tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post5547432405973083534..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger135125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2056671745328373492014-03-01T07:42:54.708-05:002014-03-01T07:42:54.708-05:00The problem with most of the objections to Plantin...The problem with most of the objections to Plantinga's EAAN (including yours) is that they judge naturalistic evolutionary theory to be true by criteria that presuppose the theory ('our cognitive faculties are reliable because they've evolved to be reliable, so we can use those faculties to verify that naturalistic evolutionary theory is reliable'). That simply doesn't fly. It's a classic circular argument. Period.<br /><br />On a related issue, much misunderstanding can be avoided by distinguishing between the pragmatic value of a theory and the veracity of that theory. Most scientific theories are considered 'true' based on their pragmatic value, the fact that they make accurate predictions and help us get stuff done (predict the weather, launch rockets, etc). For such theories (judged on their pragmatic value), the reliability of our cognitive apparatus is not an issue. Even if we are all brains in a vat, such theories would still be valid within the realm of human experience (e.g. Newton's Laws can still apply in the experience of a brain in a vat, even if they don't apply outside the vat). <br /><br />It's a whole different ball-game when you're judging a theory on its veracity, whether it tells us what the world is 'really' like in the absence of observers. Theories that attempt to explain the origin of the human cognitive apparatus (such as naturalistic theories of biological evolution, the origin of the universe, or even atomic theory, all of which purport to account for human cognitive functions) are usually claimed to have veracity, alongside any pragmatic value they hold. The problem with such theories (judged on their veracity) is that they run into the observer effect. You're using your cognitive faculties to verify the veracity of a theory of the origin of your cognitive faculties. See the problem? You can't account for distortions caused by your cognitive faculties, because you have to use those faculties to check for distortions.<br /><br />This kind of observer effect is only a problem for the veracity of theories that purport to explain the origin of human cognitive faculties (I call them 'global theories'). It is not a problem for the pragmatic value, if any, of such theories (e.g. atomic theory has practical applications within human experience). So the veracity of naturalistic evolutionary theories, and all other global theories, is very much in question. The only way around the dilemma, as Plantinga argues, is to make assumptions (about the reliability of our cognitive faculties) that do not rely on empirical verification. So from a pragmatic point of view, yes our cognitive faculties are reliable. On the question of their veracity, all bets are off. However, most of the time, only the pragmatic implications of our theories, perceptions and memories matter to us. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19782724394749329352014-02-15T13:23:23.365-05:002014-02-15T13:23:23.365-05:00People used to believe that Newton was 100% correc...People used to believe that Newton was 100% correct in his laws of motion, some think that Einstein's theories are now more correct. Nevertheless, it may turn out in the future that Einstein's theories my need some subtle correction. Shall we then say those theories are false? That's the dilemma posed here - there is no room for theories that are "closer" or "farther" from the truth. People often confuse correlation for causation, and if they get it wrong, we may accuse them of harboring false beliefs. However, the adaptiveness of the belief in question may <br />only depend on the correlation being real, and hence a mistaken belief in causation may in fact lead to an adaptive behavior. What is needed to cut through this muddle is a theory of how "well" adaptively chosen belief generating processes<br />track what we call "true beliefs", on a scale that allows for some beliefs to be "closer" than others. It may be that virtually all our beliefs are false on close examination, but that they are "close enough" for real life.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08007982880812239529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13438854540919935062013-08-08T23:00:35.120-04:002013-08-08T23:00:35.120-04:00Cautionary note before my post above gets flooded ...Cautionary note before my post above gets flooded away by interposing 'comments'. These are neurons tabulating, not bits of machinery as we generally understand them in computational terms. <br /><br />Tabulation and computation still apply as terms to neurons, so bear that in mind when crossing over ideas to try to provide 'objective' explanations in 'objective' terms. Start from the subject, the neuron, in its terms.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-83473521781449406612013-07-21T14:55:22.468-04:002013-07-21T14:55:22.468-04:00Nature may be a non-intelligent magician in other ...Nature may be a non-intelligent magician in other words. Right?Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-33471456603094275632013-07-21T13:12:42.309-04:002013-07-21T13:12:42.309-04:00Intelligence is a human trait. To be intelligent i...Intelligence is a human trait. To be intelligent includes being able to consider ideas and concepts and to make conclusions based on these. Nature may not be intelligent but intelligent beings are its products.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18901185269301619132013-07-20T19:55:53.171-04:002013-07-20T19:55:53.171-04:00I believe there is a middle ground in which one re...I believe there is a middle ground in which one recognizes the limitations of the human brain but doesn't turn to God. <br />Also, the simplest point is survival is not logically equivalent to truth. Sure, true beliefs often lead to survival, but not always.... just think of the story of Dumbo the Elephant. This is why we have diff words for effectiveness and truth. Finally, why should our puny and tiny minds be able to understand most aspects of the universe? Just as a nonconscious rock is missing something, and a bat is missing something, so we are probably missing much truth that we cannot, in principle, find. no namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02577681383299619680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62289127899879333952013-07-20T19:27:59.381-04:002013-07-20T19:27:59.381-04:00I'm not opposed to the possibility that awaren...I'm not opposed to the possibility that awareness is proved to be whatever. My question is: what's work better?<br />I have no illusions about the discourse (logos) be such an adequate instrument to scrutinize reality: it is just the only we have. So, our only task it to model reality with language (discourse) in a way that discursive manipulation becomes able to imitate (simulate) reality. We know we did so when by means of the discourse we indeed anticipate facts.<br />Then, I observe that invoking 'immateriality' to explain whatever is by now counterproductive, since our discourse is unable to precisely describe what this possibly is (or means) except something beyond what we know, I mean, our ignorance.<br />Perhaps we need to revise the models we already have in order to do a better approach to those matters. And the fact is: I really believe that our 'forced', 'imposed' dualism (matter/energy) seems to be perfectly able to provide at least a starting model of all that we believe be immaterial.Waldemar M. Reishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18043615574386490438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71041002036638449562013-07-20T14:51:29.722-04:002013-07-20T14:51:29.722-04:00Ask yourself if awareness and it's raison d...Ask yourself if awareness and it's raison d'etre, such as for anticipating consequences, are material, and give yourself a reliable (and if possible, true) explanation of your answer.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78256213330596387472013-07-20T10:50:04.434-04:002013-07-20T10:50:04.434-04:00I have no doubt that awareness and its consequence...I have no doubt that awareness and its consequences (true beliefs) are part of evolution. The problem is: why can't we demonstrate it easily? what is wrong with that ability of ours that can't be fit into biological framework the way this framework is? Perhaps if we can answer that and consequent questions we will start to address the problem in a suitable way. Even philosophy, although it concedes that the mind is being modeled by neurology by means of materialist principles, it insists that mind's objects are 'not material', whatever this might mean. This gap will forever hinder our better comprehension of ourselves, if not our understanding of the universe. Are we using the wrong hypotheses?Waldemar M. Reishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18043615574386490438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54760995640962537102013-07-19T13:10:52.073-04:002013-07-19T13:10:52.073-04:00Michael will have no idea what any of that means. ...Michael will have no idea what any of that means. Although whatever sort of phenomena it is, it will easily have been created and directed by accident, and he wonders why you'd have a problem with that simplest of his speculative observations as a parsimonious form of phenomenal explanation.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18812830310441064762013-07-19T10:07:32.293-04:002013-07-19T10:07:32.293-04:00Baron and michael,
It seems that what Baron is tak...Baron and michael,<br />It seems that what Baron is taking into account is the matter/energy concept as being enough to explain how awareness and all its consequences (among them self-awareness), are implicit to life from its most simple form. At start it would sound a random guess for a too rigorous point of view - a sort of one-ticket philosophical trip out of reality -, an impression that may not be true. In fact, if every action in an organism is explained by, for instance, chemical and electrical interchanges, then, if awareness (and its consequences, like the ability of forming beliefs) is organic, it might - if not must - be explainable through the same process; but if not, what then? I figure two answers: either awareness is explained by another matter/energy process, together with the former or not, or it is not precisely organic and then we must state this as clear as possible. The problem is precisely here: in general we're not completely sure about the existence be as stated by matter/energy concept in the sense that we believe there's something else, although still undefinable and whose connections with that which we hold as more or less assured (matter/energy) are still more gloomy.<br /><br />My suggestion, as a method, is: put provisionally aside that gloomy, undefined part of reality and let it be expressly addressed by its exclusive branch of investigation, and give room to our suppositions that are possible inside this part of reality where we feel more comfortable to act. So, the known processes don't explain how do life bears the ability to form belief? Perhaps not yet, perhaps we just need to point very clearly where the known process fails to explain that. By knowing its failures we will be able to invoke other possibilities or even revise our explanations in order to see if something useful to their success was left behind.Waldemar M. Reishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18043615574386490438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65996535145844906422013-07-18T22:14:49.991-04:002013-07-18T22:14:49.991-04:00If you don't know that you've completely d...If you don't know that you've completely ducked the question as to how natural selection can confer behavioral strategies without any reference to an organism's experience, and without the ability to transfer strategic algorithms by random accident, then you're not at all who you pretend to be. Nobody was talking about feedback/homeostasis and you surely know that as well.<br />It's now quite clear that you know next to nothing about natural genetic engineering, and don't want to know.<br />By the way, you mention that feedback/homeostasis occurs in non-living systems and thus it doesn't require cognition by "actors" in the system for it to happen. So did you see somewhere that Shapiro said it had to? All this to me is evidence again that you've either never read his papers or were incapable of understanding what was there.<br />You end with this: "You keep saying that certain things can't happen, but as far as I can tell neither you nor Shapiro has shown that to be true. "<br />Then tell me again that if natural selection can confer intelligence, or if you prefer, cognition, accidentally, how does it mange to do so? Or wasn't that one of the certain things that you don't need to be shown true until we can specifically show it to be false? Because if it was that's a hell of a way to run a scientific railroad.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4158903867879979782013-07-18T21:04:15.425-04:002013-07-18T21:04:15.425-04:00Hey, guys, easy!
michael, what I tried to do was ...Hey, guys, easy!<br /><br />michael, what I tried to do was to keep being coherent with a common layman education - mine, for instance - in biology and genetics. I always try to keep myself updated, but matters in science are 'overclocked' in recent days. So, I count with your expertise to dismiss my lot of doubts (not that huge, btw) on the subject.<br /><br />What I tried to express - and I hope my bad English doesn't betray me now - was: first I recognize a teleological trait in natural selection, which is expressed in the criterion <b>survival for reproduction</b> (I expect that at least this is kept in the theory in our days); and second, that the way nature satisfies this criterion is - wow! - amazing, unpredictable, chaotic, if you prefer.<br /><br />But, as we know, since the last eighties chaos has its days counted by the even further measurements performed in its domains...<br /><br />Vasco, no doubt that God is a pain, very hard to avoid, in general, and even harder to endure in the context of science. God is, for me, a concept that comes into mind in a context of cosmogony as a means to stop an infinite process of attributed origin, in short, a relief from a mind-bogging experiment we are compelled to perform, possibly by the inner nature of the knowledge or - the other side of this coin - by the constitution of the brain.<br /><br />As far as I know there are just two accounts of cultures deprived of this idea (Feuerbach - Greenland natives - and Everett - Brazilian natives 'Pirahã'), but it seems that those people just refused to handle the concept, having been perfectly able to understand its main details when they were told. So, it seems this is indeed universal. The problem starts to grow, in my opinion, since it points to an object whose existence can be neither proved nor disproved. And the issue turns itself unbearable when the well known 'connoisseurs' of this existence and of its nature come out after our believing abilities in order to finally take over our minds (and lives, consequently).<br /><br />The question can just be ignored, although it will be forever there, planted in the minds. A good example of this is the people already researching (most probably in their own mental labs) what comes before Big-Bang: some day they'll become sick of the infinite row of origins and will claim their relief - in God. In short, putting God in whatever point of an scientific, as I said above, is a good sign you're ready to resign.<br /><br />But there's no way out of teleology, I guess, and it will ever be expressed even in a formula, a criterion etc. Without it we wouldn't believe in science because science wouldn't be able to do predictions (I know there is who would attempt cut my head for saying this): a foreseen fact is a teleological, albeit provisional, point in the time line; we cannot comprehend it without invoking no matter what that has determined it; there's not even the need of a god so that a teleology makes sense. We need teleology to keep thinking and we cannot stop thinking, no matter if in science, in theology or whatever: being alive, at least for us humans, is a life sentenced into thinking. :)Waldemar M. Reishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18043615574386490438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13337041212074766662013-07-18T19:41:24.819-04:002013-07-18T19:41:24.819-04:00My counter-argument to my own post defending the E...My counter-argument to my own post defending the EAAN is up.<br /><br />In defense of the EAAN:<br />http://disagreeableme.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/defending-evolutionary-argument-against.html<br /><br />Refuting the EAAN:<br />http://disagreeableme.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/attacking-evolutionary-argument-against.html<br />Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68262063293176273962013-07-18T19:38:37.763-04:002013-07-18T19:38:37.763-04:00Hi Waldemar,
The post is up.
http://disagreeable...Hi Waldemar,<br /><br />The post is up.<br /><br />http://disagreeableme.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/attacking-evolutionary-argument-against.html<br /><br />It's quite long though, partly because it spends a lot of time criticising an argument Plantinga makes based on epiphenomenalism.<br /><br />The short versions is:<br /><br />For a start, of course beliefs influence behaviour! That much is obvious!<br /><br />And evolution doesn't select for specific beliefs in advance, as a careful reading of Plantinga would suggest. Instead it selects for the ability to form adaptive beliefs dynamically. Unreliable belief-generation systems may occasionally throw out false adaptive beliefs, as in the examples provided by Plantinga, but in the long run they will be outperformed by the consistency of reliable systems. Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35957918265660050322013-07-18T19:10:12.985-04:002013-07-18T19:10:12.985-04:00What is the end to which you think evolution is di...What is the end to which you think evolution is directed? michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10863933675114353412013-07-18T19:08:42.799-04:002013-07-18T19:08:42.799-04:00I am still baffled as to why you think Shapiro is ...I am still baffled as to why you think Shapiro is saying something fundamentally new or different - other than he claims that he is. I just see it as akin to redesigning a box of detergent and claiming it makes your clothes cleaner. The claim that bacteria are much more complicated than once thought is without a doubt true. That bacteria can change their environment as well as be changed by their environment is also without a doubt true. All one has to do is consider how atmospheric oxygen levels went from ~0% to 20+% with the advent of photosynthesis. It is also true for every other organism. Feedback/homeostasis is the rule in systems - I have been arguing this for years about textbooks which seem to think animal physiology is the only incidence of homeostasis in living systems. But what also is true is that feedback/homeostasis occurs in non-living systems and it doesn't require cognition by "actors" in the system for it to happen. Climate modeling is a prime example. We do know that organisms and especially prokaryotes are significant players in earth's climate system, but they haven't always been. <br />You keep saying that certain things can't happen, but as far as I can tell neither you nor Shapiro has shown that to be true. michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58912661219726955482013-07-18T17:53:34.733-04:002013-07-18T17:53:34.733-04:00Just post it, Disagreeable, and give me a sign.Just post it, Disagreeable, and give me a sign.Waldemar M. Reishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18043615574386490438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10823723454196405732013-07-18T17:21:42.012-04:002013-07-18T17:21:42.012-04:00They are products of the organism's selection,...They are products of the organism's selection, not of some accidents of nature. You don't seem to get it that nature can't confer by random accident the basic forms of intelligence that organisms use to evolve. The organisms have had to have cognitive skills from the start and Shapiro's very detailed experiments over the years confirm this hypothesis as well as any of our biological hypotheses can be confirmed. In other words life forms have learned to expect the consistency of accidental change, and have learned as well to take advantage of enough of them to evolve accordingly - but it's a never ending process with a never ending series of solutions by an uncountable variety of the organisms that continue with the solving of these problems. Solving them cooperatively, competitively, and in general with a very complx mix of both these competing strategies.<br />If you don't consider these aspects of the evolutionary systems, then you can't begin to understand them. So yes I use the word intelligence because cognitive processes require it, but natural selection theories have ignored it. It seems easier for natural selectionists to allege that cognition developed accidentally than to allege that intelligence did. Cognition doesn't seem to them to be a problem solver as much as a problem reactor.<br />And Shapiro was one of the first to demonstrate that biological cognition was not reactive but proactive. One of his best papers was: "Bacteria are small but not stupid: cognition, natural genetic engineering and socio-bacteriology."<br />At the end of which he wrote: "This mastery over the biosphere indicates that we have a great deal to learn about chemistry, physics and evolution from our small, but very intelligent, prokaryotic relatives."Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15821446460688218312013-07-18T16:51:01.541-04:002013-07-18T16:51:01.541-04:00My understanding of what selection can and can'...My understanding of what selection can and can't do is very different than yours. I still don't see why the systems that Shapiro describes are not products of selection. If they are not products of selection, then what are they products of? What is this additional something that is needed for evolution? You keep bringing up "intelligence" as if just repeating it over and over explains everything. <br />michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4420619375746460652013-07-18T16:27:29.347-04:002013-07-18T16:27:29.347-04:00Michael,
The real claim of theory of evolution is...Michael,<br /><br />The real claim of theory of evolution is that it not directed to an end (not teleological).<br /><br />The point is that evolution leaded this way (the way things are and not in every possible random direction). If it was really driven by random mutations it could lead to anything distinct from the way it is (since it would include any advantageous variation). I do not claim that there aren't random processes (that is one thing) the other quite distinct is saying that the evolutionary processes were random. It is possible to believe in this, however it is not possible to prove that this was a fact (and this is not wishful thinking).<br /><br />Besides, even evolutionary theory claims that the evolutionary process is not random, as the only the mutations leading to advantageous results would be meaningful (however we fail to find such a large variety of species that would be possible to exist based on the broad and simplistic processes). According to evolutionary theory, the operative mechanisms would be natural selection, sexual selection, ... , and this would be the way nature would choose from the random mutations.<br /><br />I must emphasize that I do not claim any active participation of God in evolution (and I can pass very well without any mention to religion or similar issues in this matter).<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05113406033301115509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-56524334752866579262013-07-18T15:32:58.864-04:002013-07-18T15:32:58.864-04:00Gotcha.Gotcha.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79787612657272589022013-07-18T15:30:22.536-04:002013-07-18T15:30:22.536-04:00"The problem is the underlying change in DNA ..."The problem is the underlying change in DNA is still random - this information on repair changes nothing about how the mutations arise chemically."<br />"That Shapiro thinks this didn't or couldn't arise by natural selection demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding of evolution."<br />The problem is that the organism repairs accidents non-randomly, i.e., intelligently, and your "naturally selected" accidents can't have taught the organism how to do that. (And you can't tell me how they can or by now you would have.)<br />And so you still haven't been able to explain how strategic systems can have evolved from the non-intelligent processes of these accidental damages that will predictably occur with regularity in a once chaotic universe.<br />Yet Shapiro has done that quite well, as have many of his colleagues. (And,contrary to your recommendation, Massimo, as a former plant biologist, has not.)Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7141802547109592752013-07-18T15:17:01.237-04:002013-07-18T15:17:01.237-04:00Vasco, How is evolution random? Just because your ...Vasco, How is evolution random? Just because your god is not guiding it, doesn't make it random. <br /><br />Waldemar, Are you actually claiming that biologists made up random mutation to avoid teleology? That it is not based on any evidence, just wishful thinking? Come on this is too silly. If you have evidence that mutation is nonrandom, then please cite the source.<br /><br />michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79683001700323066262013-07-18T15:13:22.902-04:002013-07-18T15:13:22.902-04:00The lambda calculus is called "the smallest u...The lambda calculus is called "the smallest universal programming language of the world" so the probabilistic lambda calculus covers all of computable mathematics. (There is also SKIP - the probabilistic SKI combinator calculus that serves the same purpose.) Strings theorists say the universe is made of strings (<a href="http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/8205/title/A-Universe-Made-of-Strings--What-s-New-/" rel="nofollow">the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/8205/title/A-Universe-Made-of-Strings--What-s-New-/</a>) or something like that. Strings, threads, code, ... :)Philip Thrifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021615111948806998noreply@blogger.com