Giving God The Glory By Misinterpreting Intent and Purpose In Inaminate Objects
I was watching Animal Cops (a "reality" TV show) the other night and a Veterinarian was working on a potentially lifeless dog (bear with me, this story does have a happy ending).
The medical team didn't want to give up on the dog even though there was no discernible heartbeat. The indication that they focused on was that the chest was perceptively moving occasionally like it was trying to take a breath. The doctor said that the chest movement could be caused by postmortem reflex.
THE DOG EXHIBITED NO SIGNS OF CONSCIOUSNESS
Though its eyes were open they were not blinking. The doctor said at one point
"Right now we don't know if we're working on an animal that is alive or dead".
So from the doctors perspective an animal can be dead and still have a weakly and irregularly contracting and expanding chest.
Over time, the dog blinked, and they interpreted this as another sign of life. They persevered saying to each other that the "Animal has a will to live".
LET'S STOP FOR A MINUTE AND INVENTORY WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THIS
- It was unknown whether the dog was dead or not
- the dog was not conscious
- the "signs of life" at one point could be mechanical reflex actions
So HOW can it have "a WILL to live?"
It doesn't seem to me that it can possibly have a "will" to do anything if it doesn't have the energy or oxygen to be conscious. And taking it one step further, we know that brain damage occurs when the brain doesn't get enough oxygen, so the possibility exists for brain damage to be occurring.
SO WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?
I am sure that if these people were interviewed in another time and place and asked
"can an animal without consciousness that can barely breath and blink its eyes want or will anything?"
they would say
"No, its not likely that it can want or will anything because its unconscious and in such a weakened state"
LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT
Yet while they are working on a dog that they admittedly didn't know was alive or not, in effect, they are saying that even though the dogs mind is not functioning it had the will to live. So then we can say that at least at this one time, when these people were under stress and very emotional, they had two logically inconsistent beliefs existing in parallel in their mind and did not realize it.
Okay, that's probably no surprise to anyone since we can't possibly realize all the logical implications of all our beliefs, but why did they do that in this case?
LET'S PUT THE QUESTION ON HOLD FOR A MOMENT AND LOOK AT COMPLEX SYSTEMS.
Complex systems are collections of diverse components which are connected that are interdependent, and adapt. The components collectively exhibit one or more properties that CAN NOT be reduced to the sum or difference of its components. The interaction of the components creates a situation where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Examples of complex systems are color, convection, swarming, proteins, cells, organs, systems of organs, bodies, life and consciousness.
Complex Systems
Emergence
THE DOG'S BODY IS A COMPLEX SYSTEM DOING WHAT COMES NATURALLY.
The brain at its most fundamental level was converting energy chemically to generate the signals that were being automatically sent to the muscles of the lungs and the muscles of the lungs were relaxing when those signals weren't present. The key here is that as long as the "motors" were getting and losing energy and input, they were doing what they developed to do which is the only thing that they can do. The medical team interpreted the mechanical and chemical operations of the body burning energy as THE DOG not wanting to die instead of the THE DOGS BODY doing the only thing it can do when there is energy available.
INTERPRETING "OTHER MINDS" MUST BE A COGNITIVE BIAS
Even scientists can't speak about inanimate objects without falling into using language that describes intent and purpose in inanimate objects. Its just a habit of speaking. If I had not purposely avoided using language that suggested intent and purpose in one of the sentences above I could have used more common terminology and wrote
"The key here is that as long as the "motors" were getting energy and input, they were doing what they WERE DESIGNED to do which is the only thing they can do".
Even though the dog is in "auto-pilot" the medical team are thinking about the dogs body as if the dog has intent and purpose. It seems the reason they are doing that is because they are being fooled by the emergent properties of the components of the body of the dog.
SERENDIPITY MUST BE THE KEY TO LIFE
Lets take another inventory of what we know.
- We know that chemicals interact.
- We know that since chemicals interact, that over time they will interact for however long they will interact for.
- We know that mistakes and accidents happen which generates diversity.
- We know that mistakes will happen while every unregulated combination will occur.
So serendipity causes change. Random events cause change.
CHILDREN, INTENT AND PURPOSE AND SERENDIPITY
How many times have we seen children presume intent and purpose in inanimate objects? How many times did we do it as a child, and how many times do we still do it on a daily basis at the office and at home? When things are going particularly bad and misfortune seems to beat the odds it seems like SOMETHING is trying to teach us a lesson or is out to get us. Its seems to be quite a natural thing for humans to do, as evidenced by religions in all parts of the world throughout the ages making sacrifices to appease the Gods.
COMPLEX SYSTEMS WORK VIA FEEDBACK LOOPS
Feedback loops depend on amplifying, regenerative, and degenerative information.
In our complex system known as our "life", events are judged to be either bad, neither bad-or-good or good. Very roughly speaking there is a 66% chance that there will be no degenerative feedback, in other words, very roughly speaking there is a 66% chance nothing bad is going to happen. There is no intent or purpose behind it. Just complex interaction of components and some measure of chance events.
THAT'S JUST HUMAN NATURE FOR YOU! MISINTERPRETING INTENT AND PURPOSE IN INANIMATE OBJECTS
Since the medical team was providing what the body of the dog needed, it survived the night, regained consciousness and lived happily ever after. Everything went as it should since there were no degenerative random chance events.
But regardless of the facts, in the minds of the medical team (and I'm sure most of the audience), when the dog was unconscious it had [ANGEL CHORUS] "THE WILL TO LIVE", and even though nothing bad happened during the recovery (of which there was a roughly 66% chance), it was a "miracle".
The medical team didn't want to give up on the dog even though there was no discernible heartbeat. The indication that they focused on was that the chest was perceptively moving occasionally like it was trying to take a breath. The doctor said that the chest movement could be caused by postmortem reflex.
THE DOG EXHIBITED NO SIGNS OF CONSCIOUSNESS
Though its eyes were open they were not blinking. The doctor said at one point
"Right now we don't know if we're working on an animal that is alive or dead".
So from the doctors perspective an animal can be dead and still have a weakly and irregularly contracting and expanding chest.
Over time, the dog blinked, and they interpreted this as another sign of life. They persevered saying to each other that the "Animal has a will to live".
LET'S STOP FOR A MINUTE AND INVENTORY WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THIS
- It was unknown whether the dog was dead or not
- the dog was not conscious
- the "signs of life" at one point could be mechanical reflex actions
So HOW can it have "a WILL to live?"
It doesn't seem to me that it can possibly have a "will" to do anything if it doesn't have the energy or oxygen to be conscious. And taking it one step further, we know that brain damage occurs when the brain doesn't get enough oxygen, so the possibility exists for brain damage to be occurring.
SO WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?
I am sure that if these people were interviewed in another time and place and asked
"can an animal without consciousness that can barely breath and blink its eyes want or will anything?"
they would say
"No, its not likely that it can want or will anything because its unconscious and in such a weakened state"
LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT
Yet while they are working on a dog that they admittedly didn't know was alive or not, in effect, they are saying that even though the dogs mind is not functioning it had the will to live. So then we can say that at least at this one time, when these people were under stress and very emotional, they had two logically inconsistent beliefs existing in parallel in their mind and did not realize it.
Okay, that's probably no surprise to anyone since we can't possibly realize all the logical implications of all our beliefs, but why did they do that in this case?
LET'S PUT THE QUESTION ON HOLD FOR A MOMENT AND LOOK AT COMPLEX SYSTEMS.
Complex systems are collections of diverse components which are connected that are interdependent, and adapt. The components collectively exhibit one or more properties that CAN NOT be reduced to the sum or difference of its components. The interaction of the components creates a situation where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Examples of complex systems are color, convection, swarming, proteins, cells, organs, systems of organs, bodies, life and consciousness.
Complex Systems
Emergence
THE DOG'S BODY IS A COMPLEX SYSTEM DOING WHAT COMES NATURALLY.
The brain at its most fundamental level was converting energy chemically to generate the signals that were being automatically sent to the muscles of the lungs and the muscles of the lungs were relaxing when those signals weren't present. The key here is that as long as the "motors" were getting and losing energy and input, they were doing what they developed to do which is the only thing that they can do. The medical team interpreted the mechanical and chemical operations of the body burning energy as THE DOG not wanting to die instead of the THE DOGS BODY doing the only thing it can do when there is energy available.
INTERPRETING "OTHER MINDS" MUST BE A COGNITIVE BIAS
Even scientists can't speak about inanimate objects without falling into using language that describes intent and purpose in inanimate objects. Its just a habit of speaking. If I had not purposely avoided using language that suggested intent and purpose in one of the sentences above I could have used more common terminology and wrote
"The key here is that as long as the "motors" were getting energy and input, they were doing what they WERE DESIGNED to do which is the only thing they can do".
Even though the dog is in "auto-pilot" the medical team are thinking about the dogs body as if the dog has intent and purpose. It seems the reason they are doing that is because they are being fooled by the emergent properties of the components of the body of the dog.
SERENDIPITY MUST BE THE KEY TO LIFE
Lets take another inventory of what we know.
- We know that chemicals interact.
- We know that since chemicals interact, that over time they will interact for however long they will interact for.
- We know that mistakes and accidents happen which generates diversity.
- We know that mistakes will happen while every unregulated combination will occur.
So serendipity causes change. Random events cause change.
CHILDREN, INTENT AND PURPOSE AND SERENDIPITY
How many times have we seen children presume intent and purpose in inanimate objects? How many times did we do it as a child, and how many times do we still do it on a daily basis at the office and at home? When things are going particularly bad and misfortune seems to beat the odds it seems like SOMETHING is trying to teach us a lesson or is out to get us. Its seems to be quite a natural thing for humans to do, as evidenced by religions in all parts of the world throughout the ages making sacrifices to appease the Gods.
COMPLEX SYSTEMS WORK VIA FEEDBACK LOOPS
Feedback loops depend on amplifying, regenerative, and degenerative information.
In our complex system known as our "life", events are judged to be either bad, neither bad-or-good or good. Very roughly speaking there is a 66% chance that there will be no degenerative feedback, in other words, very roughly speaking there is a 66% chance nothing bad is going to happen. There is no intent or purpose behind it. Just complex interaction of components and some measure of chance events.
THAT'S JUST HUMAN NATURE FOR YOU! MISINTERPRETING INTENT AND PURPOSE IN INANIMATE OBJECTS
Since the medical team was providing what the body of the dog needed, it survived the night, regained consciousness and lived happily ever after. Everything went as it should since there were no degenerative random chance events.
But regardless of the facts, in the minds of the medical team (and I'm sure most of the audience), when the dog was unconscious it had [ANGEL CHORUS] "THE WILL TO LIVE", and even though nothing bad happened during the recovery (of which there was a roughly 66% chance), it was a "miracle".
17 comments:
Anthropomorphism of various types seems quite common among fundamentalists (and among humans of all types). They live in a Bambi-like fantasy world. Bambis and other cute forest creatures are "good". Wolves bad, vultures bad. Eagles are patriotic. Snakes are sinister. etc, etc.
Humans, or at least not-very- bright humans, superimpose values on nature that do not exist (at any rate, anthropomorphic pantheism requires some lengthy philosophical justification...paging Schopenhauer....)
That follows from their calvinist schema, probably. Sheep are like in the fold, and part of the Elect! Goats or pigs aren't (not to say the rest of the beasts). Of course, those who engage of anthropomorphism of either xtian or disney "good dog" type--or, say the Design hucksters-- don't quite perceive that a monotheist G*d would by definition controls all, command all natural phenomena--whether wolves, venomous snakes, plagues, etc. Assuming for a few nano-seconds a monotheistic God existed, Wolves are as much part of His creation as sheep are.
That's a rather trite point on the skeptic sorts of blogs (variations on the problem of evil 101). The usual sunday schooler, however, can't handle that inference;in effect, thw sunday schooler believes something like the ancient manicheans, who thought good and evil engaged in battle for eternity.
Hi Lee,
very roughly speaking there is a 66% chance nothing bad is going to happen.
Isn't there also roughly a %66 chance that nothing good is going to happen?
Here's a for fun read for you about the brain. Discover Mag got some brain folks together nad had Carl Zimmer moderate a discussion. I think you'll like it, especially the part on moral dilemma. Actually if you watch the videos it's better.
Hi rich,
are you the rich formerly known as richd?
you are right, 66% of the time nothing good happens, but when nothing good happens, only 33% of the time its "bad".
So if what we are interested in is "harm" then 66% of the time, no harm is done.
So when you pray, god can answer yes, no or wait, then in effect he matches chance. Because a lot of the time, if you wait long enough, circumstances change such that you don't need the prayer answered anymore.
Hi Lee,
Yes I am richd but I don't remember changing that recently. that's kind of wierd.
Hi Lee,
I figured out what happened. I am working on setting up a blog of my own and I made a different google account for that, that is what I was signed in under. So like Prince I will change my name once again. ;)
it seems like there is more going on in our brains then we ar conciously aware of all the time. But maybe if they actually thought about it, with that in mind, it would be harder to say that an apparently unconcious animal may still have a brain functioning anf tryiong to keep its' body's system running to stay alive, or another expression might be, it had the will to live. I think you said something like that further down in your post.
Hi Rich,
i'll check out those videos.
So its brain is doing all the work? The other systems of the body aren't capable of doing anything with out the brain?
Then I guess you think that anencephalic babies should be kept alive because "they might have the will to live"?
Hi RichD,
here's a nice video on emergence for you.
Would you say that slime mold has a will to live?
Hi Lee,
So its brain is doing all the work? The other systems of the body aren't capable of doing anything with out the brain?
Isn't that pretty much how we work? I always thought your brain controled the functions of your body, did I miss the fine print? Then there is that strange thing where a snake will still move even with the head cut off.
Then I guess you think that anencephalic babies should be kept alive because "they might have the will to live"?
No, I wasn't trying to make a judgement call on something being kept alive because of its will to live. That is very sad by the way.
Would you say that slime mold has a will to live?
No but I would say that the morning glory in my garden has a strong will to live. ;)
I thought that video was very interesting. I am looking into emergence more. So here's a question, are the laws that govern emergence also a complex system that arose through emergence? This is a real question, I'm not waiting for an "I don't know" so I can give you the "aha God did it" answer.
Hi Rich,
its good to have you back!
anyway...
I always thought your brain controlled the functions of your body, did I miss the fine print? Then there is that strange thing where a snake will still move even with the head cut off.
as far as I know, there are degrees of functionality it the brain; lower and higher functions. Cognition is handled by the higher levels, and your lust is handled by your lower levels (no pun intended, who am I kidding, that was punny!)
anyway,
you don't need your whole brain to be functioning to stay alive as anencephalic babies demonstrate. Some of them survive on their own for hours, but it seems to be an entirely mechanical process.
Don't chickens run around with their head cut off?
Check out "Mike the Headless chicken"
So I'm confused rich, what is it you are saying? That a brain that is mostly shutdown can have a will to live? An unconscious brain can have a will to live, anencephalic babies can have a "WILL" to live? If thats the case, can you help me understand the mechanism which would facilitate that? Where would Mike the headless chickens will come from? His partial brain stem?
Do magnets have a "WILL" to stick together, or is that just a phenomena that emerges from their properties? Why on earth would you need any explanation other than "thats just how they roll" to explain magnets or how that dog was behaving?
So here's a question, are the laws that govern emergence also a complex system that arose through emergence?
I don't know, but it seems to me
- that the logical relationship that entails from the interaction of components
- is itself a component
- such that between two magnets in the right conditions,
- you get the third property consisting of
- the relationship of the interaction of their components which causes the emergent behavior.
I busted that sentence up because it was even confusing to me.
If you want to say that you have an infinite regression of emergence, fine, but I wouldn't go that far because it leaves too much to speculation. There comes a time when you just have to admit that you can't break a thing down anymore and have it resemble what you started with, or have it be a useful endeavor.
If I disassemble my dog, its not a dog anymore.
Its just a bunch of pieces that used to cause "my dog" to emerge. But then again, I guess the pieces emerge from the atoms kind of like this text emerges from the organization of pixels.
more about mike.....
link
I like mike more every minute
Hi Lee,
its good to have you back!
Thanks, I had a feeling you were missing me. (Not the warm fuzzy kind though)
I busted that sentence up because it was even confusing to me.
Great! so not only am I confusing you, you are confusing yourself.
That a brain that is mostly shutdown can have a will to live?
According to the discover article there is a part of the brain that is associated with will power. So if that is still part of the brain functioning and you don't need to be concious for that part to function you could still be in effect willing yourself to live. I could see that as a possibility. Since a good part of the brain of a chicken is in the neck so maybe mike had a will, (he did make lots of money so I hope he had a will) What's even more is that it appears that even having a will to live you still need outside help sometimes. If A God exists and he is a being has the power to do anything and the knowledge to pull it off, then it would be a possibility that this God could be that outside help. I think that believers attribute good things to god in the same way athiests attribute evil to God if he exists.
Why on earth would you need any explanation other than "thats just how they roll"
Because that's not any better than God did it. However, the posts and comments here would be alot shorter.
I'm not sure I've wrapped my mind around this emergence thing to say a whole lot about it yet. That's what spare time is for.
Thanks, I had a feeling you were missing me. (Not the warm fuzzy kind though)
oh yea it is. You are challenging, and you are coherent. I don't have to resort to picking apart and analyzing your arguments to get value out of the discussion. With some other commenters there comes a time when, since they are logically incoherent, they can't be reasoned with, and all that's left is my hobby of argument analysis.
According to the discover article there is a part of the brain that is associated with will power. So if that is still part of the brain functioning and you don't need to be concious for that part to function you could still be in effect willing yourself to live.
so then are you assigning the will to live to a particular part of the brains 'circuitry' separate and apart from consciousness? Such that it becomes a mechanism in the system? I can live with that because it fits with the observable evidence.
There is no doubt that the brain plays a role in 'animation' but saying that there is intent and purpose in a brain stem is overreaching in my opinion.
What's even more is that it appears that even having a will to live you still need outside help sometimes. If A God exists and he is a being has the power to do anything and the knowledge to pull it off, then it would be a possibility that this God could be that outside help.
Where does god fit in mikes situation?
If mike "works" with only his brain stem, and we can't detect any god involved, why would we consider there is any god involved?
If God is involved it must be one from the Hindu Trinity. Good luck refuting that.
I can show you Krishna's (Vishnus human manifestation) city submerged off the coast of India just like their scripture says it is. Hows that for evidence of God on Earth as a human in 3000 BCE?
Because that's not any better than God did it.
why not?
- do you want to say that magnetism is caused by god?
- when you have a glass of water, put pepper in it, and then a piece of soap, and the pepper scatters to the edges, that its god?
- do you want to say that the combination of sodium and chloride becoming inert as table salt is god?
- do you want to say that two plus two is four is because god willed it?
no, rich, thats just how they roll.
that is the result of the interaction of the properties, in just the same way that a lego structure is the result of their interaction.
In the same way that the ancients were fooled by the logical interaction of values of numbers and came up with the "forms".
I'm still working on those discover videos. Thats great stuff, thanks.
Hi Lee,
There is no doubt that the brain plays a role in 'animation' but saying that there is intent and purpose in a brain stem is overreaching in my opinion.
I'll give you that.
why not?
Thats just how they roll seems like a similar non-answer to me.
- do you want to say that magnetism is caused by god?
Not sure if it is caused or used. You'll remember(or not) that I am of the mindset that I believe that God created everything. But I also don't have any idea how he would accomplish such a thing. I'm also not so sure that the word create in Genesis shouldn't be organize. Or he took materials available and organized everything we see. Igive you that snippet so you'll maybe understand my answer a liitle better. If God understands the propeties of magnetism, and since earths magnetic field protects us, then I would say that he had a hand in organizing the earth so that it had magnetic properties. There are more purposes for magnetism, I just picked one. I'm not sure legos was a good choice for you to use here since they were designed by someone to have the properties they do and those structures are a result of someone organizing legos into a structer.
Hi Rich,
thanks for coming back, I was getting lonely, checking the comments every so often, and never seeing anything, sniff, sniff...
anyway...
Thats just how they roll seems like a similar non-answer to me.
rich, rich, rich, rich, rich,
like I said before, there comes a time when you can't break anything down any more than it is without it being destroyed.
If you keep slicing up reality looking for god, all you wind up is with a bunch of pieces.
Literally, look at biology, it breaks down to the laws of physics and matter.
you divide up a person looking for the soul and all you wind up with is ions.
If you can't detect it, is it really good enough to say that since it appears in some old unverifiable writings and there is a similar CONCEPT in other cultures that its true?
No its not, anymore than you'd concede that Krishna was the god vishnu in human form in 3000 bc because it appears in some old unverifiable writings and there is a similar concept in other cultures.
The ideas of gods are mutually exclusive of each other on the same grounds, just change the names, and therefore INCOHERENT.
Mike was running around because he was still functional as a system, not because he "had a will to live".
For Croms sake, who'd want to live with just a brain stem?
That dog was still functional as a system, and gradually came "online" enough for consciousness to emerge again. If there had been brain damage, it would have been a functional system at reduced capability.
Hi Lee,
thanks for coming back, I was getting lonely, checking the comments every so often, and never seeing anything, sniff, sniff...
I though you might need an "It's a wonderful life" moment, seeing blogger life without Rich. Now you can feel en"Richd" :)
like I said before, there comes a time when you can't break anything down any more than it is without it being destroyed.
And I agree. The way you used that's how they roll earlier would have sounded like this to me: Why do magnets stick together? Because that's just how they roll. here is the comment-Do magnets have a "WILL" to stick together, or is that just a phenomena that emerges from their properties? Why on earth would you need any explanation other than "thats just how they roll" to explain magnets or how that dog was behaving? And that is when I said it sounded no better than this: Why do magnets stick together? Because that's how God made them. I may have misunderstood what you were driving at though, it happens.
I do feel en"RichD"!
;-)
Post a Comment