"Always be prepared to give an answer,” said the Apostle Peter, “to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have." Like most Christians, I take this verse as an exhortation to provide intelligent, reasonable answers to atheists, agnostics, and other skeptics who question the claims of Christianity. While I may not always be able to adequately defend my position, I believe I have a responsibility to make as valiant an attempt as possible.
Non-believers, of course, have no mandate to defend their own worldview. I believe it is only reasonable, though, to expect them to explain why they believe as they do and to give their answers a just hearing and fair scrutiny. Some people will naturally be reticent to argue for their case knowing that it will inevitably lead to a "clash of worldviews." But I think if Chrisitians broach the topic humbly and honestly we will learn a great deal about other belief systems.
One of my favorite evangelical bloggers and apologists, Jeff Clinton from The Dawn Treader, presents a particularly useful way to approach this task: the “Columbo Technique.”
In the ‘70s, actor Peter Falk played Lieutenant Columbo, a slovenly, seemingly inept detective whose extraordinary ability to solve crimes was based on an innocent query: "Do you mind if I ask you a question?" From this starting point, the sleuth was able to pull at the threads of a investigation until the truth became apparent.
Jeff has been using this approach to keen effect, often by taking examples from my own comments section (Tgirsh figures prominently). While I don’t think I can apply this technique as fruitfully as Jeff, I thought it would be interesting to use it on a recent article in the New Perspectives Quarterly. In an article on “Neural Darwinism”, NPQ editor Nathan Gardels interviews Gerald Edelman, a Nobel prize winning expert on the brain and consciousness:
NPQ: To say that consciousness is self-organizing according to evolutionary principles with no ultimate Programmer is to say there is no division between soul and matter, that the spirit isn’t in some spooky domain but rather is a biological phenomenon. Indeed, you say the main purpose of your recent book, Wider Than the Sky, is “to disenthrall those who believe consciousness is metaphysical.”
EDELMAN: It is silly reductionism, of course, to claim that you and I are just bags of molecules. But I do not believe consciousness arises from spooky forces.
Why is it “silly reductionism” if it is true? Why are we anything more than “bags of molecules?” What gives us meaning and makes our lives intrinsically valuable?
Later in his answer he adds:
Is consciousness the same as spirit? If you want to call the uniqueness of each individual consciousness a soul, that is all right with me. But there is a problem none of us likes to face. When the body goes, we go.
If materialism is true then we really are essentially nothing more than a particular arrangement of molecules. Why would these molecules care how they are arranged?
NPQ | The values that shape our consciousness, you say, are biological—based on survival in the sense of “get food, don’t be food.” Absent metaphysics, how then do we derive human rights from these values?
EDELMAN | The universe is not meaningless when considered in terms of biological systems.
How do biological systems instill values in the universe?
Survival through natural selection strongly influences the value systems of the brain. Survival during evolution means that value systems are biased toward life.
Are our value systems nothing more than a means of ensuring our survival? What about values that do not promote the continuation of our species? Can these be safely ignored as “meaningless?”
The universe may not seem to make any more sense to you if your cosmogony is scientific rather than religious in nature, but in the end there is no escape from the fact that in the evolution of living systems the bias is built in. Is that moral value? No. Moral values come later with social interactions through language, when human groups with common understandings formulate “rights” for the members of their society as they develop a sense of the “other.”
How was this accomplished through blind evolutionary processes?
I don’t believe in the existence of genes for altruism in humans and reject any such genetic determinism. That doesn’t make sense to me.
If altruism isn’t genetically determined, then how could it have been a product of evolution?
However, if you try to build rights in the absence of already evolved biological values, I don’t see how you could do it. To paraphrase Hume, the philosopher, “ought” does not come from “is.” But, whatever the case, we build our “oughts” on the basis of our brain’s activity.But the activity of the brain is not an “ought” but an “is.” How then can “oughts” be built on this basis?
NPQ | In the future, might humans impart consciousness to technology through artificial intelligence?
EDELMAN | Logic can be “imparted” and robots can be programmed. But that is not consciousness, which cannot arise from pre-defined information, but rather from the ability to self-organize, recognize patterns, learn and evolve on its own.
What species “evolves on its own” apart from environmental factors? Since human programmers would be part of the robots environment, why couldn’t they develop consciousness through this means?
Even if we one day had conscious artifacts, they wouldn’t be like us. They wouldn’t have our body and our evolved neural circuitry and the body that make us what we are.
Since they would still be comprised of the same basic material (matter) why would the higher level distinctions be important if the functions are the same?
Machines might become intelligent one day, perhaps even conscious, but they will not be human.
How do we define what is or is not human? If consciousness is not the sole determining factor in determining humanity, what is?
All the more reason to consider what we have to be precious.
Since “precious” would be an emotional attachment to a perceived value, why should we consider it as having any meaningfulness? Why should we value what we have over other forms of consciousness?
It’s not likely that Dr. Edelman reads this blog so I don’t expect that he will respond to my questions. But I would be interested in seeing someone who has the same basic worldview take up the challenge and attempt to provide a reasonable answer. Any takers?
1
If altruism isn’t genetically determined, then how could it have been a product of evolution?
This is a good question Joe, for it presents an opportunity to lay to rest a common misunderstanding. A capability can exist in humans without the need for evolution to 'explain it'. Capability can be brought about by natural selection. How that capability is subsequently utilized is not contigent on how it arose.
Humans possess eyes, legs, arms, hand-eye coordination, color vision and depth perception, the ability to recgonize symbols, and a large memory capacity. These morpholigical traits arose through evolution at various times and under various cirumstances. Some fairly well understood, some poorly understood, some a complete mystery.
Those abilities give Humans the capacity to drive a car. We did not 'evolve' to drive cars. Natural Selection need not be able to offer an explanation for how it directly selected for car driving skills. Nevertheless, we have the capacity to do so.
Likewise, we may not have evolved a complex set of social skills so that we could choose to act altruistically. We can also choose to act selfishly or ruthlessly.
The hurricane is bearing down and I may be offline for a bit if the power goes off.
posted on 08.13.2004 4:47 PM2
Why is it “silly reductionism” if it is true? Why are we anything more than “bags of molecules?” What gives us meaning and makes our lives intrinsically valuable?
It's silly reductionism in the same way as saying that the space shuttle is just a vehicle or that the United States is just a country. The silliness comes in because it masks the unique properties of the objects. That was how you went from "consciousness is a purely physical mechanism" to "mountains must have consciousness too because they like us are just clumps of matter."
posted on 08.13.2004 4:48 PM3
How do biological systems instill values in the universe?
Biological systems have goals, desires, motivations, etc. These impute values onto things. Humans also have the ability to reason at a high level, allowing them to determine the best ways to behave so as to acheive certain goals. In addition, humans have culture, which further imputes value.
Are our value systems nothing more than a means of ensuring our survival? What about values that do not promote the continuation of our species? Can these be safely ignored as “meaningless?”
They are more than means of ensuring survival, but that is there first imperative. In addition, humans have goals that are not always directly related (or may no longer be) to survival, allowing them to value things that are not directly related to their survival. This is not in any way inconsistent with evolution.
How was this accomplished through blind evolutionary processes?
Which part? There are copious literatures on each of the subjects he mentions, in biology, psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy. Check them out.
If altruism isn’t genetically determined, then how could it have been a product of evolution?
As another commentor noted, not all behavior has to be genetically determined. In fact, most specific behaviors are not. When determining human behaviors, genes tend to produce broad tendencies, rather than specific behaviors which are influenced by environment, including culture.
Altruism is a tricky subject, and there are multiple models out there right now. Some are biological (including kin selection models), some cultural.
But the activity of the brain is not an “ought” but an “is.” How then can “oughts” be built on this basis?
This question is an obfuscation, or at least a misunderstanding. We cannot determine "ought" from "is" by examining what "is" and inferring "oughts." However, brain processes can determine "oughts" through reasoning about goals, needs, etc., and determining the best way to acheive (or maximize) these. This does not mean that we are determining "oughts" from "is," but that an "is" is reasoning about "oughts." This is not contrary to Hume. It is, in fact, Hume's own view (vastly oversimplified).
What species “evolves on its own” apart from environmental factors? Since human programmers would be part of the robots environment, why couldn’t they develop consciousness through this means?
This is another obfuscation or misunderstanding. He is not implying that AI will evolve apart from environmental factors. Rather, he is implying that it will involve without humans doing the work. Humans will influence the AI, through programming, and determining, at least in part, the evolutionary environment, but the AI will be programmed to evolve independent of further human involvement. There are already programs that do this (some even evolve to the amount of electricity they receive from outlets!), but none are considered conscious by most of us.
Since they would still be comprised of the same basic material (matter) why would the higher level distinctions be important if the functions are the same?
This question also seems a bit disingenuous. They would be made of the same material, but their behavior, needs, goals, etc., would be different due to a different embodiment and different neural circuitry (not to mention a different environment, in most cases).
How do we define what is or is not human? If consciousness is not the sole determining factor in determining humanity, what is?
This is a strange question, coming from someone who's pro-life. If consciousness is what makes us human, then the fetus isn't human until well into the second trimester (if then). Obviously, there are many things that make us human, one of which is our particular consciousness, but also our genetic makeup, our phenotype, etc. Apes may be conscious, but are they human simply because they are? I don't know any reason to think they are.
Since “precious” would be an emotional attachment to a perceived value, why should we consider it as having any meaningfulness? Why should we value what we have over other forms of consciousness?
For the same reason that other things are meaningful. As many commentators have pointed out in the past, we don't need transcendent grounds for our values to make them meaningful to us. Would it be meaningful to some other species? Ask the shark who eats you without giving it a second thought (or even a first thought, perhaps).
posted on 08.13.2004 8:44 PM4
DS: This is a good question Joe, for it presents an opportunity to lay to rest a common misunderstanding. A capability can exist in humans without the need for evolution to 'explain it'.
I agree. But altruism is often considered a trait that is explicitly explained has having survival value.
Those abilities give Humans the capacity to drive a car. We did not 'evolve' to drive cars. Natural Selection need not be able to offer an explanation for how it directly selected for car driving skills. Nevertheless, we have the capacity to do so.
Those abilities are a skill set for a specific task that is not found in nature. Altruism, on the other hand, would have a significant impact on survival and would therefore be a trait that would be selected for.
Likewise, we may not have evolved a complex set of social skills so that we could choose to act altruistically. We can also choose to act selfishly or ruthlessly.
So I assume you’d agree that there is really no way that we can decide that it is better to act altruistically?
Moderate: It's silly reductionism in the same way as saying that the space shuttle is just a vehicle or that the United States is just a country.
Well, the space shuttle is just a vehicle and the US is just a country. It is only after we give them value that they become something more. How does that apply to reductionism? Either we can be reduced to a “bag of molecules” or we cannot.
The silliness comes in because it masks the unique properties of the objects.
But were did these properties come from? They can’t be empirically detected in the same way as other natural properties such as gravity and mass. How do we even know that these properties exist?
That was how you went from "consciousness is a purely physical mechanism" to "mountains must have consciousness too because they like us are just clumps of matter."
A point which no one has yet shown isn’t true.
Hunt Biological systems have goals, desires, motivations, etc.
When did you turn in to Aristotle? ; )
Seriously, how can you try to sneak in teleology in an impersonal universe?
These impute values onto things.
But where did these attributes come from?
Humans also have the ability to reason at a high level, allowing them to determine the best ways to behave so as to acheive certain goals. In addition, humans have culture, which further imputes value.
But this is begging the question that these traits evolved through blind evolutionary processes. That has to be established before you can use it as the premise of an argument.
Which part? There are copious literatures on each of the subjects he mentions, in biology, psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy. Check them out.
Can you provide some examples? Examples that don’t start by question begging premise such as “Since evolution produced our brains and our brains can produce X, X has meaning…”
As another commentor noted, not all behavior has to be genetically determined. In fact, most specific behaviors are not. When determining human behaviors, genes tend to produce broad tendencies, rather than specific behaviors which are influenced by environment, including culture.
Okay, so we have nature (genes) and nurture (environment). How do you explain altruism by evolutionary processes working on the nurture side of the equation?
This question is an obfuscation, or at least a misunderstanding. We cannot determine "ought" from "is" by examining what "is" and inferring "oughts." However, brain processes can determine "oughts" through reasoning about goals, needs, etc., and determining the best way to acheive (or maximize) these. This does not mean that we are determining "oughts" from "is," but that an "is" is reasoning about "oughts." This is not contrary to Hume. It is, in fact, Hume's own view (vastly oversimplified).
But again we are left with the question of where did these goals (ought) come from in a world of is?
This is another obfuscation or misunderstanding. He is not implying that AI will evolve apart from environmental factors. Rather, he is implying that it will involve without humans doing the work. Humans will influence the AI, through programming, and determining, at least in part, the evolutionary environment, but the AI will be programmed to evolve independent of further human involvement.
But why is that necessarily the case? If blind evolutionary processes can produce complex systems that can become conscious, why couldn’t intelligent designers produce them also?
This is a strange question, coming from someone who's pro-life.
I’m asking for an answer from the perspective of your worldview, not mine. Naturally, my answer would not require consciousness as a prerequisite.
For the same reason that other things are meaningful. As many commentators have pointed out in the past, we don't need transcendent grounds for our values to make them meaningful to us.
I’ve never seen a coherent answer for how we derive meaning from a meaningless universe. Care to give that one a shot?
Would it be meaningful to some other species? Ask the shark who eats you without giving it a second thought (or even a first thought, perhaps).
Good point. If meaning isn’t necessary for the shark, why is it necessary for us?
posted on 08.13.2004 10:42 PM5
When did you turn in to Aristotle? ; )
I've always felt a little Greek. Eudaimonia all the way, man! Seriously, though, this is no more Aristotelian than it is Darwinian. It's also not teleological in the sense that I think you intend the word. Humans need things to survive, and what's more, because of our makeup, there are things that make us feel "good," or help us to have a better quality of life. We naturally seek these things out (though not all of them are "natural," and many are products of culture). This is what evolution would predict. This also answers the question, "But where did these attributes come from?"
But this is begging the question that these traits evolved through blind evolutionary processes. That has to be established before you can use it as the premise of an argument.
No, it doesn't. We have the ability to reason, and it does help us to survive, and to have a better quality of life given our makeup. This doesn't require evolution, but it's certainly not inconsistent with it.
Can you provide some examples? Examples that don’t start by question begging premise such as “Since evolution produced our brains and our brains can produce X, X has meaning…”
Do you want some references? If so, I can provide some, as can others I'm sure.
Okay, so we have nature (genes) and nurture (environment). How do you explain altruism by evolutionary processes working on the nurture side of the equation?
Well, environment includes nurture. However, it's not clear that there is an evolutionary explanation of altruism. Many have tried to come up with one, but the question of whether altruism is an evolutionary adaptation or a cultural one is still open. Again, there's a copious literature on the topic, and if you want references, I can give you some, as can others who usually comment on your evolution posts.
But again we are left with the question of where did these goals (ought) come from in a world of is?
We are left with questions about how particular goals arise, which is a problem for psychology and neuroscience (as well as fields that study culture). However, goals aren't really oughts, but they do help to determine oughts (e.g., we all want to survive, thus survival is good, and actions that promote survival are actions we ought to perform). We're not left with this question about "oughts" in general. We've answered it. Whether you want to accept that answer is up to you. However, the answer does not conflict with naturalism, or with the is/ought distinction, because we have values, based on our wants and needs (which are derived from our physical makeup, experience, etc.), but not derived from "facts" in the way that Hume argues is impossible.
But why is that necessarily the case? If blind evolutionary processes can produce complex systems that can become conscious, why couldn’t intelligent designers produce them also?
Well, Edelman has a long argument about self-organization and its role in the formation of consciousness in complex neural systems. If you really want to learn about it, and Neural Darwinism, read Wider than the Sky: The Phenomenal Gift of Consciousness (the book he's promoting in the interview), or, if you're really interested, and want to read something a bit more technical (but not impenetrably so), Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination will help a great deal.
I’ve never seen a coherent answer for how we derive meaning from a meaningless universe. Care to give that one a shot?
You mean you've never seen one that you agreed with. I'm not going to try to give you an extended answer. From what I've said here and in the previous comment, you can guess what my view is. If you're really interested in how we get meaning from an inherently "meaningless" universe (this is an odd statement - the universe is quite meaningful for us), then once again, I can give you some reading suggestions about meaning construction from various perspectives.
Good point. If meaning isn’t necessary for the shark, why is it necessary for us?
Well, this isn't quite the point I was making. My point was that human life isn't meaningful to the shark. In some senses of "meaning," plenty of things have meaning for sharks. To use a different example, frogs perceive moving edges, which cause them to jump out of the way, and moving dots (like flies) which signal them to stick that tongue out and grab the dot. These things have meaning, or value, for the frog in a way that they don't for us. However, "meaning" in the ordinary sense of the word is probably a higher-order cognitive construction, and in that sense, it is not necessary for sharks (or frogs) because they don't need this level of representation to get by, while we do.
posted on 08.14.2004 1:54 AM6
Hank:That was how you went from "consciousness is a purely physical mechanism" to "mountains must have consciousness too because they like us are just clumps of matter."
Joe:A point which no one has yet shown isn’t true.
This philosophical masturbation is why I tend not to debate in here anymore. We had a lengthy discussion about structure, form and function. You choose to ignore it because it didn't fit your straw man event response model. I'll give you a metaphysical parallel you can masturbate with some more.
Last night I was visited by aliens from higher dimensiosn. They showed me that they in fact not only created the universe but are in total control of all the motion and activity within it. They observe us every day and tweak the system as they need to. Unfortunately the whole thing was too much for me to comprehend so I can't describe it to you. They also told me that they've made sure that their presence can never be detected from within the 4 dimensions that we exist. There is therefore no way for those within the universe they created to know about them unless they want us to know. They put me back at the exact same location in space-time that they pulled me so no one could possibly know I was gone. Prove that my explanation of the universe is not true. You can't? Then it must be true, because you can't prove that it isn't. I better start petitioning governments to force this down everyone's throat since it is so coherent. We don't even need to worry about studying science anymore, we can just leave it up to the godlike aliens to make sure everything goes okay. Doesn't that make you feel better.
Oh btw, one of the aliens wanted to let you know his alien friend Jesus said hello but he wasn't sure who this "Paul" character was that everyone's been raving about for 2000 of our years.
posted on 08.14.2004 5:14 PM7
Mr. Moderate,
They probably also told you that John (the disciple, not the baptist) was a backstabbing famewhore, making up crap about Thomas to discredit him. But then, you are probably making up the whole bit about the aliens because you're sore about the anal probings they gave you.
posted on 08.14.2004 6:20 PM8
But then, you are probably making up the whole bit about the aliens because you're sore about the anal probings they gave you.
How could I be making them up and sore about anal probings from these same people you say I made up. There were no anal probings but I do find the right wing obsession with sex, is that Mister or Misses asshat, to be quite humorous.
posted on 08.14.2004 6:40 PM9
We exist in more dimensions that you puny humans can imagine; we are more than Mr. or Mrs., we give anal probings just for our amusement and confuse those we administer them to so they sound like they're making them up. We would like to give the one who calls himself Moderate one piece of advice: Don't try to confuse other humans on this blogsite with your rantings, for both you and they are hopeless hardened of heart and mind. They mumble to me so often that We tend to block them out when they call upon my name; We gave them vigra and cialis to appease their pleadings, but they persist in asking for more. We are hungry now so we will feast upon human embryos thrown away from fertility clinics, and little bunny rabbits too.
posted on 08.14.2004 7:07 PM10
You really seem to not have a very good grasp on the notions of natural selection and evolution, Joe.
Thanks for blocking me from posting. Why? I'm nice. I don't think you suck...just your arguments.
posted on 08.16.2004 12:34 AM11
Joe's never blocked any of my asinine posts- I can't imagine what you would have said that would have made Joe mad. Unless you called him a famewhore, which he is not.
posted on 08.16.2004 3:16 PM12
Interesting exchange between asshat and Mr. Moderate. Keep it up, you crazy guys.
Joe Carter wonders aloud:
"If blind evolutionary processes can produce complex systems that can become conscious, why couldn’t intelligent designers produce them also?"
Well, intelligent designers could produce them (in theory). No one is saying that it's not possible. It's just exceedingly unlikely given that there is ZILCHO EVIDENCE for these "intelligent designers". When some lucky guy finds evidence for a group of intelligent designers that could have instilled us, dolphins, apes, my cat, and perhaps a few cephalopods with consciousness, that will be all over the front page of every newspaper on the planet, even the "liberal" New York Times. And the next day, I'll cut off my testicles and climb get ready to join my comrades in our long-awaited journey into space.
posted on 08.16.2004 6:16 PM13
Joe:
Jeff has been using this approach to keen effect, often by taking examples from my own comments section (Tgirsh figures prominently).I'm not so sure about "to keen effect"; Jeff has been aided by the fact that I've been effectively off-line since last Friday, and totally unaware of his line of "reasoning" until today. So I haven't exactly been able to defend myself.
Even in my currently-even-more-limited-than-normal mental capacity (I'm fighting a flu bug right now that has me drained), it's pretty easy to see that he's yanking convenient snippets and attacking them while ignoring the larger points.
Not sure how much time I'll spend addressing him, since I've got a lot of catching up to do.
posted on 08.17.2004 3:42 PM