accusations of "hate" fly so thick and fast in American public discussion, it's not clear to me that they're especially inflammatory anymore. But the official was understandably angered, and (as everyone can attest) people tend to say intemperate things when they're angry. So aside from intemperate (and predictable) words (Wowbagger, cough, cough), there seems to have been NO official action against Cook. He wasn't expelled from the Church, as far as I know, or otherwise disciplined.

An understandably angry church official seizes on a tiresome cliche, and Catholics everywhere are tarred because of this? Enough already.

BTW, I mentioned I was a lawyer because you were mis-decribing the law, and I thought I should share my basis for knowing you were mistaken.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 3, 2009 12:40 PM

I hope, for the sake of his clients, that Aaron Baker takes more time to prepare and research his legal arguments than he does his comments.

It is deeply convenient that he able to transform his own conjecture into narrative, whilst simultaneously dismissing the first-hand account offered by Cook. He also accuses others of conflating one entity with another when discussing the background to PZ's protest, in an obvious demonstration of his unwillingness to properly familiarise himself before forming an opinion.

Pretty shoddy, really.

Posted by: Anri | July 3, 2009 1:12 PM

Matthew Segall sez:

"The question I still ask, though, is what does it mean that matter can "self-organize"?"

Sugar crystals forming out of a saturated solution is a good example.

"What drives this organizational telos if not some sort of experiential desire, primitive for most matter, but more refined in human beings?"

We are agreed, then, that sugar crystals have experiential desire...?
Really?

"I'd say what we call human consciousness is caused by a complex array of dynamic and circular interactions. This is true in the circular logic of the sensorimotor networks of the nervous system and in our reciprocal interaction with one another as moral agents. Consciousness is really more like a relational property than something "inside" or "floating atop" any particular material organ. I am conscious only given that I can share my existence with other conscious agents, speak their language, ponder the significance of life with them, etc."

I understand all that, that wasn't my question.
You appear to be saying that consciousness can't be formed from matter.
(BTW, I'm not certain what you mean by 'inert' matter. A lot of the matter in the universe is hydrogen, and given that a fair bit of that is undergoing high-temperature fusion, I'm not sure I'd call it 'inert', but I digress...)
If we then agree that:
A) Consciousness arises somewhere between conception and full adulthood (I think we agree there)
B) Consciousness cannot come about by mere interactions among material objects (as you seem to be stating)

I was merely asking what comes along and deposits consciousness into a human mind, and by what process?

Because, unfortunately, it sounds as though you're stating 'Wow, consciousness sure seems complicated, I can't figure out how a collection of atoms can do that - therefore, because I can't figure it out, it must be SOMETHING BEYOND!"

To put it another way, you seem to be asking us if we can explain consciousness in terms of matter. And the answer appears to be no, not yet, we can't.
Given this answer, we can go one of three ways - assume that, like every single other thing in the universe that has been explained so far, that it can be explained via a material cause;
assume that we have insufficient information to explain it at all and run experiments until we get more data;
or assume that because we haven't gotten a materialistic answer for this yet that there must not be one, and that the answer is by definition non-material.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 3, 2009 1:18 PM

As I said before, your account of what happened makes the church official's forcible effort to get the wafer back an act of spontaneous malice, with no obvious motivation. The story at least makes sense if Cook appeared to be trying to leave the church at the time he was accosted. And, once more and slowly, Cook did leave the church with the wafer. Maybe he had the noble motive you impute to him; but again, what the church official did on this account of events simply makes no sense. A factfinder in a legal proceeding could reasonably conclude that (whether accurately or mistakenly) the church official thought Cook was trying to remove the wafer, even that Cook probably was trying to remove it, at the time he was stopped.

Why do you keep insisting the actions of the church official must make sense ? The simple fact is Cooke was assaulted by someone acting in an official capacity for the Catholic Church. Unless and until you can produce evidence to the contrary you are acting like a typical creationist, and making up facts when the real ones are inconvenient for you and contradict the lies you want to tell.

"And, for the umpteenth time, Cook did take the wafer home with him. So saying that he stole it is a reasonable description of what he did. If you think "stole" is too prejudicial (which is a bit much coming from someone who tosses "attack" and "assault" around with abandon), then let it go. He "took" the wafer; and the next issue is whether the entirely predictable reaction by church officials was unreasonable or immoral."

You have the situation totally arse about tit. Cooke left with the wafer because he was assaulted. He did not try to leave and then was assaulted. Your attempt to change the facts has been noted.

Cooke took the wafer, and was returning to his seat. Taking the wafer back to your seat is not unknown in Catholic Congregations in the US. Given that this was a service for University students it was to be expected that not all communicants would be aware of how things were done within that diocese. The official then tried to prise the wafer from Cooke's hand, without trying to talk to him first. There is not really any way to view that other than an unprovoked assault. Rather than fight back, which legally he would have been entitled to do, Cooke chose to leave. He was then accused of a hate crime and holding the wafer hostage by the diocesan Bishop.

You are using creationist tactics. The evidence is against you, so you just make up your own.

Posted by: llewelly | July 3, 2009 2:30 PM

Posted by: Anri | July 3, 2009 1:12 PM:

Matthew Segall sez:

"The question I still ask, though, is what does it mean that matter can "self-organize"?"

Sugar crystals forming out of a saturated solution is a good example.

"What drives this organizational telos if not some sort of experiential desire, primitive for most matter, but more refined in human beings?"

We are agreed, then, that sugar crystals have experiential desire...?

Really?

Posted by: John Morales | July 3, 2009 6:12 PM

Aaron, we went through all that back then; you add nothing new at all. Every one of your contentions and opinions has been addressed earlier — the responses to them are in those seemingly endless threads.

You missed your window of relevance, and it's only SIWOTI that makes people respond to you.

Posted by: Knockgoats | July 3, 2009 6:55 PM

@ 414 Knockgoats,

What you've said here sounds very much like panexperientialism, and I don't disagree with a word of it (though as you can read above, I don't think the purely mechanical process of natural selection is explanatory of evolution--I think the experiential aspect you agree is always associated with material bodies aids in the survival of species, somewhat like the Baldwin effect). - Matthew Segall

WTF? I am deeply insulted! How the hell can you interpret what I said as equivalent to your mystical babblings? No, no, no, no, no! I am, to remove any doubt, a completely consistent materialist. There is no striving towards complexity - simply, in some cases, complex non-living things are more persistent than simpler ones; living things reproduce and so tend to increase in number; and in some evolutionary lines, specific kinds of complexity turn out to be advantageous.

Atoms do not experience anything. Non-living material bodies - at least, those on Earth - do not experience anything. Experience is an inevitable concomitant of sufficiently sophisticated, goal-directed, representation-dependent sensory-motor interaction with the external world (sufficiently sophisticated robots could therefore have experiences, but none such yet exist on Earth). Moreover, there is no specific point in the evolution or ontogeny of more complex behaviour at which experience or consciousness appears: there are definite non-experiencers (rocks, bacteria, zygotes) and definite experiencers (adult humans), and between these, cases where we simply cannot say - not just because we don't know enough, but because there is no sharp line between the two. Incidentally, the Baldwin effect is entirely consonant with materialism, just in case you thought otherwise. Of course experience - that is, sufficiently sophisticated interaction with the external world - can aid survival. That's why it emerges and persists in some evolutionary lines.

Posted by: John Morales | July 3, 2009 7:18 PM

Matthew, perhaps this whole discussion should be moved to an open thread...

Anyway, no, panentheism doesn't as I see it fairly describe what you wrote, and it was that to which to which I responded when I wrote that the concept you'd expressed (when trying to explain "spirit") seemed akin to that of vitalism; I meant to say that you seem to consider a "conscious force" rather than a "vital force" permeates that which you call matter (and hand-wave as if the distinction between matter and energy were inconsequential bemuses me — is the potential energy of a gravitational field also conscious? :) )
Also, though you say the Wikipedia page is pretty good on it, what it describes is not what you profess — that would more fairly be described as panpsychism based on what you've written so far (and on your final link on that comment!).

Dualism? I would argue not, as my view that matter (or mass/energy--call it what you will) is always already permeated with experience is an attempt to avoid dualism. Short of being an eliminativist, I don't see how standard materialism, in the end, avoids dualism (even if consciousness is only seen to be an epiphenomenon).

Far be it for me to correct someone who is a graduate-level philosophy student, for otherwise I would contend that you appear to not know what 'dualism' refers to.
So, I'll merely say that I fail to see how something other than the physical permeates the physical, without resorting to the concept of dualism.

I can't provide a mathematical metric, as I don't think experience is in any readily apparent way quantifiable, but it is quite easy when dealing with biology to see what constitutes higher states of complexity, or would you disagree? I mean the evolutionary unfolding from non-nucleated cells, to eukaryotes, to metazoa, to amphibians, to reptiles, to birds and mammals, to primates, to astronauts, etc.... I think the tendency toward complexity here is quite evident, and at each stage the degree of experiential awareness intensifies. It is a bit more difficult to see this process at work at the astronomical level and to imagine what sort of experience might be associated with each body, but the same trend seems to play out: quantum foam, to sub-atomic particles, to hydrogen and helium, to stars (which go supernova), to heavier elements, to solar systems, to planets capable of life, etc...

By a metric I did not mean a mathematical expression, but a conceptual one — an abstraction that can describe relative degrees of something. If you can't in any sense quantify it, it renders otiose your contention that 'some things' have more of it than 'some other things'.
Yes, I would disagree, because you write as if you have a single, anthropic perspective on what constitutes complexity, especially when it relates to biology. For example, you seem to think multicellularity constitutes complexity; yet a paramecium is more complex than any human cell — it is a self-sufficient, motile predator that on its own scale (and with but one cell) does pretty much what a typical metazoan will. For another example, eusocial species (superorganisms) are in their aggregate more "complex" than metazoans.
You think birds are less complex than primates, and reptiles than amphibians? Wow.
By your logic, the most complex organisms would be the largest, i.e. blue whales.
As to the astronomical level, well... that's one reason I raised the issue of scale. A planet is more "complex" than any human, by any metric, so you're saying planets are more "conscious" than humans.
(When I feel have to descend to scare quotes when addressing someone, I worry).

I can only answer this by saying I don't claim to be a scientist (though I'm very interested in learning about a wide variety of scientific findings), but rather a human being first and foremost.

So am I, and so are scientists.

So naturally, I try to answer the big questions with means including my rational intellect, but not limited to it (there's also other value spheres, as I've mentioned above, like aesthetics, morality, spirituality, etc).

I think you are trying to allusively impute lesser humanity to rationalists than to mystics such as yourself; no, sir, I don't like it!
And I note we have come full circle, and you once again refer to 'spirituality'; you try to use the "organising principle towards complexity" in addition to your intellect when seeking to answer questions, eh? Sigh.

I do agree with Feynman that we ought to always continue exploring the universe, not assuming any answers from the beginning.

No, you assert that you do, but when you explain yourself it's clear you do make unnecessary and idiosyncratic assumptions; also, when you give as much weight to the subjective and the intuitive as to the intersubjective and the empirical in trying to gain knowledge about reality, you abandon rigorous thinking.

Doubt is a fundamental part of my soul, as well. But I disagree with him that doubt makes faith more difficult. I think doubt is a prerequisite for faith. Feynman is perfectly welcome to remain lost in his mysterious universe; I'll remain in my version of the mystery.

You and Mother Theresa. You're welcome to your wooverse, I'll just say "there's stuff I don't know" and not invoke "answers" which, well, aren't.

Finally, don't think that because I try to adhere to rationality when establishing and sustaining my beliefs I somehow lack imagination or a sense of the numinous; I too dream, have wondrous and whimsical ideas and see mystical patterns, but I don't consider them as other than what they are, and I don't reify them into part of reality.

--
PS, butting in:

I think there is a material answer to the question of how consciousness can exist, but it's an answer I believe requires fundamentally altering the standard materialist ontology.

What is, in your opinion, the "standard materialist ontology"?
What is your alternate ontology?
Why is the former insufficient, and how does yours merit replacing it?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 3, 2009 9:13 PM

[cough cough] Aaron Baker, you're a [cough cough] odious little turd.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you; you've neither the character nor the comprehension to grasp the issue no matter how simply it's put or how often it's reiterated for your benefit by those far more perceptive and intellectually honest than yourself.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | July 3, 2009 10:04 PM

Matthew Segall says, "I think the arrow of time is relevant here, as I would argue that the law of entropy is itself teleological. Self-organization is related to what we may as well call energy's "desire" to equalize temperature gradients."

Dude, you are so deep into the woo here that I'd want to see the results of a piss test before I'd let you drive. Thermodynamics is dominated by what is energetically favorable or what is probabilitically favorable (e.g. entropy). That's it. No desire. No universal will. No frigging Chi.

As to your progression toward "complexity," did it occur to you that it would take more time for complexity to evolve. After all it is not as if the other simpler organisms you mention go away. They continue to exist and evolve as well.

Might I suggest that if you are going to attribute qualities to the physical world that you learn a little about it first. I'm serious. Learn some physics. Learn how a scientist thinks before discarding science as an adequate answer. I'd be happy to suggest reading lists, but right now, when it comes to understanding the physical world, you are lost in 4th century China.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 4, 2009 12:11 AM

@ 430 knockgoats writes: "Experience is an inevitable concomitant of sufficiently sophisticated, goal-directed, representation-dependent sensory-motor interaction with the external world"

You say the line between experiential and non-experiential organisms is a vague one, and so I assume you'd agree that experience intensifies gradually. I said you're position is similar to panexperientialism in this respect, except for the fact that I find it logically necessary to assume at least proto-experience is present in matter from the beginning. Otherwise, I simply cannot understand how merely rearranging the structure of what began as inherently dead stuff can suddenly provide it with an interior perspective. By the way, based on your definition of experience above, why wouldn't bacteria possess it?

@ 431 Knockgoats writes: "Why would we want to adopt this silly anthropomorphism? The equalization of temperature gradients is simply a matter of probability: if you start off with all the rapidly moving molecules at one end of a chamber, and the slower-moving ones at the other, their random motions and collisions lead to them getting mixed up. That's all. Sheesh."

If you do not think entropy or the arrow of time requires an explanation, then sure, we can just describe it as a probabilistic occurrence. There is more to entropy than just a tendency toward disorder; most natural systems are not like gas chambers in labs, but are open systems. In such situations, matter will seek local increases in complexity in order to more quickly "consume" the free energy available, so as to return to equilibrium. Matter is hungry, in this sense, and the result is complexity. This isn't the sort of objectivist, neutral language that postivist science deals in, obviously. But I'm not trying to do science here; I'm trying to offer the metaphysical explanations for scientific observations.

Knockgoats writes: "Oh, and "reasoned faith" is a thoroughly stupid oxymoron: reasoning and faith are the very opposite of each other."

I think it is pretty clear to anyone with an understanding of the history of the scientific revolution that none of the first natural scientists could have justified their pursuits without faith. Faith in reason's ability to know nature, and faith in nature's lawfulness are pre-requisites for scientific activity. This hasn't changed.

@ 432 John Morales writes: "I meant to say that you seem to consider a "conscious force" rather than a "vital force" permeates that which you call matter"

I am heavily influenced by Bergson, who is often falsely called a vitalist (he criticized vitalism, or the idea that some extra "conscious force" guides the evolution of matter). I'd follow what Bergson actually argued for, which was a reappraisal of our falsely spatialized conception of time as a series of instantaneous "nows" in continual succession. Time, for Bergson, was duration, which is a more concrete description of time as we actually experience it: not as instants, but as a flow where the present is spread between past inheritances and future anticipations. Whitehead borrows Bergson's idea for his process ontology, and claims that the final real constituents of nature are not things, or particles of whatever sort, but events of experience. I don't want to add anything extra to matter; I only want to give a more realistic account of what matter actually "is," though it isn't an "is"--a substance--at all, but rather a process of becoming. Every event, being a duration rather than an instant, includes inheritance and anticipation of past and future moments, and more of each as the event (or self-organizing material body) becomes more complex over evolutionary time. This temporal spread of every actual entity (or event) is what I'm calling experience. If this sounds at all interesting, I urge you to read some of Whitehead's work. He was a physicist and mathematician by training, but became a philosopher after witnessing the demolition of Newtonian materialism during the early parts of last century. "Process and Reality" is his major work. Well worth the trouble of reading if you're interested in a very detailed account of why materialism fails and what it should be replaced with.

John Morales writes: "So, I'll merely say that I fail to see how something other than the physical permeates the physical, without resorting to the concept of dualism."

There are many ways of using this term dualism aside from its usual meaning: substance dualism. While I'd reject substance dualism, I think we can all agree there is at least an apparent dualism in nature between perceiver and perceived. The question is how to reconcile this appearance with reality. I say the only consistent materialism is eliminativism, because it at least tries to claim that no such thing as experience or consciousness exists. The fact that you and I can have this conversation seems to refute this notion quite easily (or perhaps I don't understand eliminativism, as someone suggested earlier in this thread). Any other sort of materialism that does at least admit human beings are conscious and aware seems to me to be unable to escape a covert dualism (ie, all of nature is just physical stuff in motion--except we who know and say so).

About complexity, I agree the account I gave here of biological evolution was over-simplified; there are definitely a lot of details and fine distinctions that need to be worked out. But nonetheless, I would still argue there is a recognizable trend toward increasing intensity of experience. Bigger doesn't mean more complex in the sense I'm using the term. I think the measure of complexity/consciousness is based on the types of tissue that have organized, the types of societies that the organisms in question have developed, etc. There are many factors and I regret having oversimplified it.

John Morales writes: "when you explain yourself it's clear you do make unnecessary and idiosyncratic assumptions; also, when you give as much weight to the subjective and the intuitive as to the intersubjective and the empirical in trying to gain knowledge about reality, you abandon rigorous thinking."

I think separating these (rationality, subjectivity, intuition, intersubjectivity, empiricism) so starkly is problematic philosophically. I don't want to get too off topic in talking about the genius of Kant, but there is no such thing as empiricism in the absence of the forms of intuition (like space and time) giving sensory experience its meaning. Perhaps you weren't using the term intuition in this technical sense, but nonetheless, I have to assume every human being makes use of all the faculties you've listed when attempting to answer the big questions. What I consider to be rigorous thinking has lead me to believe that our human consciousness (with its imagination and intuition and all such romantic faculties) and our picture of nature should not be so sharply divorced (as materialism makes it seem) from one another. Human consciousness is the child of this universe, and so when I look at the universe, I see not mindless matter in motion, but an ongoing creative process of expression. It's easy to say I anthropomorphize, but I could respond by saying you are anthropocentric for assuming the only purpose and meaning in the universe is wedged inside the human skull.

As far as reification goes, I'd say that is exactly the trouble with materialism. Whitehead coined the phrase "fallacy of misplaced concreteness" to describe how scientific materialists often mistake the theoretical abstractions they've devised about nature for their experience of nature itself.

My favored ontology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy

@ 436 a_ray_in_dilbert_space writes: "I'd be happy to suggest reading lists, but right now, when it comes to understanding the physical world, you are lost in 4th century China."

To tell you the truth, I think materialists would learn much from the ancient Taoists. All is flowing, there is no static stuff. I'd love a reading list. Here is one for you: "Tao Te Ching" by Lao Tzu.

Posted by: John Morales | July 4, 2009 1:37 AM

Correction: Reading my previous, I note I first said "not interested" but then I indicated interest! :)

I should've reviewed and edited my comment, I was just writing sequentially and addressing each quote I'd extracted. I didn't think I was interested, as I'd only heard of it vaguely, but since apparently it's an ontology and has an entry in the SEP, I will read up on it.
Don't expect a response on it soon, though...

So, sorry for that, Matthew.

Posted by: articulett | July 4, 2009 3:29 AM

I think if science were to prove any particular religious belief or even that souls could be real, they'd be refining and honing that knowledge just like they have with DNA. It's not like scientists wouldn't like it if some woo were true, you know. It's just that the best scientists know that you must guard against fooling yourself, and as Feynman said, you are the easiest person to fool. Moreover, if science were to prove any aspect of any religion true, you can bet the believers of that belief would be trumpeting that fact across the world.

Instead, all you ever get, is "science can't explain it (insert QM gobbledygook)--therefore my woo is true!"

Posted by: articulett | July 4, 2009 4:13 AM

(oops--pardon my non sequitur... wrong blog)

*dashes away to hide in shame*

Posted by: windy | July 4, 2009 4:31 AM

I missed this the first time around (Matthew @336)

Yes, I am assuming experience is just as real as atoms. That is pretty much what panexperientialism entails. There are no atoms outside of experience. The idea that there are such things independent of experience is just that, an abstract idea with no empirical grounding. I think part of being scientific is not inventing extra-experiential realms or objects -- what's real is what is concrete and experiential.

Really? Do you think it's unscientific to believe that things go on existing even when you're not directly experiencing them? (In that case, welcome to tonight's episode of "Are You Smarter than a Cotton-Top Tamarin?"!)

BTW, we don't experience "atoms" at all.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 4, 2009 4:54 AM

@439 John Morales:

Thanks for giving process philosophy a look, I hope you enjoy it. For now, though, I have to call it quits here. It's been a learning experience for me, and I appreciate you offering your time to this exchange.

I leave you with a quote from someone I will be so bold as to call wise, Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski:

"The cultural role of philosophy is not to deliver truth but to build the spirit of truth and this means: never to let the inquisitive energy of mind go to sleep, never to stop questioning what appears to be obvious and definitive, always to defy the seemingly intact resources of common sense, always to suspect that there might be 'another side' in what we take for granted, and never to allow us to forget that there are questions that lie beyond the legitimate horizon of science and are nonetheless crucially important to the survival of humanity as we know it." (From Modernity on Endless Trial)

Posted by: John Morales | July 4, 2009 5:14 AM

No worries, Matthew.

I may disagree with your Weltanschauung and its basis, but you engaged us honestly, and I appreciate that.

I'll in turn leave you with a quote from PZ: "Nothing's sacred".

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 4, 2009 3:05 PM

If anyone bothered to read my last post clearly, they saw that, on Cook's own account, he was confronted twice: once when he started walking away without putting the wafer in his mouth; and twice after he took it out of his mouth. Then, after the second confrontation, he took the wafer home with him.

My wife was unaware of a pratice of carrying the wafer back to your seat in your hand; and one poster has given evidence (from himself and his wife) of its being done differently in different localities; so evidently it's OK in some places and not in others. If, however, someone confronts you about an activity you're engaged in, it's reasonable to infer you're on notice that it's not OK here. And nobody so far has adduced a congregation where it's OK to take the thing out of your mouth. So Cook was confronted TWICE over his behavior, and responded by taking the wafer home with him. And then he evidently threatened not to give it back without an apology. My assessment that he's a spoiled twit stands.

Now I'm suppposed to admit I was wrong for saying: "the stunt with the cracker was a piece of obnoxious exhibitionism?" Why? I've asked in vain for a convincing reason why a provocative act, which you must know will enrage lots of people (some at least of them blameless), is praiseworthy? Presumably, the pleasure one often takes in giving offense, in wounding people whose opinions you don't share, while a common sort of pleasure (and one I admit I've indulged myself) doesn't quite pass the praiseworthy test. So I've asked: what aim, what benefit, justifies this? People can insult me all they like for not getting the message; but their posts have been notably lacking in substantive reasons why deliberately destroying a consecrated wafer, after you've advertised on a high-traffic blog that you're going to do it, is anything but obnoxious exhibitionism.

(I do have to say that one poster (the only one to do so thus far), Sastra, gave a reason that might have merit: the Catholics involved were trying to punish Cook for what amounted to blasphemy. Maybe I'm imputing something to Sastra that she wasn't implying, but I think one could infer from her that an act of blasphemy is an appropriate rejoinder to people who want to punish blasphemy. The problem for me is that blasphemy is so inflammatory in the eyes of the pious, so likely to enrage them without enlightening them, that it's (again) likelty to be ineffective in bringing about a good outcome. Also, though it's been disguised in the welter of anti-Catholic ranting that's taken up much of the discussion here, church officials made, as far as I can see, NO efforts to punish Cook for blasphemy, or anything else. It was Bill Donohue, and some nameless crazies with a penchant for death threats. You have a clear object here, easy to target (Donohue, not the anonymous crazies of course), and you let loose the rhetorical equivalent of a nuclear bomb. I think deliberate blasphemy, in response to actual misdeeds of the Catholic Church, might conceivably pass muster. But that's not what happened here.

One other thing the cracker stunt has done is to muddy very badly any discussion of "accommodationism" versus a forthright statement that science and religion are incompatible. Proponents of the latter view (which I share) don't find their cause advanced when they can be described as motivated by irrational, rhetorically-bomb-throwing hatred for religion. That's an obvious, and likely, bad consequence of all this.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | July 4, 2009 3:27 PM

Matthew Segall says, "To tell you the truth, I think materialists would learn much from the ancient Taoists. All is flowing, there is no static stuff. I'd love a reading list. Here is one for you: "Tao Te Ching" by Lao Tzu. "

Been there. Read it. Exactly where does it lead? Did it lead to understanding of how to build a laser? the standard model of particle physics? I got a whole helluvalot more out of 5.5 years of grad school, thank you very much. Science is unique in that the knowledge it yields builds upon itself. It suggests new avenues of inquiry AND most import, it corrects itself. The price: you've got to do more than just look into your frigging soul.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 4, 2009 4:38 PM

Aw, did I upset poor ickle Aaron? Does he feel all pissy because mean ol' Tis didn't give his silly fantasies the respect that Aaron thinks they deserve?

Incidentally, just for your information, being touched without permission is legally assault. If you don't know that then I cannot believe that you're a lawyer like you pretend to be. So among your other sins, you're a liar.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 4, 2009 5:48 PM

A lot of physicists therefore claim that time simply isn't real.

[Citation needed]

Posted by: Carlie | July 4, 2009 6:00 PM

Awww, Aaron's a lawyer! Someone pat him on the head and give him a cookie cracker.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 4, 2009 6:36 PM

...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." -Einstein

BTW, this quote is taken from Einstein's letter to the family of a friend (Basso) upon his passing.

I don't think he is saying that time isn't real. It seems to me he is saying that only that the Newtonian idea of an absolute time is an illusion. Also, my references give the surname of the friend as Besso, not Basso

Posted by: John Morales | July 4, 2009 7:08 PM

Matthew, hard to stay away, ain't it? ;)

I think you misrepresent Einstein, particularly here:

Relativity theory was originally intended by Einstein to describe a Spinozist universe--a static whole called space-time.

and here

Einstein unwittingly destroyed his own original metaphysical position (that time/change is an illusion, that space-time is a fixed substance) by developing relativity.

If you must ascribe opinions to others, at least make it clear it's your own interpretation of what they thought, not that it was what they thought.

See:
here and here.

See also one of the footnotes in the latter:
"^ Penrose, Roger. "Introduction". in Richard Feynman. Six Not-So-Easy Pieces (Penguin Books ed.). England. "The idea that the history of the universe should be viewed, physically, as a four-dimensional spacetime, rather than as a three dimensional space evolving with time is indeed fundamental to modern physics." "

I have but little knowledge of physics and its philosophy, but I think I can tell when someone has even less. Like you.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | July 4, 2009 8:19 PM

Matthew Segall says, "The fallacy is to mistake abstractions useful in scientific theorizing for concrete reality as we actually experience it in our day to day activity."

Matthew, this makes it clear you have no idea how a physicist does physics or views the world. Quantum mechanics makes it very clear that our categories for perception are only approximate. Yes, there are physical entities. No they do not correspond directly with our perceptions. Moreover, the quantum theory of measurement makes it very clear that objectivism is not "real," but merely something that must be introduced at some point in the description for it to make sense to our brains.

Your mischaracterization of Einstein's philosophical position is deplorable. Yes, he referred to himself as a Spinozist. No that played no role in the structure of either Special or General Relativity. If you are going to venture into physics to try to justify your philosophy, then learn a little about itas physicists practice it. To that end, I recommend a book by Folse, "The Philosophy of Niels Bohr." You might enjoy it. Bohr was a very deep thinker, but his prose is utterly impenetrable. Folse does a pretty good job translating into something that approximates English.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | July 4, 2009 9:08 PM

Matthew, Science consists of more than quote mining mystical sayings of prominent scientists. You seem to ascribe to physicists the type of naive realism that hasn't existed since the mid-1800s. You can believe what you want. Just don't pretend you understand science when it is clear you haven't made the vaguest effort to do so.

Personally, I know of no phenomenon that cannot be explained plausibly in purely mechanistic and materialistic terms. That does not mean the material world is all there is. It is merel all we know. The problem with the sort of woo you are peddling is that it presents no way forward--no way of judging the relative merit of opposing ideas or theories. That is why it hasn't progressed beyond the Tao Te Ching, while science continues to shrink the gaps in which the nonmaterial can hide.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 4, 2009 9:57 PM

Matthew Segall is not interested in an openminded discussion, arguments against his beliefs make him uncomfortable, and make him slip into defensive and cognitive dissonance mode.
Should read and watch a little Feynman sometime Matty.

"Its much more interesting to live not knowing then to have answers that are wrong"

As for Aaron "I'm a lawyer and you are all meanie poopyheads" Baker,

what a pompous assclown.

Posted by: John Morales | July 4, 2009 11:36 PM

Addendum to my previous; I'm fully aware that actual philosophers and/or physicists who may read my comment are probably rather amused at my own poor grasp of each, and chuckling about me chiding another for poor understanding.
Such is Pharyngula! :(

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 4, 2009 11:54 PM

Aaron Baker is still showing up here? Good grief.

Dig up, stupid!

Posted by: matthew segall | July 5, 2009 3:37 AM

Feynman on the inconceivable nature of nature: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjHJ7FmV0M4&feature=related

The way he speaks of radios makes me want to say that the brain is better understood as a receiver of consciousness, rather than a computer of information.

Posted by: John Morales | July 5, 2009 4:36 AM

Matthew, to clarify my previous, I feel I should add that I (and many other commenters here) will happily address your own arguments and contentions, but don't tend to do likewise for those who argue from others' authority.
Instead, I tend to just point out that's what they're doing.

I'm pretty sure you weren't trying to use an argumentum ad verecundiam, but, still.

Posted by: John Morales | July 5, 2009 5:21 AM

Owlmirror, I too am bemused by how such a straightforward presentation of materialism was interpreted by Matthew.

I just watched the Feynman clip*, and what I got out of it was his apparent wonder and delight that the brain can make any sense of such complexity with so (relatively) little input, and that there's so much more than that which can be perceived by unaided human senses.

How Matthew thinks sensory input is cognition is rather interesting to me, and clear evidence that his cognitive/perceptual filters are strong in the woo.

--
* Quota be damned! :)

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 5, 2009 5:48 AM

So my last comment didn't get through? I meant to send a correction: of course I meant a philosopher has no way to find out whether an idea is wrong as long as it's logically consistent and stuff.

Quota? Are there still people out there who pay by the megabyte rather than the month? o_O

I'm coming from a perspective that time is more fundamental than space; this is not to say that I ignore the relativistic theory of space-time

Of course it is. You're contradicting yourself here. Space and time come as a package; neither can be more fundamental than the other.

You go on to explain that time isn't a "spatial dimension". Well, duh, of course not. Nobody has claimed it is.

Shorter Matthew: Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter!

LOL! :-D

Posted by: Zarquon | July 5, 2009 6:15 AM

Oh no, it's World of Woocraft!

Posted by: Dania | July 5, 2009 6:56 AM

Prigogine also said:

“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”

This means nothing. I get really annoyed when physicists think they are qualified to make these kinds of claims about biology and biochemistry. Why do some physicists disdain life scientist's knowledge so much?

Very few biologists and biochemists* would agree with the statement you quoted, and rightly so. First, "the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms" were not generated by accident, but were perfected by natural selection. Natural selection could have started doing its work as soon as a self-replicating system appeared.

Now, of course you can say that the probability of a self-replicating system originating by accident and simple chemistry alone is zero. But that would just be your uninformed opinion, and I would strongly disagree. There has been much progress in research on the origin of life, and so far there's no need to postulate unnecessary hypothesis such as attributing desire to matter. Parsimony, you know...

*I do try to forget about Behe whenever I can...

Posted by: Rorschach | July 5, 2009 10:46 AM

John M @ 487,

consider Iinet's plans for naked DSL with free VoIP home phone number,it's what I do,and even on an old copper line they can squeeze 1.5Mb out,more often 8Mb,512Kb is just too 1998 !

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 5, 2009 4:12 PM

Oh no, it's World of Woocraft!

I couldn't have said it better. Consider this a Molly nomination.

It's quite astonishing that life should appear almost immediately after the surface temperature of the planet cooled, isn't it?

"Immediately"?

The oldest known evidence for continents and oceans is 4.4 billion years old. The oldest known possible evidence for life is 3.85 billion years old. I think you agree that a lot can happen in 550 million years.

And besides, among the great insight of quantum mechanics is that everything that's not outright forbidden by the laws of physics has a non-zero probability of happening.

Natural selection is certainly a wonderful engine of creativity, but are you familiar with the work of biologists like Varela, Kauffman, and/or Goodwin, who suggest that much order in the biological world comes for free as the result of self-organization?

Where's the conflict? DNA strands annealing is self-organization, for example.

Remember: there are only five forces in nature – electromagnetics, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, gravity, and "dark energy" (which accelerates the expansion of the universe). Almost all of life, and chemistry in general, is electrostatic attraction and repulsion.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 5, 2009 6:16 PM

Quota? Are there still people out there who pay by the megabyte rather than the month? o_O

A lot of American companies are considering that model. Kind of like a phone contract: the more you use it, the more you pay. pick your level of use, and don't you dare to go over.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 5, 2009 6:33 PM

it's the problem with imagining things that are hard to imagine. you know, life appeared immediately after the cooling of the earth the same way Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne are right next to each other (just ask a European tourist!) :-p

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 5, 2009 7:12 PM

shorter matthew: I do not understand how words work or what anthropomorphizing entails, and therefore will continue to reason backwards from human descriptions of things to things themselves. Also, I find scientific explanations unsexy, and will therefore add a tantalizing layer of woo on top of it to satisfy my "intellectual curiosity".

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 5, 2009 8:00 PM

@ 499 Sven DiMilo,

It has been baldly asserted earlier in this blog by others that materialism (the universe is blind, purposeless, mindless) accounts for human consciousness (which is not blind, purposeless, or mindless). If you or anyone else has an explanation for how purposeful, conscious experience can exist in an otherwise mindless, mechanical universe, by all means, I'd love to hear it. "Evolution did it" is no better an explanation than God, as the question still remains as to how exactly matter was able to grow eyes to see itself.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 5, 2009 8:06 PM

matthew, define "blind", "purposeless" and "mindless" in ways that aren't anthropocentric. if you succeed, then you may well have a point.

otherwise, as far as I can tell, human consciousness is purposeless, while the use of "blind" and "mindless" seems confused at best.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 5, 2009 8:23 PM

It has been baldly asserted earlier in this blog by others that materialism (the universe is blind, purposeless, mindless) accounts for human consciousness (which is not blind, purposeless, or mindless).

Why can't the very concepts of direction, purpose and mind be an invention of the human brain? That seems far more sensible and less reliant on the evidence-bereft belief in the supernatural.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 5, 2009 8:45 PM

wowbagger, it doesn't seem matthew understands the concept of "concepts". it's like when religionists argue that atheists can't love, because for them "love" is just chemical reactions.

basically, he's arguing backwards, projecting an established human concept/word, to the subjective perception of the phenomena, to the phenomena themselves.
thus, he gets the idea that the universe is "creative", that it does things "on purpose" etc.

think of it this way: what does "sugar is sweet" mean? is what we think of as "sweet" somehow essential to sugar being sugar? no. sugar would still be sugar if we didn't perceive it as "sweet"; it is however essential to us being us, since sugar is important, and therefore evolution resulted in our brains perceiving sugar as very very pleasant and desirable. conversely, what matthew seems to argue though is that sweetness is an actual physical property of sugar, and that it wouldn't be sugar if it we tasted it differently (cats would beg to differ).

or in other words: he's confusing the results of filtering and processing input about stuff with a limited computing network with actual outwards properties of stuff.

Posted by: Kel | July 5, 2009 8:52 PM

As for the near "immediacy" of life's emergence on this planet, I of course meant this in terms of geological time.

But even if it happened as soon as the oceans cooled, that in no way would justify your anthropomorphic interpretation of life. The existence of life does not in the slightly imply anything anthropic about the universe, and given that we've existed for but a geological instant (0.003% of earth's history) you have nothing but a anthropic pattern-seeking mind being applied to scales that you cannot comprehend. Basically you have no argument other than your own personal incredulity to support your position - a position that is really unjustifiable given what we now know about the universe.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 5, 2009 8:57 PM

matthew, how exactly did you manage to confuse "functional" with "has a purpose"?

while my brain may functional in such a way that I can read, I don't see how you can conclude from anything that the purpose of consciousness is me being able to read.

on that note, I'm really curious as to what you think the purpose of consciousness is...

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 5, 2009 9:06 PM

@ 505 Feynmaniac writes: "therefore we are luminous beings"

I've not claimed anything like this. My argument is that materialism fails, therefore we need to explore other reasonable metaphysical approaches to interpreting scientific facts. Materialism, or any metaphysical system, cannot be disproved. Only with matters of bald empirical fact do we have such a luxury. Metaphysics is speculative, though the attempt to interpret observable facts can be more or less adequate to those facts. I do not believe materialism is adequate to the facts. I arrive at this belief because I do not see how interiority and consciousness are possible in an otherwise totally material universe with nothing but exterior surfaces interacting mechanically. The only way to get consciousness in such a universe is by way of some sort of dualism. Dualism, though, has lead modern philosophy into all sorts of intractable paradoxes and contradictions, and so I reject it in favor of a more holistic view where "mind" and "matter" are two ways of describing the poles of a single process.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 5, 2009 9:21 PM

@ 510 Jadehawk: The purpose of consciousness is not you being able to read. You've misunderstood me. Communication of any kind is an example of a purposive activity: you speak because you have a mental state you'd like to share, or an emotional desire you'd like to express. What the purpose of the activity of communicating may be has many possible answers, but this is not what our immediate concern is. The question is whether nature can be reasonably described in terms of purposes, which no biologists question to the best of my knowledge (the technical term for such purposive description is teleonomy).

@ 511 Sven DiMilo,

I'd define a living system as a self-producing system that brings forth its own domain of significance (ie, sucrose molecules are food for a bacterium, no longer just neutral objects). Viruses do not meet this qualification, and so are not living.

"Finality" refers to final causation, or purpose. If human consciousness cannot act purposively (ie, if we are entirely determined machines), then moral responsibility is impossible and the very basis of civilized life is but a delusion.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 5, 2009 9:31 PM

@ 513 Jadehawk writes: "that's a fascinating way of redefining words. in this way, nothing is mindless (because nothing is 100% deterministic), and nothing is purposeless because most things have tendencies and even recognizable directions and ends(otherwise science wouldn't work because nothing would be predictable)."

Yes, this is precisely my point. Glad we see eye to eye.

Jadehawk writes: "as for 'blind'... that philosophical sophism is beyond me. it seems it merely means 'lacking the ability to describe itself in relation to others,' which would be stupid.

The term "blind" in this context doesn't necessarily have anything to do with linguistic description. It has to do with the relations between bodies, whether atoms or human beings. "Blind" atoms would exist as isolated substances shuffled around in a totally deterministic way by its surroundings. The evolution of their relations would involve random re-arrangement, which in no way allows us to account for the universe as it has actually unfolded.

I linked you to the "sophism" primarily for this quote by A. N. Whitehead:

"This material is in itself the ultimate substance. Evolution, on the materialistic theory, is reduced to the role of being another word for the description of the changes of the external relations between portions of matter. There is nothing to evolve, because one set of external relations is as good as any other set of external relations. There can merely be change, purposeless and unprogressive. But the whole point of the modem doctrine is the evolution of the complex organisms from antecedent states of less complex organisms. The doctrine thus cries aloud for a conception of organism as fundamental for nature. It also requires an underlying activity -- a substantial activity -- expressing itself in achievements of organism.""This material is in itself the ultimate substance. Evolution, on the materialistic theory, is reduced to the role of being another word for the description of the changes of the external relations between portions of matter. There is nothing to evolve, because one set of external relations is as good as any other set of external relations. There can merely be change, purposeless and unprogressive. But the whole point of the modem doctrine is the evolution of the complex organisms from antecedent states of less complex organisms. The doctrine thus cries aloud for a conception of organism as fundamental for nature. It also requires an underlying activity -- a substantial activity -- expressing itself in achievements of organism."

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 5, 2009 9:41 PM

Yes, this is precisely my point. Glad we see eye to eye.

no we don't. it's just that you see the need to see something more in humans, and therefore draw the conclusion that there needs to be something more in nature. that is you drawing conclusions backwards from human and human-centric concepts, rather than accepting that most of human perception is an illusion.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 5, 2009 9:51 PM

sigh, all this rapid-fire posting has resulted in some strange cross-postings. so I'll add one more comment:

Free Will, or the ability to be a free agent, or being not mindless and not purposeless (by your definition of those words), may well turn out to not exist. it is already pretty obvious that a human is to a very large degree the product of its environment, and so at least partially deterministic, and it may well turn out that (statistically speaking) our actions are as deterministic as the actions of atoms, molecules, etc., merely on a much larger, more complex scale.

that this would belie the entire basis for civilization is true, but it's also irrelevant. the world is how it is, not how we'd like it to be. this is a form of argument that the creationists often use (argument from consequences), and it's faulty regardless of whether it's applied to the supposed moral consequences of evolution, or the supposed moral consequences of subatomic physics

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 5, 2009 9:55 PM

@ 518 Jadehawk,

The problem with throwing such doubt onto the cognitive/perceptual facility of human beings is that, while it would make most of my suggestions implausible, your attitude also calls into question the foundation of scientific knowledge.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 5, 2009 10:05 PM

@ 519 Kel,

I'm not suggesting we import some immaterial substance that operates along side the material. I'm suggesting we re-evaluate the materialistic conception of matter as completely blind, purposeless, and mindless. The findings of relativity, quantum mechanics, complexity and chaos theories have drastically altered traditional ways of conceiving of matter, so much so that little consensus exists as to how to come to terms with the radical findings of the past century. Materialism fails because, while it may in some versions allow for life and consciousness, it offers no explanation as to how they might emerge. I do think consciousness emerges because of evolution, but I do not think this would be possible unless matter was already at least proto-experiential.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 5, 2009 10:11 PM

@ 520 Jadehawk,

I'd agree that, statistically speaking, human behavior is deterministic to a large extent. We know that on average something like 12 people a year will leap to their death from the Golden Gate Bridge. But specifically which 12 people it will be cannot be determined beforehand. The question of whether or not we as individuals are agents in possession of at least some degree of willed action should be approached very delicately, as denying ourselves such agency also turns much of our cultural activity, including the scientific pursuit of knowledge, into mere fantasy.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 5, 2009 10:14 PM

you're still arguing from consequences.

Posted by: Kel | July 5, 2009 10:20 PM

I'm not suggesting we import some immaterial substance that operates along side the material. I'm suggesting we re-evaluate the materialistic conception of matter as completely blind, purposeless, and mindless.

We have purpose because we have a brain that seeks purpose. Again, don't be greedy reductionist about things. The mind does not work on the atomic level as far as we are concerned, so to reduce it that far is to gravely miss the point.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 5, 2009 10:24 PM

Matthew Segall,

Materialism, or any metaphysical system, cannot be disproved.

Materialism can be falsified. Again, if there was evidence for some sort of vitialsim (i.e, material of living beings differed from the material of non-living beings) then materialism would be shown to be false. If we found consciousness to exist without it being made of matter, then materialism would be falsified.

Sure it can never be proven just falsified, but that's true of all scientific hypotheses.

I do not believe materialism is adequate to the facts. I arrive at this belief because I do not see how interiority and consciousness are possible in an otherwise totally material universe with nothing but exterior surfaces interacting mechanically

That's an argument from personal incredulity.

Posted by: Kel | July 5, 2009 10:36 PM

I make my argument against materialism both because I find it to be inadequate to the facts and because of its social consequences.

What social consequences that may stem from an idea has zero bearing on its truth. The fact that you use it to appeal against the notion suggests that you care more about preserving a worldview than finding out the truth about how the brain works. If this is not the case, then stop appealing to consequence.

Gah! Another woo-addled mind.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 5, 2009 10:52 PM

Jeebus,you guys still sparring with the metaphysically challenged philosophy minor !!
Ah well,I need to go shopping.

It's my opinion that a civilization without a meaningful story of how the universe came to be and what the place of human beings is within it is a civilization soon to collapse under the weight of its own lack of moral direction.

More ambiguous wishi-washi pseudo-wisdom.
Define meaningful.Define soon.
Because homo sapiens is still around,despite not really having had a meaningful story of how everything came to be until, very, very recently, other than POOF.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 5, 2009 11:01 PM

@ 533 Feynmaniac,

Individuals can apparently live without attempted answers to the big questions, but civilizations cannot. A civilization cannot operate without an over-arching purpose. The last 50 years of human existence upon this planet have been driven by the mythos of industrial growth and technological providence. Such a worldview has lead our planet to the brink of ecological catastrophe. We're in the midst of a mass extinction as great as that which saw the end of the dinosaurs, according to E. O. Wilson. Without a swift shift in out civilization's outlook as to what the Good is, what Truth amounts to, etc., we are doomed to extinction within the next century or so. There is no neutral stance one can take toward this situation. Either we adopt a less materialistic worldview as a soceity, or we perish (taking many thousands of other species with us along the way).

@ 534 Kel writes: "what makes you saying "materialism cannot explain the brain" anything more than armchair science?"

Either you are intentionally misquoting me to make my position appear absurd, or you have completely misunderstood my position. Accounting for the structure of the brain is one thing; explaining how it gives rise to phenomenal experience is quite another. I got my undergraduate degree in cognitive science, and continue to keep as up to date as possible (short of reading every published paper in the field), so I believe I know enough about neuroscience to say with some authority that there isn't even a working definition for "consciousness" yet, much less a research project capable of explaining it.

I also can only assume you don't understand or disagree with my argument about the cultural embeddedness of science. Mine is a position held by almost every credible sociologist of science. Facts are objective, sure. But their metaphysical interpretations are not.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 5, 2009 11:31 PM

The last 50 years of human existence upon this planet have been driven by the mythos of industrial growth and technological providence. Such a worldview has lead our planet to the brink of ecological catastrophe.

I agree.

Either we adopt a less materialistic worldview as a soceity, or we perish (taking many thousands of other species with us along the way).

I disagree. As has been pointed out by others on another thread (I can't seem to find it) philosophical materialism (i.e, matter is the only substance) has nothing to do with this. The biggest producer of pollution is the religious United States. The problem lies with short term thinking and greed. At best you can say that consumerist materialism (i.e, buying things will make you happy) is partly to blame and this has nothing to do with philosophical materialism.

Posted by: Kel | July 5, 2009 11:55 PM

Either you are intentionally misquoting me to make my position appear absurd, or you have completely misunderstood my position. Accounting for the structure of the brain is one thing; explaining how it gives rise to phenomenal experience is quite another.

Again, we've gone very far with the material, and there's not been one element in there that suggests anything that you've suggested about matter. Demonstrate otherwise, show the evidence to support your position. Otherwise all you have is anthropic-reasoning applied to a universe where you're actual significance belies your mindset.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 6, 2009 12:05 AM

As has been pointed out by others on another thread (I can't seem to find it)....

Found it.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 6, 2009 12:08 AM

At best you can say that consumerist materialism (i.e, buying things will make you happy) is partly to blame and this has nothing to do with philosophical materialism.

Indeed, it might well be argued that the opposite is the case: That monotheistic religions offers a justification for material exploitation of resources and consumerism, in that there is the mythic conception that every material thing was granted to man by God. There are also religion-based objections to the very concept of long-term prevention of environmental disaster: One being that God will not "allow" things to get too bad, another being that things getting worse is actually good, since it signals the end of the world, and the end of the world will be followed by God actively "fixing" everything (good people go to heaven and live forever, bad people go to hell and suffer forever, and the world itself is irrelevant).

All of these worldviews arise directly from "an over-arching purpose" that is not grounded in a metaphysically materialistic worldview.

(Just to be clear that it can go both ways, I will also acknowledge that some religious groups see the concept of the Earth being under man's rule as involving a prescription of responsibility and long-term care. But that seems to be a minority view, so far.)

Posted by: Kel | July 6, 2009 12:20 AM

You're confusing a metaphysical issue with an empirical issue. Science is an empirical method designed to answer questions concerning matters of observable fact. Metaphysics concerns the pursuit of a system of general principles capable of explaining these facts.

So while you can argue that it's metaphysics and not science, all that you are doing is positing a unobserved component to reality. So why can't you provide evidence for that? Shouldn't you be trying all you can to validate your position by putting it up for falsification? Shouldn't you be confident enough that your position can stand up to empirical scrutiny?

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 6, 2009 12:32 AM

@ 546 Owlmirror: "All of these worldviews arise directly from 'an over-arching purpose' that is not grounded in a metaphysically materialistic worldview."

Materialism as a worldview does not escape an implicit claim as to over-arching purpose. There are a number of possibilities here, but historically it would appear that materialism was the justification for modern economic assumptions, that the non-human earth community has no inherent value other than what it is given after production and sale within the human domain. Nature was/is considered purposeless and mindless, and so our economy treats it as a mere store of raw materials. Of course, any sane person, materialist or not, can now see that such an economic paradigm is leading us to our own demise, as the earth can only provide us with so many "resources" before it is completely depleted. But my point is that materialism leaves us with limited options when it comes to devising a more sustainable human-earth relationship. If all is purposeless but the illusion secreted by the meat coiled up inside our skulls, then it seems the only over-arching goal for society is to continue our technophilia while ignoring the cost to the rest of life on earth so long as we are able to scientifically engineer our own human survival and advancement. In contrast, recognizing the universe as a celebratory event of ongoing creation and the earth as one of its most precious possessions opens the door to a renewed sense of human purpose, where instead of directing all our social energy toward consumerist pursuits of a bit more hedonistic pleasure before we die, we could develop a noetic polity wherein artistic expression and scientific/philosophical study become our principle values.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 6, 2009 12:40 AM

@ 549 Owlmirror,

Your comment about panpsychism (of which I prefer the panexperientialist variant) shows that you've not delved very deeply into the literature concerning it. I recommend A. N. Whitehead's "Science and the Modern World."

Owlmirror writes: "Where, in your studies of cognitive science, has anyone even hinted that consciousness is 'a mere statistical fluke not worth considering more deeply'?????"

None of my professors hinted at this, and I was lucky enough that such an attitude toward consciousness was not present among the faculty in my program. This claim concerns the attitude I've come to encounter here on PZ's blog over the past view days concerning the matter.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 6, 2009 12:51 AM

You're confusing a metaphysical issue with an empirical issue. Science is an empirical method designed to answer questions concerning matters of observable fact. Metaphysics concerns the pursuit of a system of general principles capable of explaining these facts.

Empirical observation will indeed continue to reveal new and interesting things to us about the world. My argument has been that a metaphysics like materialism is inadequate as an interpretation of the scientific facts we already have,

and that if we continue under materialist assumptions, no explanation for consciousness will be possible because within such a system it has already been interpreted as a mere statistical fluke not worth considering more deeply.

bullshit. consciousness is being investigated all the time. neuroscience is not a dead field. I suspect what you want is an "alternative" to neuroscience that wouldn't treat your sacred cow of "consciousness" irreverently; basically, you seem to want an astrology-version of the neurosciences.

Scientific experimentation can go on whether we have a metaphysical interpretive framework for it or not. I am certainly not claiming that there are any foreseeable limits to scientific discovery. I'm arguing that interpreting science through a materialistic metaphysical lens does not do justice to the facts science has provided us and therefore limits its scope.

lastly, keep this in mind: your hypothesis of some sort of "agency essence" cannot be simply asserted to be believed. if this essence exists and interacts with matter, it could be measured by materialistic science. if it cannot be measured, it cannot interact with matter, and is therefore irrelevant.

you're deluding yourself about there being something "magical" about humans. there isn't. and as such, there is no need for anything "magical" anywhere else in the universe to explain our emergence.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 6, 2009 12:54 AM

Materialism as a worldview does not escape an implicit claim as to over-arching purpose. There are a number of possibilities here, but historically it would appear that materialism was the justification for modern economic assumptions, that the non-human earth community has no inherent value other than what it is given after production and sale within the human domain. Nature was/is considered purposeless and mindless, and so our economy treats it as a mere store of raw materials.

why does that remind me of Sastra's New Ager who didn't believe in Nuclear Physics because she was against Nuclear Proliferation...

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 6, 2009 1:13 AM

my view that matter (or mass/energy--call it what you will) is always already permeated with experience

So yes, in a sense, crystalization is an expression of matter's experiential desire to complexify.

No, panexperientialism is saying the exact opposite, that experience and consciousness are in no way 'beyond' atoms or the brain.

[from a link you gave]Panpsychism, in philosophy, is either the view that all parts of matter involve mind, or the more holistic view that the whole universe is an organism that possesses a mind

I find it logically necessary to assume at least proto-experience is present in matter from the beginning.

etc.

how is this "experience" that's supposedly in everything not an "agency essence"

Posted by: Sven DIMilo | July 6, 2009 1:29 AM

I'd define a living system as a self-producing system that brings forth its own domain of significance

Ah, a Dumptyist, eh?

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 6, 2009 1:47 AM

@ 558 Jadehawk,

Panexperientialism goes hand in hand with a process ontology, where the final real things are not "things" at all, but events and processes. This means that there are no "minds" or "mental substances," nor is there some sort of static, extended matter existing either actually or logically independent of the irreversible flow of time. There is absolutely no empirical evidence of "matter" of the kind I've just described. To call something material does not mean it is a mind-independent substance, but a persistent and un-get-around-able aspect of all past experience. Similarly, to call something mental does not mean it is a world-independent ghost that hovers beyond the lived body operating it as if from outside; mentality is instead that aspect of living experience making us aware of possiblities and giving us ideals.

The claim of an "agency essence" would commit the fallacy of misplaced concreteness by calling what is ultimately a single process of becoming into two substances, an elan vital wearing the body like a suit. I reject this as quickly as I reject claims that matter is ontologically distinct from (or real independent of) mind. Mind and matter, experience and the world, are one ongoing event called by us the universe.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 6, 2009 2:00 AM

Materialism as a worldview does not escape an implicit claim as to over-arching purpose.

No. Wrong. To echo your own accusation back at you -- you're confusing a metaphysical issue with an morally prescriptive issue.

Your comment about panpsychism (of which I prefer the panexperientialist variant) shows that you've not delved very deeply into the literature concerning it. I recommend A. N. Whitehead's "Science and the Modern World."

Given Whitehead's sub-sub-atomic "occasions of experience", I am certain that he had nothing to contribute to the question of distinguishing between human experience and non-living "experience" -- other than the sort of pretentious flapdoodle that you have offered.

This claim concerns the attitude I've come to encounter here on PZ's blog over the past view days concerning the matter.

Oh, bullshit. You have nothing, so now you accuse us of apathy and lack of curiosity. Is the standard of evidence and parsimony too harsh for you or something?

Posted by: slaven | July 6, 2009 2:08 AM

The task of metaphysics is to unite them all into an overall picture of the universe that is logical, consistent, coherent and adequate to our experience.

I'm a layman who's stumbled on this site, so forgive this elementary question and comment. If the answers metaphysics provided are not testable, then why should science give them any merit? Your philosophy can only become useful to science by allowing the scientific process within it. Science is about rigorously disproving theories. If it can't do that, then you're talking about matters of faith.
A cosmic faith is not necessary to have a will or personal sense of purpose, either. I can still spend my days ethically and strong-willed even as I contend that they are very possibly purposeless in the bigger picture. I don't know if they are or not, nor do I think anyone ever will know. I'm okay with that.

Posted by: Kel | July 6, 2009 2:24 AM

Oh, bullshit. You have nothing, so now you accuse us of apathy and lack of curiosity.

Is the standard of evidence and parsimony too harsh for you or something?

It might be that your explanation is true Matthew, I can't say for sure that it isn't. But at this stage, you haven't provided any positive evidence for your position, nor have you sufficiently dismantled the case for a completely materialistic cause. Though the latter shouldn't matter lest you suffer from the only game in town fallacy. Positive claims require positive evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your claim is extraordinary, I await the evidence that supports it.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 6, 2009 3:10 AM

@ 561 Kel writes: "At best [metaphysics] could serve as a further layer back, but without evidence any claims can at best be conjecture - and will remain unsubstantiated until such time as evidence is produced."

Metaphysics is an explanatory level below science, as you admit. But science cannot begin to give us evidence confirming a theory until certain metaphysical assumptions have already been made. This doesn't mean scientists cannot continue testing hypotheses and gathering data in the absence of a larger metaphysical set of general principles; but for experiments to provide us with any "knowledge of the world," we must already have constructed a metaphysical picture explaining what knowing is, where the world came from, how knowing and the world relate, etc.

Kel writes: "Right now given that all we have observed is material, that brain function and mind are tightly coupled, surely that warrants us sticking to the materialist side until demonstrated otherwise."

Of course the materialist has only observed matter, because all that materialism admits as real is what can be empirically measured in the exterior world by the outward facing senses. This materialistic assumption is made before the materialist even turns to actual experience to investigate it scientifically. If you've already decided that only what can be seen "out there" is real, you'll never find anything but material surface after material surface, no matter how deep you go. The reason returning to a truly skeptical and unassuming metaphysical stance is important is that is lets you see the beliefs you otherwise wouldn't notice. If we go back to our immediate experience, there is actually much more than just the external world. There is the interior/embodied world of purpose and meaning and narrative and mathematics and aesthetics and emotion and so on and so forth. These are all real existent features of the one true world. Any explanation for the world must account both for its interiority and its exteriority (ie, both mind and matter, respectively).

The unfortunate thing is that most times, if not all, our worldviews are not rationally chosen. In fact, that's what a worldview really means, its a set of assumptions you make without even being aware of it. The task of continual metaphysical (which also means phenomenological) inquiry is to question beliefs repeatedly so that our worldview becomes as wide-ranging, appropriate, and experientially valid as possible.

@ 564 Owlmirror writes: "To echo your own accusation back at you -- you're confusing a metaphysical issue with an morally prescriptive issue."

Ethics is a branch of metaphysics. All metaphysical assumptions, whether materialist or panexperientialist, have moral implications.

Owlmirror writes: "[Whitehead] had nothing to contribute to the question of distinguishing between human experience and non-living 'experience'"

The section "The Aesthetic Foundation of the Knowing Act" should help clarify:

http://books.google.com/books?id=HSXuJZFO47wC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=whitehead+inorganic+experience&source=bl&ots=nWdTcMRLJg&sig=P083PbyWt9gTRS4xIPAxlyBGWkc&hl=en&ei=T6JRSt_KKqOqtge4ktyzBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

@ 566 Slaven, See my first response to Kel above.

Posted by: John Morales | July 6, 2009 4:25 AM

Matthew @465:

@ 439 John Morales asks for examples of how scientific materialists commit Whitehead's "fallacy of misplaced concreteness":

I quote from Olav Bryant Smith's book on Whitehead (also Kant, Heiddeger, Ricouer) "Myths of the Self: Narrative Identity and Postmodern Metaphysics," p. 128 note 9. Here, Smith describes the "bifurcated view of nature" resulting from materialism.

I asked for examples, not pabulum.
Who, when, and where would be an example.

Sheesh.

Posted by: John Morales | July 6, 2009 4:41 AM

Matthew @ 507:

I recommend A. N. Whitehead's book "Science and the Modern World."

Dude, how long ago was that published?
Do you reckon science hasn't progressed a tad since then?

Posted by: John Morales | July 6, 2009 5:31 AM

Matthew:

I'd define a living system as a self-producing system that brings forth its own domain of significance

Such fatuity!

Clearly, your grasp of biology is as extensive as your grasp of physics.

Posted by: John Morales | July 6, 2009 5:50 AM

Matthew @507:

Feynmaniac writes: "Why can't we just say 'we don't have an answer, but we're working on it'?"

[1] I think any answers a culture comes up with to cosmological questions should be understood to be mythic in structure; [2] that is, I don't think science can provide us with ultimate meaning. [3] Scientific investigation has a horizon, [4] beyond which human beings must employ their mythopoeic imaginations to provide context, meaning, and motivation for civilized life. [5] Of course, science has provided much empirical data concerning the actual structure of our universe, [6] data that can [7] and should help us construct a cosmic story. [8] The reason I wouldn't want to throw my hands up and say "we just can't know" [9] is that I think human society itself has and will always depend upon answers to big questions. [10] Science is a work in progress, [11] but human life, whether individual or collective, is already underway. [12] It's my opinion that a civilization without a meaningful story of how the universe came to be and what the place of human beings is within it is a civilization soon to collapse under the weight of its own lack of moral direction.

1. You don't see a difference between a guess and an empirical determination? Sad.
2. Nor do I. So what?
3. So what?
4. Must? Must???? Nope. I don't, that's a counterexample to your claim.
Like my dog, I live, enjoy the good bits, suffer at the bad bits, then I'll die. The purpose of my life is to live until I die. You clearly have a problem with that, but don't think everyone else does.
5. Yup.
6. Yup.
7. Should? Why should it? Just because you think so?
8. "we just can't know" is quite different to "we just don't know". You think I hold the former, but I hold the latter (as do most realists). It is a straw man.
9. Really. Well, I don't. What makes your opinion more privileged than mine? ;)
10. Yup.
11. What's the difference between something "in progress" and something "under way"?
That's vacuous.
12. And I respect that just as much as any of your other opinions.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 6, 2009 6:49 AM

Where's the argumentum ad lapidem when you need it?

Posted by: Rorschach | July 6, 2009 7:17 AM

Matthew is dead and gone,his arguments pulverized,we're flogging a dead horse.
Watch another movie,rather.
Already watched 2 tonight,instead of wasting time with the befuddled creep.
Refreshing.

Posted by: Kel | July 6, 2009 8:45 AM

Of course the materialist has only observed matter, because all that materialism admits as real is what can be empirically measured in the exterior world by the outward facing senses. This materialistic assumption is made before the materialist even turns to actual experience to investigate it scientifically. If you've already decided that only what can be seen "out there" is real, you'll never find anything but material surface after material surface, no matter how deep you go.

As for myself, I was long into science before I became a philosophical materialist. It may surprise you, but I grew up around a "New Age" community, and at school I had a very liberal Christian education. I'm not a born and indoctrinated materialist, while I've always been into science I've considered the issue of spiritual as something separate. I was always an atheist yet "kept an open mind" when it came to issues of the paranormal or supernatural.

Yet the more I learnt about the natural world, the more I realised how pathetically misguided the supernatural and paranormal claims were. There's just nothing there, and it exploits the same magical thinking as religion does.

And even now if you were to show me strong evidence for the paranormal / supernatural / immaterial / whatever, I wouldn't be adverse to switching to thinking. I'm interested in knowing what is true, and the only way I can see to do that sufficiently is to be sceptical enough to wait for sufficient evidence. I could be wrong, but it's up to anyone positing what is outside of known reality to provide evidence for it.

Positive claims require positive evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All I'm asking for you to do is show evidence, in the end the pragmatic side of me will follow the evidential trail.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | July 6, 2009 1:28 PM

Matthew, OK, so what exactly does this "principle of creativity" do? What wouldn't happen without it? How would we verify that 1)it exists or 2)its properties? And if you can't answer this, what good is it beyond just making you feel better?

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 6, 2009 2:08 PM

@ 586 a_ray_in_dilbert_space writes: "so what exactly does this 'principle of creativity' do? What wouldn't happen without it? How would we verify that 1)it exists or 2)its properties?"

We should begin where each of us must begin, with our own personal existence. The principle of creativity (which is deeply related to the arrow of time) is what organizes the otherwise unconnected events of our lives into some sort of a coherent narrative, where past, present, and future fit together into a meaningful whole. When we as persons lose touch with or for whatever reason fracture this sense of narrative, our very identities are called into question and life becomes an overwhelmingly confusing and chaotic task. On a broader level, I think we can extend this principle of creativity to the universe itself: creativity refers to the way the many can become one and be increased by one--in other words, the various events of emergence which have taken place in cosmic history represent the arrival of new wholes where before there had been disordered multiplicity (ie, hydrogen becomes stars). There can be no complete account of our universe that leaves these events of emergence unexamined.

1) Creativity is what allows us to make meaning out of the events of our own lives and,
2) Creativity is what allows the universe to retain and increase its order as it evolves through moments of emergence from quantum foam to hydrogen and helium, from these atoms to the heavier elements created by supernova explosions, to planets with the chemistry capable of coming to life and at least in one instance gaining intelligence and self-awareness.

Without some principle of creativity to give order to the chaos, none of this could have happened. Verifying the existence of such creativity only requires looking at the unity of your own life, or the process of cosmic evolution I've just described. If one day in the near future human individuality becomes impossible because we lose our ability to temporally order our lives, perhaps the explanation might be that the principle has failed in its old age. I think this is highly unlikely, however.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 6, 2009 3:05 PM

@ 589 antistokes,

Yes, entropy is another way of looking at the same dynamic I'm trying to describe, the arrow of time and the emergence of order from chaos, etc. "Quantum foam" is John Wheelers term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 6, 2009 3:10 PM

Matthew is still speaking wooooooo, not a normal language. And still no evidence to back up his ideas. The quantum world is only meaningful to anything molecule size or smaller. Using it for a non-real concept like creativity is pure nonsense.

Posted by: Dania | July 6, 2009 3:28 PM

You've left out the arrow of time, which I would say is the creative influence that allowed emergence of order in our universe.

*Sigh*. Yeah, I left out time. I thought it was obvious I was not making that question about a universe without a temporal dimension. But I'll reformulate my question. Explain why atoms, stars and galaxies would not have formed in an universe identical to our own with no "principle of creativity". What do we need this "principle of creativity" for?

Time itself gave rise to all the fundamental laws, as well.

Explain what you mean by this sentence. I'm not sure I know what you're trying to say.

Many laws once thought to be constants are now seen to be changing ever so slightly...

Huh? Laws are changing? Could you give me some examples, please?

Self-replication is not what I would say is most essential to life. Self-production is logically and physically prior to reproduction. I gave this definition of life above, which John Morales then called absurd. It is a pretty standard definition within theoretical biology first developed in the 70s by Maturana and Varela.

I don't really feel like discussing your definition of life right now or how important self-replication is. Maybe later. But would you agree that an organic self-replicating system capable of Darwinian evolution is enough to get life started or not?

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 6, 2009 3:40 PM

@591 Josh,

When I say time gave rise to the fundamental laws, I mean the laws are more like habits that developed in time--they are not eternal and static.

An example of a changing law would be the fine-structure constant, described by the physicists in the short clip below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHZs8OJ7F98

@ 593 a_ray_in_dilbert_space writes: "Pray, how would you distinguish this [narrative time] from firings of neurons in the brain?"

It is related to the firing of neurons, but the distinguishing feature is that YOU personally experience it from the inside out. It isn't something you can objectify in the external world; rather, it is your very being.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space writes: "Sorry, dude, we know how hydrogen becomes stars. It happens because it is energetically and entropically favorable favorable."

Entropy is a descriptive law. There is no explanation for it other than that just after the big bang there was a mysteriously high level of order which then began running down toward chaos, leaving temporary local pockets of order in its wake. This still, however, is no explanation. It just pushes the buck back another step: why such high order in the beginning? So yes, we can describe the laws responsible for the emergence of stars, but as to why and how they emerge, as to what the underlying principle allowing for this possibility is, materialism is in the dark. Without a principle of creativity, the results of the arrow of time cannot be explained.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 6, 2009 3:44 PM

Speaking of ganja, I'm sure you're all big fans of Carl Sagan, who as a regular user. An essay by him about his experiences with the plant: http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 6, 2009 4:07 PM

@ 594 Dania writes: "But would you agree that an organic self-replicating system capable of Darwinian evolution is enough to get life started or not?"

I think there are two main theories concerning the emergence of life, RNA world and autocatalysis. The RNA world approach is what I believe you're asking about, and I'd say that it is possible for short, non-membrane bound chains of nucleic acid to replicate, and therefore to begin a very primitive sort of Darwinian selective process. I don't think this approach is explanatory of the emergence of life, however. I prefer Stuart Kauffman's version of the autocatalytic approach, wherein he suggests (much like that NYT article you linked earlier) that bi-lipid membranes can emerge spontaneously with self-catalyzing molecules inside it that form a network of interactions complex enough to grow the system until it splits in two, thereby "reproducing" itself in a non-genetic way. This self-organizing process seems to me more likely to be the way life emerged, with Darwinian genetic selection having come later. Of course, these two possible theories are not mutually exclusive, and I'd be perfectly willing to admit some sort of hybrid process is how it all really went down.

@ 597 Owlmirror writes: "the moral prescription of greed, selfishness, and short-term gain can arise in a panexperientialist worldview as well."

Indeed, and they have arisen in a universe I believe is best described as panexperientialist. One of the distinguishing features of Western civilization is the extreme sense of alienation it has fostered between the human and the rest of the natural world. I think we desperately need to re-think our metaphysical assumptions to bring us back into touch with the living world around us, for our own psychological health and for the rest of the earth community's sake.

If you're interested in the answers to your questions about Whitehead, which I don't think you are, you can read some of his work. I'll say that Whitehead is heralded by many philosophers as devising a system that greatly clarifies ancient metaphysical problems (like mind-body dualism, Zeno's paradox, identity, etc.). His approach is to begin with human experience and to derive an adequate ontology by generalizing certain features of it to all actual entities (or events/processes) in nature. It seems that you have very little respect for philosophy or its important relationship to science. I've tried repeatedly to explain why metaphysical issues are extremely important if science is to provide us with any actual knowledge of the world, to no avail.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 6, 2009 4:17 PM

@ 592 and 601 RE: quantum physics,

QM is relevant to all scales of reality if you take big bang cosmology seriously. Our universe emerged from the quantum vacuum and developed from the quantum scale to the macro. I agree that QM is negligible when doing mechanics or making simple descriptions in "middle world"; but we're talking metaphysics here, and so we want a comprehensive account of the whole universe and what makes it possible.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 6, 2009 4:42 PM

@ 603 antistokes,

Mathematics is the best tool we have to describe the universe b/c it escapes the misleading subject/predicate structure of normal language (which is really what leads us into dualism), but math still requires interpretation if we are to understand its meaning. Enter metaphysics. Also, what exactly is math? Was Plato right about its origins?

Posted by: Dania | July 6, 2009 6:24 PM

I think there are two main theories concerning the emergence of life, RNA world and autocatalysis.

Yes, but there are a lot more hypothesis than those two, and several hybrid models have been proposed. Some are more plausible than others, but they're all interesting in their own way. There's also the PAH world hypothesis, the clay hypothesis and Thomas Gold's deep hot biosphere hypothesis, just to name a few. What you should note is that none of them posits a "principle of creativity". They're all materialistic explanations as far as I know.

This self-organizing process seems to me more likely to be the way life emerged, with Darwinian genetic selection having come later.

I disagree. I don't think life emerged before Darwinian evolution. Natural selection could have acted upon chemical systems capable of self-replication, and I don't think you can easily draw a line between these chemical systems and the subsequent biological organisms. The line between inanimate matter and life is more blurry than you think. Don't you agree that chemical evolution predated biological evolution, and that we can hardly say where one ends and the other begins?

Posted by: Watchman | July 6, 2009 6:31 PM

Natural selection could have acted upon chemical systems capable of self-replication

As has been recently witnessed in the laboratory.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 6, 2009 7:01 PM

but we're talking metaphysics mental masturbation here

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 6, 2009 8:10 PM

@ 605 John Morales,

Yes, now you're catching on :)

@ 606 Dania writes: "I don't think life emerged before Darwinian evolution. Natural selection could have acted upon chemical systems capable of self-replication, and I don't think you can easily draw a line between these chemical systems and the subsequent biological organisms. The line between inanimate matter and life is more blurry than you think. Don't you agree that chemical evolution predated biological evolution, and that we can hardly say where one ends and the other begins?"

The precise definition of life, I hope we can agree, is a philosophical issue at best, arbitrary convention at worst. I agree there is a fine line between a chemical system and a free-living cell, but I'll point again to the work on autopoiesis by Varela and Maturana as the most thorough theoretical attempt I am aware of to provide a simple definition for the essential characteristic of life, namely autopoiesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis (It goes without saying that I think the criticisms listed on the wiki page are short-sited; Varela has argued extensively that the theory of cognition derived from autopoiesis is not solipsistic, but in fact the only way to avoid the solipsism implied by any representational theory of cognition).

I think part of what it means to 'survive' in evolutionary terms must imply some sort of desire to live. Otherwise, natural selection amounts to a mere tautology, that survival leads to survival. I'd want to be careful not to forget the autonomous role of the organism: that it isn't simply passively selected by a pre-given environment, but acts so as to favorably alter its environment. So of course there is chemical evolution prior to biological; I think there is also much "order for free," as Kauffman says, arising from the natural self-organizing tendencies of matter. But in line with my panexperientialism, the chemicals evolve because of a creative principle.

@ 607 Kel writes: "Then you're no better than a theist, making an assertion about reality but without the courage / evidence to actually demonstrate your worldview."

I should clarify that I don't feel the need to present evidence for something immaterial or paranormal because I do not believe such things exist. I've not once argued that either deserves to be believed in.

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 6, 2009 11:31 PM

I should clarify that I don't feel the need to present evidence for something immaterial or paranormal because I do not believe such things exist.

I'm asking you for evidence to support your position. Is that really too much to ask for?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 6, 2009 11:50 PM

after the big bang there was a mysteriously high level of order which then began running down toward chaos, leaving temporary local pockets of order in its wake.

ooooooh! This is gonna bug me. Someone with a better grasp on physics please confirm that this is junk, because now I'm having the mental image of a young universe in the shape of a ginormous crystal....

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 6, 2009 11:59 PM

If all was simply material stuff in motion according to fixed law, you and I would not be consciously participating in this thread

and your evidence for this is what? your own incredulity? that doesn't count.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 7, 2009 12:08 AM

@ 618 Jadehawk,

You cannot see your own eyes, but instead see through them. You cannot see your own occipital lobes, but instead see with them. (I realize you could look in a mirror, or have your skull sawed open and gaze into a video screen projecting your brain, but the point is that the brain somehow both an object in space-time and a subject experiencing space-time. This dual aspect to reality is readily apparent to anyone capable of basic evidential reasoning. It has given rise to the "hard problem of consciousness" that is taken quite seriously by some of the smartest minds in academia (including, I believe, Richard Dawkins). Panexperientialism is an attempted solution to the problem that avoids substance dualism, a separation between brain and mind.

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 7, 2009 12:13 AM

There is no escape from this fact, and so of course any valid metaphysics must begin in experience with the goal of elucidating it, clearing up confusions, and solving the conceptual problems that prevent us from leading meaningful lives.

Secondly, why aren't you demonstrating evidentially that your metaphysics has empirical validity? Show that your metaphysics is valid, otherwise all you have is sophistry.

Just think, the people who have changed the understanding of mankind the most in the last 200 years or so have not been philosophers - but physicists, biologists, and psychologists. Let's face it, science can operate just fine without philosophy but philosophy needs science to be consistent. That's the relationship, not the other way around. Science doesn't need your metaphysics, your metaphysics need science. Show evidence, otherwise you have nothing.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 7, 2009 12:19 AM

and? this is meaningless. you're your brain, not somebody else's brain. of course you're not going to be doing any thinking with somebody else's brain. HOW is this relevant, how is this not explainable by simple physics? and how is your woo a more useful explanation? (with emphasis on useful)

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 7, 2009 12:33 AM

There is nothing magic about recognizing the difference between a first-person (experience of being a brain/body) and a third-person (experience of seeing a brain from the outside) perspective on reality.

There is if you're claiming - as you appear to be - that the requirements of doing so include anything other than the material human brain.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 7, 2009 12:38 AM

now you're sounding like plantinga and or the presuppositionalists.

stop arguing from consequences and from incredulity, and maybe we will be able to take you seriously.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 7, 2009 12:44 AM

First, is anybody else having the same difficulty Jadehawk seems to be having understanding the difference between a first- and third-person perspective on the brain/body?

stop being a condescending ass. I understand this just fine. I understood the difference just fine when I was about 4. Unlike you however, I understand that this is a simple result of how our biology works. Of course the input would vary, considering that we have different types of nerve-endings for external and internal reception of impulses. It would be a real problem with biology if the input DIDN'T vary!

The question of cognition has nothing to do with input. the problem of cognition is a problem of the processing network of this input creating the effect of "awareness".

Physics isn't concerned with human experience but with the atomic world, and so pretends no explanation for such high level phenomena.

as someone already said, physics explains life-forms just fine. but i'll grant you that instead of physics, I should have said materialism, for clarity's sake.

Panexperientialism provides us with a way of reconciling the apparent dualism described above without resorting to a dualism between mind and body.

there is no apparent dualism, unless you're still stuck in "the sun revolves around the earth" mode. therefore, panexperientialism isn't necessary.