Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Spendius,

Your 14 point shopping list was missed by one of my committee members (selves) who had you on ignore that day. (The vote at present is about 50-50)
I write from a nondualistic perspective in which ephemeral concerns with "control" is the price we pay for cognizing through language. From this standpoint, religion is one of the more pernicious aspects of that price. Note that you associate "education" with control, whereas one of my selves, an educator for the past 30 years, associates it with communication, a skill you perversely seem to hold at arm's length.

My "handling" of logic and reality have been expounded elsewhere and can be found by scanning my postings of the last seven years. I see no point in re-iterating them here. This thread is perhaps slightly shorter in temporal longevity to the social reality thread and their duration IMO can be attributed to that interest in "control" issue I have mentioned, not to any profundity of control mythology.

As for "duties to self", the first perhaps is recognize some of its illusory aspects such as unity and integrity.

(Offline for next 36 hours).

I presume I'll be forgiven for addressing my response to your non-dualistic self.

I'm inclined to think that a non-dualistic approach is the fundamentally necessary principle of atheism. Once the atheistic position is adopted, which it can easily be for a variety of reasons at an early stage in life, it seems to me it is logically necessary for a non-dualistic explanation of life. As such it will be sought and relied upon in order that the early adoption of it avoids the risk of it being undermined and made to look foolish. The notion of the mind as separate from the body is impossible for atheism.

Besides the non-dualistic approach being a justification for the materialism of atheism and the rejection of moral considerations, and the inhibitions they entail, it does sterling service in regard to the intellectual excellence of its adherents and the superiority of the philosophical position they are entitled to claim as no scientific proof can assail it. Nor demonstrate it.

That is because the non-dualistic position seems on its face to defy common sense. How, for example, are the subtle complexities of Test Match cricket to be appreciated by chemico/physico states of the brain or how do such chemico/physico states of the brain discover, or even desire to discover, the mathematics of dynamic force?

Transcending common sense logically implies transcending the common run of men one of which is said to be born every minute but who eschew the ownership and agonising use of boats and cruises where it might take an incoherent Irish flunkey 15 minutes to direct one to the bar. It is bound to be felt as superior and, as such, fulfilling and satisfying in the same way that, assuming only chemico/physico states of the organism are in play, to double steak pudding, double chips and double bread and butter are satisfying to other appetites.

The non-dualistic position, being not obvious to the senses, requires introspection and that is usually associated with the sort of highly developed power in the use of language which your post displays in marked contrast to many other contributions to this thread which, by comparison, resemble the grafitti which commonly adornes the inside of the doors of ladies' toilets in fish gutting plants which I have had to witness on a small number of occasions as I have wended my way through this weary world of woe.

In perceiving objects we distinguish between the mental event of the perception and the physical nature of the object we are contemplating. But in introspection the object being perceived is the same mind as the perceiver. It is the mind perceiving itself. The introspection and the thing introspected are both mental states of the same mind.

When normal discourse is conducted in language which, in its essentials as a mode of communication, is similar to that to be discovered on the inside surface of the doors of ladies' toilets in fish gutting plants, reasonable evidence exists that introspection, a basic principle of the Faustian project, arising, along with autobiography, out of the Christian institution of confession, is entirely absent, as it is also with young children who merely perceive objects in relation to subjectivities connected to the pleasure/pain continuum. Following Schopenhaeur we might include ladies in this respect and particularly those who feel the urge to comment on the current state of things on the doors of their toilets. Obviously ladies who contribute to the hallowed pages of A2K are not to be included in that observation.

The problem with introspection is that it is illogical that the introspecting object and the introspected object are states of one and the same mind because a mental state cannot be aware of itself. In order to be so the process of introspection must be the object of a further introspective awareness and so on and so on. But the mind is finite and has not the capacity for infinite regress introspecting states of introspection without an end and thus must eventually reach a state of introspection which is not subject to further introspection.

So introspection, which is the only way to arrive at non-dualism, is a scanning of the mind doing the scanning and reaches a point, usually quite rapidly, and as I have explained, where an unscannable scanner looms into view and which can easily be likened to the "head up arse" situation which our friends from the US are so fond of calling attention to presumably because it is their normal mode of operation where it isn't all that easy to see alternatives to.

I'll assume my "shopping list" will remain on ignore by your other selves and I hope you enjoyed your 36 hours respite from the strains of A2k.

spendi, I'll admit on the front end that I did not read your whole post, but what caught my eye was

I would say your observations are probably way off the mark; I didn't change my "religion" until my mid-twenties - long after I left home.

That's an early stage of life.

There's a philosophical, psychological, and theological meaning for dualism so the likelihood that you are wrong about any person is quite high.

The theological is a concept that the world is ruled by the antagonistic forces of good and evil or the concept that humans have two basic natures, the physical and the spiritual.

fresco doesn't do theology. Nor the spiritual. Anti-ID rules them both out.

Materialism is clear about that.

Well, then, Fresco or any agnostic or atheist could have a life of dualism.

Within philosophy, the view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities, such as mind and matter, without metaphysical or supernatural influence. This would be close to the philosophy of Proust, the dualism of self and the observations of the outside world without passing internal judgement or the compulsion to influence. Something religious people seem to lack. It does not necessarily include materialism.

Psychologically, the view that the mind and body function separately, without interchange. The heart does not control feelings of empathy or altruism -- that is in the parts of the brain that evolution and DNA have designated for moral judgements and actions. Sociopaths have almost no activity in that part of the brain and, contrary to what some believe, not only are without empathy for others, but also themselves. That's why they often want to get caught if the sociopathy allows them to injure or murder another person. Thus, there is a duality of good and evil within each personality, strongly associated with love and hate. This would be in accordance to Sir Francis Crick's scientific examination of the soul. This also does not necessarily include materialism.

The human brain is far more complicated than that.

Are you envisaging "mind" as immaterial? The materialist obviously doesn't. It is, for the materialist, a system of chemical and physical states of the brain which are apt for causing certain behaviours. If the behaviour they are apt to cause is inhibited there is a tendency for dreams to enact them.

Conditioning of the brain can take place in the same manner that animals use "preferred pathways". An efficiency in habit.

Once mind is thought of as having the property of immateriality there is the possibilty, which cannot be disproved, that it can exist outside the body and thus that soul has been invented. There seems no logical reason for such an entity to perish with the body if it is both separate from it and has immateriality.

Once there is "soul" religion follows, particularly Christianity, and with that admitted the materialist concedes the whole position.

PS. My reading of Proust, which took a whole hot summer on a swing lounger beneath a large willow tree, is that he passed a large number of judgments on his contemporaries and the world at large. The famous photograph says it all to me. His emphasised disinterest is an elaborate extended irony.

I'm not convinced that Crick's expertise in a certain specialised field allows too much credibility to be given to his speculations in other fields. That is the same as is often attempted by sportsmen offering dietary advice.

Which definition of materialism are you referring to?

1. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

2. The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.

3. A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.

Some of the most materialistic people I know considering 2 and 3 are the very wealthy and very religious I've worked with or for or are friends -- a friend, after all, is someone you know all the bad things about but you like them anyway. No. 1 would be too abstract and illusive for them. Being non-religious does not make one materialistic. It does not mean one hasn't comprehended there is a greater power that is not in their control, but doesn't necessarily have a brain or the power to actually design anything but can randomly create. No. 1 is the scientist and the sceptic who constantly tests and experiments for answers. Dark matter is very abstract at this point in science but it is not metaphysical or supernatural.

The condition of the brain to take preferred pathways is a given and it can be a habit or a regimen, sometime good, sometimes bad. Animals likely have little conceptual or abstract intelligence and we have not been able to demonstrably concluded that a dolphin, for instance, has none or how much the animal may have. In the wild, animals are more likely to get the chance to witness a death of their own species. Scientists, and even photographic documentarians, have observed n animal mourning. Do they conclude that they will eventually die? We don't know that yet, but scientists are exploring it. Does an animal have a soul? That's certainly been debated.

That a brain is organic matter powered by bio-electricity is almost scientifically certain. Can it exist outside the body even after death. There isn't a shred of proof.

Soul depends on an immaterial spirit. IIt's also the activating or essential principle influencing a person which is spirit that comes from Sir Francis Crick's scientific conclusions. Soul is also music or food. It's a very semantically complicated word to be throwing about conclusively.

An immaterial soul is particularly Christian? No. It's in all religions and of equal if not even more intensity.

What Proust have you read? Those are not judgements you're reading in any legal, spiritual or critical manner, they are illuminations, cognitive awareness, clarification, edification, enlightenment, insight, inspiration, instruction, perception, and revelations about humankind. It's not emphasised disinterest, it's impartial observation and the irony comes naturally because of the way he observes.

That Sir Francis Crick "specialized field" has such a wide effect and embodies the very core of evolution and how profound is the very slight difference between us and our nearest relatives in the animal world, or other animals with highly developed mental capacity for that matter.

His writings include "Astonishing Hypothesis" is squarely in his field -- what field is he intruding on? Theology? Sportsmen offering dietary advice if they are in prime shape and that's instrumental in the honing of their skills would be important, but the analogy to Crick is false in that he would be a sportsman teaching you how to play the game.

I was, obviously, referring to the pholosophical definition. The other two are mere colloquialisms usually employed pejoritively.

My reflections do not concern your friends. A friend to me is someone I regularly socialise with and who can be relied upon to help me out up to a certain point beyond which it would be unreasonable of me to expect him or her to go.

I was not focussed on "the brain". A materialist would, I think, say that brain, mind and body are all the same thing and cannot exist after death.

I didn't "throw about conclusively" the word soul.

I have read the whole of A la recherche du temps perdu. I thought it pure entertainment. I have also read all the biogs I can find and much commentary from various sources. I like his style. And a lot of his insights.

Maybe my style eludes you LW.

Maybe my style eludes you LW.

Maybe your style confounds me.

It's obvious you aren't focused on the brain. The brain is essentially the same as the mind, but not the same as the body which houses the brain. The brain would be immobile, obviously, without the body and receive no nutrition without the body. Oh, they exist after death in a much different state and join the inorganic, and possibly the organic matter of the Earth (damn worms), in a more fascinating way if it's cremated and the ashes thrown into the wind over an ocean. Of course, if you're diving and get eaten whole by a shark, don't you become part of the shark? Perhaps the shark thought you were fillet of soul.

I didn't immediately find where anyone stated that you "throw about conclusively" the word soul. So I assume you are not sure of its metaphysical or spiritual existence. Which could mean believing in ghosts or reincarnation a la Shirley McClaine.

You're the only one who I've ever read who has ever stated that Proust is purely entertainment. There are several books about Proust including one outlining a philosophy on handling living in reality and society. He's taken a position of being a philosopher more than a novelist. Not that being intellectually inspired isn't entertainment.

I'm not sure I can comment on this discussion of materialism per se.

Non-duality for me is an ontological position in which "existence" involves two conceptual poles "Observer" and "observed". But neither can exist without the other. Materiality/physicality is merely one aspect of such an inter-relationship. There is no implication that materiality is axiomatic to existence. There are no "things" without "thingers" and vice versa. In the case of "self a believer" and "God", these concepts are bound such that "self a non-believer" is excluded from the set of aspects of of "selfhood". In otherwords individuals do not "have" beliefs, they are their beliefs.

The function of all "concepts" is prediction and control. A monotheistic"believer" is secure in God's control of this life" and prediction of "an afterlife". An "atheist" cannot deny the concept "God". He merely has a negative relationship with it in terms of its utility in prediction and control. The predictive function of concepts (as triggers for anticipated interaction) can be explained by their embodiment as "words" which appear to be timeless segmentations of "reality". Thus language users are lulled into a sense of a relatively "fixed reality" when in essence all is in flux. Thus the word "rock" evokes an expectation of relationships with the world which we should note differs somewhat say for US and UK users. This difference is of course the key to understand that a "rock" posses es no properties of its own. "Properties" are concepts about mutual existence and interaction (Between rock and rocker !)

Finally, there is a transcendent level where "observer" and "observed" are themselves illusory from the point of view of of an non-anthropocentric idea of life which attempts to cast away "prediction and control" as epistemological requirements of "explanation". (Ref Maturana). Fom this standpoint "cognition" is another term for "the general life process" ...Man his Language, Thought, and Gods being anthropocentric vanities of little consequence. However the mathematical models of such "life" (autopietic structures) does allow for bi-directional functionality between different levels of structure (e.g cells and organs). This perspective may give a framework to visualise "successive levels of consciousness" such that an "ultimate holistic consciousness" is conceivable, with the proviso that
closure of such nested systems is always a psychological temptation.
With such closure, non-duality because a "spiritual" position with morality etc as natural components as opposed to the synthetic components of religions.

My attitude to ID is therefore not an epistemological one concerned with "explanation". I fully expect "irreducible complexities" to arise in control oriented "science", since such complexities have been shown to occur spontaneously in quite simple environments. (see Prigogine).Whether such complexities indicate the operation of "an ultimate holostic consciousness" is NOT a requirement of the metalogical mathematical models which describe them.

Hahahaha, really? Is that how your mind works, spendi?

Could someone remind me what any of this has to do with ID?

Notice soul is in quotations marks. There's scientific proof of the soul but not a supernatural or metaphysical soul that can exist outside the body -- the individual differences, however slight or pronounced, in the thinking and emotional processes which makes us each unique -- yet joined by contact, communication and memory. This involves all the senses and as much as the experimenters of ESP try, it doesn't include communicating by radio, video or electrical signals through the air and certainly not by the supernatural communication of souls. That's just Voodoo. Aretha Franklin can do it, but music is a known way of communicating.

LW, Is your "soul" the same as emotion?

David Christopher Lane's opening paragraphs in his review of "Astonishing Hypothesis" reveals that no, the soul is not strictly the same as emotion:

Francis Crick is a charming and disarming man, with a good sense of humor and a quick, ironic wit. It is these very same traits which makes reading The Astonishing Hypothesis such a joy to read. Although there has been something of a publishing bonanza in books dealing with the brain/mind/computer connection, they have with a few exceptions been weighted down by cumbersome reasoning (especially works trying to connect quantum theory with mysticism). Such is not the case with Crick's latest tome, since he argues with clarity, focus, and ease. His hypothesis, astonishing or not, is really quite simple: man has no soul, no spiritual self which transcends his/her physical frame. What we take to be the soul, Crick argues, is nothing more than a complex network of neurons. We are to the very core physical beings who have somehow deceived ourselves into believing that we are something more, something non-material, something transcendent. That is the prejudice, of course, which Crick is trying to overcome by gallantly stating that science should explore the question of consciousness with as much dedication as we have the sky, the atom, and the evolution of life. And what Crick thinks we will eventually discover is a physical basis for consciousness, something which resides in the parallel processing of a vast neural internet. As Crick so astutely puts it:

The Astonishing Hypothesis is that "You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased it: "you're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people alive today that it can be truly called astonishing.

Crick had been a posterchild for the IDers for a while, until he explained what he was speakingabout when he used the terms "biological roots of tye soul". All one had to do to remind theCreationists of his worldview was to read his 1994 work that championed panspermia, or the possibility that aliens seeded the early earth. Thus merely deferring the "first occurence " hypothesis. Too bad he died while he was still explaining himself.

Gunga and RL had really misunderstood Cricks hypotheses.

LW, Thanks. Sounds the same as dualism to me.

I must apologise for my neglect of this thread but I had a medium sized wager on the West Indies saving the Test Match in Antigua after England declared and I have spent the last three days more or less spellbound. Particularly today.

And I'm off to the pub now to celebrate.

**** ontology. My materialistic soul is knackered. I hate English sportsmen. Good enough for 'em, the Big Dicks. Man--did they sweat.

See you later.

SLIGHT EDIT
...the self (or committee of selves) and not-self having coalesced within a holistic epiphany.