Refuting "the problem of evil"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2014, 07:45 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(21-08-2014 01:45 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 07:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  A compound has properties that arise out of the interactions of the constituent atoms - the atoms do not have those properties.

Correct. And it's a property of atoms that they contain known compound properties as a potential.

No. That is neither what I said nor what I meant. In fact, I disagree utterly.

Quote:Granted, science can't predict the qualities of the compound in advance of it appearing, emergence inevitably generates radical new novelty. That's a separate issue though, that's about the limits of the understanding of science it's not about an absence of cause and effect.

Cause and effect is easily provable, if I put a match to hydrogen and oxygen, I will arrive at water.

The potentiality of water in hydrogen and oxygen is an abstract property, a property that might in no way be predicted until the molecule emerges, but nevertheless - it's a known property of the atoms.

Ok, you keep repeating that and I will keep denying it. It is utterly absurd.

Quote:
Quote:Out of that largely incoherent mess of words, all I can say is that I said no such thing.


So in your understanding, how are the concepts of "zero" and "null" differentiated?

Off hand, I'd say zero is a value and null is non-existence. But I still have no idea what you're trying to say.

Quote:
Quote:What is the mechanism for consciousness driving complexity?

From the perspective that it does, I see the transcindentals of Beauty, Goodness and Truth as both attractors (creating vectors, or places to head for), but also as positions (places to stand from which to reach beyond themselves). I'd say that the underlying nature of emergence as process is a dialectic spiral which cycles indefinitely through the principles of Beauty, Goodness and Truth, e.g. once Truth is reached it moves on to a (higher order) Beauty.

To give a concrete example, I see Truth as an emergent property of Goodness. Well, on this thread we have a bunch of people coming together in relationship (goodness), in debate, with a (hopeful) emergent outcome of Truth. I've already had new insights as a result of this debate, so that's already a reality for me, hopefully others had had a similar experience of it.

That word salad needs more dressing.

Quote:
Quote:Could you restate that last bit?

It seems to me that you consider consciousness to be an emergent property of matter, in that chronologically matter arrived first in the cosmos, and then some time later, consciousness emerged in matter (as a radical new emergent novelty). Please correct me if that's not a correct reflection of your position.

Phil

That is accurate. Just as there was no water at all in the universe until there was.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 01:43 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(21-08-2014 04:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Because you already know what water is.

You can explain observed emergent behaviour (molecular structure) in terms of simpler interactions (eg electronegativity), but you cannot a priori predict that interaction.

Correct! And if you go back and read my posts carefully, you'll discover that's all I've actually said ;-)


Quote:An emergent property is an irreducible property.

Correct. And this has got absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

My knowledge of water as a property of hydrogen and oxygen does not come from an a priori expansion of the properties of hydrogen and oxygen.

It comes from simply observing reality and learning lessons about cause and effect.

I can prove the truth of my claim by the scientific method.

I can prove that water is contained in hydrogen and oxygen as a potentiality simply by setting up an experiment and successfully making water out of hydrogen and oxygen, this experiment proves the truth of my claim.

I don't care that science is unable to work out how or why this occurs, actually I already know why science is unable to work it out, so I don't find the issue of emergence particularly puzzling.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 02:12 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(21-08-2014 07:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 01:45 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Correct. And it's a property of atoms that they contain known compound properties as a potential.

No. That is neither what I said nor what I meant. In fact, I disagree utterly.

I know you disagree, but I can prove it.

Quote:
Quote:Granted, science can't predict the qualities of the compound in advance of it appearing, emergence inevitably generates radical new novelty. That's a separate issue though, that's about the limits of the understanding of science it's not about an absence of cause and effect.

Cause and effect is easily provable, if I put a match to hydrogen and oxygen, I will arrive at water.

The potentiality of water in hydrogen and oxygen is an abstract property, a property that might in no way be predicted until the molecule emerges, but nevertheless - it's a known property of the atoms.

Ok, you keep repeating that and I will keep denying it. It is utterly absurd.

You deny scientific fact?

If empirical evidence supporting my truth claim isn't sufficient proof, what would be?


Quote:
Quote:So in your understanding, how are the concepts of "zero" and "null" differentiated?

Off hand, I'd say zero is a value and null is non-existence. But I still have no idea what you're trying to say.

OK good - that's how I differentiate those two concepts too.

Would you care to gain some insight as to how it is fact that (a) the properties of water exist in hydrogen and oxygen even though (b) it's fact they can't be detected in the visible properties of the constituent atoms?

There's a reasonable and rational argument as to why this is so, which I will at least attempt to explain if you have a willing interest in the subject. I'd rather not spend 5 minutes typing out words only to have them dismissed as "word salad" though, so I'd like to know up-front if that's how you intend to respond to ideas you don't understand.

Quote:
Quote:It seems to me that you consider consciousness to be an emergent property of matter, in that chronologically matter arrived first in the cosmos, and then some time later, consciousness emerged in matter (as a radical new emergent novelty). Please correct me if that's not a correct reflection of your position.

That is accurate. Just as there was no water at all in the universe until there was.

As I thought - I understand your perspective, and can therefore make claims about what you yourself believe which you yourself will agree with. I don't find your ideas or truth claims puzzling, I can understand your words on your own terms.

See - I'm not struggling with any of the ideas that have thus far been brought up on this thread. I think I can reflect everyone's positions back to them on their own terms.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 06:21 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(22-08-2014 01:43 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 04:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Because you already know what water is.

You can explain observed emergent behaviour (molecular structure) in terms of simpler interactions (eg electronegativity), but you cannot a priori predict that interaction.

Correct! And if you go back and read my posts carefully, you'll discover that's all I've actually said ;-)


Quote:An emergent property is an irreducible property.

Correct. And this has got absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

My knowledge of water as a property of hydrogen and oxygen does not come from an a priori expansion of the properties of hydrogen and oxygen.

It comes from simply observing reality and learning lessons about cause and effect.

I can prove the truth of my claim by the scientific method.

I can prove that water is contained in hydrogen and oxygen as a potentiality simply by setting up an experiment and successfully making water out of hydrogen and oxygen, this experiment proves the truth of my claim.

I don't care that science is unable to work out how or why this occurs, actually I already know why science is unable to work it out, so I don't find the issue of emergence particularly puzzling.

Phil

No, you can't. You are either making an assertion about fundamental reality, or you are saying something facile.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-08-2014, 06:28 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(22-08-2014 02:12 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 07:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  No. That is neither what I said nor what I meant. In fact, I disagree utterly.

I know you disagree, but I can prove it.

Quote:

What is it that you think you are proving? Hydrogen and oxygen combine and the result is water. Fine. We all know that.

But you go on about 'potentiality' as a property of hydrogen and of oxygen.
What do you mean by that?

Quote:Ok, you keep repeating that and I will keep denying it. It is utterly absurd.

You deny scientific fact?

If empirical evidence supporting my truth claim isn't sufficient proof, what would be?

Seriously? Do you think that is what I am disputing? Your truth claim is about some property called 'potentiality'. There is no evidence of any such property.

Quote:
Quote:Off hand, I'd say zero is a value and null is non-existence. But I still have no idea what you're trying to say.

OK good - that's how I differentiate those two concepts too.

Would you care to gain some insight as to how it is fact that (a) the properties of water exist in hydrogen and oxygen even though (b) it's fact they can't be detected in the visible properties of the constituent atoms?

Would you care to explain what 'potentiality' is?
And how an undetectable property differs from a non-existent property?

Quote:There's a reasonable and rational argument as to why this is so, which I will at least attempt to explain if you have a willing interest in the subject. I'd rather not spend 5 minutes typing out words only to have them dismissed as "word salad" though, so I'd like to know up-front if that's how you intend to respond to ideas you don't understand.

Of course I didn't understand it - I don't think anyone else here did, either.
Try expressing it clearly.

Quote:
Quote:That is accurate. Just as there was no water at all in the universe until there was.

As I thought - I understand your perspective, and can therefore make claims about what you yourself believe which you yourself will agree with. I don't find your ideas or truth claims puzzling, I can understand your words on your own terms.

See - I'm not struggling with any of the ideas that have thus far been brought up on this thread. I think I can reflect everyone's positions back to them on their own terms.

Phil

Then go ahead and do so.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-08-2014, 09:02 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(22-08-2014 01:43 AM)phil.a Wrote:  My knowledge of water as a property of hydrogen and oxygen does not come from an a priori expansion of the properties of hydrogen and oxygen.

And it cannot. So there's that.

(22-08-2014 01:43 AM)phil.a Wrote:  It comes from simply observing reality and learning lessons about cause and effect.

I can prove the truth of my claim by the scientific method.

So what?

You can know things?

That's a pointlessly trivial observation.

(22-08-2014 01:43 AM)phil.a Wrote:  I can prove that water is contained in hydrogen and oxygen as a potentiality simply by setting up an experiment and successfully making water out of hydrogen and oxygen, this experiment proves the truth of my claim.

Yes, yes. It's a wonderful deepity. Congratulations. It's still meaningless.

The only possible way for that claim to contain meaning is to parse "potentiality" as thing I know will happen. There is no magical latent property containing the nature of emergent properties within constituents. That's incoherent nonsense.

(22-08-2014 01:43 AM)phil.a Wrote:  I don't care that science is unable to work out how or why this occurs, actually I already know why science is unable to work it out, so I don't find the issue of emergence particularly puzzling.

No, we can explain exactly why and how this occurs.

You don't understand the science and you don't understand the terminology.

Hence your problems.

One atom does not exhibit pressure. A whole jar full does. You can make up your own words to describe your knowledge of that ("contained as potentiality"), but that is all you are doing.

I fail to see the point.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
22-08-2014, 01:11 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 03:49 PM by Baruch.)
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
Quote:
Quote:I can prove that water is contained in hydrogen and oxygen as a potentiality simply by setting up an experiment and successfully making water out of hydrogen and oxygen, this experiment proves the truth of my claim.


Yes, yes. It's a wonderful deepity. Congratulations. It's still meaningless.

The only possible way for that claim to contain meaning is to parse "potentiality" as thing I know will happen. There is no magical latent property containing the nature of emergent properties within constituents. That's incoherent nonsense.

Not quite - Emergent properties are not necessarily impossible to predict, apriori potentials or "contained in the individual properties" (which is incoherent deepity)

Firstly if the emergent property is "contained" in the separate individual properties you get an infinite regress of potentials & it does become incoherent - somewhat like the humunculus problem when explaining consciousness as irreducible and found somewhere inside the brain - which is a fallacy of composition.
(the homunculus problem is a naive view that there is someone conscious inside the brain - this is incoherent due to the "someone conscious" inside the brain must have someone conscious inside the someone conscious....ad infinitum to explain the 1st someone conscious - IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING ! & not a scientific or coherent theory) Consciousness as an emergent property DOES make sense and is the best theory even if we don't yet know the full story*

There is no "potential water" INSIDE hydrogen & oxygen atoms - but this has nothing to do with irreducibility or unpredictability or anything apriori.
WATER - is an emergent property of oxygen, hydrogen AND MANY OTHER ENVIRONMENT factors - eg hydrogen bonding and the structure of the locality were the atoms are, temperature, pressure, electrostatic charges etc.
There is no "water" *IN* any molecules as a potential.

Same with other emergent properties which are more obvious as not irreducible eg sand grains and sand dunes. Sand dunes NECESSARILY must have sand grains but sand grains dont necessarily lead to sand dunes. i.e for sand dunes, grains are necessary but not sufficient. (for dunes there is an interaction with numerous
other factors such as wind, friction forces, gravity etc etc etc...)

Consciousness is the same - but much less obvious because we dont know the full mechanism's unlike the examples above. Neurons are necessary but not sufficient for consciousness - even billions of them wont make consciousness. (eg the digestive system has 100's of millions of neurons densely packed with billions of synapses but it is not independently conscious outside a working body with a brain.
Likewise "The brain" is not conscious by itself - there is an interaction with an environment which includes the rest of the body as part of the emergent complexity which produces consciousness. SO consciousness is not "inside" any neurons even as a potential when independent from the rest of the network.

So back to the water:
There is no "water" potential inside any hydrogen or oxygen atoms - but the entire complex system dynamically interacting creates water. An individual hydrogen atom does not have any covalent bonds and does not have any of the environmental interactions which are unique to the properties of water.

.......and just to bring this back to the original post:
SAME WITH EVIL and GOOD !!!
- these are emergent subjective psychological properties attributed by humans (and maybe other conscious animals)

*Even though we don't have a full explanation for consciousness - it is quite clear from brain injuries + pharmacological effects that consciousness is reducible and diminished somewhat like a sliding scale depending on the parts and amount of brain injured. - consider the various coma scales, drugs which impair consciousness and profoundly drowsy states with very minimal conscious awareness.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Baruch's post
22-08-2014, 03:57 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
Phil - I don't get what your arguing with people here.

Maybe we should start at the beginning. Seems that you're atheist in terms of belief in any classical type of God or theism but still hungover with left overs you cannot shed or let go from the theistic metaphysics ? Some sort of new age mix mash from trying to re-invent theism or re-brand it so it sounds good ?
Maybe you can elaborate further ?
Are you familiar with Ken Wilber & Integralism - is this what your truing to argue for ?
Just trying to make sense of where your coming from.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Baruch's post
22-08-2014, 04:00 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
Quote:I see the transcendentals of Beauty, Goodness and Truth as both attractors (creating vectors, or places to head for), but also as positions (places to stand from which to reach beyond themselves). I'd say that the underlying nature of emergence as process is a dialectic spiral which cycles indefinitely through the principles of Beauty, Goodness and Truth, e.g. once Truth is reached it moves on to a (higher order) Beauty.

To give a concrete example, I see Truth as an emergent property of Goodness. Well, on this thread we have a bunch of people coming together in relationship (goodness), in debate, with a (hopeful) emergent outcome of Truth. I've already had new insights as a result of this debate, so that's already a reality for me, hopefully others had had a similar experience of it
.

Quote:Chas :That word salad needs more dressing.


If you add more dressing to the salad all you will be left with is dressing.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 02:45 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(22-08-2014 06:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 01:43 AM)phil.a Wrote:  Correct! And if you go back and read my posts carefully, you'll discover that's all I've actually said ;-)



Correct. And this has got absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

My knowledge of water as a property of hydrogen and oxygen does not come from an a priori expansion of the properties of hydrogen and oxygen.

It comes from simply observing reality and learning lessons about cause and effect.

I can prove the truth of my claim by the scientific method.

I can prove that water is contained in hydrogen and oxygen as a potentiality simply by setting up an experiment and successfully making water out of hydrogen and oxygen, this experiment proves the truth of my claim.

I don't care that science is unable to work out how or why this occurs, actually I already know why science is unable to work it out, so I don't find the issue of emergence particularly puzzling.

Phil

No, you can't. You are either making an assertion about fundamental reality, or you are saying something facile.


Perhaps it's both? It's certainly the latter, this is facile high school stuff.

i am not offering you any fundamental new truths here, i just reminding you of what you already know to be true, but (in the context of this discussion) seem to have forgotten that you know.

And you do know it, and that means something.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: