Why evolution doesnt matter.

[reggieM]

How about lignin being found in marine plants, pushing that back a billion years? Any effect on the model? Apparently not.

Exactly right. It’s an interesting story

Billion-Year Revision Of Plant Evolution Timeline May Stem From Discovery Of Lignin In Seaweed

So, they were off by a billion years … not a problem at all. But most important is the "revision” this causes in evolutionary theory.

“The discovery of polymerized hydroxycinnamyl alcohols (lignin) within the cell walls of a red alga has major evolutionary implications,”

When something is found that supports evolutionary theory fully (which all findings in nature should since that’s how a theory is confirmed), then we hear about various findings supporting evolution. When findings in nature -]conflict/-], -]contradict/-], -]falsify/-], -]refute/-] challenge evolutionary theory – we hear that “it has major implications”.

These “implications” mean that there will be some way, no matter what is found, to fit the findings into the theory.

In this case, the claim is that lignin – originally predicted as having evolved only in land plants, actually has some (yet unknown) value to aquatic plants. No problem at all – as usual. So, lignin evolved one time for an unknown reason, and then billions of years later for land plants in a separate evolutionary event. The same substance, for no apparent reason.

The article calmly states:

Alternatively, algae and land plants may have evolved the identical compound independently, after they diverged.

There may be, however, even some limits that evolutionists cannot bear to accept, as seen here in this response from Mark Denny of Stanford:

“The pathways, enzymes and genes that go into making this stuff are pretty complicated, so to come up with all those separately would be really, really amazing,”says Denny. “Anything is possible, but that would be one hell of a coincidence.”

Mr. Denny nicely combined two evolutionary dogmas in one short sentence:

1. Anything is possible. Chance of the gaps in action. It’s almost like an atheist’s prayer to random mutations.
2. That would be one hell of a coincidence. And that’s considered an “explanation”

Convergent evolution claims that the same complex structure evolved independently in two (or more) different organisms. In this case, lignin, which has no use or function in red seaweed, evolved there, and then later, independently, lignin evolved in trees. This highly-complex chemical, was thought to have evolved as an adaptation to living on land (causing the stablizing stiffness in plants growing on land).

“All land plants evolved from aquatic green algae and scientists have long believed that lignin evolved after plants took to land as a mechanical adaptation for stabilizing upright growth and transporting water from the root,” says Martone, an assistant professor in the UBC Dept. of Botany, where he is continuing his work on lignin.

Evolutionists “long believed” … they taught, propagandized, ridiculed non-believers, pontificated and howled in outrage when someone questioned what they “long believed”. Now, we don’t have to believe it any more because scientists have “revised their views” due to the “implications” of this finding. Once again – it’s never a problem for evolutionary speculations. A bit of imagination and quick thinking and anything can be force fitted to the model.

“Because red and green algae likely diverged more than a billion years ago, the discovery of lignin in red algae suggests that the basic machinery for producing lignin may have existed long before algae moved to land.”

Once again – a calculation only off by a billion years. That’s a pretty good example of evolutionary mathematics. 2+2=a billion and 4. Plus or minus a billion. Who could doubt the accuracy of that?

Aside from the mathematical wonder – this story gives a good indication about how useless evolutionary theory really is.

Did the world change at all with the “implications” of this new finding?

Let’s put it this way – how about a group of civil engineers who now need to “revise” their calculations on the strength of a new suspension bridge? They have to calculated the load-bearing weight of the bridge with great precision - obviously.
Evolutionists, meanwhile, can be off by a billion years and it means absolutely nothing – to them, to the world or to their theory itself.
Evolutionists will explain this story away – even while a researcher is dumbfounded by the absurdity of the claim that both evolved “convergently”.

The answer to those who find these claims questionable and unreasonable will be “Why not”?

And that is the perfect response. It is saying — since people are gullible enough to believe that complex, functional substances evolved by mutations and chance one time — “Why not” believe that they occurred several times?

That is the evolutionary mindset in summary. It has a blind-faith towards evolutionary claims and has accepted, before any evidence is given, that evolutionary answers are correct and certain. It is simply “the truth” that all things in nature are the result of evolutionary processes alone. Thus, everything found in nature is made to fit into the evolutionary story — no matter how absurd or irrational it may be.

 

[itinerant1]

Of course, interpretation is my only issue. I think I should point to a remark I’ve seen here that there is no certainty in science. When I am corrected, why do I need to believe the majority view is the correct one? Look at climate change. I read an article by Goeorge Will in yesterday’s paper. He correctly pointed out that any disagreements between scientists about the facts had better come to light now before the world commits trillions of dollars to the project of dealing with it.

Looking at history, there’s no money in peace and stability. Conflict leads, at the very least, to the establishment of programs, and at the very worst, to war. There’s money in that.

“debunk the good science”? Let’s see. A few days ago, octopus evolution was pushed back millions of years. Did the scientific model suffer a minor, middling or major correction? How about lignin being found in marine plants, pushing that back a billion years? Any effect on the model? Apparently not.

I will be more careful about critiquing questionable interpretations of scientific evidence but that is always going to include the Catholic perspective. I understand how science is required to work at the present time, but there is a social engineering aspect being promoted with certain findings. People here try to use ridiculous comparisons between human origins and lightning, gravity or even plumbing. It cannot be ignored by the anti-theist community if someone, especially a prominent someone, came in on the side of some sort of divine action. The Pope apparently doesn’t count because he believes in God. But he, and previous Popes, suddenly do count if they can find a word or two that they’ve said in support of the theory.

That is where the conflict lies.

Thank you for the link.

Peace,
Ed

I have not looked into the octopus evolution, but I don’t see your point about this. If the view on octopus evolution has been revised, then well and good, if the new interpretation more closely approximates the truth the revision still involves a theory of evolution regarding the octopus. Correct? That’s how science must work in its attempt to understand nature.

There are hefty profits to be made in war by specific individuals and corporations. But will all the money they make buy back their souls?

George Will may have a legitimate argument about how money is spent on global warming. I read an article about a year ago that explained how the latest scientific data on global warming, i.e. the data includes crunching of a lot of numbers, and indicates that golobal warming ceased about a decade ago. I do not have the exact year reference available right now. The cessation in global warming may be temporary or long term. Whatever the case may be, I don’t think the facts will be objectively dealt with by many scientists or politicians committed to a certain course of action.

The effects of global warming currently observed may be from past global warning and not anything very current. Not enough is known for certain in the the area of climate. Much more needs to be learned about climate changes and its effects in various regions of the earth.

There is a real unknown area as to just how much humans contribute to global warming. Regardless, of what the percentage may be estimated at, I think the excessive numbers of motor vehicles and the adverse effects they have on the environment should be addressed more seriously, moreso than than global warming itself.

Right now, radical environmentalist generally drive to their meetings in autos. And they have lots of ideas for others to implement.

Just don’t go for much George Will says about about Catholicism because he is quite the dissident. He is not a true Catholic in my estimation.

 

[edwest2]

I have not looked into the octopus evolution, but I don’t see your point about this. If the view on octopus evolution has been revised, then well and good, if the new interpretation more closely approximates the truth the revision still involves a theory of evolution regarding the octopus. Correct? That’s how science must work in its attempt to understand nature.

There are hefty profits to be made in war by specific individuals and corporations. But will all the money they make buy back their souls?

George Will may have a legitimate argument about how money is spent on global warming. I read an article about a year ago that explained how the latest scientific data on global warming, i.e. the data includes crunching of a lot of numbers, and indicates that golobal warming ceased about a decade ago. I do not have the exact year reference available right now. The cessation in global warming may be temporary or long term. Whatever the case may be, I don’t think the facts will be objectively dealt with by many scientists or politicians committed to a certain course of action.

The effects of global warming currently observed may be from past global warning and not anything very current. Not enough is known for certain in the the area of climate. Much more needs to be learned about climate changes and its effects in various regions of the earth.

There is a real unknown area as to just how much humans contribute to global warming. Regardless, of what the percentage may be estimated at, I think the excessive numbers of motor vehicles and the adverse effects they have on the environment should be addressed more seriously, moreso than than global warming itself.

Right now, radical environmentalist generally drive to their meetings in autos. And they have lots of ideas for others to implement.

Just don’t go for much George Will says about about Catholicism because he is quite the dissident. He is not a true Catholic in my estimation.

I didn’t know he was Catholic.

Here’s an excerpt that illustrates my point about science and how it is marketed today.

“Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. On it, and hence on them, the planet’s fate depends. So some of them consider it virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over.”

“The Climate-Change Travesty” by George Will. December 6, 2009.

The same thing is going on here about evolution. “The most urgent truth ever discovered” and “the debate is over.” And we must urgently accept it since by believing it “the planet’s fate depends.”

It’s useless. Someone here took the trouble to provide me a link to show how evolution might be useful today. One example was the affect on wildlife if say, man goes in, cuts down trees, drains wetlands and so on. The conclusion of any reasonably educated person would be the animals that can will move out, others might die and with fewer nesting places and cover from predators, this may happen sooner than later. We are led to believe that an uneducated peon like myself could not possibly understand the evolutionary implications. So a scientist armed with his evolution manual, goes in and makes the following observation: “the animals that can will move out, others might die and with fewer nesting places and cover from predators, this may happen sooner than later.”

The question I ask everyone is: who benefits? Who benefits from believing evolution actually occurred? It doesn’t matter that things are off by millions or even a billion years? “That’s how science works?” Talk about a desire to “exaggerate certitudes.”

The only conclusion I can come to, from the evidence here and elsewhere, is that evolution is a marketing tool for anti-theism. That is its primary purpose. God forbid you should utter a word against it in academia or, even worse, a few in support of Intelligent Design. You could face banishment from your department, official censure, and press releases from the University distancing itself from you.

Everyday science is still pretty much trial and error. We’ll do a few genetic knock out experiments, we’ll try to grow a few hybrid embryos and see what happens, and we’ll expose another batch of pathogens to another batch of chemicals.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

I didn’t know he was Catholic.

Here’s an excerpt that illustrates my point about science and how it is marketed today.

“Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. On it, and hence on them, the planet’s fate depends. So some of them consider it virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over.”

“The Climate-Change Travesty” by George Will. December 6, 2009.

The same thing is going on here about evolution. “The most urgent truth ever discovered” and “the debate is over.” And we must urgently accept it since by believing it “the planet’s fate depends.”

It’s useless. Someone here took the trouble to provide me a link to show how evolution might be useful today. One example was the affect on wildlife if say, man goes in, cuts down trees, drains wetlands and so on. The conclusion of any reasonably educated person would be the animals that can will move out, others might die and with fewer nesting places and cover from predators, this may happen sooner than later. We are led to believe that an uneducated peon like myself could not possibly understand the evolutionary implications. So a scientist armed with his evolution manual, goes in and makes the following observation: “the animals that can will move out, others might die and with fewer nesting places and cover from predators, this may happen sooner than later.”

The question I ask everyone is: who benefits? Who benefits from believing evolution actually occurred? It doesn’t matter that things are off by millions or even a billion years? “That’s how science works?” Talk about a desire to “exaggerate certitudes.”

The only conclusion I can come to, from the evidence here and elsewhere, is that evolution is a marketing tool for anti-theism. That is its primary purpose. God forbid you should utter a word against it in academia or, even worse, a few in support of Intelligent Design. You could face banishment from your department, official censure, and press releases from the University distancing itself from you.

Everyday science is still pretty much trial and error. We’ll do a few genetic knock out experiments, we’ll try to grow a few hybrid embryos and see what happens, and we’ll expose another batch of pathogens to another batch of chemicals.

Peace,
Ed

The idea of natural science as an objective pursuit of truth about nature is an ideal rather than a reality. Despite the myriad of problems, i.e. politicized science, and the inadequacies with evolution theory, I still see a true ground for evolution. So, I am not willing to ignore or discount evolution theory *in toto. *Specifically, I find the evidence for common descent and speciation quite compelling. A conservative view of evolution gives us a reliable and greater understanding of how God continually creates and works in nature toward a goal.

To resort to special creations unnecessarily detracts from God’s omipotence in creating and governing creation.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Ha, Ha! Hardly. Classical philosophical psychology is a discipline based on extensive philosophical reflection on human experience, beginning with sense knowledge. It differs from scientific psychology.

It’s impossible for there to be a “philosophical” psychology anymore than there can be a “philosophical” physics; these disciplines are empirical by their very nature. Making inferences from data, whether sense data or human experience, is not philosophy, it’s empirical science. In the rest of your posts is what seems to me the fundamental error of philosophers and metaphysicians: attempting to make a necessary, or hypothetically necessary, truth out of what is in reality only a contingent one. Then they get upset when empirical scientists refuse to fit the data onto their Procrustean bed of *a priori *“truths”. I just hope you’ll be open-minded enough to get off the bed. Thomist “psychology” is dead, killed by modern neuroscience.

To understand the concept of “soul” requires understanding classical philosophy of nature in which the doctrine of hylemorphism is applied to the explanation of living things: plants, animals, and humans… Hylemorphism, matter and form, are ultimate determinations of all physical beings, non-living things and living… Form is a non-material component of every physical thing. “Non-material” in this sense does not mean spiritual. It merely means not matter. Substantial matter and form comprise the substance of a physical being…

Look, you still haven’t gone beyond definitions. What makes a physical being a physical being, or a certain type of physical being? Its matter and form. And what are the matter and form? The ultimate determinations of physical beings, that which makes them what they are. A human soul is the essential form. So a human soul is what makes a human a human. And what makes a human a human? Its essential form. Merely saying this explains nothing about what humanity, or any other what-ness, actually is. It’s just putting a neat name to it.

Living things have different fundamental characteristics. Plants have certain powers, such as reproduction, growth or argumentation, and nutritive power. Animals posses these characteristics or powers that plant possess plus the additional powers of locomotion, sense knowledge, and so on. Man posses everything the lower forms posses and in addition possess intellectual powers. The organizing principle or form in each philosophical species, plants, animals, and man is called “soul”. This does not mean a spiritual soul as we usually think of soul. This organizing principle is the cause or principle of life in the living organism. It is what makes it an organism. In the hierarchy of philosophical species, each form contains everything the lower form contains. For instance, a square can contain a triangle, and a pentagon can contain both a triangle and a square. The human intellective soul contains all the powers of the lower forms and in addition possesses a power that is only external dependent on the body or brain for its operation.

Actually, I agree with what you have said so far, except for the “externally dependent” part. But what you don’t know is whether the lower forms in fact don’t also possess the powers (according to your understanding of “power”) of the higher forms, and are merely externally impeded. Or, if you attempt to win the argument by definition (e.g. **defining **an animal soul as not having any intellectual powers), whether the actual existence of the animals we see in fact correspond with your hypothesized form. So again, so typical of philosophers unfortunately, this is attempting to make a hypothetically necessary truth out of a merely contingent one. Faced with the fact that infants are incapable of exercising rational thought since their brain is not fully developed, you maintain that they have the power, but just can’t use it, though you would never say a blind man had the power to see, nor a lame man the power to walk. But assuming this definition of “power”, why is it then that primates don’t have the power, but just can’t use it, because their brains don’t develop to the complexity the human brains do? I maintain an animal would have intellectual powers if it had a sufficiently complex brain. You never answered me on the question of whether a primate, if its brain were as complex as a human one, would have the power of rational thought. And I maintain a human does not have intellectual powers until its brain is fully developed. I maintain a plant would have the capacity for sense knowledge if it had sensory organs.

That is, in contrast to human sense knowledge, there are compelling reasons to maintain that the intellect is not bound up with the brain in such a manner as to be an act of brain, yet it depends in an external manner on the brain to function. There are no concepts without associated phantasms or images.

There are not. Nothing in neuroscience supports that. There are no known cognitive functions that don’t correlate with brain activity (and this brain activity is not correlated with phantasms but with the actual activity, as can be seen via a properly controlled neuroimaging experiment).

 

[NowAgnostic]

We are dealing with different levels of explanation. At the phenomenal level science explains H20. But that does not comprise an ultimate explanation, which the natural sciences do not investigate.

Of course not, but philosophy doesn’t give us an ultimate explanation either.

What ultimately are molecules, atoms and the myriad of subatomic particles? Science does not ask those kinds of questions. One can cite super-string theory, but that is still not an ultimate explanation of physical being, what a thing is in its deepest nature or essence. Two fundamental determinations of being are essence and existence. “Essence is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is. Existence is that whereby the essence is an actuality in the line of being.”

Yes, and what is that whereby a thing is what it is? Its essence! And is what is that whereby an essence is an actuality? Its existence! This is explaining nothing, just defining new terms. Can your philosophy give me an ultimate explanation of an atom except that an atom has an atomic essence, that which makes it an atom?

Certainly DNA is key to a phenomenal level of explanation. But we can ask deper questions about DNA itself. Ernst Mayr asserted that DNA replaces the philosophical notion of “form”. However he makes the logical and epistemological error of trying to provide a dianoetic explanation with perinoetic knowledge.

Look, it’s possible that the form of water is the arrangement of the atoms, and the form of humans is their DNA. That isn’t **replacing **the concept of form. What makes water water? I say the bonding of two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen atom; you say the essence of water, that which makes water water. And you claim to have a better explanation than I? Why can’t the essence of water be, precisely, the bonding? Science can’t give an ultimate explanation as to **why **that bonding makes water water but neither can philosophy.

I thought I already covered the relevance of the brain for manifestation of conceptual thinking. A relative integrity of the brain is a necessary condition for abstract thinking, but it is not a sufficient condition.

Then surely you could point to examples where there is relative integrity of the brain, but abstract thinking doesn’t occur. That would show brain integrity to be only a necessary condition. But you can’t. That suggests that the relative integrity of the brain is a sufficient condition, not just a necessary one.

There is much more to the well developed and coherent discipline of philosophical psychology than just definitions. And again the definition are grounded in rigorous philosophical analysis of human experience.

Then tell me what predictions this “discipline” makes. Could this discipline have, say, predicted the results of the Milgram experiment?

There is a difference between possessing a power and being able to use it. For example, a person may possesses free-will but is unable to exercise it because a drug addiction controls his behavior. His freedom of choice is diminshed.

Well the way I would put it is that he does not have the power of free-will while he is high. He does when he is sober. I would put it that infants do not have the power of intellectual thought until their brains are sufficiently developed. But if you want to put it your way, then animals could in theory have the power of rational thought, they are just never able to use it because their brains don’t sufficiently develop.

Furthermore, I never offered a “genetic definition of man.” I presented an essential and philosophical definition.

That’s fine, but then you’ll have to stick with it. You can no longer prove a monkey is not a man. Try it. You’ll fail. You can’t prove a monkey doesn’t have the power of rational thought, if only it had a sufficiently complex brain.

The argument assumes that brain complexity is not only a necessary condition for rational thought and abstraction, but further, that it is a sufficient condition. This is precisely what is in question.

The question is answered resoundingly “yes” by modern neuroscience.

Is matter, eg. brain matter the determining factor, or is “form” the determining factor of brain, organization, and life of the organism?

This is a false dichotomy. It’s not the matter itself, but the organization of that matter and its function which is the determining factor - that’s what makes a brain “complex”. And your definition of “form” is that it is the organizing principle of matter. So it is not an “either-or”, but a “both-and”.

Polygenism and monogenism have have different meaning among scientists. So, I will say that I hold to a theological monogenism based primarily on theological considerations. In addition, I question the idea of a gradual emergence of man on philosophical grounds.

Yes, and I’m interested in hearing exactly why your philosophical grounds make you question the idea of a gradual emergence of man, but you still can accept an evolutionary explanation of man’s origin based on empirical science, but yet, using that same empirical science, even on population genetics alone, let alone the markers in the genetic data, the odds of a bottleneck of two are a gazillion to one. I’d like to know why you do not object, based on your philosophy, to the evolution of animals from plant life - a “gradual emergence” of a higher order from a lower one.

 

[grannymh]

There are no known cognitive functions that don’t correlate with brain activity (and this brain activity is not correlated with phantasms but with the actual activity, as can be seen via a properly controlled neuroimaging experiment).

Having read a bit of properly controlled research on the human brain (brain mapping and volition during awake brain surgery) and some cognitive experiments using monkeys, baboons, and humans, I find that the one thing in common is that the human brain needs to be artificially or unnaturally stimulated in order for it to become active at the same time a researcher or recorder is present. Stimulants include electrodes or sometimes a task ( in a lab or an observable room) involving a type of flash cards requiring a specific response in a specific time frame.

My point is that it is very important to consider the type of stimulation which is employed in human brain experiments on both muscle movements of extremities and cognitive functions. Are these same stimulants present when one is working or relaxing on a beach? And what presents a choice when one’s senses and feelings are extolling the benefits of sun and sand over a computer cubicle in a dull building? What is real life?

Abstracts and summaries are fodder for prime time breaking news. But, if one is seriously seeking science, than one has to look at the research itself. Sections on materials and methods are great reality checks.

Post 393 in this thread is an example of the difference in reality. What do you find?

 

[edwest2]

So what, exactly, did God do?

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

I didn’t know he was Catholic.

Major faux pas on my part. We were talking about George Will but I made a statement that actually applies to Gary Wills, and not George. Gary Wills is the dissident pseudo-Catholic.

I am not sure how I made that mix up. Perhaps it was a temporary numerological synaptic dysfunction. The human mind is completely physical you know. So, I am not responsible for the error.

In fact, I learned in a history of experimental psychology course that the only physiological evidence there is for the existence of the the super-ego is that it tends to be soluble in alcohol.

 

[grannymh]

So what, exactly, did God do?
Peace,
Ed

I’m interested in what you are referring to. Which post are you replying to? Thank you.

Note: I would like NowAgnostic and others to reply to post 423.

Blessings,
granny

The human species is totally distinct from all others.

 

[itinerant1]

It’s impossible for there to be a “philosophical” psychology anymore than there can be a “philosophical” physics; these disciplines are empirical by their very nature. Making inferences from data, whether sense data or human experience, is not philosophy, it’s empirical science. In the rest of your posts is what seems to me the fundamental error of philosophers and metaphysicians: attempting to make a necessary, or hypothetically necessary, truth out of what is in reality only a contingent one. Then they get upset when empirical scientists refuse to fit the data onto their Procrustean bed of *a priori *“truths”. I just hope you’ll be open-minded enough to get off the bed. Thomist “psychology” is dead, killed by modern neuroscience.

This is just excessive prejudicial rant. I will call attention to your text above as empirical evidence, verifiable by others, that you are far too biased to carry on a reasonable discussion.

There is a *philosophical *physics as well. Life, human knowledge, and reality just don’t fit into your tightly constrained definitions. It’s a wonder you can even breathe.

 

[itinerant1]

Of course not, but philosophy doesn’t give us an ultimate explanation either.

And what qualifies you to make that judgment?

Yes, and what is that whereby a thing is what it is? Its essence! And is what is that whereby an essence is an actuality? Its existence! This is explaining nothing, just defining new terms. Can your philosophy give me an ultimate explanation of an atom except that an atom has an atomic essence, that which makes it an atom?

Look, it’s possible that the form of water is the arrangement of the atoms, and the form of humans is their DNA. That isn’t **replacing **the concept of form. What makes water water? I say the bonding of two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen atom; you say the essence of water, that which makes water water. And you claim to have a better explanation than I? Why can’t the essence of water be, precisely, the bonding? Science can’t give an ultimate explanation as to **why **that bonding makes water water but neither can philosophy.

Unfortunately, you are fixated on physical essence and physical explanation, which is a different order of explanation than meta-physical causes. Yet, you think philosophical terms and definitions are empty. I would say that would true in your specific case because you have not acquired the least understanding of the realities they explain. Being is more than a term. Existence is actus.

Then surely you could point to examples where there is relative integrity of the brain, but abstract thinking doesn’t occur. That would show brain integrity to be only a necessary condition. But you can’t. That suggests that the relative integrity of the brain is a sufficient condition, not just a necessary one.

Poorly reasoned. How could one ever conclude positively that there was no critical brain dysfunction? It could escape detection. There may be other physiological impediments such a genetic disorder, or psychological problems such as psychotic derangement.

It’s funny just how frequently you say, “But you can’t.”

Then tell me what predictions this “discipline” makes. Could this discipline have, say, predicted the results of the Milgram experiment?

You are asking the wrong kind of question. Philosophy does not give scientific answers.

But if you want to put it your way, then animals could in theory have the power of rational thought, they are just never able to use it because their brains don’t sufficiently develop.

Your reasoning does not hold up since you do not understand the difference between actual and potential.

That’s fine, but then you’ll have to stick with it. You can no longer prove a monkey is not a man. Try it. You’ll fail. You can’t prove a monkey doesn’t have the power of rational thought, if only it had a sufficiently complex brain.

I do not know how you came up with this, but it does not make much sense to me.

The question is answered resoundingly “yes” by modern neuroscience.

Resoundingly? Is that a new kind of proof, proof by decibel rating?

This is a false dichotomy. It’s not the matter itself, but the organization of that matter and its function which is the determining factor - that’s what makes a brain “complex”. And your definition of “form” is that it is the organizing principle of matter. So it is not an “either-or”, but a “both-and”.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Stacks of lumber are not a house. Neither does lumber organize itself into a house. To say the completed house is the determining factor makes no sense. A correct explanation will begin with the architect who designs the house.

Yes, and I’m interested in hearing exactly why your philosophical grounds make you question the idea of a gradual emergence of man, but you still can accept an evolutionary explanation of man’s origin based on empirical science, but yet, using that same empirical science, even on population genetics alone, let alone the markers in the genetic data, the odds of a bottleneck of two are a gazillion to one. I’d like to know why you do not object, based on your philosophy, to the evolution of animals from plant life - a “gradual emergence” of a higher order from a lower one.

I have answered all of this in previous posts. I am opposed to the prevalent Darwinian philosophical presumption underlying much scientific research that considers the mind of man to differ in degree only from the mind of anthropoid apes and higher animals. I see the difference as being a radical difference in kind, and thus it’s a difference that cannot be accounted for by evolutionary processes.

I see no real challenge to my view, whatsoever, from neuroscience.

 

[kk23wong]

Unfortunately, you are fixated on physical essence and physical explanation, which is a different order of explanation than meta-physical causes. Yet, you think philosophical terms and definitions are empty. I would say that would true in your specific case because you have not acquired the least understanding of the realities they explain. Being is more than a term. Existence is actus.

Emptiness varies in different situations. From when, philosophers need terms to define? Emptiness in definitions can only be fulfilled by meanings.

Poorly reasoned. How could one ever conclude positively that there was no critical brain dysfunction? It could escape detection. There may be other physiological impediments such a genetic disorder, or psychological problems such as psychotic derangement.

Disorders forced by unwillingness to face hardships in past/reality. Psychology has therapies to heal patients from shadows of their lives (although their validity remains doubted). Therefore, drugs must not be adopted.
Partially agree with you. Your brain is one unless you have multi-personality.

You are asking the wrong kind of question. Philosophy does not give scientific answers.

Wisdoms behind an answer from a wise being. Philosophy needs to be real (practical). However, it sometimes depends on situations. Peace.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Stacks of lumber are not a house. Neither does lumber organize itself into a house. To say the completed house is the determining factor makes no sense. A correct explanation will begin with the architect who designs the house.

The architect may be the same as those living inside. The beginning is “none”. A being in “none”. – Lives are lives in different levels – None cannot be defined. It exists in your minds.

I see no real challenge to my view, whatsoever, from neuroscience.

Neuroscience has an answer. Individual views are personal.

Teru Wong

 

[Detales]

re: #423, I am curious as to how grannymh and others might look at this discussion in term of split brain research which suggests that right and left brain interpretations tend to be focused on and analyzed in different modes of ordering. It is suggested that many moral dilemmas are in fact contrasts within the awareness of the attempt to integrate qualitatively dissimilar data interpretations. Notable in this regard is the popular youtube presentation of the neurosurgeon who suffered and recovered from a stroke. That may be viewed at youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU&feature=related Such differences may, in my opinion, as well account for ascending/exoteric religious views such as Catholicism, which are divisive and serial, and the non-dual descending/esoteric philosophical systems which are more unitary, connective and holistic.

 

[edwest2]

Emptiness varies in different situations. From when, philosophers need terms to define? Emptiness in definitions can only be fulfilled by meanings.

Disorders forced by unwillingness to face hardships in past/reality. Psychology has therapies to heal patients from shadows of their lives (although their validity remains doubted). Therefore, drugs must not be adopted.
Partially agree with you. Your brain is one unless you have multi-personality.

Wisdoms behind an answer from a wise being. Philosophy needs to be real (practical). However, it sometimes depends on situations. Peace.

The architect may be the same as those living inside. The beginning is “none”. A being in “none”. – Lives are lives in different levels – None cannot be defined. It exists in your minds.

Neuroscience has an answer. Individual views are personal.

Teru Wong

Neuroscience can follow form and function but it can only uncover so much. I suggest you study history to learn about man’s continuous longing for the transcendant which is not material but has expressed itself in material ways. For the Christian, God is properly He, even though God has no actual sexual identity. Jesus was a man and had a Father.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

re: #423, I am curious as to how grannymh and others might look at this discussion in term of split brain research which suggests that right and left brain interpretations tend to be focused on and analyzed in different modes of ordering. It is suggested that many moral dilemmas are in fact contrasts within the awareness of the attempt to integrate qualitatively dissimilar data interpretations. Notable in this regard is the popular youtube presentation of the neurosurgeon who suffered and recovered from a stroke. That may be viewed at youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU&feature=related Such differences may, in my opinion, as well account for ascending/exoteric religious views such as Catholicism, which are divisive and serial, and the non-dual descending/esoteric philosophical systems which are more unitary, connective and holistic.

Since my left and right brains often change position or disappear entirely,
I’d like to learn more about split brain research. Would you please direct me to actual research papers or university and medical center websites which are doing this research. Unfortunately, I don’t have sound with my computer so I can’t benefit from your link. Is there a text somewhere? As a hospital volunteer, I had two brief anecdotal experiences with stroke recovery. Although this was a small insight, what I learned helped me to deal with the sick and dying.

Regarding your comment: “It is suggested that many moral dilemmas are in fact contrasts within the awareness of the attempt to integrate qualitatively dissimilar data interpretations.” I need to understand more about what you mean regarding the human make-up and what you are implying regarding religious views. The one thing I have noticed is that some researchers tend toward Cartesian dualism as if that were Catholic philosophy. Fortunately, extreme dualism is not Catholic philosophy.

Blessings,
granny

The human species is beautiful.

 

[NowAgnostic]

This is just excessive prejudicial rant. I will call attention to your text above as empirical evidence, verifiable by others, that you are far too biased to carry on a reasonable discussion.

And I will call attention to the fact that that is a classic argumentum ad hominem. You’re getting completely pwned in this debate which is why you need to resort to that.

And what qualifies you to make that judgment?

Another ad hominem.

Unfortunately, you are fixated on physical essence and physical explanation, which is a different order of explanation than meta-physical causes. Yet, you think philosophical terms and definitions are empty. I would say that would true in your specific case because you have not acquired the least understanding of the realities they explain.

And yet another ad hominem.

Being is more than a term. Existence is actus.

And what is actus? Why, existence, of course! You’ve just defined a new term. You’ve not actually explained anything at all **about **existence. Just calling it “actus” means you’ve just defined a hoity-toity (Latin!) new term.

I’ll repeat the question I asked earlier:

Can your philosophy give me an ultimate explanation of an atom except that an atom has an atomic essence, that which makes it an atom?

You didn’t bother to attempt a reply. See, you don’t actually understand the realities. You’ve just given them new names, and then attempted to explain your lack of explanation as my lack of understanding.

Poorly reasoned.

No, not at all. Hypothesis A: A properly functioning brain is a necessary condition for higher-order cognitive function. Hypothesis B: A properly functioning brain is a necessary and sufficient condition for higher-order cognitive function.

Under both hypotheses, we expect to see brain function whenever there is higher-order cognitive function. However, under Hypothesis A, but not Hypothesis B, we would expect to see brain function without higher-order cognitive function. That’s not what we see, so you must resort to…

How could one ever conclude positively that there was no critical brain dysfunction? It could escape detection. There may be other physiological impediments such a genetic disorder, or psychological problems such as psychotic derangement.

Classic argumentum ad ignorantium. Are you out to set a record for number of logical fallacies in a single post?

You are asking the wrong kind of question. Philosophy does not give scientific answers.

In other words, “philosophical” psychology has no predictive or explanatory value. You may hold it to be still worthwhile. I beg to differ.

Your reasoning does not hold up since you do not understand the difference between actual and potential.

Wow!!! Another ad hominem!!

I do not know how you came up with this, but it does not make much sense to me.

Of course it doesn’t, since you are evidently unwilling to think outside the confines of the cozy philosophical box you have made for yourself, and evidently unwilling to consider it may have more than a few leaks.

You cannot prove a monkey is not simply a genetically defective human by your philosophical definition of “human”. Again, try it. You’ll fail.

I’m just curious what you would do if scientists genetically modify a monkey and end up with a being with the capacity for abstract reasoning. Would you admit THEN that you are wrong? Or would you try to fit THAT on a Thomist Procrustean bed as well???

Resoundingly? Is that a new kind of proof, proof by decibel rating?

That’s hardly an argument against the wealth of data arrayed against you.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Stacks of lumber are not a house. Neither does lumber organize itself into a house. To say the completed house is the determining factor makes no sense.

What makes a house a house? The way the lumber is organized!!! Therefore that would be the form or essence of the house, yes? That’s what determines (distinguishes) a house from a stack of lumber.

A correct explanation will begin with the architect who designs the house.

No, that’s an explanation of how the form is instantiated, not an explanation of why a house is a house (what the form of a house is).

I have answered all of this in previous posts.

No, you haven’t. Why are you not opposed on philosophical grounds to the evolution of animals from plant life? Animal life differs from plant life in kind, not just in degree, right?

I am opposed to the prevalent Darwinian philosophical presumption underlying much scientific research that considers the mind of man to differ in degree only from the mind of anthropoid apes and higher animals. I see the difference as being a radical difference in kind, and thus it’s a difference that cannot be accounted for by evolutionary processes.

Well, all I can say is, tough luck. Science isn’t going to be held hostage to anyone’s philosophical presumptions.

I see no real challenge to my view, whatsoever, from neuroscience.

No and young-earth creationists see no real challenge to their views from geology, physics or astronomy either. Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Having read a bit of properly controlled research on the human brain (brain mapping and volition during awake brain surgery) and some cognitive experiments using monkeys, baboons, and humans, I find that the one thing in common is that the human brain needs to be artificially or unnaturally stimulated in order for it to become active at the same time a researcher or recorder is present. Stimulants include electrodes or sometimes a task ( in a lab or an observable room) involving a type of flash cards requiring a specific response in a specific time frame.

You asked me to respond to this post, so I will. I’m not exactly sure what your point is though.

My point is that it is very important to consider the type of stimulation which is employed in human brain experiments on both muscle movements of extremities and cognitive functions.

OK, so considered. Is there a conclusion you want to draw from this?

Are these same stimulants present when one is working or relaxing on a beach? And what presents a choice when one’s senses and feelings are extolling the benefits of sun and sand over a computer cubicle in a dull building? What is real life?

And what does that have to do with the price of beans? We’re not going to be able to image the brain on the beach. At least, not yet.

Abstracts and summaries are fodder for prime time breaking news. But, if one is seriously seeking science, than one has to look at the research itself. Sections on materials and methods are great reality checks.

Post 393 in this thread is an example of the difference in reality. What do you find?

I find that the primates had to be trained a lot longer in order to be able to do the task. Again, what exactly is your point?

 

[edwest2]

I’m interested in what you are referring to. Which post are you replying to? Thank you.

Note: I would like NowAgnostic and others to reply to post 423.

Blessings,
granny

The human species is totally distinct from all others.

Some Christians believe in the unexamined idea that if we attach God to the theory of evolution, that makes it OK. It becomes theologically acceptable and scientifically acceptable. From the Catholic perspective, the textbook theory is not fully acceptable even though some post here as if it is. The theory, in its current form, makes certain claims that cannot be connected to truths held by the Church. The idea that God was somehow involved in evolution is stated on this forum, but my question is: If that’s true, what did God do? And can you point to some specific Church teaching that identifies God’s action(s)?

So once again, if you connect God to evolution, What did He do?

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

You asked me to respond to this post, so I will. I’m not exactly sure what your point is though.

My only point is to listen to your answers to the last question in my post --“What do you find?”

OK, so considered. Is there a conclusion you want to draw from this?

You were free to make whatever observations or conclusions you wanted. I placed no requirements on your reading.

And what does that have to do with the price of beans? We’re not going to be able to image the brain on the beach. At least, not yet.

Never mentioned beans. Your observation “At Least, not yet.” is interesting to me.

I find that the primates had to be trained a lot longer in order to be able to do the task. Again, what exactly is your point?

My only point was my interest as to what you found interesting in the research–which you just shared. Thank you. I did pose some thought questions and of course you were free to pass over them.

Your time with my post is sincerely appreciated.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is wonderfully complex.