Evidence for materialism?
William Dembski has posted a note from Terry Mirll on Uncommon Descent in which Terry makes six predictions which would happen if ""materialism is true". The idea presumably being that these predictions are implausible and so this counts as evidence against materialism. It is kind of fun and I did attempt to post on UD about it - but it looks like my post has not made the cut. So I thought I would have another go here.
First off I wonder what "materialism is true" means? Consider these five statements:
1) There are phenomena yet to be discovered which we have not conceived - just as we have discovered microbiology, electromagnetism and quantum theory. It would be an arrogant person indeed who did not think this possible.
2) There are things in the Universe that we cannot conceive - just as a dog cannot conceive reading Proust.
2a) As a special case of this we may not be able to fully understand how our own minds work. Is has been argued that this is a consequence of Godel's theorem.
3) There is some thing we cannot conceive that has a mind, gives purpose to the Universe, should be worshipped and is the basis of morality.
4) This thing is omnipotent and is responsible for at least some aspects of reality including life.
Materialism might be interpeted as denying one or more of these statements. The consequences of materialism depend which ones are denied. I would guess that the most common interpretation would be that materialists accept 1 and 2 but reject 3 and 4. Even the likes of Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett would probably accept that 2 is possible.
So now have refined the idea of materialism a bit - let's get on to the predictions. I have copied the 6 predictions from UD but not the justifications.
This may not be possible because of 2a above. In any case we can't even do it for a single atom at the moment much less the billions of billions of atoms in a person - so even if it is possible it is unreasonable to expect us to be able to do it after "several hundred years".
This depends on the chances of abiogenesis. It is finite universe with billions of stars and an unknown number of planets (only a small proportion of the stars are contactable). We have no idea what the chances are of abiogenesis on a randomly selected planet (we can maybe estimate a minimum value based on it happening just once on earth in 4 billion years). So we have no way of knowing whether it is reasonable to expect intelligent life to contact us.
Jack Krebs deals with this on UD. This prediction has already been fulfilled.
This prediction has nothing to do with materialism. It is a statement about human pyschology and sociology. It might happen under an omnipotent deity who happened to want to let things develop that way and might not happen even if all the statements above are false. It may be that the way humans are made up they cannot form stable societies without having a religion - even if there is no God.
Well we have made some progress in fulfilling this prediction. Some aspects of mind such as vision and memory can be traced in quite a lot of detail in the brain. However, it may not be possible to completely fulfil the prediction if 2a is true.
This may be impossible because of 2 above.
That was fun :-)
First off I wonder what "materialism is true" means? Consider these five statements:
1) There are phenomena yet to be discovered which we have not conceived - just as we have discovered microbiology, electromagnetism and quantum theory. It would be an arrogant person indeed who did not think this possible.
2) There are things in the Universe that we cannot conceive - just as a dog cannot conceive reading Proust.
2a) As a special case of this we may not be able to fully understand how our own minds work. Is has been argued that this is a consequence of Godel's theorem.
3) There is some thing we cannot conceive that has a mind, gives purpose to the Universe, should be worshipped and is the basis of morality.
4) This thing is omnipotent and is responsible for at least some aspects of reality including life.
Materialism might be interpeted as denying one or more of these statements. The consequences of materialism depend which ones are denied. I would guess that the most common interpretation would be that materialists accept 1 and 2 but reject 3 and 4. Even the likes of Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett would probably accept that 2 is possible.
So now have refined the idea of materialism a bit - let's get on to the predictions. I have copied the 6 predictions from UD but not the justifications.
1. THEREFORE, I PREDICT that scientists will one day construct a device capable of transporting a human body across vast regions of space–a device comparable to the “teleporter” as portrayed in the “Star Trek” TV series. It will disassemble a living human body at a molecular or sub-molecular level, transport those small bits of living organic material at high speed across great distance, and reassemble them to their original macroscopic configuration, with no ill effects to the body it has transported.
IF, HOWEVER, after several hundred years of scientific advance no such a device will have been formulated, this fact should be taken as an indication that naturalistic materialism is not true.
This may not be possible because of 2a above. In any case we can't even do it for a single atom at the moment much less the billions of billions of atoms in a person - so even if it is possible it is unreasonable to expect us to be able to do it after "several hundred years".
THEREFORE, I PREDICT that scientists will one day find unequivocal evidence of extraterrestrial life. We will either be visited by members of some extraterrestrial race, or we will visit them, or at least detect their activity via radiometry or telemetry or some such means. If there is no intelligent life in the universe other than ours, there should at least be signs of the unintelligent kind: an alien hive or nest, an otherworldly forest, or an ocean filled with algae.
IF, HOWEVER, after several hundred years of searching for life on other planets no such evidence is found, this fact should be taken as an indication that naturalistic materialism is not true.
This depends on the chances of abiogenesis. It is finite universe with billions of stars and an unknown number of planets (only a small proportion of the stars are contactable). We have no idea what the chances are of abiogenesis on a randomly selected planet (we can maybe estimate a minimum value based on it happening just once on earth in 4 billion years). So we have no way of knowing whether it is reasonable to expect intelligent life to contact us.
THEREFORE, I PREDICT that an incident of active evolution will be observed in the field. Now that we know what we are looking for, we will be able to demonstrate what we claim the fossil record suggests. Scientists will be able to tag a species of plant or animal, and by meticulous tracking an tagging of its offspring by generations of scientists yet to come, will eventually identify an incident in which new speciation occurs. They will be able to point to the descendants of the original species and, by careful examination of their DNA, indicate at what point their genetic coding diverged. Further, they will be able to identify the conditions responsible for the divergence, whether via natural selection, random genetic mutation, or some combination of the two.
IF, HOWEVER, after hundreds of years of field observations, no incident of new speciation is ever identified, this should be taken as an indication that naturalistic materialism is not true.
Jack Krebs deals with this on UD. This prediction has already been fulfilled.
THEREFORE, I PREDICT that one day a nation will arise that will be a purely secular society with no notion of religion, spirituality, or morality. It should be a society which does far more than merely tolerate atheism, but has atheism at its core as its functioning principle. It will be a Nation Not Under God, and will be able to function without any appeals to religion. It will be a free society, curtailed only by law, the codified product of mutual consent. It will be truly tolerant of all viewpoints, regardless of how extreme, and will accept all modes of behavior without judgment or dissatisfaction. It will be not the product of mere wishful thinking, but an active, living, fully functional entity.
IF, HOWEVER, after hundreds of years of trying to build a wholly secular society, no such society is ever able to establish and sustain itself, this should be taken as an indication that naturalistic materialism is not true.
This prediction has nothing to do with materialism. It is a statement about human pyschology and sociology. It might happen under an omnipotent deity who happened to want to let things develop that way and might not happen even if all the statements above are false. It may be that the way humans are made up they cannot form stable societies without having a religion - even if there is no God.
THEREFORE, I PREDICT that science will one day identify that area or areas of the brain which produce the mind, describing in precise detail the chemical basis for thought. It will demonstrate the biochemical processes from which the mind emerges and by which the mind operates.
IF, HOWEVER, after hundreds of years of research into the human brain, the mind is never established as a dependent construct of the brain, this should be taken as an indication that naturalistic materialism is not true.
Well we have made some progress in fulfilling this prediction. Some aspects of mind such as vision and memory can be traced in quite a lot of detail in the brain. However, it may not be possible to completely fulfil the prediction if 2a is true.
HEREFORE, I PREDICT a Theory of Everything will be one day formulated and will be born out by repeated experimentation. It will accurately predict knowledge of things we do not yet know, and all future scientific discoveries will flow from it.
IF, HOWEVER, after hundreds of years of research in theoretical physics, in neurology, in psychology, and/or in related sciences no Theory of Everything is forthcoming and no experiment is ever devised to test it, this should be taken as an indication that naturalistic materialism is not true.
This may be impossible because of 2 above.
That was fun :-)
posted by Mark Frank at 12:13 pm
3 Comments:
Mark, Thanks for your comments.
Let me see if I can post a reply without making too much of a muck of it. To keep it as clear as possible, I'll try to use italics for my predictions as originally posted on Uncommon Descent; your comments will remain in plain text; and my follow-up reply will be in brackets []. So, without further ado:
Evidence for materialism?
William Dembski has posted a note from Terry Mirll on Uncommon Descent in which Terry makes six predictions which would happen if ""materialism is true". The idea presumably being that these predictions are implausible and so this counts as evidence against materialism.
[Actually, no. I am not trying to disprove materialism, since it is impossible to prove a negative. I am trying to examine what sort of criteria we could establish to allow the materialist to put up or shut up.]
It is kind of fun and I did attempt to post on UD about it - but it looks like my post has not made the cut. So I thought I would have another go here.
First off I wonder what "materialism is true" means? Consider these five statements:
[Materialism is the assertion that the physical universe is all there is. The only thing that matters is matter itself. It is from this basis that the claim is made that science must be naturalistic in order to be science, and that anything that is not naturalistic (i.e., Intelligent Design, Theology, etc.) is not scientific.]
1) There are phenomena yet to be discovered which we have not conceived - just as we have discovered microbiology, electromagnetism and quantum theory. It would be an arrogant person indeed who did not think this possible.
[True enough, but no one is making that argument. Rather, the question is: of the things yet to be discovered (the possibility of a working teleporter is but one example), which of these would tend to support the notion that the material universe is all there is?]
2) There are things in the Universe that we cannot conceive - just as a dog cannot conceive reading Proust.
[I see no rational basis for making this claim. One of the fundamental principles of science is that the universe is knowable. Without this principle in place, scientific inquiry would be pointless. While it may be the case that there are things which humanity currently cannot conceive, that is not to say that humanity will never be able to conceive them. But again, that only MAY be the case-to repeat, it is impossible to prove a negative, so there is no means of establishing the certainty of this proposition. For that matter, we can't even prove that a dog cannot conceive reading Proust. Perhaps they can, but since dogs can't talk they have no means of communicating any understanding of Proust, or lack thereof. Besides, if evolution actually works the way it is believed to work, it is possible that human intelligence may further evolve into a higher state that is capable of conceiving the things which we currently cannot conceive; evolution may even produce a Proust-reading dog some day (hey, evolution is supposed to have produced Proust-reading people, so there's nothing to stop it from doing the same to Fido's descendants). At any rate, the purpose of making a prediction is to talk about a future state of affairs, not a present one, so 2) isn't exactly relevant to the issue at stake, namely, what means are available (or will be available) in order to demonstrate the validity of materialism?]
2a) As a special case of this we may not be able to fully understand how our own minds work. Is has been argued that this is a consequence of Godel's theorem.
[Or of the Uncertainty Principle, aye. But it is one thing to argue that there are things we cannot fully understand and another to argue that there are things we will never conceive. Conception and understanding are not interchangeable.]
3) There is some thing we cannot conceive that has a mind, gives purpose to the Universe, should be worshipped and is the basis of morality.
[If you're talking about God, then it is simply untrue that we cannot conceive him. Anyone who says "I believe in God" demonstrates a conceptual understanding of him. That means God is either real in the same sense that you or I are real, or else he is an invention of our baser instincts; in either case the concept of God (or Mind, or Higher Intelligence, or Cosmic Muffin, or whatever it is that gives purpose to the Universe) is fairly clear. More to the point, if materialism is true, then the universe has no need for a creator, in which case there is simply no basis for morality, and no underlying purpose to the Universe. Conversely, if morality is real, then materialism is not. And if you feel the Universe has a purpose, then you're not buying into materialism.]
4) This thing is omnipotent and is responsible for at least some aspects of reality including life.
[There is no basis for the claim that the thing is omnipotent, though I would agree that it is likely responsible for at least some aspects of reality. The implication of Intelligent Design theory is that the universe is explicable only in terms of intelligence.]
Materialism might be interpeted as denying one or more of these statements. The consequences of materialism depend which ones are denied. I would guess that the most common interpretation would be that materialists accept 1 and 2 but reject 3 and 4. Even the likes of Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett would probably accept that 2 is possible.
[Frankly, I can't envision a materialist agreeing with any of the four statements. Presuming that the universe is indeed knowable, given our present knowledge that the universe if finite, a materialist would argue that there is nothing that science will not one day uncover, the Incompleteness Theorem or Uncertainty Principle notwithstanding, which wipes out 1), 2) and 2a). When Richard Lewontin claims that the only truths worth knowing are scientific truths, he is making that very sort of argument. I would agree that a materialist would likely reject 3) and 4).]
So now have refined the idea of materialism a bit - let's get on to the predictions. I have copied the 6 predictions from UD but not the justifications.
1. THEREFORE, I PREDICT that scientists will one day construct a device capable of transporting a human body across vast regions of space-a device comparable to the "teleporter" as portrayed in the "Star Trek" TV series. It will disassemble a living human body at a molecular or sub-molecular level, transport those small bits of living organic material at high speed across great distance, and reassemble them to their original macroscopic configuration, with no ill effects to the body it has transported.
IF, HOWEVER, after several hundred years of scientific advance no such a device will have been formulated, this fact should be taken as an indication that naturalistic materialism is not true.
This may not be possible because of 2a above. In any case we can't even do it for a single atom at the moment much less the billions of billions of atoms in a person - so even if it is possible it is unreasonable to expect us to be able to do it after "several hundred years".
[I don't see how you can say it is unreasonable. What we call modern science has been around only since about the Sixteenth century, starting with Sir Francis Bacon, but human beings have been active on this planet for 100,000 years or more. Scientific knowledge seems to be increasing at an accelerated rate. (Consider the leaps and bounds we have made in only the past twenty years with computer technology, for example). If scientific knowledge continues to grow at an ever-faster pace, there's simply no telling what humanity will know in a scant hundred years, let alone several centuries. The whole idea behind "Star Trek" is that in the Twenty-fifth century mankind will be exploring the universe, traveling at faster-than-light speed, visiting all sorts of alien worlds and parlaying with the various alien races--oh, and "beaming" themselves through empty space. That's only five hundred years. To my thinking, five is less than "several."]
THEREFORE, I PREDICT that scientists will one day find unequivocal evidence of extraterrestrial life. We will either be visited by members of some extraterrestrial race, or we will visit them, or at least detect their activity via radiometry or telemetry or some such means. If there is no intelligent life in the universe other than ours, there should at least be signs of the unintelligent kind: an alien hive or nest, an otherworldly forest, or an ocean filled with algae.
IF, HOWEVER, after several hundred years of searching for life on other planets no such evidence is found, this fact should be taken as an indication that naturalistic materialism is not true.
This depends on the chances of abiogenesis. It is finite universe with billions of stars and an unknown number of planets (only a small proportion of the stars are contactable). We have no idea what the chances are of abiogenesis on a randomly selected planet (we can maybe estimate a minimum value based on it happening just once on earth in 4 billion years). So we have no way of knowing whether it is reasonable to expect intelligent life to contact us.
[True, we don't know exactly how many planets there are out there, but here's one thing we do know for certain: it's not an infinite number of planets, because the universe is finite, and an infinite number of planets would fill every corner of space. Further, since planets have to be made of something, the total number of planets cannot exceed the total amount of material out of which to build them, and since most of that material is hydrogen gas, helium gas, dark matter, and exotic matter, there is only a certain percentage (around 6%) of the total material of the universe than can possibly be used to build planets. Using the Earth as a model, we could then extrapolate the total number of possible earths available in the entire universe. Provided that the materialists are right, and that there's nothing particularly unique about the Earth, there should be untold planets throughout the universe like our own, and, presumably, capable of supporting life. Therefore, as I stated in my prediction, it is simply inconceivable that we are alone in the universe. Mind you, I did not limit that prediction to any expectation that such life would have to be intelligent, nor that it would have to visit us in order to satisfy the prediction. I merely stated that if life is out there somewhere, that if we look for it, some day we should find it. Now if that's a waste of time, then let's go tell the good folks at SETI about it so they can go about something more productive.]
THEREFORE, I PREDICT that an incident of active evolution will be observed in the field. Now that we know what we are looking for, we will be able to demonstrate what we claim the fossil record suggests. Scientists will be able to tag a species of plant or animal, and by meticulous tracking an tagging of its offspring by generations of scientists yet to come, will eventually identify an incident in which new speciation occurs. They will be able to point to the descendants of the original species and, by careful examination of their DNA, indicate at what point their genetic coding diverged. Further, they will be able to identify the conditions responsible for the divergence, whether via natural selection, random genetic mutation, or some combination of the two.
IF, HOWEVER, after hundreds of years of field observations, no incident of new speciation is ever identified, this should be taken as an indication that naturalistic materialism is not true.
Jack Krebs deals with this on UD. This prediction has already been fulfilled.
[And, all too conveniently, he is quick to make the claim that new speciation has been identified, but is short on details. Don't forget the last half of the prediction: not only will new speciation be identified, but science will be able to identify the conditions responsible for the divergence, whether via natural selection, random genetic mutation, or some combination of the two. It is one thing to say that a new species has been identified in an area where it was not previously found--it is quite another to demonstrate scientifically that the causal factor was our good friend Natural Selection Operating in Tandem with Random Genetic Mutation.]
THEREFORE, I PREDICT that one day a nation will arise that will be a purely secular society with no notion of religion, spirituality, or morality. It should be a society which does far more than merely tolerate atheism, but has atheism at its core as its functioning principle. It will be a Nation Not Under God, and will be able to function without any appeals to religion. It will be a free society, curtailed only by law, the codified product of mutual consent. It will be truly tolerant of all viewpoints, regardless of how extreme, and will accept all modes of behavior without judgment or dissatisfaction. It will be not the product of mere wishful thinking, but an active, living, fully functional entity.
IF, HOWEVER, after hundreds of years of trying to build a wholly secular society, no such society is ever able to establish and sustain itself, this should be taken as an indication that naturalistic materialism is not true.
This prediction has nothing to do with materialism. It is a statement about human pyschology and sociology. It might happen under an omnipotent deity who happened to want to let things develop that way and might not happen even if all the statements above are false. It may be that the way humans are made up they cannot form stable societies without having a religion - even if there is no God.
[But if materialism is true, then all things, including human psychology and sociology, have their explanations in material causation, because matter is the only thing from which such concepts could have emerged. We weren't made in God's image with all sorts of programming wired into us about morality, compassion, or altruism; instead these things came about from the only show in town, materialism. In order for materialism to work, EVERYTHING has to emerge from material, including human intelligence, human thought, and human instinct. If you can't explain it via material causation, then that should give you a clue that there's something wrong with materialism.]
THEREFORE, I PREDICT that science will one day identify that area or areas of the brain which produce the mind, describing in precise detail the chemical basis for thought. It will demonstrate the biochemical processes from which the mind emerges and by which the mind operates.
IF, HOWEVER, after hundreds of years of research into the human brain, the mind is never established as a dependent construct of the brain, this should be taken as an indication that naturalistic materialism is not true.
Well we have made some progress in fulfilling this prediction. Some aspects of mind such as vision and memory can be traced in quite a lot of detail in the brain. However, it may not be possible to completely fulfil the prediction if 2a is true.
["Some" progress ain't the whole shebang. As stated above, if materialism is true, then EVERYTHING is the result of material causation, including the mind. If 2a) is true, this would suggest that materialism is false.
]
THEREFORE, I PREDICT a Theory of Everything will be one day formulated and will be born out by repeated experimentation. It will accurately predict knowledge of things we do not yet know, and all future scientific discoveries will flow from it.
IF, HOWEVER, after hundreds of years of research in theoretical physics, in neurology, in psychology, and/or in related sciences no Theory of Everything is forthcoming and no experiment is ever devised to test it, this should be taken as an indication that naturalistic materialism is not true.
This may be impossible because of 2 above.
[Or, it may be impossible because materialism is false. 'Nuff said.]
That was fun :-)
[I heartily agree. Thanks again, by the way, for your comments. I posted my predictions not out of some burning desire to disprove materialism, but for research for my next novel. Self-serving plug: my other novels are listed on Amazon.com and many other internet booksellers: _Children and Fools: A Twisted Tale of the Vienna Woods_; and _Wonderboy and the Black Hole of Nixvy Veck_. Thanks again. TMirll]
Terry
Thanks for your detailed response. How did you come across my blog?
My main point is that the distinction between materialism and non-materialism is not clear. Perhaps I can make my point better through an example. Let’s take your first prediction:
THEREFORE, I PREDICT that scientists will one day construct a device capable of transporting a human body across vast regions of space-a device comparable to the "teleporter" as portrayed in the "Star Trek" TV series. It will disassemble a living human body at a molecular or sub-molecular level, transport those small bits of living organic material at high speed across great distance, and reassemble them to their original macroscopic configuration, with no ill effects to the body it has transported.
Suppose that in few hundred years time a device was created which somehow overcame the Heisenberg principle and could do the disassembly and reassembly. However, when the body was reassembled it just lay there in a vegetative state – the heart beat, the brain showed electrical activity, involuntary reflexes worked, but the body seemed to have no will or consciousness. Imagine three reactions:
1. There is clearly something we missed. We need to keep working on it to find the answer. Perhaps one day an Einstein will make the breakthrough.
2. This problem is insoluble. We are like a butterfly trying to get out by flying against a glass window. The human mind (in its current state) has no more hope of solving this than the butterfly has of opening the window. The best action is to forget it and work on something we can solve.
3. This shows that in addition to bodies there is a supernatural element to human life – the soul.
I guess 1 is clearly a materialist and 3 is clearly not. But what about 2? Whether you call it materialist or not, I would say that 2 is a perfectly rational attitude and one that a complete atheist can hold. Even more reasonable is to hold that 2 might be true of any unsolved conundrum, but by definition we can never know, so we will make the working assumption that 1 is the case. And, whatever you say, I do believe that even Dawkins and Dennett might hold this position. They haven’t said anything to my knowledge that contradicts it.
Also what is the difference between reaction 2 and reaction 3? If we call “the thing we don’t understand about making humans come alive” a “soul” then how do we tell the difference between 2 and 3? I suggest that the main difference lies in the additional unproven additional implications of 3 – in particular that a soul can exist independently of a body.
hello there!
Keep up this great resource.
We enjoyed visiting your website very much. You have to look at this too.
Sponsored links:
http://viagra.butkel1.org/ viagra
Buy!
Post a Comment
<< Home