Dawkins' Atheist Bus

[IdleRich]

Think we may have been talking at cross-purposes there somewhere.

"What do you think is missing?"

I'm not sure what is missing. Basically all I was saying is that if you believe that agency cannot come into existence then you are left with two possibilities, it never existed or it always existed. I was asking which of those you find most reasonable and saying that (given that premise) I would personally go for always because the other one just doesn't explain the way I feel - although I recognise that's not really an argument. Just wondered what you thought really.

"Ask the next mystical atheist you meet, it's not me making the distinction that is under discussion here."

Again, not sure about this. I think it would be reasonable for an atheist to say that some things are hot and some aren't and similarly some things are intelligent and some aren't and to argue that it is possible for hotness to come from nowhere and likewise it is possilble for intelligence to come from nowhere. I don't think the atheist is making the distinction, I think it's the person saying that it's impossible for intelligence to arise.

"I've said nothing of the kind."

Ah, I think I may have misread what you were replying to before.

"Yes you are entirely wrong. I think that most atheists say that agency and purpose and goals exist in the presence and actions of humans where they did not in the universe before."

Sorry, yeah, I already knew you were saying that.

"Do you not get that this about looking at covert unacknowledged religious type assumptions in atheist thought which is barely obscured with a little sophistry and switched metaphors / terminology? You seem to think I am arguing against science or putting forward a religious viewpoint or something."

Nah, I recognise that you are just asking questions. But I don't think that I do get that feeling as a rule no. Obviously there may be some exceptions but that's not something I observe in general.
I'm not putting across any particular position either, I'm just trying to respond to the questions you are asking and putting a few of my own.

 

[jambo]

Fair enough. But given that there has been no argument made to show that science is not up to the task of explaining intelligence then I don't think a suspicion that it's not is enough to say a hope that it will is a faith position.

You've just made this up. (OK, crossed-wires perhaps)

What I said was I suspect that when science comes up with a description of how agency/will (not simply intelligence) arises in the universe it will look a lot like a metaphysical or religious description just with rebranded metaphors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_emergence

Actually science can already describe intelligence in some senses quite well I think. Additionally I believe that the results of some recent scientific studies into the nature agency or free will have suggested that those things may not really exist in the way that we usually understand them as human beings.

 

[Mr. Tea]

What is suggested by holding the simultaneous beliefs that human creations are the result of intelligent design while human beings themselves are the result of bind processes is that something we could call will has simply appeared where it didn't exist before; agency has been born into the universe. I don't think there is any difference other than the terminology between this and what would in religious language be called divine, supernatural origins.

Well creationists, in their most fundamentalist incarnation, hold it to be impossible that complex, persistent and self-replicating entities can arise out of seemingly 'sterile' initial conditions and very simple natural laws - but this is demonstrably untrue. Look at the creation of complex amino acids in the laboratory under conditions meant to simulate the early Earth, or better still Conway's 'game of life'. Is it really that much of a stretch to say that beings with agency or sentience can arise (via a vast number of intermediate steps) in a similar way?

Or could it be that agency and free will is an illusion, an evolutionary adaptation to stop us all going stark raving mad at the mechanistic predestination of our lives? In which case a car is no more "intelligently designed" than a plum tree or a galaxy.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yeah, that's one of the points I've been making. What you hear from atheists still often has this curious religious flavour. But I also think there is more of a qualitative distinction made between the appearance of matter and then at the level of human beings suddenly you have intelligence and agency and purpose.

Where does this word 'suddenly' come from? Who said anything about agency 'suddenly' appearing? As with all evolutionary phenomena, it must have arisen over many, many generations. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that some of the higher animals have agency and purpose of a sort - behaviour noted in a number of other species is hard to explain without positing the existence of at least the beginnings of self-awareness, even 'intelligence'. You're appealing to the classic creationist straw man of an evolutionary model whereby highly complex systems appear all of a sudden, as if by 'magic', and then claiming that this proves the existence of actual magic because the alternative - random fluctuations of blind chance - is so unlikely as to be essentially impossible.

 

[jambo]

I'm not sure what is missing. Basically all I was saying is that if you believe that agency cannot come into existence then you are left with two possibilities, it never existed or it always existed. I was asking which of those you find most reasonable and saying that (given that premise) I would personally go for always because the other one just doesn't explain the way I feel - although I recognise that's not really an argument. Just wondered what you thought really.

It is nice to reintroduce the subjective and it's interesting that you should say that you feel that agency/will (purpose?) always existed in the universe as to me, and this is not a value judgement, that sounds a lot like a mystical religious viewpoint.

But I don't think those are the only two possibilities.

Actually I think most atheists would argue that agency is an emergent phenomenon, that it didn't always exist but does now. That's really what's interesting.

I'm fond of the idea of intelligence, the ability to process information, being present in matter and substance. That's different to agency though.

 

[poetix]

Life? Don't talk to me about life...

 

[waffle]

There are two senses of the phrase "in order that" that we should consider. One is the sense that is used when we are talking of human purposes: "the building was wired with explosives in order that it should collapse in a controlled manner". The other is the sense that is used when we are talking about "divine" purpose: "I was afflicted with this hideous skin disease in order that I might learn the virtue of humility".

Though this isn't directly relevant to human versus divine teleology as discussed in your post, I notice that you exclude any mention of the human in the 'humanly ordained' explanation ("the building was wired") whereas the divine explanation refers to the human ego "I". It's interesting because the first example suggests that the explosive-preparation and demolition operation was a structural effect, was Other, with the humans/workers doing the wiring occupying passive positions in that (bureaucratic) structure, while the second, implicitly by means of a divine Other, causally attributes his skin disease to his lack of humility ("I did it to myself!"). Both seem to involve a disavowal (of knowledge by belief): although workers undertake the wiring, it is as if they're "just doing their job" ie. they are not behaving as subjects, but attributing all agency instead to the Big Other of pre-programmed bureaucratic procedures; similarly, but in a contrary direction, the skin-disease victim does not attribute his affliction to a divine, supernatural Other, but assumes 'personal' responsiibility for this fate owing to his own prior less-than-virtuous actions. A paradoxical result in both cases: an event (demolition) with a specific material cause (workers wiring explosives) is ultimately attributed to a 'foreign' agency, responsibility resting with the symbolic order; an event (skin disease) with a magical cause (absence of humility) is actually attributed to human agency, the victim believing himself responsible. A posited Agency is (magically) misattributed/inverted in both cases.

However, it doesn't work without a split/correlation between "representation" and "instantiation", and a mechanism whereby the one "steers" the other.

Isn't the 'representation' immanent to this operation too, a code, a programme, a principal in accordance with which the physical matter is the passive instantiation? w

Claiming that it was without "purpose" in this sense would be like claiming that it was acausal: you'd be left with "blind chance" without any way of gaining traction in the material organisation of species.

The determinism of the mapped instantiation is itself the result of a chaotic confluence of contingencies, so isn't the assumption of "purpose" a retro-spective/speculative misrecognition?

Evolution is exceptionally parsimonious with purpose: it involves the absolute minimum necessary to get things done; and it does so without there needing to be any larger purpose governing this distribution of low(est)-level purposiveness.

But if you're going to attribute purpose, however parsimoniously in local exceptional 'pockets', to determinism (the Symbolic), why not also attribute it to - even exceptional - chaos (the Real)? Or dispense with the notion altogether?

 

[jambo]

Well creationists, in their most fundamentalist incarnation, hold it to be impossible that complex, persistent and self-replicating entities can arise out of seemingly 'sterile' initial conditions and very simple natural laws - but this is demonstrably untrue. Look at the creation of complex amino acids in the laboratory under conditions meant to simulate the early Earth, or better still Conway's 'game of life'.

That's kind of interesting but is what creationists believe really all that relevant to a discussion of what atheists believe as if they must mark out territory that never overlaps? I'd be surprised if most creationists even understand that idea though - self-replicating what?

Is it really that much of a stretch to say that beings with agency or sentience can arise (via a vast number of intermediate steps) in a similar way?

Maybe, maybe not. But it does touch on what one might believe about the fundamental or latent properties of the universe or matter or substance. And again I suggest that to accept this is not so different from talking about a life force or an indwelling god.

Or could it be that agency and free will is an illusion, an evolutionary adaptation to stop us all going stark raving mad at the mechanistic predestination of our lives? In which case a car is no more "intelligently designed" than a plum tree or a galaxy.

Or it's just a pathological delusion, yes.

 

[poetix]

A paradoxical result in both cases

Examples deliberately chosen for ironic resonance.

Isn't the 'representation' immanent to this operation too, a code, a programme, a principal in accordance with which the physical matter is the passive instantiation? w

The representation is a configuration of matter, as is the instantiation.

The determinism of the mapped instantiation is itself the result of a chaotic confluence of contingencies, so isn't the assumption of "purpose" a retro-spective/speculative misrecognition?

Only if you think "purpose" has to go "all the way down" to really be purpose. Purposes can be realised by chaotic confluences of contingencies, provided the latter are sufficiently regular to uphold the correlation between representation and instantiation (e.g. a change in the representation results, more often than not, in a corresponding change in the instantiation).

But if you're going to attribute purpose, however parsimoniously in local exceptional 'pockets', to determinism (the Symbolic), why not also attribute it to - even exceptional - chaos (the Real)? Or dispense with the notion altogether?

To borrow a phrase, I'm disinclined to posit chaos as the ultimate figure of being. But it's really a question of definition rather than attribution (or symbolic mis/recognition).

 

[Mr. Tea]

It is nice to reintroduce the subjective and it's interesting that you should say that you feel that agency/will (purpose?) always existed in the universe as to me, and this is not a value judgement, that sounds a lot like a mystical religious viewpoint.

Um, note that Rich predicated this with "IF you believe agency cannot arise out of nothing, THEN...".

Actually I think most atheists would argue that agency is an emergent phenomenon, that it didn't always exist but does now. That's really what's interesting.

Absolutely.

 

[jambo]

Where does this word 'suddenly' come from? Who said anything about agency 'suddenly' appearing? As with all evolutionary phenomena, it must have arisen over many, many generations. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that some of the higher animals have agency and purpose of a sort - behaviour noted in a number of other species is hard to explain without positing the existence of at least the beginnings of self-awareness, even 'intelligence'.

The transition point is there in the language and beliefs of atheists which is what is under discussion. Intelligent purposeful design is not there, and then at some point it is. But you're also now getting in to whether or not animals have souls which of course religious people have always enjoyed arguing about.

But you want to be pedantic about my stylistic use of suddenly so let's drop it. What happens? There is now no point at which agency doesn't exist in the universe, if we accept that it does at all. In other words if humans have agency and purpose then it has always been there.

Intelligence by the way doesn't require agency or purpose.

You're appealing to the classic creationist straw man of an evolutionary model whereby highly complex systems appear all of a sudden, as if by 'magic', and then claiming that this proves the existence of actual magic because the alternative - random fluctuations of blind chance - is so unlikely as to be essentially impossible.

No, I'm not, we are talking about the beliefs of atheists, again it's not me positing the appearance of free-will / agency / purpose where it did not exist before. Can you see the difference between someone saying something and describing what someone else says?

Do you think that 'agency' can be adequately described as a 'highly complex system'? Aren't we talking about more than the simple effects of random fluctuations and blind chance?

Not sure why you mention magic. But perhaps we could also usefully ask what would the difference be between something with the exact appearance of magic actual magic?

 

[poetix]

Also, current cosmology suggests that there will be a future time in which there will be no agency, nor any possibility of any arising ever again.

 

[IdleRich]

"What I said was I suspect that when science comes up with a description of how agency/will (not simply intelligence) arises in the universe it will look a lot like a metaphysical or religious description just with rebranded metaphors."

Sure, I recognise that that's the summary of what you're saying. And broadly, what I'm saying is, that it might look like a religious description and it might not. Interesting to speculate I suppose...

"Actually I think most atheists would argue that agency is an emergent phenomenon, that it didn't always exist but does now. That's really what's interesting."

Yeah of course.

Just to clarify this bit:

"It is nice to reintroduce the subjective and it's interesting that you should say that you feel that agency/will (purpose?) always existed in the universe as to me, and this is not a value judgement, that sounds a lot like a mystical religious viewpoint."

I get the impression you think I said that agency always existed here. Maybe not. To be clear, I don't think that at all, I do feel that agency exists now though (maybe still a faith position).

"But I don't think those are the only two possibilities."

Interesting. If you accept that agency cannot come into being what are the other possibilities other than it never existed and it always existed? I guess it could stop existing, no reason why it should be symmetric I suppose.

"I'm fond of the idea of intelligence, the ability to process information, being present in matter and substance. That's different to agency though."

Yes sorry. Not sure it was me who first conflated them in this thread though.

 

[jambo]

Um, note that Rich predicated this with "IF you believe agency cannot arise out of nothing, THEN...".

Interesting. If you accept that agency cannot come into being what are the other possibilities other than it never existed and it always existed? I guess it could stop existing, no reason why it should be symmetric I suppose.

Yes I misread.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Interesting. If you accept that agency cannot come into being what are the other possibilities other than it never existed and it always existed? I guess it could stop existing, no reason why it should be symmetric I suppose.

Well as I mentioned earlier, the other possibility is that it doesn't exist and has never existed, but is a subjective psychological artefact of the way our minds work.

 

[jambo]

Well as I mentioned earlier, the other possibility is that it doesn't exist and has never existed, but is a subjective psychological artefact of the way our minds work.

That is the same as saying it can't come into existence and it never existed.

 

[waffle]

Examples deliberately chosen for ironic resonance.

Guilty of Agency? Or "We wired the building all over with explosives and then Bang! it was disappeared. It was pure Genius. Magic!" and "The patient is afflicted with this hideous skin disease owing to his excessive neglect of basic hygiene while working in a pet infirmary".

The representation is a configuration of matter, as is the instantiation.

Can a configuration of matter be a representation, or do you mean an abstract mapping that is immediately parallel to its instantiation?

Only if you think "purpose" has to go "all the way down" to really be purpose.

Whether it is radically immanent or only superficially so still presupposes that there is a Purpose.

I'm disinclined to posit chaos as the ultimate figure of being

Only chaotic for us feeble humans ...

 

[Mr. Tea]

The transition point is there in the language and beliefs of atheists which is what is under discussion. Intelligent purposeful design is not there, and then at some point it is. But you're also now getting in to whether or not animals have souls which of course religious people have always enjoyed arguing about.

Well I certainly wouldn't say 'souls', but if you want to use that as a byword for self-awareness or agency, I suppose it's still a valid question.

No, I'm not, we are talking about the beliefs of atheists, again it's not me positing the appearance of free-will / agency / purpose where it did not exist before. Can you see the difference between someone saying something and describing what someone else says?

Crossed wires again here, I think. I'm well aware it's not what YOU think, I said it sounded like that's what you think scientists think. My description of your description of other people's description of the world. My point was, is agency necessarily something with sharply-defined boundaries? If we accept that humans have it and amoebae don't, can we say that a chimp or a dog has 'semi-agency' or 'proto-agency'? For a more concrete example, take the fact that today there are mammals in the world, and animals that definitely aren't mammals. Does this imply that, at some point in the past, an 'Adam of all mammals' appeared fully formed, where before there had only been creatures that were not remotely like mammals? Or is it more likely that there were many intermediate stages of animals with some, but not all, of the characteristics of modern mammals? That they evolved - gradually, as all things evolve - from reptiles? Of course, we could talk about the emergence of humans ourselves, which probably correlates pretty well with the emergence of agency.

 

[poetix]

Can a configuration of matter be a representation

Asks a bunch of pixels on a computer screen.

Why capitalize purpose? It isn't magic; I'm not interested in talking about it as if it is (and then debating whether or not magic really exists, what it says about matter that it can acquire such magical properties, etc...).

 

[jambo]

Well I certainly wouldn't say 'souls', but if you want to use that as a byword for self-awareness or agency, I suppose it's still a valid question.

I was kind of kidding, but that's also the point, it doesn't have to be a byword, it's just a different word and it would be very much the same question.

Crossed wires again here, I think. I'm well aware it's not what YOU think, I said it sounded like that's what you think scientists think. My description of your description of other people's description of the world. My point was, is agency necessarily something with sharply-defined boundaries? If we accept that humans have it and amoebae don't, can we say that a chimp or a dog has 'semi-agency' or 'proto-agency'? For a more concrete example, take the fact that today there are mammals in the world, and animals that definitely aren't mammals. Does this imply that, at some point in the past, an 'Adam of all mammals' appeared fully formed, where before there had only been creatures that were not remotely like mammals? Or is it more likely that there were many intermediate stages of animals with some, but not all, of the characteristics of modern mammals? That they evolved - gradually, as all things evolve - from reptiles? Of course, we could talk about the emergence of humans ourselves, which probably correlates pretty well with the emergence of agency.

Yes, but what does this if accepted tell us about the inherent or latent properties of the universe?

Regarding the question of magic (and you know Arthur C. Clarke's aphorism about technology and magic), can a functional distinction really be made between an unpredictable emergent high order phenomenon and a miracle or a divine act? Are we not really talking about the very same thing, pomposity (on either side) notwithstanding?