Is a perfect example of reality over theory. We theorise over freedom but cannot factor in all the variables. Reality has limited variables so freedom becomes more manageable. As long as you do not force freedom to be infinite then free will exists. We are free within the confines of the Universe and our actions are dictated by no one else (unless we let them or are forced by them) The random choice of which pair of socks to wear is probably not free will as such because chances are there is no cognition in it but to decide between two option which appear to have no bias must be free will, To choose to believe in God or not… that is free will. (regardless of proclaimed or perceived consequences) I refuse to accept Belief based on Pascal’s wager alone.
If we are created then programing might just be a factor? What else would you call instinct?
Richard
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
67
What else would you call doing the rational thing, doing the habitual thing? I’d call it coercion. To go against either comes at a cost. There is force - momentum and threat - cost involved. For Mark to go and get the book would have been an act of madness, incredibly inefficient, probably involving a car journey of miles; if he needed the exercise the walk might have been justification, but otherwise not.
And wow, you make decisions considering many different alternatives and all the different reasons for those alternatives and then choose the reasons which best fit the person which I am then deciding I want to become on a decision by decision basis?
What kind of decisions are they? I don’t know anybody who does this, who has to face decisions like this at all.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
68
Well Dale, I hopelessly aspire to relieve myself from helpless personal responsibility and liability, to be a cop-out but I do already have a victim mentality. I am my own victim.
Like I said, this just shows that people are different. And so you can only speak to your own coersion and lack of freedom of will. Other people don’t have the same experience. With nothing absolute or universal about free will and the effect of so many things on it, then it is rather believable and even Biblical that some have free will and others do not.
But clearly we are a product of growth and learning with no designer involved anywhere in the process of our coming into being.
Instincts are a product of the learning process of evolution. But instinct is only part of what guides the behavior of human beings. The evidence for this is overwhelming though to be sure, it is likely something which varies between people. Perhaps you only act on your biological instincts, but I know that I and plenty of other people do not.
I don’t really buy that. It is hard to believe that every action you pursue, be it typing a response or going into a grocery store, your primary intuition/experience is that you couldn’t have done otherwise. Fatalism is a bizarre concept.
As for your unchanging, changing world, I don’t understand the point. Change is self-evident and the world is anything but necessary
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
71
Every action I pursue, be it typing a response or going into a grocery store, is predicated on stimuli impinging on my highly conditioned, constrained mind.
Fatalism: I certainly don’t believe that all - any - events are predetermined and therefore inevitable.
Change: As change is from eternity there is nothing new, apart from increasing infinity. Which isn’t new. Obviously the world is necessary if there is no God, something compels it, the ultimate abhorrence of less than vacuum; if null then not null. If God exists, He’s always found it necessary.
That is an assertion I think you cannot make. It is both unprovable and contrary to my faith. Besides there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that creation could not be random due to its complexity. You may not like “designer” theory but it has not and cannot be just dismissed. Where as Evolution (Random), fine as it is, falls short of self sufficiency, which is where Theistic Evolution emerges.
How can something learn innately? That is a contradiction in terms. To learn you must experience. Instinct is reacting automatically without knowledge of what the consequences will be. The natural instinct to flee or hide is not learned in deer it is instinct.
As far as my natural instincts are concerned? I learn to control and use them. The urge to get angry and lash out is not something I learned by experience. In fact, experience teaches me that such actions can prove painful to me.
Unless you are claiming some sort of communal consciousness?
Of course I can. It is what we see. Anybody can see the difference between the creation of a machine and the growth and learning of a child.
Blind faith contrary to what we see everyday in our lives is worthless. You can say all you want that you have faith that there are no stars and that we have twenty moons but I don’t see how that can ever be anything but meaningless noise.
I will always be dismissive of invisible fairies because they have no part in my experience of life. I do not say they don’t exist because I cannot know what others experience, but clearly they have nothing to do with life as I experience it and I will not base my understanding of existence on unsubstantiated heresay.
No. It does not. That is the difference between theistic evolution and the pseudo-science of ID. Evolution is logically sufficient. If I choose to believe God had a hand in this then that is a belief which I cannot have any reasonable expectation that others will accept.
We have demonstrated conclusively that learning is a purely mechanical process. Thus a computer program can learn to play our most difficult strategy games so well that they beat the best of us.
Your choice of words certainly seem to be entirely without meaning as far as I can tell.
Biological instinct comes from DNA which has been altered according to the success of organisms in the past from behaving in ways that enhance survival and reproduction.
Yes our rather well developed nervous system enables a much faster form of learning than we find in evolution. Language greatly improves upon this by enabling the passing on of some of the results of such learning to others including later generations.
As I explained above… we have demonstrated conclusively that learning does not require consciousness. …unless you think computers or their programs are conscious?
As a certain Well known Film said, “Computers do not think they just run programs” The whole notion of sentient computers is from Hollywood not reality. What little “creative” thinking has been achieved is still basically algorithm based.
I am sorry that you feel you can be dismissive about my faith. In fact your whole answer was basically of the same vein.
As far as I m concerned that is what you were saying, that an innate ability or instinct has still been learned somehow. Or maybe “Hardwired” by genetics. As far as I know there is no evidence to suggest that any actions or instincts are genetically driven and a newborn has not had time to “learn” anything.
As for the cohesion of Evolutionary theory… it has failed to do the claimed Single cell to human without vast “gaps” (not a popular terminology) in the progression. Let alone account for some of the possible but missing variations in creature components that myths include but nature has never achieved. Let alone the appearance of sentience. Even life itself is beyond our understanding and not encompassed within TOE.
I have never said anything about fairies. They have nothing to do with Christianity or, as far as I am concerned God.
I would be grateful if you would at least show some respect for my beliefs rather than assume they are wild fantasies with no basis.
Which is precisely my point. We have demonstrated that learning is algorithm based without any requirement of consciousness.
They are not my words and you find no meaning your words therefore equating the meaning is an impossibility. This should simply suggest that your choice of words and definitions haven’t been very helpful in understanding what I said, and you should try again. I am certainly willing to try explaining again: Instinct is “innate” only in the sense that it comes from the DNA, but DNA itself is a product of the learning algorithm of evolution.
Like I said, I do not say that fairies or invisible designers do not exist. But I cannot change the fact that I have not observed any evidence for any such things and so it is not reasonable for you to expect me to take your word that they exist. I not only see no evidence of invisible designers but I see no evidence of design either. It looks far more to me like something which has come about by self-organizing processes and indeed that is the only identifiable difference between living organisms and machines. In any case, respect for your beliefs cannot include a prohibition from stating my observations of reality.
But perhaps I should clear up one possible misunderstanding…
Just because I make the observation that we are a product of growth and learning with no designer involved anywhere in the process of our coming into being, doesn’t mean I think there there is no role for God in this. I do. Living organisms do not learn and grow in an empty vacuum. It requires an environment which can include any number of farmers, shepherds, teachers and parents. That is how you create living things – not by design, but by participation in a relationship of this kind.
What is the difference between something that arises from self-organization and something which is a product of design?
Product of Design: When things are designed then the parts are assembled according to that design. And you expect to find it efficiently put together for a specific purpose. Because when you design something you don’t waste a lot of material on things which serve no purpose.
Product of Self-Organization: When things are a product of self-organization you see them going through a process of development where they not only assemble themselves in many intermediate stages but where they adapt to the environment where they find themselves. And you don’t see a specific purpose but diversity which goes in every conceivable direction. And the results show this multi-directional nature with a lot of material wasted on non-functional elements for things unrealized or abandoned.
What is the best way of designing something? What for example is the best design for an antenna that we have ever seen? It was not a product of human design but something produced by an evolutionary algorithm. This suggest that the very best way of designing something is not to design it at all but instead to set up a situation where things find the best design on its own.
So which of these do we find when we look at living organisms? We find what we expect in a product of self-organization. And which of these would we expect from a really smart creator? We would expect to find the things He has made to be a product of an evolutionary algorithm.
Because it is the only difference between living organisms and machines – the only difference. One day soon we will be making machines with the same chemistry as life for medical purposes. We are already most of the way there now, altering viruses for gene therapy. So… some people even like to say that we are just machines ourselves because they see no difference between people and toasters. And no just saying that these particular toasters were made by a supernatural being doesn’t do it for me at all. A baby is not designed (and never should be). It is growing and learning things for themselves that make them different than the machines we put together in factories. And with the recent advances in AI even the machines will employ learning algorithms and then we can only say that they are learning by design for a programmed purpose rather than by themselves and for themselves as children do.
Humans cannot create life and I doubt that we ever will. We can mimic it, simulate it, but it is still not real life.
To compare toasters and humans seems to me to lack any understanding of life and what constitutes it.
I couldn’t agree more. But I don’t think you do understand the difference and thus I think you do equate human beings with toasters.
Machines are tools made for an end. They are the product of design for a function. Living things on the other hand exist as an end in themselves and a product of self-organization directing themselves to whatever purpose and function they choose for themselves.
Incorrect. We do create life all the time. We have children. We raise livestock and crops. We train doctors, lawyers, and engineers. What we cannot do is design living things because it is a contradiction in terms. If it is designed then it is a machine and not a living thing at all.
But if you do not acknowledge this difference between machines and living things then the fact is that we already do create things which those who do not understand this difference would call alive, and we are only going to get better and better at it.
Search “Are we creating living things” on google and peruse the list. From this you will see that we are doing exactly what you say we will never do. But I do not believe these things are alive precisely because they are a product of design – these are machine using the same materials and processes as living organisms but I say they are not alive because they are not a product of self-organization.