Do non physical things exist?

[Led Zeppelin]

Greetings,


Given your misunderstanding of macroevolution's meaning, I wonder what you think microevolution means?

If you understood what this means, it should be obvious what macroevolution meant.

Kindest regards,

James

Right. I don't really like using either word but in debating I have had people tell me that evolution means change and then when I agree that things change I am basically told that I need to prove that there is a limit of how much a thing can change.
So I use the term macro evolution to try to bring the discussion to the heart of the matter, which I think is Do higher functions evolve?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Right. I don't really like using either word but in debating I have had people tell me that evolution means change and then when I agree that things change I am basically told that I need to prove that there is a limit of how much a thing can change.
So I use the term macro evolution to try to bring the discussion to the heart of the matter, which I think is Do higher functions evolve?

Just to be clear, microevolution is change within a species - the Peppered moth, for example.

From this, it should be clear that macroevolution is change outside (above) a species.

As regards higher functions, of course they evolve.

Given that monkeys gave rise to apes, which includes us, with more advanced brains, then - clearly - higher functions evolved.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Led Zeppelin]

I'm saying that consciousness is a type of behaviour that matter engages in.

Well I would think that's the next step from believing that higher functions arise naturally from primitive life. That they also naturally arise from non-life(if this is what you mean. Matter arranges itself naturally to be come aware of itself?) It kinda sounds crazy to me at first but I think think I could more easily accept both statements together than only one or another. Kinda interesting to look at it that way.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Well I would think that's the next step from believing that higher functions arise naturally from primitive life. That they also naturally arise from non-life(if this is what you mean. Matter arranges itself naturally to be come aware of itself?) It kinda sounds crazy to me at first but I think think I could more easily accept both statements together than only one or another. Kinda interesting to look at it that way.

No, matter doesn't arrange itself. It comes together under the influence of ordering forces (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force) and, via the influences of those forces, it undergoes reactions (nuclear, chemical, etc.), that, under the driving influence of entropy, manifest in complex forms.

There's no cognition or intent, and it doesn't know it's doing it, it's just how matter behaves.

I should add that the phrase 'life from non-life' is a dog-whistle for treating life as a thing. How do we get walking from non-walking. By beginning to walk.

Like consciousness, life is one of those things that matter does under certain conditions. It's not like there's any room for the supernatural in either of these things, because they're both electrochemical in nature.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

No, matter doesn't arrange itself. It comes together under the influence of ordering forces (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force) and, via the influences of those forces, it undergoes reactions (nuclear, chemical, etc.), that, under the driving influence of entropy, manifest in complex forms.

There's no cognition or intent, and it doesn't know it's doing it, it's just how matter behaves.

I should add that the phrase 'life from non-life' is a dog-whistle for treating life as a thing. How do we get walking from non-walking. By beginning to walk.

Like consciousness, life is one of those things that matter does under certain conditions. It's not like there's any room for the supernatural in either of these things, because they're both electrochemical in nature.

Everything thing I say is wrong.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Everything thing I say is wrong.

I really want to say that's not true, but that would be to contradict even this, which leaves me in a bit of a quandary.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Well I would think that's the next step from believing that higher functions arise naturally from primitive life. That they also naturally arise from non-life(if this is what you mean. Matter arranges itself naturally to be come aware of itself?) It kinda sounds crazy to me at first but I think think I could more easily accept both statements together than only one or another. Kinda interesting to look at it that way.

LZ, you're going to need to work a bit harder on this.

First, you're going to need to explain what you mean by 'higher functions', - for example, is a heart beating a 'higher function'? - and you're going to need to provide some non-arbitrary descriptions of what the class of 'higher functions' involves so we can all talk about specifics here.

Otherwise, it's a bit like trying to shoot a moving target in the dark.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Well I would think that's the next step from believing that higher functions arise naturally from primitive life. That they also naturally arise from non-life(if this is what you mean.

That doesn't follow. It's a fallacy of composition.

Life possesses the type of characteristics, like internal chemistry and ordered cellular anatomy, which would allow certain functions to arise but these characteristics are not present in non-living things.

Matter arranges itself naturally to be come aware of itself?)

No; that's teleology. It's basically god-thinking. You're imagining there's some goal to achieve - in this case self-awareness - so particles of matter set about enacting a long term plan to effect this change. None of the component pieces have any conception of anything, let alone a future desire to be aware.

If you were trying to resolve your internal conflict between science and your religious beliefs, it might be a convenient step for you though - evolution is unarguably a fact, so if your creator God exists then it stands to reason that the manner your God used to create was to set up systems that could produce life etc. This is some form of theistic evolution.

For me, it contains a suite of other problems, but at least it would mean you're not in denial of observable reality ala standard Creationism.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

LZ, you're going to need to work a bit harder on this.

First, you're going to need to explain what you mean by 'higher functions', - for example, is a heart beating a 'higher function'? - and you're going to need to provide some non-arbitrary descriptions of what the class of 'higher functions' involves so we can all talk about specifics here.

Otherwise, it's a bit like trying to shoot a moving target in the dark.

Well by "higher functions" I mean complex functions not already possessed by a species. Some creatures dont have a circulartory system others dont have eyesight. Conscientiousness seems to be the be the highest function so this is the one I am focused on.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Well by "higher functions" I mean complex functions not already possessed by a species.

I am not at all clear. We're talking about functions that arise via evolution, so of course they're not already possessed by that species.

Some creatures dont have a circulartory system others dont have eyesight.

Right.... and....?

I'm not seeing what this has to do with anything.

Conscientiousness seems to be the be the highest function so this is the one I am focused on.

I think you got nabbed by auto-complete there.


But I'm at the end of your post, and the only thing you've said really is that you're focused on consciousness.

Ok, I got that.

What I am asking you is what 'higher function' means. It's very hard to have a discussion about real world things when we don't know what each other are talking about.

Can you explain in your own words what's the difference between a standard biological function and a 'higher' function?

 

[Led Zeppelin]

No; that's teleology. It's basically god-thinking. You're imagining there's some goal to achieve - in this case self-awareness - so particles of matter set about enacting a long term plan to effect this change. None of the component pieces have any conception of anything, let alone a future desire to be aware.

When I said that matter arranges itself I did not mean that it had an intent or desire. Of course there are forces involved. But these forces exist because of matter(is this correct?)

Basically I am try to figure out the basics of what I would have to believe if I did not believe in creation. To say that matter is arranged through observed forces in the universe so that conscientiousness arises, I think sums it up quiet nicely.

LOL It's not something I have spent enough time time thinking to develope an internal conflict. At least not lately. But one must value the input of the atheistic-evolutionist over the theistic-evolutionist because the atheist, I think, is more consistent in their views.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Perhaps the problem here is the word 'higher' - I have a feeling it sounds fancy, so you're using it - but really perhaps you're just asking how functions evolve.

In that case, it's actually really simple.

Step 1: add a part
Step 2: make it necessary

In the first instance, a mutation arises naturally that offers either a selective benefit, or is reproductively negligible. It doesn't even have to do anything at all. In step 2, the architecture is co-opted to perform some biological role that offers some survival benefit. Then going forward, future generations may specialize further and further with that organ - eyes are a very good example of this.

 

[Sparhafoc]

When I said that matter arranges itself I did not mean that it had an intent or desire. Of course there are forces involved. But these forces exist because of matter(is this correct?)

But we can't then treat matter as one thing, so saying it 'arranges itself' is misleading.

Matter is arranged by natural forces.

Basically I am try to figure out the basics of what I would have to believe if I did not believe in creation.

Well, you wouldn't need to believe in a magical man in the sky poofing things into existence with a wiggle of his ineffable nose.

Surely pretty much everything is mundane comparatively?

To say that matter is arranged through observed forces in the universe so that conscientiousness arises, I think sums it up quiet nicely.

Either you've forgotten the word, or your auto-complete feature is taking the piss!

But anyway.... which isn't the same as saying 'matter arranges itself to become aware of itself'. That would involve directionality - a pressure towards awareness that doesn't follow from anything within the system.

LOL It's not something I have spent enough time time thinking to develope an internal conflict. At least not lately. But one must value the input of the atheistic-evolutionist over the theistic-evolutionist because the atheist, I think, is more consistent in their views.

As I said, at least theistic evolution is trying to accommodate empirical reality, whereas the mainstay of Creationism is to deny empirical reality when it conflicts with doctrine. I am not being an arse here, I am contending this is factually true and can provide examples.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Since my colleague is proceeding much as I would, I'll sit in the gallery for the moment, but this...

But these forces exist because of matter(is this correct?)

No, not exactly. Matter is made of fermions, while forces are carried by bosons (photons for electromagnetism, gluons for the strong nuclear force, W and Z bosons for the weak nuclear force; a boson is postulated for gravity, but none has been found, and in Einstein's schema, gravity isn't actually a force, but a pseudoforce).

It's certainly true to say that the properties of fermions (and the properties of bosons) determine the precise details of fermion/boson interactions, but it's misleading to say that the forces exist because of matter. In a universe absent fermions, those bosons would still be providing force, and interacting with other non-fermions.

A minor niggle, but one that might become important as the discussion evolves.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Can you explain in your own words what's the difference between a standard biological function and a 'higher' function?

A higher function is an ability not possessed by a lower form of life.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Step 1: add a part
Step 2: make it necessary

In the first instance, a mutation arises naturally that offers either a selective benefit, or is reproductively negligible. It doesn't even have to do anything at all. In step 2, the architecture is co-opted to perform some biological role that offers some survival benefit. Then going forward, future generations may specialize further and further with that organ - eyes are a very good example of this.

It's well worth paying close attention to this, LZ. This right here is why even what creationists deem 'irreducible complexity' far from being a problem for evolutionary theory, is actually a prediction of it. Those two steps debunked Michael Behe decades before he even erected his irreducible complexity nonsense.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Either you've forgotten the word, or your auto-complete feature is taking the piss!

Ah shit! Sorry. Maybe tell me again 5 more times and I will catch on!

 

[Greg the Grouper]

A higher function is an ability not possessed by a lower form of life.

I'm willing to bet that Sparhafoc is gonna want to know what you consider to be a higher form of life.

 

[Deleted member 619]

If he doesn't, I'm going to be calling his medical practitioner for a wellness check.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

It's well worth paying close attention to this, LZ. This right here is why even what creationists deem 'irreducible complexity' far from being a problem for evolutionary theory, is actually a prediction of it. Those two steps debunked Michael Behe decades before he even erected his irreducible complexity nonsense.

Ok. I am ready not a fan of the "irreducible complexity" argument. I think that Sparhafoc and others have already made some pretty good arguments against it elsewhere in this forum. I will pay attention to this.