Presumably something that ‘emerges’ from the primeval chaos becomes describly distinct. If a ravening swamp monster emerges from the swamp and eats all the pretty girls in the village, one can surely describe the thing separate from the swamp and then speculate as to how muck became a monster with an appetite. And be suspicious of the eccentric mad scientist who lives on the other side of the lake.

Regards semantics of properties versus tendencies. It is a manner of speaking and entirely a sufficient manner (in my opinion) to say (for instance) instead of ‘light has the property of refracting through a prism’, that ‘light has the tendency to refract through a prism.’ The fact is that it ALWAYS refracts through a prism based on our local observations does not necessarily mean that there are not places in Creation where it does not. Why should it? I would not necessarily muddle the waters with this thought with a class of eager little scholars with fresh-scrubbed faces and rosy cheeks. But it is an extremely valid one for grownups with brains and the capability to use them.

And that says nothing harsh about scientific method or anything else, including evolutionary biology or properly physics-based alchemy.

Science is the summary of useful description of the corporeal world and works very well in the local sense. I am very glad it does because otherwise my life would be shorter, more brutish, and nastier.

Report comment to moderator

it more or less depends on your definition of ‘emergent’. a key feature here (and I wish musing were around for it) is explanatory reduction.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Now you REALLY have me curious.

Report comment to moderator

incidentally, if I am correct, then you are whipping the same straw man that Drill is flailing at. there is no such thing as ‘dead matter’.

i’m describing a couple of new species of critters and working on some manuscripts. you might like the one where i am examining macroevolution and macroecology vs emergent properties.

Report comment to moderator

Incidentally Erasmus, I’m presently at my winter place near Capetown training to run my 27th Boston Marathon this April. What are you up to other than writing worshipful and obscure effusions regarding the wonders of naturalism and materialism.

Report comment to moderator

I have agreed with you, IIRC, in the past, that it has not been demonstrated that consciousness is a simple function of material. Indeed, I am skeptical of the claim that this is possible even in principle (leaving aside the operational issues of how to falsify this claim).

But, and this is crucial, to say that (assuming that it were true) consciousness is mere matter is not a claim I am interested in (this is the eliminative form of materialism that you are routinely confusing as materialism per se). I freely acknowledge that there are emergent properties and features in the universe (even if that emergent is only epistemological). A version of this view is called by some ‘dialectical materialism’.

Whatever you call it if it is true that consciousness is a property of states of matter, then there is no such thing as dead matter “questioning and grappling with the meaning of existence and consciousness”. This is another strawman of your own construction.

Since we don’t know the answer to the consciousness question, it seems to me that your hyperbole should be reserved for matters that may actually be settled by empirical inquiry. Unless of course you wish to eliminate empiricism………………………

Report comment to moderator

I do not know about consciousness, as I have said before. I do not believe it is entirely a function of physically-driven processes. The question is intriguing as we have both agreed at various points in the past.

As far as evidence, you have no more evidence than I regarding these things, at least as you define evidence.

I do, however, have the evidence of my own existence and that I am conscious of that existence. And from that evidence, and that awareness, an entire universe of questions then arises.

Dead matter questioning and grappling with the meaning of existence and consciousness. There seems something hopelessly futile (and actually patently absurd) in that.

Report comment to moderator

again you conflate eliminative materialism with atheism. it is routine with you drill, but i do understand it is a function of what you have chosen to believe and not a function of evidence. for instance, you could never show that consciousness (whatever it is) is not a function of pure material.

but since there is no operational definition of consciousness that allows the parsing of ‘has it’ from ‘doesn’t have it’ then it is a rather useless term to begin with.

Report comment to moderator

I think this is because we all have the inner awareness of the larger sphere and the absolute measure which lies beyond the material. That also goes for people of other faiths than Christianity. Some of the most noble, most stirring, and great achievements of the human spirit were accomplished in cultures that never heard of Christ – explicitly. However, that is the imprint of God on the warp and woof of who we are – all of us.

I also agree that you can certainly turn around and apply the idea that there are no ‘true atheists’ to Christians (or anybody). It is your right to be wrong. And you ARE wrong, because there WAS one ‘true Christian’ and that was/is Jesus Christ. All others are ‘merely’ imitations, at least until the end. I don’t think there was ever a ‘true atheist’ though.

Again, even if the premise of atheism were true, I don’t think the self-defining ego could really operate (’believe’) in its own demise – i.e. pure materialism or atheism is impossible for a being with consciousness. We are not capable of ‘true atheism’ because we are not WIRED that way. And that ought to give you some serious reflections, I would think.

Erasmus is getting more and more grumpy the older he gets, I have noticed. I bet he is just beginning to realize the error of his ways and the knowledge of it is making him a bit grayer, grimmer, and madder every day.

Like a Miltonesque Lucifer, he broods about things too much. It is the Cross that an ego-centric empiricalist must bear, I think.

Or maybe his fiddle is in the shop and he is just at loose ends.

Report comment to moderator