Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 28th, 2016, 10:28 pm 

I made a little website about creationist philosophy, which is the underlaying logic in the various creation theories.

Creationism has got a bad name in academics. But we should realize that for any faults creationism is still the only major theory which focuses on freedom as how things come to pass in the universe. Freedom is not some issue to be trifled with. The mechanism of creation is choosing, the underlaying logic of creation theory is essentially the same as the logic of free will. God, the soul, and when the earth was created, and in what order things are created, are essentially variables in creationist theory around the constant mechanism of creation, which is choosing.

On inspecting creationist philosophy, it is certainly the best philosophy of all. That is because creationist philosophy also validates opinion (like about what is beautiful), besides validating fact. Other philosophies, like materialism, really just only validate fact, and not opinion. "Opinion" is a creationist concept.

http://creationistischreveil.nl/opinion
http://creationistischreveil.nl/fact
http://creationistischreveil.nl/creationism

The pivotal bit is at the last picture on the "opinion" page. That the conclusion the love exists, or does not exist is arrived at by choosing the answer, resulting in..... an opinion.

Opinion

An opinion is formed by choosing about what it is that chooses. For example the opinion "the painting is beautiful"
By spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, a choice is made between the words "beautiful" and "ugly". Either option is equally correct.
Image
At first both words are in the future as possibilities. The decision is that one of the alternatives in the future is made the present. The word "beautiful" is chosen, therefore the word becomes to be said in the present.
Image
To say the painting is "beautiful" means to say there exists a love for the way the painting looks in the heart. This love is what chose between the words beautiful and ugly.
Image
The existence of this love for the painting is also a matter of opinion. That means the conclusion that the love is not real, is just as well correct as the conclusion that the love is real. In the same way that both conclusions "ugly" and "beautiful" were correct, both conclusions "the love is real", and "the love is not real", are correct.
Image

So there are 2 requirements for an opinion in order for it to be valid.
1: The opinion must be chosen.
2: The opinion must about something that chooses.

If a proposed opinion does not meet those requirementes, then the opinion is wrong.
For example if somebody is forced to say the painting is beautiful, that he or she doesn't have the possibility of choosing the word ugly, then it is not really an opinion, because it is not chosen.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Lomax on June 28th, 2016, 10:53 pm 

Welcome to the forum, Syamsu. Your post is interesting but I smell something fishy about the following crucial passage:

The existence of this love for the painting is also a matter of opinion. That means the conclusion that the love is not real, is just as well correct as the conclusion that the love is real.


In what way is the existence of the love only a matter of opinion? I mean, either I feel love or I do not: if love is defined clearly enough, there are likely to be ways of testing whether I feel it.

I am also reticent to accept the spirit of the following passage:

But we should realize that for any faults creationism is still the only major theory which focuses on freedom as how things come to pass in the universe. Freedom is not some issue to be trifled with. The mechanism of creation is choosing, the underlaying logic of creation theory is essentially the same as the logic of free will. God, the soul, and when the earth was created, and in what order things are created, are essentially variables in creationist theory around the constant mechanism of creation, which is choosing.


You and I certainly have no choice in the matter of when the earth was created. We will never have been consulted. I find little liberating in a theory which awards all the liberty and all the authority to God (or Yahweh, or Allah, or Zeus), as creationism invariably tends to.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3702
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Watson on June 28th, 2016, 11:28 pm 

Hi Syamsu,
I don't think I'll be swayed from the more scientific thinking, but I'm curious about what you, and other people think on the subject. Science is full of unknowns on the subject, so the big question is not that big an omission. What was there before the Big Bang? The creationist approach explains it all, almost. What was there before GOD? And a few other questions come to mind.
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4536
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 28th, 2016, 11:45 pm 

Lomax » June 28th, 2016, 9:53 pm wrote:Welcome to the forum, Syamsu. Your post is interesting but I smell something fishy about the following crucial passage:

The existence of this love for the painting is also a matter of opinion. That means the conclusion that the love is not real, is just as well correct as the conclusion that the love is real.


In what way is the existence of the love only a matter of opinion? I mean, either I feel love or I do not: if love is defined clearly enough, there are likely to be ways of testing whether I feel it.


That is indeed the crucial bit in creationist logic. It may be counterintuitive on some levels, but technically one can see that it is necessary to make the existence of the love into a matter of opinion in order to make the logic function without contradictions.

Creationist logic says this is how it works. As can be illustrated with the movie Cassablanca. Rick meets Ilsa in Paris where they fall in love. Then Ilsa doesn't show up at the trainstation, and Rick goes to Cassablanca and starts a cafe. Then Rick becomes a cynic and decides that the love between him and Ilsa was not real. Then Ilsa walks into Ricks cafe, and they fight some, and make good, and then Rick got back the love they had in Paris.

Rick: "Rick: We'll always have Paris. We didn't have, we, we lost it until you came to Casablanca. We got it back last night."

So in Ricks opinion, at first the love is real, then retrospectively not real, then retrospectively real again.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 29th, 2016, 8:51 am 

Watson » June 28th, 2016, 10:28 pm wrote:Hi Syamsu,
I don't think I'll be swayed from the more scientific thinking, but I'm curious about what you, and other people think on the subject. Science is full of unknowns on the subject, so the big question is not that big an omission. What was there before the Big Bang? The creationist approach explains it all, almost. What was there before GOD? And a few other questions come to mind.


That is not really a rational question on creationist terms, because it implies God is a created thing with a measurable attribute of time. In creationism it is not logically possible to get any facts about what the agency of a decision is, this includes facts about human beings as creators. With human beings then an unseen soul is posited as doing the creating.

So you can see that even with readily observable creation by human beings, then still systematically all matters about the agency of a decision (defined as that which makes a decision turn out the way it does) are regarded as a matter of opinion.

A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to produce a model of what is evidenced. The facts about the moon for instance, are essentially a 1 to 1 corresponding model of the moon. It is not possible to model the agency of a decision. This is because facts are obtained in a forced way, forced by evidence, while the agency of a decision is free. One cannot apply the logic of being forced to what is free.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Serpent on June 29th, 2016, 8:57 am 

For me, this ends the topic:
So there are 2 requirements for an opinion in order for it to be valid.
1: The opinion must be chosen.
2: The opinion must about something that chooses.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3865
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Eclogite on June 29th, 2016, 9:26 am 

Syamsu » Wed Jun 29, 2016 2:28 am wrote:2: The opinion must about something that chooses.

Perhaps I am being very stupid, but this makes no sense to me. In your example an opinion is formed about a painting. In what way is the painting choosing?
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Watson on June 29th, 2016, 9:47 am 

To say "that is not a rational question on creationist terms" seems like avoiding an obvious flaw in the thinking. On the other hands, science puts aside similar questions if, and because they have no scientific basis. What came before the Big Bang is not a question science can deal with because there is no evidence to inform the conversation or further the investigation. But it is possible things could change, with advancements in scientific knowledge and techniques, and it could become a question of science.
The big difference, it seems to me is, creationist thinking has the absolute answer to be accepted without question or further investigation. And, there are no logical steps to get to that conclusion.
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4536
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby TheVat on June 29th, 2016, 9:54 am 

So there are 2 requirements for an opinion in order for it to be valid.
1: The opinion must be chosen.
2: The opinion must about something that chooses.





And, regarding the first requirement...let me see if that works...

I choose the opinion: Des Moines is located on the surface of Mars.

This opinion, having been chosen, is therefore valid if #2 is also met.... And, since Des Moines is "something that chooses" (by means of referendum vote, perhaps), then my opinion is valid. Des Moines is on Mars and not in Iowa!

hmmmm.....
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7325
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Lomax on June 29th, 2016, 10:17 am 

Syamsu » June 29th, 2016, 4:45 am wrote:That is indeed the crucial bit in creationist logic. It may be counterintuitive on some levels, but technically one can see that it is necessary to make the existence of the love into a matter of opinion in order to make the logic function without contradictions.

For sure - so I assume you see the absurdity of stating a plainly untrue premise in order to make your conclusion follow?
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3702
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 29th, 2016, 10:27 am 

Eclogite » June 29th, 2016, 8:26 am wrote:
Syamsu » Wed Jun 29, 2016 2:28 am wrote:2: The opinion must about something that chooses.

Perhaps I am being very stupid, but this makes no sense to me. In your example an opinion is formed about a painting. In what way is the painting choosing?


...if you read carefully it is the love for the way the painting looks which chooses the word beautiful. The word beautiful is an expression of love by free will, thus choosing. Love is in the category of agency, the creator category. All what is in this category does the job of making an alternative future the present. In this case the word beautiful was made the present, it was chosen. Alternatively ugly good have been chosen.

If you would get further into it, which is of no use when you don't grasp the fundamentals, then one can also explain the painting in terms of having been chosen. So then the painting becomes to be understood as communication between the decisions by which the painting was created, and the decisions in forming an opinion about the painting.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 29th, 2016, 10:35 am 

Lomax » June 29th, 2016, 9:17 am wrote:
Syamsu » June 29th, 2016, 4:45 am wrote:That is indeed the crucial bit in creationist logic. It may be counterintuitive on some levels, but technically one can see that it is necessary to make the existence of the love into a matter of opinion in order to make the logic function without contradictions.

For sure - so I assume you see the absurdity of stating a plainly untrue premise in order to make your conclusion follow?


It is not plainly untrue, common discourse plainly uses creationist logic, as I have demonstrated by deconstructing the statement that the painting is beautiful. You desire to have factual certainty that your love is real, that makes it counterintuitve to you to say it is a matter of opinion. But this is not how common discourse works. Wouldn't we all like to have factual certitude about love, in stead of the fragility of self confidence based on emotion, but it cannot be done.

You need to explain, what room do you leave for opinion, when you have made the existence of love into a matter of fact.

The answer is none, you have sidelined subjectivity altogether.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 29th, 2016, 10:44 am 

Braininvat » June 29th, 2016, 8:54 am wrote:
So there are 2 requirements for an opinion in order for it to be valid.
1: The opinion must be chosen.
2: The opinion must about something that chooses.





And, regarding the first requirement...let me see if that works...

I choose the opinion: Des Moines is located on the surface of Mars.

This opinion, having been chosen, is therefore valid if #2 is also met.... And, since Des Moines is "something that chooses" (by means of referendum vote, perhaps), then my opinion is valid. Des Moines is on Mars and not in Iowa!

hmmmm.....


Really, you are choosing a location. Location is not agency. Love, hate, the soul, God, etc. those things are agency.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Lomax on June 29th, 2016, 10:49 am 

Syamsu » June 29th, 2016, 3:35 pm wrote:
Lomax » June 29th, 2016, 9:17 am wrote:
Syamsu » June 29th, 2016, 4:45 am wrote:That is indeed the crucial bit in creationist logic. It may be counterintuitive on some levels, but technically one can see that it is necessary to make the existence of the love into a matter of opinion in order to make the logic function without contradictions.

For sure - so I assume you see the absurdity of stating a plainly untrue premise in order to make your conclusion follow?


It is not plainly untrue, common discourse plainly uses creationist logic, as I have demonstrated by deconstructing the statement that the painting is beautiful. You desire to have factual certainty that your love is real, that makes it counterintuitve to you to say it is a matter of opinion.

By no means. As I said before, whether somebody feels love is a factual matter because we (or at least they) can test for it once it is well-defined. It is a different question to whether they should feel love.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3702
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 29th, 2016, 10:54 am 

Watson » June 29th, 2016, 8:47 am wrote:To say "that is not a rational question on creationist terms" seems like avoiding an obvious flaw in the thinking. On the other hands, science puts aside similar questions if, and because they have no scientific basis. What came before the Big Bang is not a question science can deal with because there is no evidence to inform the conversation or further the investigation. But it is possible things could change, with advancements in scientific knowledge and techniques, and it could become a question of science.
The big difference, it seems to me is, creationist thinking has the absolute answer to be accepted without question or further investigation. And, there are no logical steps to get to that conclusion.


It is completely useless to compete fact with opinion, and see which one is better. Obviously each is valid in their own right.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Serpent on June 29th, 2016, 11:01 am 

Why go to all the trouble of pretending to reason?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3865
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
Lomax liked this post


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 29th, 2016, 11:15 am 

Lomax wrote:By no means. As I said before, whether somebody feels love is a factual matter because we (or at least they) can test for it once it is well-defined. It is a different question to whether they should feel love.


We might define love as having the corners of the mouth turned upward, and add some other parameters to the definition like some configuration of brainchemistry and such. So defined we can indeed measure who is loving and who isn't.

But in common discourse the word love is used with a logic of free will. As I have demonstrated by deconstructing a phrase from common discourse "the painting is beautiful". And also demonstrated with the dialogue from the movie Cassablanca.

One can see that technically this is the only way the logic of choosing can function, that the question of what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does, agency, can only be regarded as a matter of opinion. If we leave agency as a matter of fact issue, then obviously the decision can only turn out in accordance with what the agency in fact consists of.

If it is a fact that there exists a love for the way the painting looks in the brain, then this love forces the person to say the words that the painting is beautiful, and he could not say the painting is ugly.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Watson on June 29th, 2016, 11:22 am 

Yes your opinion is valid, as an opinion. In the past, some people have come to this forum claiming creationism as a fact. And you can imagine how well that is accepted in a science forum. Even as an opinion, this may end up in Personal Thoughts.
I like to wonder about the Universe and what if there was a ??something?? out there. Spiritually, I'm open to having more to life than our human existence. But I lose interest somewhat when someone wants to explain it to me. Wondering together is good. Being taught, not so much.
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4536
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 29th, 2016, 11:43 am 

Watson » June 29th, 2016, 10:22 am wrote:Yes your opinion is valid, as an opinion. In the past, some people have come to this forum claiming creationism as a fact. And you can imagine how well that is accepted in a science forum. Even as an opinion, this may end up in Personal Thoughts.
I like to wonder about the Universe and what if there was a ??something?? out there. Spiritually, I'm open to having more to life than our human existence. But I lose interest somewhat when someone wants to explain it to me. Wondering together is good. Being taught, not so much.


My sense of it is that subjectivity gets a raw deal. You are correct that many creationists assert the existence of God, as a matter of fact issue. Arguing that they are forced by evidence to the conclusion that God exists, and that they did not choose that conclusion from their heart. So subjectivity get's a raw deal in academcis as well as in religion.

But on the whole the formal structure in religion is still focused on subjectivity, so as that the word religion has become to be interchangeable with the word faith, and faith is fairly clearly subjective. Besides religion, obviously common discourse accommodates subjectivity very much.

But the theory of evolution is a very powerful catalyst in the commonly human head vs heart struggle, where fact is irrationally competed against opinion, to the destruction of opinion. Accepting the theory of evolution causes people to become coldhearted and calculating. "Opinion" is fundamentally a creationist concept.

It is insulting to not acknowledge somebody's emotions, and emotions can really only be acknlowedged in a subjective way. And this is what acceptance of evolution theory leads to, to systematically ignore people's emotions, because of the fact that emotions cannot be measured.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Serpent on June 29th, 2016, 11:56 am 

It is insulting to not acknowledge somebody's emotions, and emotions can really only be acknlowedged in a subjective way.

Not so. I can acknowledge objectively and prove scientifically that everybody has emotions. I can even demonstrate that animals all the way back to the dinosaur have had emotions. I acknowledge all of them, without sharing the etiology, triggers and physical forms of many of those emotions. I can acknowledge emotions without mistaking them for ideas or logic.
We can formulate a social rule - etiquette or political correctness or common courtesy - that we be tolerant of one another's emotions, as long their expression does not violate another person's rights.

And this is what acceptance of evolution theory leads to, to systematically ignore people's emotions, because of the fact that emotions cannot be measured.

Do you mean that courtesy toward you requires me to reject the fact of evolution?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3865
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 29th, 2016, 12:03 pm 

Serpent » June 29th, 2016, 10:56 am wrote:
It is insulting to not acknowledge somebody's emotions, and emotions can really only be acknlowedged in a subjective way.

Not so. I can acknowledge objectively and prove scientifically that everybody has emotions. I can even demonstrate that animals all the way back to the dinosaur have had emotions. I acknowledge all of them, without sharing the etiology, triggers and physical forms of many of those emotions. I can acknowledge emotions without mistaking them for ideas or logic.
We can formulate a social rule - etiquette or political correctness or common courtesy - that we be tolerant of one another's emotions, as long their expression does not violate another person's rights.

And this is what acceptance of evolution theory leads to, to systematically ignore people's emotions, because of the fact that emotions cannot be measured.

Do you mean that courtesy toward you requires me to reject the fact of evolution?


To be civilized you are required to accept the fact that people have free will, that they make decisions, and to regard it as a subjective issue what the agency of those decisions is.

Obviously you can see that there may be some sort of inconsistency with regarding emotions as measurable, obviously you can see that maybe opinion has a little more to do with emotions than facts.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Watson on June 29th, 2016, 12:39 pm 

Not wishing to or meaning to insult, but all the sincere emotional beliefs don't equate to critical explanation. How did GOD make......things....any of them? The Universe, the solar system the earth? I understand God made man in his own image, then breathed life into him then learning, then made woman...etc. But how did God do this? Is it all faith, that God just does it?
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4536
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Lomax on June 29th, 2016, 1:13 pm 

In all fairness to Syamsu it is refreshing to find a Creationist who admits that they only believe in God because it is what they choose to believe. If all the rest of the movement would only do away with this pretense that there is a factual basis for their theory, we could save ourselves and them a lot of time and get back to the serious stuff without them.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3702
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK
BioWizard liked this post


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby BadgerJelly on June 29th, 2016, 1:49 pm 

No doubt we are emotional beings and we do what we do with emotion. A rock on the other hand has no emotion. Science is concerned with the mechanism of emotion not the subjective feeling of it (which we could say is still kind of science based in "social sciences").

Subjectivity is valid for me because it is mine. Objectivity is made valid by my subjective view. No escaping that.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5570
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Paralith on June 29th, 2016, 2:20 pm 

What concerns me is this.

Syamsu wrote:It is insulting to not acknowledge somebody's emotions, and emotions can really only be acknlowedged in a subjective way. And this is what acceptance of evolution theory leads to, to systematically ignore people's emotions, because of the fact that emotions cannot be measured.


This appears to be an extension of a common stereotype of scientists, and/or people who broadly accept science, as cold, calculating, and unfeeling. And it is just that - a stereotype. And an insulting one at that.

As others have already mentioned, the existence, nature, and importance of emotions to human behavior and experience is an objectively known fact and an area of much scientific study and research. Emotions are caused by physical phenomena in the brain and body, have demonstrable and consistent effects on human behavior. While they are no doubt complex and difficult to study, to say they cannot be measured is simply not true.

Thus, any scientist or rational citizen who claims that they must ignore emotion because of evolution science, or any kind of science, is not rational at all. Our understanding of human evolution and comparative animal behavior and cognition demonstrates that emotion is the basis of all animal behavior, that emotion is the larger and oft times stronger foundation upon which human conscious cognition was built.

I personally pursued evolution science in large part because I felt no other body of knowledge better explained human behavior from such a fundamental level. And I do not ignore the emotions of others. If anything I appreciate their strength and their impact on our subjective lives even more than I did before my studies. So let's not keeping making statements about how scientists are cold and unfeeling, shall we?
User avatar
Paralith
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Blog: View Blog (2)
EclogiteSciameriKen liked this post


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Lomax on June 29th, 2016, 2:22 pm 

BadgerJelly » June 29th, 2016, 6:49 pm wrote:Subjectivity is valid for me because it is mine. Objectivity is made valid by my subjective view. No escaping that.

I wish I could tell what this means, but as always with denials of objective truth, I cannot.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3702
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby ronjanec on June 29th, 2016, 2:51 pm 

Lomax » Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:13 am wrote:In all fairness to Syamsu it is refreshing to find a Creationist who admits that they only believe in God because it is what they choose to believe. If all the rest of the movement would only do away with this pretense that there is a factual basis for their theory, we could save ourselves and them a lot of time and get back to the serious stuff without them.


"Creationists" like yours truly here, again (primarily) believe in the existence of God because of what is called by others "Intelligent Design"(with a good amount of what is called "faith" in God covering the rest)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4433
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 29th, 2016, 2:53 pm 

Watson » June 29th, 2016, 11:39 am wrote:Not wishing to or meaning to insult, but all the sincere emotional beliefs don't equate to critical explanation. How did GOD make......things....any of them? The Universe, the solar system the earth? I understand God made man in his own image, then breathed life into him then learning, then made woman...etc. But how did God do this? Is it all faith, that God just does it?


As has already been mentioned, the mechanism of creation is choosing. It is a fact that decisions are made, but it is a matter of opinion what the agency of a decision is. Including readily observable creation by people, then still it is a matter of opinion what the agency of a decision is.

So you can do science about how things are chosen in the universe, but agency would not be part of that science.

And if you start thinking about how things in the universe work in terms of freedom, then DNA worlds theory is IMO the best bet for how organisms got to be chosen the way they are. Only to show the potential that one can arrive at credible theory if one starts explaining things in terms of freedom.

This idea is that the DNA system constitutes a world in it's own right, similar to how human imagination or a 3D computergame are worlds in their own right. So then there exists a DNA world in which there is a 3D representation of a fully formed adult organism, and in this DNA world the organism can be designed and redisgned.

This speculation is based on the finding that the "mathematical ordering" of the physical universe is the same as that of the DNA system. In physics there are 4 parameters of mass, time, space and charge. In biology there are the 4 CATG. And so on, all main parameters of both physics and biology have the same mathematical ordering.

This DNA worlds theory still does need natural selection theory to explain the organization of organisms, but here natural selection theory is applied in an anticipative way, rather than that after the production organisms are sorted in terms of fitness. The reason natural selection theory is still required is because without it one cannot explain how it comes to be that organisms have survival as a design principle. Without natural selection theory intelligent design predicts that the design principle of an organism might just as well be that of a watch to tell the time, or a refrigerator to keep things cold.

Besides being a good theory on how organisms are designed, this is also a very good theory on development of organisms to adulthood. AFAIK there doesn't really exist an overall theory of development in science now, there is just a hodge podge collection of theories of how organisms develop to adulthood. When I think about it, it just seems impossible to reliably produce an adult form, without a representation of the finished whole to guide the development.

Especially when we consider that evolution would produce messy coding by random mutation. That appears too much a mess to be able to reliably develop to an adult form without having guidance of a representation of the whole finished product.

Why would freedom be more or less useless in the universe, it's function being only like tossing salad, jostling the atoms about here and there? This does not appear credible to me. The organisms look designed, so that is good evidence that they are designed. If we admit the fact that freedom is real, then that is a sensible explanation.

Also this idea of junk-DNA, that just doesn't feel right. The idea that for instance deep sea organisms which have 100 percent efficiency in producing light from chemistry, would then inefficiently keep copying millions of years worth of evolutionary history and random mutations junk dna, that seems absurd. The cost of this junk DNA is too small and arbitrary for selection to weed out the junk dna.

Of course it is not impossible for organisms to carry around huge amonts of junk, but it is not what I would focus research on. I would focus on finding ways in which the DNA is evaluated in terms of fitness, and DNA worlds theory would then be an obvious way. Although I could imagine there would be other ways to get rid of junk DNA, like some mechanism which clears all DNA which has not been activated.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Paralith on June 29th, 2016, 3:07 pm 

Syamsu » Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:53 pm wrote:
Besides being a good theory on how organisms are designed, this is also a very good theory on development of organisms to adulthood. AFAIK there doesn't really exist an overall theory of development in science now, there is just a hodge podge collection of theories of how organisms develop to adulthood. When I think about it, it just seems impossible to reliably produce an adult form, without a representation of the finished whole to guide the development.

Especially when we consider that evolution would produce messy coding by random mutation. That appears too much a mess to be able to reliably develop to an adult form without having guidance of a representation of the whole finished product.

Why would freedom be more or less useless in the universe, it's function being only like tossing salad, jostling the atoms about here and there? This does not appear credible to me. The organisms look designed, so that is good evidence that they are designed. If we admit the fact that freedom is real, then that is a sensible explanation.

Also this idea of junk-DNA, that just doesn't feel right. The idea that for instance deep sea organisms which have 100 percent efficiency in producing light from chemistry, would then inefficiently keep copying millions of years worth of evolutionary history and random mutations junk dna, that seems absurd. The cost of this junk DNA is too small and arbitrary for selection to weed out the junk dna.

Of course it is not impossible for organisms to carry around huge amonts of junk, but it is not what I would focus research on. I would focus on finding ways in which the DNA is evaluated in terms of fitness, and DNA worlds theory would then be an obvious way. Although I could imagine there would be other ways to get rid of junk DNA, like some mechanism which clears all DNA which has not been activated.


I'm sorry, but all this just belies your lack of knowledge about evolution and biological science. So, in addition to a tried and tired stereotype of scientists as cold and heartless, you are also falling back on the usual "I don't understand how it could work so it must not actually work!" These are common creationist arguments. While you may have come up with a relatively novel rationalization of creationist philosophy, your underlying motivations appear to be exactly the same as most creationists.

I'll let others fight this one, then. I've done my fair share.
User avatar
Paralith
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Blog: View Blog (2)
LomaxSciameriKen liked this post


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Serpent on June 29th, 2016, 3:11 pm 

Syamsu » June 29th, 2016, 11:03 am wrote:[S --- Do you mean that courtesy toward you requires me to reject the fact of evolution?]
To be civilized you are required to accept the fact that people have free will, that they make decisions, and to regard it as a subjective issue what the agency of those decisions is.

No, I'm not. I can be civilized without believing in free will, without agreeing that people make decisions in anything like the manner they think they do (All of this is coming clear in the rapidly-ascending science of neurobiology.) or regarding any subject whatever in any way that somebody else tells me to.

Obviously you can see that there may be some sort of inconsistency with regarding emotions as measurable, obviously you can see that maybe opinion has a little more to do with emotions than facts.

Measurement or non-measurement of your emotion doesn't figure in my acceptance of your opinion. Certainly, I can see that your opinions are determined by your emotions, but that doesn't motivate me to respect them. I would respect them more if they were informed by some facts.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3865
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Next

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests