tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post3744284120914542391..comments2024-03-28T17:53:43.541-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: The Materialism of Limited ToolsetDarwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-81764169636039227712011-06-30T13:58:59.279-04:002011-06-30T13:58:59.279-04:00A fundamental problem with the "physics prove...A fundamental problem with the "physics proves materialism" argument is that physics relies on mathematics, and mathematical objects are immaterial. It is like arguing that one does not have eyes, because one cannot directly see them. <br />It is more plausible to argue that physics proves the existence of spirit, because physics shows that immaterial objects of thought describe material objects with great precision. In the same way, being able to see proves that one has eyes, although it is very difficult to deduce much about eyes just from knowing that one can see.<br /><br />(Sorry for the late comment, but I didn't notice this post until a little while ago.)Seannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-52174955975117893242011-01-28T02:20:34.277-05:002011-01-28T02:20:34.277-05:00I don't see there being an impossibility in t...I don't see there being an impossibility in the idea that all our mental processes and our consciousness are "merely" emergent properties of material phenomena, nor any contradiction between the idea that it is impossible to program a computer to have free will and the idea that humans actually do have free will as an emergent property of their brain chemistry and organization.<br /><br />Nor do I see any contradiction between these statements and Christian belief.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12389602137217799305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-6045756715896099532011-01-19T21:22:40.335-05:002011-01-19T21:22:40.335-05:00I second JD's mention of Jaki on the subject -...I second JD's mention of Jaki on the subject -- Jaki is brusque, but he usually makes good points on this subject. One of the things he notes somewhere is that when people are asked how this brain produces thought, they simply respond by analogy to the most advanced information technology of the time -- it works like a telegraph system! like a telephone system! like a computer, with each neuron functioning like a vacuum tube! &c. And, of course, the sort of scenario Hanson has in mind requires taking the brain to be in reality very much like a modern computer, in more than the mere fact that they both handle information somehow, some way. But not even all materialists think this is right; someone like Searle, for instance, would argue that brains just aren't that computer-like.<br /><br />Word-recognition term: cogicize, which really should be a word -- half cogitate, half exercise.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-63803104298300753422011-01-19T20:39:13.039-05:002011-01-19T20:39:13.039-05:00After spending a tiny bit of time wondering what i...After spending a tiny bit of time wondering what it would be like to be one of these emulated beings (assuming that it was possible to duplicate a mind) I get the heeby-jeebies.<br /><br /><br />Just losing all muscle memory would be frustrating enough but I've seen a lot more verbage about emulating the mind then emulating the sense of being in a body or for that matter emulating how the mind responds to and experiences change.<br /><br /> Without the sense of being in a body such a mind would most likely precieve itself as crippled.<br /><br /> Without the knowledge of how that particular mind responds to change there can be no proper longterm emulation. <br /><br />It's a good thing that I think that such people are anticipating far, far beyond their facts.ekbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13325242010077520818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-33035428736812488142011-01-19T20:29:30.170-05:002011-01-19T20:29:30.170-05:00Fr. Stanley Jaki had some excellent discussions in...Fr. Stanley Jaki had some excellent discussions in his books on the limits of the scientific method and of AI. One of the points he argued is that free will cannot simply "emerge" due to the complexity of a program. He believed that no AI program will be able to be programmed to have free will.John Beeglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02090101789654257454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-42295962131861014012011-01-19T13:08:27.434-05:002011-01-19T13:08:27.434-05:00Even assuming it were possible in principle, given...Even assuming it were possible in principle, given the clear fact that each human brain is custom-tailored, so to speak, to the particular body in which it exists, and has spent a lifetime adapting to it, makes me suspect that it would be like trying to swap engines in cars in a world in which every single car is custom-built for different purposes: nothing in principle impossible about it, maybe, but in practice it would be a miracle if it ended up working properly.<br /><br />Hanson's argument is an example of what I like to call scientifictionism: everything's material, the argument goes, because in the end when science has completely explained everything it will have done so in terms of exactly those constituents and principles of which we are aware, and nothing more. But even if we assume that this is true, treating it as fact is science fiction: yes, assuming it is possible, science in the end could end up doing things that way, but it could also end up having to posit something more to the world than we thought we knew (which it has sometimes done on other questions, so history shows it to be a real possibility) or any number of other results that, prior to actually having in hand the complete scientific explanation, could for all we know be true instead. Neither Hanson nor anyone else has any idea how to explain thought and will in terms of electrons and protons, so until we actually have the existence proof, the proof that it can be done, which with scientific explanations usually requires actually doing it, claiming it can be done is science fiction, not science.<br /><br />As most of Hanson's work is, I must say; very interesting, if you take it as science fiction, or even science fiction that might conceivably have some truth to it, but not very interesting at all if taken as more substantial than speculation.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-47958610921718993042011-01-19T12:39:15.701-05:002011-01-19T12:39:15.701-05:00I can't even comprehend how that would work. A...I can't even comprehend how that would work. Also, in my experience (working with neurosurgical patients and having participated in a few resuscitations) brains are so incredibly fragile, complicated, and so dependent on the whole-body infrastructure that I just can't imagine how a scan, no matter how detailed, would be able to project the fabulous processes into a computer. But maybe my imagination just falls short of the mark.Rebekkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13536021238594385545noreply@blogger.com