tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post127980611753216886..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: When philosophers write about evolutionLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30606200804010288972016-04-25T10:10:05.460-04:002016-04-25T10:10:05.460-04:00"That was written April 2, 2006. So this mont..."That was written April 2, 2006. So this month marks the failure of yet another prediction of the death of the theory of evolution. Belated anniversary greeting, Dr. Dembski!"<br /><br />Furthermore, Dembski has retired from trying to use math to prove ID/creationism, since his specified complexity nonsense went nowhere and its mathematical underpinnings were dismantled by actual mathematicians. ID/creationists still use his terminology as if it contributed something to the issue.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43835769688112371802016-04-25T01:10:04.996-04:002016-04-25T01:10:04.996-04:00Mong,
You haven't provided any definitions of...Mong,<br /><br />You haven't provided any definitions of physical reductionists, only examples of quote mining from some scientists, which leaves any sort of definition ambiguous. You have also left obscure how the ways of thinking of these scientists is in any way an impediment to detecting extraterrestrial intelligence. Is the obfuscation deliberate?<br /><br />Also, I continue to await your description of what methods you would use to detect extraterrestrial intelligence.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37129464228864827122016-04-22T12:24:03.239-04:002016-04-22T12:24:03.239-04:00To William Dembski, all the debate in this country...<i>To William Dembski, all the debate in this country over evolution won't matter in a decade.<br /><br />By then, he says, the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin 150 years ago will be dead. <br /><br />The mathematician turned Darwin critic says there is much to be learned about how life evolved on this planet. And he thinks the model of evolution accepted by the scientific community won't be able to supply the answers.<br /><br />"I see this all disintegrating very quickly," he said.</i><br /><br />That was written April 2, 2006. So this month marks the failure of yet another prediction of the death of the theory of evolution. Belated anniversary greeting, Dr. Dembski!<br /><br />http://www.defaithed.com/prediction-watchFaizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12140961794513158702016-04-22T07:37:16.662-04:002016-04-22T07:37:16.662-04:00I give science 5 years before it crashes to the gr...I give science 5 years before it crashes to the ground and all scientists everywhere are forced to apologize to the human race.<br /><br />Its failure to embrace obscure speculation and unwarranted assumption will send it to the dustbin of history -- within 5 years, you hear!! 6 at most!!SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53858909156914473262016-04-22T06:42:24.759-04:002016-04-22T06:42:24.759-04:00You see, the "physical reductionists," i...You see, the "physical reductionists," i.e., scientists, have impoverished imaginations, so they can only think of humdrum things like proving you are made of the insides of exploding stars. People with real imagination, on the other hand, who are not limited to physical reductionism, can think up much more glorious stories for our origins, like a magic man blowing on a handful of dust.<br /><br />See how limiting science is?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9320349540977452672016-04-22T04:05:29.576-04:002016-04-22T04:05:29.576-04:00RE: The physical reductionists extraordinaire of t...RE: <b>The physical reductionists extraordinaire of the century past!?</b><br /><br />@Chris B: “Not sure who you mean by physical reductionists here.”<br /><br />Since you’ve missed all of my definitions of physical reductionism or neo-Darwinism reductionists above, here is another exemplary physical reductionist extraordinariare, whose recent interview with the New Scientist is exemplified here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030690-200-its-mindblowing-what-our-puny-brains-can-do/?utm_source=NSNS and whose new book, ”The Big Picture: On the origins of life, meaning, and the universe itself “ (Dutton), will be out next month: which synopsis concludes as follows:<br /><br /><i>In short chapters filled with intriguing historical anecdotes, personal asides, and rigorous exposition, readers learn the difference between how the world works at the quantum level, the cosmic level, and the human level--and then how each connects to the other. Carroll's presentation of the principles that have guided the scientific revolution from Darwin and Einstein to the origins of life, consciousness, and the universe is dazzlingly unique.</i><br /> <br /><i>Carroll shows how an avalanche of discoveries in the past few hundred years has changed our world and what really matters to us. Our lives are dwarfed like never before by the immensity of space and time, but they are redeemed by our capacity to comprehend it and give it meaning.</i><br /> <br /><i>"The Big Picture" is an unprecedented scientific worldview, a tour de force that will sit on shelves alongside the works of Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Daniel Dennett, and E. O. Wilson for years to come.</i><br /><br />Also please note the list of names at the end: they are all physical reductionism (SH, CS) as well as neo-Darwinist reductionism (DD, EOW) authors and scholars of the century past!?<br /><br />Best wishes, Mong 4/22/16usct03:04.Mong H Tan, PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4189981367629668612016-04-20T14:50:56.303-04:002016-04-20T14:50:56.303-04:00Mong,
"Whereas the physical reductionists wo...Mong,<br /><br />"Whereas the physical reductionists would not be thinking it that way,"<br /><br />Not sure who you mean by physical reductionists here. As far as scientists go, there is nothing about science that would interfere with detecting extraterrestrial intelligence. I still would be interested in hearing how you propose to detect it.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14976459925818167312016-04-20T09:51:35.179-04:002016-04-20T09:51:35.179-04:00RE: A critical review of the EG Leigh Jr’s review ...RE: <b>A critical review of the EG Leigh Jr’s review of the 2 “counter neo-Darwinism books”!?</b><br /><br />I thought Leigh has given a very fair review of both the counter neo-Darwinism books, “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist NeoDarwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False” and “Are you an illusion?”.<br /><br />As a retired evolutionary biologist, Leigh has concluded with a great honesty about the subject matters of these 2 books:<br /><br /><i>In sum, I do not know how consciousness works, or the likelihood of variation that would allow natural selection to bring forth moral instincts, objective knowledge and conceptual thought. Nonetheless, Darwin (1871) and Lorenz (1978) showed how consciousness, objective knowledge, conceptual thought and moral instincts enhance their possessors’ survival and reproduction. I also think that excessive eagerness to associate natural selection with selfishness—an error Darwin avoided—has distorted reality in a way that creates unnecessary suspicion of science in general and evolutionary biology in particular.</i><br /><br />I fully concur with his last statement that the selfish gene narrative of a neo-Darwinist geneticism that has had been distorted out of a true genetics reality and scientific scholarship, that I’ve had recently been able to conclude here: http://godsgenesconscienceglobaldialogues16.blogspot.com/2016_01_01_archive.html .<br /><br />Furthermore, <b>@Chris B</b>: <i>What would constitute "other life species and intelligence elsewhere in the Universe above and beyond, someday!?" How would we detect it?</i><br /><br />I thought your queries will require another specialized discussion forum, I hope LAM will open one in the future.<br /><br />However for the time being and briefly (no punk intended): Have you watched the first “Kung Fu Panda” movie? Assuming you are Po who just inherited the privilege of reading the Golden Scroll. As you unscrolled it: What did you detect on the shiny Scroll? And that is my present state of thinking -- with the current state of the cosmological knowledge and as a practical biologist on Earth -- about other life species and intelligence elsewhere in the Universe above and beyond!?<br /><br />Whereas the physical reductionists would not be thinking it that way, or they would be out of their sand box or rice bowl very soon -- not someday (punk intended)!?<br /><br />Best wishes, Mong 4/20/16usct08:50; practical public science-philosophy critic (since 2006).Mong H Tan, PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19071897947146217572016-04-19T00:49:39.726-04:002016-04-19T00:49:39.726-04:00Mong,
"RE: Philoscientific inquiry: Can phys...Mong,<br /><br />"RE: Philoscientific inquiry: Can physical reductionism understand and appreciate the biological holism or functionalism of our consciousness and the human mind!?<br /><br />LAM, I’m glad that you asked such a question as paraphrased above!?"<br /><br />I think your paraphrasing here is inaccurate.<br /><br />Dr. Moran did not say that you thought that chimpanzees were not conscious.<br /><br />"2) I didn’t utter any statement: that chimpanzees are not conscious using any reasonable definition of "conscious"? in my caveat lector on the biological phenomenon of our consciousness above."<br /><br />Rather, he asked how you know they are not conscious:<br /><br />"How do you know that chimpanzees are not conscious using any reasonable definition of "conscious"? "Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50917869038873973492016-04-19T00:42:09.018-04:002016-04-19T00:42:09.018-04:00Mong,
What would constitute "other life spe...Mong, <br /><br />What would constitute "other life species and intelligence elsewhere in the Universe above and beyond, someday!?"<br /><br />How would we detect it?Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37058088690498009132016-04-18T16:32:03.128-04:002016-04-18T16:32:03.128-04:00No knife, eh? From Smithsonian magazine online:
...No knife, eh? From Smithsonian magazine online:<br /><br /><i>Unearthed in a dried-up riverbed in Kenya, the shards of scarred rock, including what appear to be early hammers <b>and cutting instruments</b>, predate the previous record holder by around 700,000 years.</i><br /><br />Sorry, gnomon. You are simply factually incorrect. Either you didn't ask an understandable question or failed to understand the answer.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22020706813819326672016-04-18T15:37:28.239-04:002016-04-18T15:37:28.239-04:00I guess gnomon thinks that my parent, who suffers ...I guess gnomon thinks that my parent, who suffers from dementia and can't even use a knife, is not a "real human" anymore. His soul has departed his body or somethingDazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619622297229101066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60331031846668806732016-04-18T11:17:17.827-04:002016-04-18T11:17:17.827-04:00The recent finds of 3.3 million old stones tools b...<i>The recent finds of 3.3 million old stones tools by human ancestors in Africa also had no knife like tools, which I have confirmed with Bernie Wood in a recent UCSD symposium on human evolution.</i><br /><br />I see. So the human beings back then were unconscious?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20264892554774891742016-04-18T09:55:38.367-04:002016-04-18T09:55:38.367-04:00RE: Addendum: More on Chimpstory vs History -- or ...RE: <b>Addendum: More on Chimpstory vs History -- or NeoDarwinist reductionism vs Holistic philosophy or psychology!?</b><br /><br />To this statement I would like to add the following (in parenthesis):<br /><br /><i>-- ie, their <b>pervasive misconception of organisms as automata or robots</b> devoid of biological consciousness since the French mathematician, physicalist, and philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650), the father of physical reductionism: one method of [analytical] thinking that has had been very successfully applied in the physical sciences ever since.</i> [-- But very devastatingly in the biological sciences and socioeconomic politics as exemplified in the Eugenics movements and the Holocaust of the 20th century past; and even been implicated in the 21st-century US military training programs, as recently revealed and argued in the NYRB from both the “NeoDarwinist psychology vs Moral philosophy” points of view here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/07/moral-psychology-an-exchange/ and here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/21/learned-helplessness-torture-an-exchange/ ].<br /><br />Best wishes, Mong 4/18/16usct08:55; practical public science-philosophy critic (since 2006).Mong H Tan, PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91691443001327665722016-04-18T07:42:03.076-04:002016-04-18T07:42:03.076-04:00mostly physicalist, materialist, rigidity scientif...<i>mostly physicalist, materialist, rigidity scientific programs</i><br /><br />Speaking of pervasive misconceptions, the misconception of science as "rigid" is one of the most pervasive. Can you even conceive of the power of imagination necessary for Einstein to deduce the theories of relativity, for Planck, Bohr, etc., to deduce quantum physics in all its strangeness, or for Darwin to deduce the theory of evolution?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33763514190144875012016-04-18T03:45:11.962-04:002016-04-18T03:45:11.962-04:00Everyone is unique is only true in a trivial sense...Everyone is unique is only true in a trivial sense. When everyone is unique, no one is. In fact, most people just follow some greats in the past and in a way are fairly predictable, far away from being unique. True uniqueness can only come from creativity. One has to create something of goodness, truth and beauty to be truly unique in the sense of immortality and of being unique from the masses. gnomonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03362808932731126552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7314516796500410712016-04-17T23:54:08.420-04:002016-04-17T23:54:08.420-04:00I must say, it's fascinating to discuss philos...<i>I must say, it's fascinating to discuss philosophy of mind with someone whose mind is so.....*different* from mine.</i><br /><br />That is a very perceptive observation; and that is the nature and origin of the individual minds that are being born and developed -- idiosyncratically -- all over the world!? Thus each human mind or the experiences and expressions of our consciousness are unique and idiosyncratic.Mong H Tan, PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91452176026012163092016-04-17T23:28:29.229-04:002016-04-17T23:28:29.229-04:00I must say, it's fascinating to discuss philos...I must say, it's fascinating to discuss philosophy of mind with someone whose mind is so.....*different* from mine.Steve Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022832831084750602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79551165092070001732016-04-17T23:13:35.290-04:002016-04-17T23:13:35.290-04:00RE: More on Can physical reductionists comprehend ...RE: <b>More on Can physical reductionists comprehend the biological phenomena of consciousness!?</b><br /><br />@LAM: <i>Your response makes no sense.</i><br /><br />This reaction doesn’t surprise me at all: Physical reductionists can’t understand the biological phenomena of consciousness on Earth!?<br /><br /><i>I assume you cannot prove that we are the only [species] that have achieved consciousness.</i><br /><br />1) This assumption actually shows me that physical reductionists have had a deep-rooted misconception about our consciousness: a subconsciously-rooted misconception of any biological phenomena that reductionists have had negated or never trained to be anticipating the emergence of consciousness in their mostly physicalist, materialist, rigidity scientific programs -- ie, their <b>pervasive misconception of organisms as automata or robots</b> devoid of biological consciousness since the French mathematician, physicalist, and philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650), the father of physical reductionism: one method of thinking that has had been very successfully applied in the physical sciences ever since.<br /><br />2) Whereas by modern definition or explanation of “consciousness” (as well as mine) is: Consciousness is a biological phenomenon that can be emanated and experienced in our brain as a functional result of our mental activities, mentalities that can be readily translated into actions as in our mutual understandings of creativities: capable of intellectuality or spirituality; of construction or destruction; of hate or love; among other actions, all have had been expressed in our creative and productive humanities, arts, cultures, societies, civilities, civilizations worldwide -- which are all proofs of our species-specific achieved or translated “consciousness” at work, as well as at best in our history (not “chimstory”) since over 50,000 years ago on Earth!?<br /><br />3) Thus all <b>my above written “conscious” refuting</b> of your reductionism biased and misconceived “consciousness” arguments, can be used to counter argue your statement as quoted herein: <i>You also can't prove that something called "consciousness" actually exists except in your own mind.</i><br /><br />4) Furthermore, if I didn’t have any actionable “consciousness” in my mind, how could I have translated it out and written it down on pages -- representing the translated state or existence of my consciousness out there in the open -- so as for you to read and understand it!? Or, all of these dialogues on pages above about consciousness are just an illusion, as the British moral philosopher Mary Midgley has argued in her book “Are you an illusion?”!? -- Or, just a physical reductionism imposed delusion; or, a physicalist <b>denial of the biological phenomena of consciousness actionable outwardly</b> that have had been evolved, sharpened, and expressed, out there as a reality, since the evolution and development and conscious communication of, and among, our hominid ancestors over a million years ago on Earth!?<br /><br />Best wishes, Mong 4/17/16usct22:13 Mong H Tan, PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83946855561517104442016-04-17T22:57:39.237-04:002016-04-17T22:57:39.237-04:00I see but those are hammers not knifes. The recent...I see but those are hammers not knifes. The recent finds of 3.3 million old stones tools by human ancestors in Africa also had no knife like tools, which I have confirmed with Bernie Wood in a recent UCSD symposium on human evolution.gnomonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03362808932731126552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83741416076594173762016-04-17T21:10:50.108-04:002016-04-17T21:10:50.108-04:00Wrong, gnomon:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/200...Wrong, gnomon:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2007/02/chimpanzee-stone-age" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2007/02/chimpanzee-stone-age</a>Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60239685099161717972016-04-17T21:10:11.385-04:002016-04-17T21:10:11.385-04:00Intelligence and consciousness aren't the same...Intelligence and consciousness aren't the same thing (though I suspect that intelligence requires consciousness). We humans seem to be much more intelligent than chimps. We can certainly do much more than they do. However, I do think chimps have consciousness. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21789620764880547632016-04-17T19:16:36.320-04:002016-04-17T19:16:36.320-04:00The division between humans and great apes is obvi...The division between humans and great apes is obviously a fundamental one in many respects, especially in the brain or intelligence. Anyone who discounts that and considers himself just a third chimpanzee deserves to be and can only logically hope to be treated like a stupid ape by real humans. If<br />one does not take his intelligence and hence his thoughts seriously in the first place (after all it is just a stupid chimp thought), why should anyone else? Real humans could care less about what a chimpanzee may think about anything that humans care to think, regardless whether he is the third one or not. The point here is not meant to insult anyone but only to point out the plain obvious that it is self-defeating position to consider humans not more intelligent than a chimpanzee. <br />As for evidence of lowly intelligence for the chimps, it is everywhere, e.g., they cannot be taught the concept of a stone knife. Even early human ancestors did not know how to make stone knife until they have progressed into Homo habilis. Also, there is no progression or advancement in chimpanzee history. Bottom line, chimp has no creativity. And creativity may be a better word to use than intelligence or consiousness when talking about the one thing that separates humans from other animals. Too many intelligent humans are just good learners or followers of great creators such as Darwin but have no creativity or independent thinking of their own. But so long some humans do have it while no chimps have it, it is sufficient for creativity to single out humans out of all life forms on Earth.<br />gnomonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03362808932731126552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72884921486531443802016-04-17T16:28:17.605-04:002016-04-17T16:28:17.605-04:00Your response makes no sense. I assume you cannot ...Your response makes no sense. I assume you cannot prove that we are the only that have achieved consciousness. <br /><br />You also can't prove that something called "consciousness" actually exists except in your own mind. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26192065959500584322016-04-17T15:55:49.043-04:002016-04-17T15:55:49.043-04:00RE: Philoscientific inquiry: Can physical reductio...RE: <b>Philoscientific inquiry: Can physical reductionism understand and appreciate the biological holism or functionalism of our consciousness and the human mind!?</b><br /><br />LAM, I’m glad that you asked such a question as paraphrased above!?<br /><br /> As a US-trained biomedical scientist, author-philosopher, I’ve been very careful in, and responsible to, what I often say and write in any public forum: scientific, philosophic, or both, since 2006 online or in print.<br /><br />1) Your specific request on the reference to the statement that I’ve made, as you quoted above, is only in existence in my mind or consciousness, after I have been intensively reviewing and analyzing the various concurrent literatures on the human mind and biology since 2006.<br /><br />2) I didn’t utter any statement: <i>that chimpanzees are not conscious using any reasonable definition of "conscious"?</i> in my <b>caveat lector on the biological phenomenon of our consciousness</b> above.<br /><br />3) Since you’ve asked a biological question, let me give you a biological answer: That is, any organisms, including humans and chimpanzees, that posses a brain and a central nervous system, that is comprised of both the “voluntary” and the “autonomous” neuro-cardio-endocrinological systems, are considered to be reasonable “sentient” beings: beings that are capable of experiencing species-specific “consciousness”, “suffering”, etc -- in variable “species-to-species” degrees, but not in kind of “consciousness” or “pain” etc being experienced or encountered within each species.<br /><br />4) And, so far on Earth, we humans, are in the apical species of all organisms, that have had so neurologically evolved, experienced, and developed a most unique and evermore advanced and dense level of “consciousness”, “creativities”, “spiritualities”, “intellectuality”, etc since our ancestors began to roam on Earth; control fire; fashion tools; create arts, writings, politics, religions, wars, peace, sciences, technologies, etc since over one million years ago!? And the rest is just history; but not “chimstory” of the consciousness, as any diehard physical or even biological reductionists or the neo-Darwinists would have had consistently argued or shot themselves at their own foot!? -- And that is all the arguments in the 2 philosophic books “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist NeoDarwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False” and “Are you an elusion?” are fundamentally about!?<br /><br />Best wishes, Mong 4/17/16usct14:55Mong H Tan, PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778noreply@blogger.com