The choice would still be predetermined exactly, depending who CHOSE to
allow the detecting to begin when. The cosmic rays are predetermined,
whether or not the operator knows where they actually are at the time. It's
still operator choice. You're somewhat missing my point. Computers don't
choose. Not at all. They do what they are programmed to, that's all.
>No: The fact is that what's in a computer is not supernatural, and >that
>the question of how it got there is a DIFFERENT question (as the >cosmic
>ray example shows). If you want to support a claim that choice >is
>supernatural, you have to show that ordinary brain functions can't >do it.
>Since we know, almost as well as we CAN know such things, that >the brain
>CAN do it, and that, WHEN it does it, there is no apparent >external
>intervention, the introduction of supernaturalism is >superfluous, like
>introducing supernaturalism to explain why a person >smashed to a pulp
>against a wall by a speeding car is a DEAD person.
But how it got there again determines exactly what results from it,
therefore returning the element of choice a level up: to the programmer and
operator. Now, how do you know brain functions are sufficient to choose? I'm
not saying they are or aren't, but I think the burden of proof is on you, as
you're making the positive claim (that the brain can choose).
"no apparent external intervention" -- maybe there is simply inapparent
external intervention that we haven't noticed.
>Choice is not a mysterious process, nor is its existence.
No? Do you know why it exists? Or how it came to exist? I'd say it's quite
mysterious.
>>Care to verify the links between all of these and the assertion they >>are
>>illusions? (specifically the irreducible complexity and design >>in
>>nature)
>Sure, though I thought it was obvious: They are linked by the fact of
>"seeing" things that are not there, or not actually shown to be there >by
>what is seen. Claiming that the mere appearance of a "Virgin >Mary"-like
>water stain is a supernatural event, claiming that every >car-horn beep is
>someone sending messages to one, claiming that >molecular structures prove
>design, etc., are all instances of grossly >out-of-rational-bounds
>interpretation, of imputing that the evidence >is evidence of something far
>beyond what it can possibly be rational >evidence of.
That's different than your original assertion. It implied there isn't any
design, and so anyone who thinks design exists is merely disillusioned.
Claiming that design is either proven OR disproven is wrong, as has been
stated many times before on this list.
>>Or if it's actually there. How do you rule that out?
>The question is, how do you rule it IN? The burden of proof is on the
>design-claimant. In practice, we rule it out by showing simply that >we
>don't have the kinds of evidence needed for a proof of design.
As I understand science, a theory is formulated to fit what facts are known,
and then tested according to any knew facts are found. So if someone
proposes a theory of design to account for the complexity of the world, what
facts discount this?
>In science and in philosophy, we don't get to make arbitrary >assumptions
>and still have a right to claim rationality. Design must >be PROVED, not
>assumed.
It also has to be proven wrong to be discounted. Anyway, we have to make
assumptions in all we do. Everything we think we know is based on
assumptions. (true, some more rational than others)
>Until it is, it rules itself out by requiring much stronger evidence >than
>naturalistic explanations of Nature do.
Until it's proven wrong, I see no reason to rule out something. Why rule
anything out when there is nothing against it?
Jason
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com