Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

[thesometimesaint]

Synthesis. The whole is greater that the sum of its parts.

[mfbukowski]

How does free will emerge from matter that obeys deterministic laws?

Here is an area where science and Mormonism must necessarily differ:

http://www.infidels....tz/dualism.html

In pursuing causal closure free will has to be denied. If this is true repentence is an impossibility and a final judgement is not only unjust but a non-sensical act.

Of course causal closure may involve something as yet undetectable by scientific means. In math arriving at a contradiction is often used as a proof but apparently not so here.

ETA Those who wish to debate this are reminded that I had no choice in the matter but had to make this post..

Not sure if your intent was to be funny or if you are serious?!?!?!

There are many many ways of resolving the free will vs determinism issue- in fact most philosophers today are "compatibilists".

Like I said- maybe you are pulling our legs? - I haven't read the article yet by the way- just what you posted.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

[Erin15]

Science focuses on the question of "How," while the gospel focuses on the question of "Why." Those are not mutually exclusive views of the world, in fact, I believe them to be complimentary.

[Robert F. Smith]

How does free will emerge from matter that obeys deterministic laws?

Here is an area where science and Mormonism must necessarily differ:

http://www.infidels....tz/dualism.html

In pursuing causal closure free will has to be denied. If this is true repentence is an impossibility and a final judgement is not only unjust but a non-sensical act.

Of course causal closure may involve something as yet undetectable by scientific means. In math arriving at a contradiction is often used as a proof but apparently not so here.

ETA Those who wish to debate this are reminded that I had no choice in the matter but had to make this post..

I love your droll sense of humor. I let out a predetermined chuckle and guffaw..

However, you are assuming what has to be proved. It is all well and good to speak of the human electrochemical system and what it means in practical terms. Of course science must proceed without teleological or metaphysical assumptions, but that does not end the matter. There is simply too much that we do not know.

[bcuzbcuz]

Athiests are selfish people who couldn't care less about this country, our founding fathers, Jesus Christ's teachings as the cornerstone of our foundation. It's all about what's in it for them. They are the carbetbaggers that divide and destroy then haggle over who gets the bigger portion of the spoils of the pie.

I see you know quite a bit about atheists. And you're right. I couldn't care less about the USA or its founding fathers, except as the most powerful nation, militarily, and with the most intrusive culture, the US is constantly making life sour for the rest of us. I suppose you know that we who live in other countries are aware that we're only a button away from being just one more country that the US bombs. Since the end of WWII, the US has bombed more than 20 countries. So I don't get how Jesus is the cornerstone.

[Nofear]

There are many many ways of resolving the free will vs determinism issue- in fact most philosophers today are "compatibilists".

Don't worry shalamabobbi, you aren't the only Mormon who thinks compatibilism is a bunch of hooey. Compatibilists try to get around the problem of determinism and free will by quite literally changing the question/definition of what free will means. I think many philosophers have acquiesced to compatibilism simply because they have no way of getting around the fact that our physical matter universe is very much deterministic. Mormonism, on the other hand, does have an out and that is by allowing matter outside the realms of physical matter. And until we know more about that, we are can posit/say just about anything we want about the properties of this unseen mater.

Anyway, don't let mfbukowski give you a "hard" time. Even if a plurality of philosophers have ceded to the darkside of the free will debate, it is by no means a settled question. Philosophers have been debating this for quite literally millennia and the debate continues today.

[thesometimesaint]

bcubcuz:

No doubt about the US has done a lot of bad things. However in our defense we have also done a lot of good things. If were going to get the blame for bad, we also get credit for the good.

Jesus never was and shouldn't be the cornerstone of the US. We were designed as a secular nation, and I for one constantly pray to God that we remain so.

[mfbukowski]

Don't worry shalamabobbi, you aren't the only Mormon who thinks compatibilism is a bunch of hooey. Compatibilists try to get around the problem of determinism and free will by quite literally changing the question/definition of what free will means. I think many philosophers have acquiesced to compatibilism simply because they have no way of getting around the fact that our physical matter universe is very much deterministic. Mormonism, on the other hand, does have an out and that is by allowing matter outside the realms of physical matter. And until we know more about that, we are can posit/say just about anything we want about the properties of this unseen mater.

Anyway, don't let mfbukowski give you a "hard" time. Even if a plurality of philosophers have ceded to the darkside of the free will debate, it is by no means a settled question. Philosophers have been debating this for quite literally millennia and the debate continues today.

All you have to do to believe in materialism and free will is make a distinction between subjective experience and science as two different viewpoints, talking about two different ways of seeing the same thing.

It really isn't very hard. Even atheists make that distinction all the time. The real problem here is the physicality of brain states and how that relates to experience.

Are statements about brain states logically equivalent to statements about statements about you loving your wife, for example? Never!

But I am not really sure what "positing matter outside the realms of physical matter" means. Sounds a bit inconsistent and complicated to me, frankly. My initial reaction is that if it's matter it's physical- "more refined" perhaps, and as yet undefined in its operation, but matter nonetheless.

As always, I suppose it comes down to the definitions. Since all we have is words to express all this, that's not surprising.

Edited August 29, 2012 by mfbukowski

[shalamabobbi]

All you have to do to believe in materialism and free will is make a distinction between subjective experience and science as two different viewpoints, talking about two different ways of seeing the same thing.

It really isn't very hard. Even atheists make that distinction all the time. The real problem here is the physicality of brain states and how that relates to experience.

Are statements about brain states logically equivalent to statements about statements about you loving your wife, for example? Never!

But I am not really sure what "positing matter outside the realms of physical matter" means. Sounds a bit inconsistent and complicated to me, frankly. My initial reaction is that if it's matter it's physical- "more refined" perhaps, and as yet undefined in its operation, but matter nonetheless.

As always, I suppose it comes down to the definitions. Since all we have is words to express all this, that's not surprising.

Could you elaborate a little bit for someone with a science background but lacking in the philosophy department?

What are the tools at our disposal at this point in time?

1. Chaos theory - small changes can result in huge differences. For free will you still have to account for the initial small change and the ability to change it some how.

2. Quantum fuzziness - though individual results are random overall behavior follows probability and so matter yet behaves deterministically. Even if single events that are random are the seeds for chaos theory this doesn't provide a basis for free will since it would be random determinism.

3. Emergence - a nice concept but it can't get around casual determinism. In every example offered casual determinism is still intact.

What do you build free will upon?

I get that the stage is in the brain, that we don't really see reality etc. But there is a connection between the mind and it's representation of the real world and the real world itself otherwise it would not be of much utility in avoiding cliffs and such..

[Nofear]

But I am not really sure what "positing matter outside the realms of physical matter" means. Sounds a bit inconsistent and complicated to me, frankly. My initial reaction is that if it's matter it's physical- "more refined" perhaps, and as yet undefined in its operation, but matter nonetheless.

Linguistic convenience. Physical matter is the matter we associate with the things we are currently experiencing here in mortality. It is very accurately (though perhaps not perfectly) by the Standard Model of particle physics.

Our spirit body is material in Mormonism. However, there is essentially no workable model of spirit matter that posits it functions accordings to the rules of the Standard Model in the same way quarks, electrons, and neutrinos, etc. do. So, I distinguish between physical matter (i.e. obeys Standard Model) and spirit matter (i.e. doesn't obey Standard Model).

Hope that helps.

[Nofear]

All you have to do to believe in materialism and free will is make a distinction between subjective experience and science as two different viewpoints, talking about two different ways of seeing the same thing.

It really isn't very hard. Even atheists make that distinction all the time. The real problem here is the physicality of brain states and how that relates to experience.

Are statements about brain states logically equivalent to statements about statements about you loving your wife, for example? Never!

Perhaps in the same way you had difficulty understanding why I would distinguish between forms of matter (it's all matter, duh) I don't seem to see how this train of thought address Galen Strawson's "Basic Argument" and its attack on free will.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps in the same way you had difficulty understanding why I would distinguish between forms of matter (it's all matter, duh) I don't seem to see how this train of thought address Galen Strawson's "Basic Argument" and its attack on free will.

That's like asking about someone's theory about flying saucers and silicon based life forms, or alternatively about how one gets beyond Platonic Forms, or Calvin's predestination.

G. Strawson's view is a minority position and there are a lot of ways of dealing with it. Philosophical positions always imply other philosophical positions, and as a Pragmatist let's just say that I disagree with so many of his presumptions that they are uncountable.

But cutting to the chase, pragmatically it is clear we make choices- as we both did in carrying on this conversation. The reality is that we are in fact responsible for decisions- rob a bank if you don't believe that and see what happens.

If you really want to get into it, I will be happy to but it all will be a major effort on both of our parts. I'm not ducking it- we can do it if you want, but there are so many ways around it that I don't think it is worth the time.

[mfbukowski]

Could you elaborate a little bit for someone with a science background but lacking in the philosophy department?

What are the tools at our disposal at this point in time?

1. Chaos theory - small changes can result in huge differences. For free will you still have to account for the initial small change and the ability to change it some how.

2. Quantum fuzziness - though individual results are random overall behavior follows probability and so matter yet behaves deterministically. Even if single events that are random are the seeds for chaos theory this doesn't provide a basis for free will since it would be random determinism.

3. Emergence - a nice concept but it can't get around casual determinism. In every example offered casual determinism is still intact.

What do you build free will upon?

I get that the stage is in the brain, that we don't really see reality etc. But there is a connection between the mind and it's representation of the real world and the real world itself otherwise it would not be of much utility in avoiding cliffs and such..

Short answer: we DO see the real world- the world we see IS the real world. Everything we experience is real- even an angel if it appeared to you. There is no distinction between reality and appearance. There are illusions, but upon investigation we discover that they were indeed illusions.

Is an angel an illusion? Sometimes maybe sometimes not, but it always a subjective experience. The difference between subjective and objective is whether or not the experience is replicated by another.

Science is science because it can be replicated by everyone by following the same recipe. But you loving your wife, or seeing an angel, or having any other internal experience cannot be verified by others- it is subjective.

Is your love for your wife "real"? Of course. But I cannot verify your feelings- I could look inside your brain and not see "love"- it's not there! Perhaps different parts of your brain light up- but is a description of that identical to you saying "I love my wife"?

It is not.

That's it in a very short form.

We don't fall off cliffs because our experience tells us that such a thing might hurt. The appearance of danger is indeed danger itself.

Can you look inside your brain and see "choice"? No, yet we both know you can decide to carry on this discussion or not, and to say you did not have that choice would be ridiculous in real life.

Edited August 29, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

shalamabobbi said:

Could you elaborate a little bit for someone with a science background but lacking in the philosophy department?

What are the tools at our disposal at this point in time?

1. Chaos theory - small changes can result in huge differences. For free will you still have to account for the initial small change and the ability to change it some how.

2. Quantum fuzziness - though individual results are random overall behavior follows probability and so matter yet behaves deterministically. Even if single events that are random are the seeds for chaos theory this doesn't provide a basis for free will since it would be random determinism.

3. Emergence - a nice concept but it can't get around casual determinism. In every example offered casual determinism is still intact.

What do you build free will upon?

mfbukowski, on 29 August 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

But I am not really sure what "positing matter outside the realms of physical matter" means. Sounds a bit inconsistent and complicated to me, frankly. My initial reaction is that if it's matter it's physical- "more refined" perhaps, and as yet undefined in its operation, but matter nonetheless.

Linguistic convenience. Physical matter is the matter we associate with the things we are currently experiencing here in mortality. It is very accurately (though perhaps not perfectly) by the Standard Model of particle physics.

Our spirit body is material in Mormonism. However, there is essentially no workable model of spirit matter that posits it functions accordings to the rules of the Standard Model in the same way quarks, electrons, and neutrinos, etc. do. So, I distinguish between physical matter (i.e. obeys Standard Model) and spirit matter (i.e. doesn't obey Standard Model).

Mormonism posts three and only three constitutive, distinguishable elements of the universe: (1) physical matter, (2) fine, spiritual matter, and (3) intelligence.

Science is thus far unable to measure or determine the physical legal model upon which ## 2 & 3 are based, or even whether they actually exist. One hint: physicists now know that over 90% of everything is outside the realm of direct scientific observation -- Dark Energy and Dark Matter -- and we only recognize its existence by recent extrapolation from known physical laws. Is that the finer, spiritual matter described in D&C 131:7? Can it only be seen with spiritual eyes? Moses 1:11.

Free will would have to based on our necessary, independent, eternal existence as embodied intelligence (encased first in spiritual bodies, then in physical bodies). Such bodies merely extend and enable the free will decision-making capacity For example, just because we drive a car for practical reasons does not mean that we become the car. The physical laws governing the function of an automobile do not determine the nature of the driver. Thus, having an on-board computer and an energy-conversion mechanism inside our physical bodies does not make us automatons -- unless that is all there is, and Mormonism is sheer bunk.

[shalamabobbi]

Short answer: we DO see the real world- the world we see IS the real world. Everything we experience is real- even an angel if it appeared to you. There is no distinction between reality and appearance. There are illusions, but upon investigation we discover that they were indeed illusions.

Is an angel an illusion? Sometimes maybe sometimes not, but it always a subjective experience. The difference between subjective and objective is whether or not the experience is replicated by another.

Science is science because it can be replicated by everyone by following the same recipe. But you loving your wife, or seeing an angel, or having any other internal experience cannot be verified by others- it is subjective.

Is your love for your wife "real"? Of course. But I cannot verify your feelings- I could look inside your brain and not see "love"- it's not there! Perhaps different parts of your brain light up- but is a description of that identical to you saying "I love my wife"?

It is not.

That's it in a very short form.

We don't fall off cliffs because our experience tells us that such a thing might hurt. The appearance of danger is indeed danger itself.

Can you look inside your brain and see "choice"? No, yet we both know you can decide to carry on this discussion or not, and to say you did not have that choice would be ridiculous in real life.

Yes but what is it that is doing the experiencing? That is what I was focusing on.

I am not in disagreement with any of this. I am wondering how it is that free will can be accounted for with science.

The argument seems to rely upon the principal of emergence. But that is nothing more than an occurrence that itself is causal and deterministic in nature. Granted what emerges can fold back upon itself and tweek what it is that emerges (feedback) but still causality and determinism are not contradicted by that process. It is simply non-linear and hence chaotic in nature and so not easily predictable but how does that alone justify the assumption that something could emerge that violates all of known physics, something that itself causes and determines without being caused or determined itself?

[shalamabobbi]

Mormonism posts three and only three constitutive, distinguishable elements of the universe: (1) physical matter, (2) fine, spiritual matter, and (3) intelligence.

Science is thus far unable to measure or determine the physical legal model upon which ## 2 & 3 are based, or even whether they actually exist. One hint: physicists now know that over 90% of everything is outside the realm of direct scientific observation -- Dark Energy and Dark Matter -- and we only recognize its existence by recent extrapolation from known physical laws. Is that the finer, spiritual matter described in D&C 131:7? Can it only be seen with spiritual eyes? Moses 1:11.

Free will would have to based on our necessary, independent, eternal existence as embodied intelligence (encased first in spiritual bodies, then in physical bodies). Such bodies merely extend and enable the free will decision-making capacity For example, just because we drive a car for practical reasons does not mean that we become the car. The physical laws governing the function of an automobile do not determine the nature of the driver. Thus, having an on-board computer and an energy-conversion mechanism inside our physical bodies does not make us automatons -- unless that is all there is, and Mormonism is sheer bunk.

That's exactly my point. This is an area where Mormonism disagrees with science. We answer the enigma with faith in a part of us that is immortal and simply exists. "I Am that I Am" and we are that we are. Pre-mortal life and all.

But science assumes that this is yet another God of the gaps that will also eventually fall and that they will be able to create consciousness and also free will artificially or dismiss it as an illusion though this is a homunculus error, an illusion to who or to what?

[Robert F. Smith]

That's exactly my point. This is an area where Mormonism disagrees with science. We answer the enigma with faith in a part of us that is immortal and simply exists. "I Am that I Am" and we are that we are. Pre-mortal life and all.

No, I don't think you get the point at all. Science is not interested in and does not use metaphysics or the so-called supernatural. To have a "disagreement" under such circumstances would be to make a category mistake in logic. By its very nature science does not deal with such matters.

But science assumes that this is yet another God of the gaps that will also eventually fall and that they will be able to create consciousness and also free will artificially or dismiss it as an illusion though this is a homunculus error, an illusion to who or to what?

Wrong again: the god of the gaps notion is one of a number of responses by normative Jews, Christians, and Muslims in which special pleading is engaged in to prove the existence of God. Logicians might concern themselves with such failed attempts to justify irrational Judeo-Christian-Muslim religious beliefs, but scientists do not -- unless they are on a polemical trip outside their academic discipline.

One could describe the entirely naturalistic Mormon theology as allowing us to occasionally look over God's shoulder, as it were, when observing developments in genetic research disclosing the DNA double-helix blueprint for all life on Earth, or when observing the mystery of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. As natural laws are discovered they can reasonably be taken to disclose the means by which God engages in his organizing and engineering activities, the same way we might expect a very advanced sentient being from another star system to employ advanced scientific techniques. For scientists like the late Fred Hoyle and his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe, the conclusion from statistical likelihood meant that such advanced sentient beings certainly exist, and that the argument from design is a very convincing one. Belief in the normative Judeo-Chrsitian-Islamic God may indeed be illogical, even silly, but Mormon theology has no truck with such groundless belief.

[bcuzbcuz]

bcubcuz:

No doubt about the US has done a lot of bad things. However in our defense we have also done a lot of good things. If were going to get the blame for bad, we also get credit for the good.

Jesus never was and shouldn't be the cornerstone of the US. We were designed as a secular nation, and I for one constantly pray to God that we remain so.

I agree. The US stands for many things good along with the bad that I mentioned. I was referencing to the comment that the US had Jesus as its cornerstone. And the bad that the US performs does not comply with a nation that claims a kinship to Jesus. Anyone who claims or wants the US to become more tied with a religion should take special care in any criticism they offer regarding Islamic states. The last Christian crusades were more than 600 years ago and I hope it stays that way.

[shalamabobbi]

No, I don't think you get the point at all. Science is not interested in and does not use metaphysics or the so-called supernatural. To have a "disagreement" under such circumstances would be to make a category mistake in logic. By its very nature science does not deal with such matters.

Wrong again: the god of the gaps notion is one of a number of responses by normative Jews, Christians, and Muslims in which special pleading is engaged in to prove the existence of God. Logicians might concern themselves with such failed attempts to justify irrational Judeo-Christian-Muslim religious beliefs, but scientists do not -- unless they are on a polemical trip outside their academic discipline.

One could describe the entirely naturalistic Mormon theology as allowing us to occasionally look over God's shoulder, as it were, when observing developments in genetic research disclosing the DNA double-helix blueprint for all life on Earth, or when observing the mystery of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. As natural laws are discovered they can reasonably be taken to disclose the means by which God engages in his organizing and engineering activities, the same way we might expect a very advanced sentient being from another star system to employ advanced scientific techniques. For scientists like the late Fred Hoyle and his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe, the conclusion from statistical likelihood meant that such advanced sentient beings certainly exist, and that the argument from design is a very convincing one. Belief in the normative Judeo-Chrsitian-Islamic God may indeed be illogical, even silly, but Mormon theology has no truck with such groundless belief.

Yes Robert, I understand all of this. I worked most of my life in scientific research. You're preaching to the chior here. This is my personal musing and contemplating "out loud" on a public forum that is not a science forum.

Perhaps I should have said, "This is an area where Mormonism disagrees with what is expected to be the case by most scientists". Does this meet with your approval?

My understanding is that "the God of the gaps" is simply the historical habit of postulating where God is the explanation absent a natural one. And historically it was engaged in by scientists not theologians. They used to be in some degree one and the same way back when..

[mfbukowski]

Yes but what is it that is doing the experiencing? That is what I was focusing on.

Not sure what you mean. YOU are doing the experiencing - Think about it- all your perceptions are filtered through your senses- and you cannot get outside of what your senses are experiencing- no one can, no one ever has! You don't know anything about what is "real" in the sense of outside of your senses.

All we can know and talk about is sense data as relayed in language- abstractions and symbols assembled by your brain. Nothing else is real. If you think you can make choices- you can make choices. What you see is what you get- and is all we can talk about. There is no "world" beyond what you can see through your senses at least no world we can talk about- because speech itself also limits our communication horizon. There IS no "out there" beyond our senses we can talk about. Period. Amen. No mas.

We can create models which interpret what our senses tell us- the whatsometer shows a reading of 105.739, therefore something we made up called "atoms" are doing whatever we think they are doing. But all that is interpretation of a story we have made up- a paradigm which has evolved to enable us to make a bomb or a reactor or fly to the moon. That's all we know- that the math says that if the meter reads 105.739 then x is happening, but if it reads 18 that is a major anomaly and something is wrong somewhere- either with the meter or the theory or the prediction etc.

But all this really IS is an extension of our senses- and some interpretations we made up which are consistent observations which are replicable. It is still human experience- all that data is sense data which is being interpreted by our minds.

I am not in disagreement with any of this. I am wondering how it is that free will can be accounted for with science.

Perhaps it can, perhaps it can't. Suppose for now it can't.

Would you actually doubt that you can make a choice because "science" told you you couldn't? Science may tell you that the chair you are sitting in is mostly empty space- but are you afraid that you will fall through the floor to the center of the earth?

The argument seems to rely upon the principal of emergence. But that is nothing more than an occurrence that itself is causal and deterministic in nature. Granted what emerges can fold back upon itself and tweek what it is that emerges (feedback) but still causality and determinism are not contradicted by that process. It is simply non-linear and hence chaotic in nature and so not easily predictable but how does that alone justify the assumption that something could emerge that violates all of known physics, something that itself causes and determines without being caused or determined itself?

Can you see that calling something a "cause" is an interpretation of data? You are thinking scientifically and not philosophically which is not surprising. All of these are metaphysical interpretations

If this is a scientific hypothesis, what experiments would verify it?

What precisely is "emergence"? Is it verifiable? Is it a theory which is not verifiable? How does one verify determinism itself scientifically? If it is a scientific principle then it must be experimentally verifiable right? Or is it a theory about science? If it is a theory about science, it is philosophy and subject to verbal analysis and deconstruction.

[mfbukowski]

My understanding is that "the God of the gaps" is simply the historical habit of postulating where God is the explanation absent a natural one. And historically it was engaged in by scientists not theologians. They used to be in some degree one and the same way back when..

As I see it this approach itself assumes a scientific standpoint even on the part of those who would postulate God as an answer to the gaps problem. One is still seeking an objective naturalistic explanation and making God a part of that. That of course would presume a naturalistic God- but more about that later.

God does not fill in the gaps in theories about scientific reality. To me, that is a category mistake. It is like postulating "courage" as the answer to why a given electron is in a given shell. Some electrons are just more courageous than others.

That is of course absurd- but that is similar to postulating God in the gaps. It is a similar kind of category error.

Discourse about God is not discourse about scientific principles. Science is stories and metaphors about how we think the world works- religion is stories and metaphors about views of eternity which bring meaning to our lives. They are both metaphorical in the sense that language itself is metaphorical- it cannot be anything but metaphorical. Words are not things they are symbols.

And incidentally about a naturalistic God- we Mormons postulate from the beginning that "God is naturalistic"- that statement is part of the assumptions which are necessary from the very beginning if indeed God has a body and is a perfected human. But that is not to say that for Mormons statements about God are actually statements about scientific realities even if they presume that God is naturalistic. The statement "God is naturalistic" is actually a metaphysical statement - a metaphysical story which enables us to formulate the Mormon understanding of the nature of God.

If God actually IS "naturalistic" we could go out and take his picture with a rocket or plot his location in space. We cannot do that, so the statement itself is a metaphysical statement about what we believe (on faith) we could do in principle.

So we still have the distinction between scientific statements and metaphysical statements, just as we have the difference between objective and subjective statements.

When we say something like "I know the church is true" what we are saying is a subjective metaphysical statement. It is subjective- I am expressing my personal feelings and thus it is not objectively verifiable, and what I am saying is also not objectively verifiable- we have no tests for showing the church to be true in a scientific sense. But the rest of that is a long story.

[Ahab]

That's exactly my point. This is an area where Mormonism disagrees with science.

No, just some interpretations by some scientists. Mormonism is in 100% agreement with science.

We answer the enigma with faith in a part of us that is immortal and simply exists. "I Am that I Am" and we are that we are. Pre-mortal life and all.

Yes, and by faith we are assured that part of us is intelligent (or intelligence in itself) while also being matter and spirit.

But science assumes that this is yet another God of the gaps that will also eventually fall and that they will be able to create consciousness and also free will artificially or dismiss it as an illusion though this is a homunculus error, an illusion to who or to what?

Do you realize you're talking about science as if it is a person? You say science assumes and then say that "they" will... blah blah blah. Try using the word "scientist" sometime, instead of science, and then maybe that will help you see the distinction.

At any rate, those guys are just wrong and the God of their gaps is the proof of that truth they deny. A scientist isn't necessarily adept or expert in understanding true science, ya know.

[shalamabobbi]

I get the feeling we are not involved in the same discussion. Let's see if we can connect.

Not sure what you mean. YOU are doing the experiencing ...

...all that data is sense data which is being interpreted by our minds.

I'm in agreement here unless you are suggesting that there is no real world that continues for the rest of us when some of us die or that the input from our senses does not correspond to any external reality. Granted all we have is what the mind can make of that but inferences can be arrived at from the totality of information we collect and that collection of facts represents constraints upon what models are acceptable and which are not. Yes?

At CERN the Higgs boson was experimentally validated but at the same time certain versions at least of string theory were invalidated.

Do you mean to say with any of your remarks that because of the metaphorical aspects that nothing can be concluded?

Perhaps it can, perhaps it can't. Suppose for now it can't.

Would you actually doubt that you can make a choice because "science" told you you couldn't? Science may tell you that the chair you are sitting in is mostly empty space- but are you afraid that you will fall through the floor to the center of the earth?

Perhaps the remark that caused you to ask if I were pulling your leg was that I had no choice but to post?

That was a joke. Otherwise I'm not sure why you would think to ask this. I am accepting free choice as an obvious given.

Can you see that calling something a "cause" is an interpretation of data? You are thinking scientifically and not philosophically which is not surprising. All of these are metaphysical interpretations

A wrecking ball causes the destruction of a building. And you would wave this off as an interpretation of data? What other viewpoints did you have in mind? Or what from the metaphysical makes you doubt that there is cause and effect demonstrated here? You can put the cause on a committee and their decision to order in the wrecking crew but there is still a chain of cause and effect. All of nature follows this pattern with the exception of individual quantum events and conscious free willed decisions.

What precisely is "emergence"?

http://www.evolution.../Emergence.html

[shalamabobbi]

As I see it this approach itself assumes a scientific standpoint even on the part of those who would postulate God as an answer to the gaps problem. One is still seeking an objective naturalistic explanation and making God a part of that. That of course would presume a naturalistic God- but more about that later.

You are making more of this than I intended in using it to communicate the idea about free will being at odds with physical determinism. It's simply a matter of history and a name that was invented and applied to an abstracted observation over time.

God does not fill in the gaps in theories about scientific reality. To me, that is a category mistake. It is like postulating "courage" as the answer to why a given electron is in a given shell. Some electrons are just more courageous than others.

That is of course absurd- but that is similar to postulating God in the gaps. It is a similar kind of category error.

Well OK. No argument here. This is a side issue from what I was trying to discuss anyhow.

Discourse about God is not discourse about scientific principles. Science is stories and metaphors about how we think the world works- religion is stories and metaphors about views of eternity which bring meaning to our lives. They are both metaphorical in the sense that language itself is metaphorical- it cannot be anything but metaphorical. Words are not things they are symbols.

Yes which is why in science as I imagine in philosophy words are held to stricter/tighter definitions so that communication becomes as precise as possible.

And incidentally about a naturalistic God- we Mormons postulate from the beginning that "God is naturalistic"-... ... we have no tests for showing the church to be true in a scientific sense. But the rest of that is a long story.

OK, but what has that to do with what I was talking about? I agree with this. I'm LDS as you probably know.

Again I said that there is no framework as yet accepted by science that can account for the existence of free will. Ascribing it to an emergent property of deterministic matter doesn't provide a basis for the existence of free will. Some scientists believe that we don't have free will. Some may believe that we do but the appeal to emergence is nothing more than a hand waving argument at this stage of the game.

When I assert that Mormonism in this case is at odds with science I do not mean to say that it is at odds with true science in principal at all. I am simply stating that it is at odds with current scientific thinking and viewpoints about the nature and origin of free agency and the ability to decide and choose.

[shalamabobbi]

No, just some interpretations by some scientists. Mormonism is in 100% agreement with science.

Yes, and by faith we are assured that part of us is intelligent (or intelligence in itself) while also being matter and spirit.

Do you realize you're talking about science as if it is a person? You say science assumes and then say that "they" will... blah blah blah. Try using the word "scientist" sometime, instead of science, and then maybe that will help you see the distinction.

At any rate, those guys are just wrong and the God of their gaps is the proof of that truth they deny. A scientist isn't necessarily adept or expert in understanding true science, ya know.

Science represents the accumulation of knowledge from many scientists. Sorry if my convention offends your literal bent..