--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > > wrote: > (snip) > > I'm much more interested in whether the materialists are > > content that they have successfully seen off the incursion. > > Maybe - like we were with the so called "intelligent design" > > BS - they react strongly to the ignorance of the argument > > to slap it down straight away lest tubthumpers use it as an > > excuse. > > Doubt it, at least with regard to the "ignorance of the > argument." Nagel is a *very* highly respected senior > philosopher, not some dork from the Discovery Institute. > (He's the author of the celebrated essay "What Is It > Like to Be a Bat?" of which I'm sure you've heard.)
I hope that's not an argument from authority, probably the least convincing way of winning an argument. All of the ID crowd were "highly respected" PHDs, just not any more, chortle. > That hasn't stopped them from *accusing* him of > ignorance in some aspects of his argument, but his > defenders (some of whom are equally as prominent as his > critics) have pointed out that the critics have > significantly misconstrued him--in at least a few > cases, apparently deliberately. > > Anyway, yes, they're concerned about the potential use > of his book by creationist types--giving aid and > comfort to the enemy and all that. They especially > don't like the book's subtitle--"Why the Materialist > Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly > False." Strong statement. However, as I noted, Nagel > doesn't suggest--indeed, opposes--a theistic > alternative. And IMHO, that the book's thesis might > be misused is a poor reason to attack it. > > > It took me 20 minutes to dismiss the ID case, and that included > > a bike ride to the library for the relevant high school text book. > > Simples. But they were a bunch of tubthumpers on a mission to > > get creationism taught in schools as we now know. > > > > No one knows of anything that couldn't have got here under it's > > own steam, baffling and stunning though it all is whenever someone > > comes a major natural mystery it almost always turns out to be > > something that came pre-adapted to do something else and got co- > > opted into helping out another part of the organism. > > > > The mind is a case in point, like I said about music the other > > day, it takes many parts of the brain to give us the subjective > > experience but none of them evolved to do that, I think it's > > that we join things up and our minds just enlarge and link up > > emotions and memories or maybe the earliest music played a > > different part in our social lives and has just got "out of > > hand" as far as whatever it's original intention or use was. > > > > But it isn't all explained by any means, I get sceptical because > > the method of explanation used so far (materialist science) has > > done a pretty damn good job so far. > > Well, if you don't analyze the explanation philosophically > to see whether it's logically coherent, it may seem like it > does a good job. Why the use of the term philosophically? Scientifically does the job just as well as it also stands and falls on how coherent - and more importantly - testable it is. > (snip) > > > He suggests one potential (nontheistic) solution to fill > > > the explanatory gap, but he offers it only as a > > > possibility, not as a firm conclusion. His main focus is > > > on why there *is* a gap. > > > > So, it's one of those irreducible structure things then. If > > something like the mind can't evolve without help then it's > > being helped. Don't keep me in suspense, what is his theory. > > Sum it up, we know the brain evolved, you can even watch it > > evolve embryonically, so if what the brain does *didn't* > > evolve or needed a helping hand from something else then > > I'm all ears. > > I'm going to refer you to the book. It's a detailed and > tightly reasoned argument (but only 128 pages). I'm not > good at boiling that kind of thing down, and I wouldn't > be able to do justice to it. If Robin were here, he surely > could, but he ain't. > > And as I said, Nagel's suggestion as to an alternative > mechanism is tentative and incompletely developed. It's > just one possible way to approach the problem. The much > more important aspect of the book has to do with the > explanatory gap. There's no point talking about > alternative mechanisms until you see why neo-Darwinism > doesn't--can't--fill the gap; otherwise you can't tell > what might be successful in filling it. Well, as I say most of these "gaps" turn out to be the result of inadequate research. I suppose I can manage 128 pages to satisfy my curiosity. If it's in the library... > > > > > Or maybe Nagel has done just that and provided science with > > > > an argument it can't explain. Until one of us reads the book > > > > we won't know. LOL. > > > > > > Well, *you* won't know until *you* read the book, that's > > > for sure. LOL. > > > > I only want to know one thing about it. Do tell all. > > All I'll say is that it isn't theistic. Nagel goes to some > trouble to explain why he would reject any supernatural > solution. He's basically a naturalist; he just thinks the > current naturalist view is incomplete and inadequate and > needs revision and extension in order to encompass what > it needs to explain. >
