tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post6365960374049753207..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Critique of TSW Part 28b The Last ChapterGlenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-39314130345195493882015-04-03T19:10:20.737-07:002015-04-03T19:10:20.737-07:00BW: The... "within and without"...are al...BW: The... "within and without"...are almost never "equal"…<br /><br />[GB: Remember that when determining causality, the absence of something is just as important as the presence of something. This is clear from Newton’s First Law of Motion, in which Newton’s body moves in a straight line only because: 1) it exists and is in motion and 2) nothing exists in its path that would stop it. The goal of univironmental analysis is to focus on both sides of the univironmental boundary equally.]<br /><br />GB: Either term is correct according to Wikipedia: “Abiogenesis or biopoesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter ..."<br /><br />BW: …biopoesis specifically claimed that reproducing cells (living) evolved from viruses (non-living), which has been disproved: NO virus is capable of self-replication.<br /><br />[GB: Obviously, your last sentence is false. If that was true, none of us would ever get a cold or flu. Your statement demonstrates one of the errors produced by systems philosophy and its overemphasis on the microcosm and ignorance of the macrocosm. Viruses replicate only within the host cell. In other words, they need a special macrocosm, an environment, that contains the proper ingredients, in the same way that a computer virus needs a special macrocosm (your hard drive?) for replication. DNA also requires a special macrocosm, a living organism, for its replication. You are correct that the hypothesized transition from virus to cell was not the pathway by which nonliving matter became living matter. It was a somewhat different pathway.]<br /><br />BW: You skipped over my rather lengthy commentary about free will as *compatible with determinism*, not an exception.<br /><br />[GB: Sorry, not interested. There is extensive literature supporting both sides of the interminable compatibilism-incompatibilism debate (e.g., https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/author/whyevolutionistrue/ ). The transition from compatibilism to incompatibilism takes place very slowly. Jerry Coyne is doing a wonderful job in that effort, despite his adherence to cosmogony, the destruction of which I believe to be a even more important step in human evolution.]<br /><br />GB: "... I define fatalism as the belief that only the macrocosm (our environment) controls what happens to us and solipsism as the belief that only the microcosm (ourselves) controls what happens to us ..."<br /><br />BW: I don't think any fatalist or solipsist would accept that definition. The fatalist believes we have NO "control" and the solipsist believes we have TOTAL "control" over our choices. Your position seems to be that we have NO "control" over any of the causes, within or without. That's fatalism.<br /><br />[GB: Each of us, being portions of the universe, is controlled by the within and without regardless of what we can say about it. In other words, we exert control over the macrocosm and the macrocosm exerts control over us. Those univironmental interactions produce the causal chain responsible for who we are. They are what makes me a determinist and you an indeterminist. Without further significant inputs, neither of us will suddenly change our minds. Each of us must work with what we have: the information obtained from the macrocosm and stored in our brains as knowledge. I have the “feeling of freedom,” while you claim to have “free will.” In neither case do we have a real choice—we cannot exist without changing the macrocosm. Thus it is not true “that we have NO "control" over any of the causes…without”—that truly would be fatalism. On the other hand, like the eye that cannot see itself, we really cannot change ourselves. We cannot climb into ourselves and make rearrangements like we could do to the furniture in our house. The only way we can “change ourselves” is by changing our environments.]<br /><br />[GB: Sorry to have gotten Rand’s sophisticated selfishness in the same pen with Ringer’s vulgarity. Thanks for inadvertently pointing out the connection between libertarianism, free will, and voluntarism.]Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-81552007881078052452015-04-01T14:32:43.684-07:002015-04-01T14:32:43.684-07:00GB: "Bill ... relies on the Myth of Exception...GB: <i>"Bill ... relies on the Myth of Exceptionalism to claim that science, particularly in the form of univironmental determinism, can say nothing about the evolution and character of human consciousness and sapience."</i><br /> <br />Of course, I don't believe in the "Myth of Exceptionalism", nor any other supernatural causation: I am an atheist. However, I do believe that humans are qualitatively distinct from other animals. Scientific investigation is the <b>only</b> means of determining the evolutionary cause for the sapient effect.<br /> <br />GB: <i>"... Bill awaits arguments that presumably would get him to become a univironmental determinist overnight."</i><br /> <br />I don't disagree with the proposition that many effects are caused by factors "within and without", only that they are almost never "equal", as you state multiple times. Science is all about isolating effects to their fundamental causes, ignoring incidental and insignificant mitigating factors in reality. I don't think science is possible without that.<br /><br />GB: <i>Either term is correct according to Wikipedia: "Abiogenesis or biopoesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter ..."</i><br /> <br />That's true in common, modern usage. However, biopoesis specifically claimed that reproducing cells (living) evolved from viruses (non-living), which has been disproved: NO virus is capable of self-replication.<br /> <br />GB: <i>"... your free will hypothesis denies that we, as exceptions, are not governed by the same material interactions that govern everything else in the universe."</i><br /> <br />Not true. My position is that sapience evolved by simple evolutionary processes which made Homo Sapiens qualitatively distinct from other animals, in the same fashion that animals became qualitatively distinct from plants. An animal is not merely a bigger plant; a human is not merely a bigger animal.<br /> <br />You skipped over my rather lengthy commentary about free will as <b>compatible with determinism</b>, not an exception. You're welcome to post that, if you wish.<br /> <br />GB: <i>"... I define fatalism as the belief that only the macrocosm (our environment) controls what happens to us and solipsism as the belief that only the microcosm (ourselves) controls what happens to us ..."</i><br /> <br />I don't think any fatalist or solipsist would accept that definition. The fatalist believes we have <b>no</b> "control" and the solipsist believes we have <b>total</b> "control" over our choices. Your position seems to be that we have <b>no</b> "control" over any of the causes, within or without. That's fatalism.<br /> <br />GB: <i>"... Rand and her libertarian friends have some strong arguments for doing things apart, while others have strong arguments for doing things together ..."</i><br /> <br />I'll let Rand's writings speak for herself, but she is very much in FAVOR of "doing things together" ... voluntarily. You conflate Robert Ringer's books ("Winning through Intimidation", etc.) with Rand's books, but they are quite distinct and in many ways contradictory.<br /> <br />GB: <i>"Many other animals have consciousness and sapience (wisdom, intelligence, etc.). Just ask your dog or cat about that."</i><br /> <br />I did, but Bowser had no comment. He was certainly conscious of the fact that my lips were moving, but he didn't recognize any verbal commands in my question. Maybe your cat has an opinion. ;o)<br /> <br />GB: <i>"... I am happy to be one of the few authors who ever gets the kind of detailed feedback you have so kindly provided."</i><br /> <br />I wouldn't have attempted it unless I had great respect for your arguments and overwhelming agreement with your premises. As I noted at the beginning, most of my reservations are mere quibbles over language, definitions or a minor disagreement on phraseology. Perhaps when I've finished my books, "Unimid Theory" and "Sapient Ethics", you'll return the favor. Civility preferred, but not required.<br />Westmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865166433794584552noreply@blogger.com