Thought Provoker
Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007
|
Hi All,
Thank you for the reasoned and reasonable responses. I will try to return in kind.
Albatrossity2 asked…
| Quote | | Doesn't it bother you at all to constantly have to point out that this isn't science? |
Actually it does bother me. Which is why I pester the folks at Telic Thoughts with...
"Let's do Science!" :D
If ID proponents focus on the science it addresses two birds with one stone. They could possibly contribute something useful (if nothing else, provoking introspective re-evaluation) and it detracts from the ID Movement as envisioned by Dr. Dembski and the Discovery Institute.
Albatrossity2 continued with…
| Quote | | That it offers no explanation, but is "tending" toward being able to do that? Don't you realize that if it is not "formulated in testable terms" yet, it is not likely to ever reach that hopeful tendency? Can you explain how it can be a "compelling explanation" without being testable? Why not "witches and warlocks designed the world'? |
I disagree with your characterization that things like Orch OR offer “no explanation”. It potentially offers quite a bit of explanation for the existence and characteristics of consciousness. For example, it provides a simple explanation for the “Color Phi and cutaneous rabbit anomalies” along with Benjamin Libet’s experimental data showing up to a half a second delay in conscious recognition of events. (link)
The easy and straight forward explanation is that the same natural process occurring in quantum experiments like Wheeler’s Delayed Choice is happening in consciousness. But the implications of accepting that explanation as seriously plausible is too risky for cautious “PhD Types” exercising scientific modesty.
BTW, Dr. Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose both have PhDs. However, I don’t clump them into my stereotypical “PhD Types” because they go out of their way to try to explain their ideas in laymen’s terms and aren’t afraid of being ridiculed for doing so.
But bringing this back to Albatrossity's question. Yes, I wish more ID proponents would provide hypotheses and models.
Oleg wrote...
| Quote | | In a nutshell, TP, because it's the only game in town. |
In a nutshell, I disagree.
I believe Dr. Hameroff and Dr. Penrose disagree too.
While you may still want to interpret Dr. Penrose's universal wavefunction as dynamic and truly random, I think it is obvious that it is fixed similar to a set of pseudorandom numbers or, more appropriately, a Mandelbrot Set in four complex dimensions of space-time.
"Randomness did it" verses "God did it" is mostly about which default gets to be presumed.
I think there is merit in questioning the "Randomness did it" presumption. A potential positive aspect of the few honest ID proponents is that it might cause this presumption to be questioned.
Please note, I do not want to replace it with "God did it."
I am leaning towards "orchestrated quantum effects did it".
I think there is some scientific evidence to back this up. Granted, the evidence is currently weak. But it is getting stronger, IMO.
|
