Another "New" View of Creation

Hi Will Seamus Ennis,Interesting post. Myself, I'm a sucker for philosophy. I think you'll find, though, that a lot of people here do science and tend to ask for empirical evidence to back up claims. You say that your beliefs are meant to be a bridge between creationism and evolution but I think you'll need to be more specific if you want these beliefs to be seen as scientific or provable. Do you, or are you just speculating here? My guess is the latter, since you chose to post this in the Intelligent Design forum.For example, how do you think that the process of creation is going on all the time -- what is the mechanism? How does it fit in with the world as we experience it? Does it work at a subatomic level? In truth I share many of your views but I doubt I'd try discussing them here because the science isn't there to bridge the gap yet. Even quantum physics can't tell us how tiny particles spinning around -- whose location we can't even pinpoint exactly, and which can be seen as frozen energy (or waves, in the case of electrons) -- turn into that table or that carpet. We know they make up atoms which constitute the table and the carpet, but not how a bunch of atoms with certain numbers of protons clumped together actually become the matter we recognise as a table or a carpet. If we don't know this, I'm not sure how you'd be able to explain how metaphysical creation which manipulates these particles is going on all the time (if indeed that is what you are saying), but you're welcome to try.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

I wonder if what you're trying to describe could better be defined as consciousness. This is an area which is not well understood scientifically. What exactly is it, and where does it come from?I'm struggling to see how this is occurring in, say, water freezing into ice or sodium and chlorine combining to make salt. Wouldn't you say those are physical properties of the universe?Your recent post reminded me of an article I read yesterday: Half a brain girl recovers visionHer brain rewired itself in utero so that she could have pefect vision in one eye. She leads a normal life and it was only discovered that half her brain is missing when she had a scan to determine the cause of her seizures (which are now under control).You can read some similar stories here. Unfortunately these phenomena are labelled in the heading as paranormal, which is probably enough to put off 99% of scientifically-minded people. Magical forces are not invoked, just a discussion of the nature of consciousness. My favourite story is the one about the mathematics university student with an IQ of 126 and virtually no brain; I've read about it in several places as it's something of a famous mystery.How does the brain "know" how to adapt itself in these ways, even under extreme circumstances? DNA and chemical reactions don't go very far in explaining it.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Hi Phage,I said:

quote:

---

How does the brain "know" how to adapt itself in these ways, even under extreme circumstances? DNA and chemical reactions don't go very far in explaining it.

---

and you said:

quote:

---

Why not? Whatever chemical reaction controls the linkup between optic nerves and the brain wouldn't suddenly stop working because it found the "wrong" brain tissue. I would find it more impressive if it could tell the difference and for some reason stopped working.

---

The article says:

quote:

---

Scans on the girl showed that the retinal nerve fibres carrying visual information from the back of the eye which should have gone to the right hemisphere of the brain diverted to the left.

---

Our brains all grow in essentially the same way, and the mainstream view is that DNA is responsible for this. So exactly what part of the girl or her brain said "I can't put the information I need on the right hand side, so I'm going to rewire the left"? As opposed to, say, growing the optic nerve in the correct place, resulting in an inability to see objects to one side? The article suggests that "powerful algorithms" could help work this out; and while I remain open-minded, I feel skeptical that equations are going to give us a complete answer (as was similarly promised by the deciphering of the human genome).

quote:

---

The size of brains is not a particularly good indicator of intelligence, although there is undoubtedly a point at which size reduction results in the loss of intelligence.

---

So how do you explain the mathematics student with the 126 IQ who is missing most of his brain? Have a read, it's a fascinating case. I don't like IQ tests much myself, but you've got to admit that the bloke is doing all right for himself. He must obviously have good spatial awareness and logical reasoning capacity.

quote:

---

For instance, whales have massive brains when compared to humans, yet there is no question that humans are smarter than whales.

---

IMO it depends on how you define "smart." Are whales wrecking their environment or having wars with each other?You're comparing apples to oranges though. I'm talking about people who are able to function normally even though they are missing substantial portions of their brains (and the implications of this for the nature of consciousness, referring back to what I understand the topic to be), and you mention size comparisons of animals with complete brains.To rephrase my question: is there some consciousness in the brain, the body, or someplace else that enables the brain to rewire itself and function even when a large amount of it is missing? How does it "know" to do this? It would be interesting to hear Will Seamus' point of view too because I'm not sure if I'm on the right track regarding his ideas here.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This makes sense to me in a way -- though of course it's more philosophical than scientific. So what do you believe the source within the cells to be? Or is it just . . . there?

Can you explain what you believe is the difference between intelligence and consciousness? For me, intelligence means thinking.

quote:

---

You forget that people are not constructed whole, or from the outside in. They grow; they start small and get bigger. The optic nerve connections were very close and never diverged.

---

That's not what happened according to the article. Are you claiming that this was a convenient happy accident?

quote:

---

Each component part keeps functioning the best it can, and the pattern we call "consciousness" does not require the entirety of our brain to form. It does not "know" to rewire itself and it does not "know" anything is missing.

---

I agree, it seems clear that the entire brain need not be present. But in cases where it is substantially missing, how does the brain detect that something has gone badly wrong and in some cases compensate amazingly? What is the origin of those messages to do so?I think there is also a hint in these cases that human consciousness is not located in the brain alone.If you'd like to pursue this maybe we should start another thread. Will Seamus seems to be defining intelligence and consciousness as two separate things.

quote:

---

Because of the fact that it seems to be alot more complicated than evolution can explain, it leads me to believe that it was designed.

---

This is, in essence, an argument from incredulity -- "I don't believe evolution could have produced the life we see today." The thing is, the people who use this argument are rarely acquainted with the existing body of scientific evidence. You'd struggle to find a paleontologist or geneticist who said this. Why? Because they see evidence to the contrary every day. We know that life on earth has evolved and continues to evolve. The mechanisms by which this occurs are well-studied and IMO there may be some left to discover, but the fossil record in the geologic column is pretty conclusive evidence that it happened.Have you considered the belief that God's hand has guided evolution?Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : flippin' typos

Hi Phage,Your earlier comment was,

quote:

---

The optic nerve connections were very close and never diverged.

---

I replied,

quote:

---

That's not what happened according to the article. Are you claiming that this was a convenient happy accident?

---

And you replied,

quote:

---

That is exactly what is described in the article. "...rewired itself during development when she was still in her mother's womb." One lobe managed to cope with receiving stimuli from both visual fields. The brain is able to cope with and adapt to many different conditions, which includes unexpected nerve arrangements. It was a convenient, happy accident.

---

I don't know enough about how the brain develops to be able to say that what actually happened was that the optic nerve connections never diverged, but your reply above chimes with what the article says -- that however it was accomplished, the fact is that "one lobe managed to cope with receiving stimuli from both visual fields."However, a "convenient, happy accident" is your interpretation. It seems very odd that this girl had a condition for which this "accident" was so highly "convenient." Surely the logical conclusion was that the girl's brain detected the problem and adapted. My question was how it did this, because rewiring vision in this way is not what a normally developing brain does. How does it detect the problem, and how does it "know" how to fix it? My own belief is that cells in the body have a basic kind of consciousness, and you go up through groups of collective consciousness with individual organs, systems, and the body as a whole. You could maybe add after that, humanity as a whole, and carry on and on. Some kind of collective universal consciousness is perhaps a good way of summarising my beliefs.One example of how a collective bodily consciousness could be demonstrated is that mathematics student: Is the Brain Really Necessary?Now you said,

quote:

---

The amazing part is that those component parts can operate in many different configurations than the "normal" one.

---

Take the brain loss to an extreme, though, and this doesn't fit (bold emphasis mine):

quote:

---

Later, a colleague at Sheffield University became aware of a young man with a larger than normal head. He was referred to Lorber even though it had not caused him any difficulty. Although the boy had an IQ of 126 and had a first class honours degree in mathematics, he had "virtually no brain". A noninvasive measurement of radio density known as CAT scan showed the boy's skull was lined with a thin layer of brain cells to a millimeter in thickness. The rest of his skull was filled with cerebrospinal fluid. The young man continues a normal life with the exception of his knowledge that he has no brain.

---

I can't see how an explanation of adaptation of existing brain systems could apply to a thin layer a millimeter in thickness. IMO the logical conclusion is that consciousness is in the body, not just the brain. Dr. Bruce Lipton, a cell biologist, has been studying this concept via epigenetics and quantum physics, and its applications in holistic health.Pardon the pun, but I think the best way to deal with information like this is to be open-minded. Sometimes the most important discoveries are made when, whichever way we study it, a phenomenon does not match with existing paradigms.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Hi Phage,

quote:

---

The same goes for the roots of the abnormal tree; some trees need to cope with weak soil, and the fact that this tree developed an abnormally strong root system isn't impossible (although somewhat abnormal for this forest).

---

Sure, I can imagine a tree growing an abnormally strong root system in order to cope with the conditions you describe. The key word here is "abnormal." The the girl's brain rewiring itself, the tree is adapting to unusual circumstances. I have been asking what that process is, exactly. How does the tree detect those circumstances and adjust? How does the brain? Where is that missing piece between stimulus and response? I take it that this question is not something that you find interesting -- or perhaps you believe it is not a valid question? IMO it seems clear that something is going on in that moment that we don't yet understand. This is one thing that Bruce Lipton and Deepak Chopra talk about. Forgive me for baiting you gently by posting a link to Lipton's site but you responded exactly the way I'd anticipated based on your posts here. If you want to call thousands of years of Eastern medicine, religion, and holistic health quackery, you're not alone on this board. However, a) rubbishing Lipton lends nothing to what you are arguing here, and b) it's off topic. I don't have the time or the desire to go to the Coffee House and get into that subject, it's huge.

quote:

---

We have no evidence of conscious developmental reaction of any organism, anywhere, at any time. It is all an automatic part of the functioning of the organism.

---

. . . yet, empirically. Though I'm not so sure that's true, I don't have the world of scientific studies of organisms at my fingertips. The second sentence is an opinion. You are entitled to these same as me but at least recognise it for what it is.

quote:

---

And while I am sure your imagination is quite comforting, it isn't real. These studies do not support your preconceived conclusions

---

Again, opinion. I was an agnostic for a long time and altered my beliefs in the past few years. No doubt you think it's delusional and wishful thinking. Again, you are entitled to this; but if you are an atheist as your words seem to indicate, then at least recognise that for what it is -- also a belief. I'm not trying to convert you to what I personally believe in, nor do I hope so desperately that my own beliefs are true that I would go along with anything in order to defend them. If that's what you think then you've been talking to creationists too long. I'm simply willing to consider other options; and if the conventional one seems right, I will go with it. I'm not sure it is here and I wish more research were done on this so we could learn what's going on.

quote:

---

There are serious issues with his ability to perform the study accurately.

---

Surely that means that more studies should be done. The facts themselves remain: some people who are missing substantial parts of their brains can live normal lives. (There's another question here too: why do some others not -- and why does that not apply to everyone as we'd expect?)

quote:

---

And there we see the crux of your argument: "I don't understand how it really works, and I understand my concept of magic. Therefore, I declare it much more likely to be magic!"
This is referred to as an "Argument from Ignorance", and is not logical.

---

You don't need to tell me that, I debate with creationists too. How about this one: your claim that I am invoking magic is a straw man. Look again at the facts: a thin layer a millimeter in thickness is all this man has for a brain, yet he has an above average IQ and can function normally. We would expect him to be more or less a vegetable. This isn't a case of simple adaptation, this is profound restructuring. For example, he's obviously missing part of his brain stem, which controls things like breathing, heart rate, digestion, sleep. He got an honours degree in mathematics yet the left side of his brain is to all intents and purposes nonexistent.Don't you think this is worthy of study? It's extraordinary.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Hey Will Seamus, I like your posts here more and more. You also seem to be open-minded in a way that many religious people aren't -- at least in the West -- so best of luck with your studies.If you've never heard of Rupert Sheldrake, you should look him up. (**Covers head in anticipation of virtual-reality projectiles being hurled by resident materialists**)Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Hi Phage,To my comment,

quote:

---

I have been asking what that process is, exactly. How does the tree detect those circumstances and adjust? How does the brain? Where is that missing piece between stimulus and response?

---

you responded,

quote:

---

No you have not, it does not, and there isn't a missing piece! You have not been investigating the biological action behind why a stomach grows to the size it does and stops, while not sticking to the sides of the abdominal cavity but mating its ends to the esophagus and the duodenum. You have not been asking why a femur grows into the shape of a femur, rather than just keeping adding bone randomly. And finally, you have not been asking how an eye distinguishes itself from the surrounding tissue and links up with other parts of the body.

---

These appear to be programmed processes, do they not? Like my clock ticking, or my fingernails growing. What I'm talking about is what happens when the pattern changes and the circumstances demand that the organism adapt or suffer. I'm not claiming that thought is going on like it does in our heads, but it appears to me that somehow a consciousness is involved with the adaptation. I'm willing to be proved wrong, if that happens as biological and genetic research advance.

quote:

---

The study of the brain is ongoing, and would continue even without such examples. For example: Phineas Gage

---

I'm willing to take on board the possibility that brain damage can profoundly alter a person's personality, and the implications for what we might call the soul. In fact I'm interested in learning more about these sorts of things because of what they could teach us. But to be fair, your link for this particular person shows that the facts in his case are far from clear. Can you find another, more modern example? . . . and remind me please what point you are making here?

quote:

---

Mr. G. got up and vomited; the effort of vomiting pressed out about half a teacupful of the brain, which fell upon the floor.

---

OK now, you're just trying to gross me out, right?Finally, I said,

quote:

---

This isn't a case of simple adaptation, this is profound restructuring.

---

and you said,

quote:

---

Define the difference with something other than incredulity or rarity.

---

It's a simple question really. Sometimes incredulity can be valid in an investigation; if something seems highly unlikely and there's evidence for that, then you need to consider other alternatives along with your original hypothesis.So how does a millimeter-thick brain lining produce all the functions of the different parts of a normal brain? Admittedly it would be helpful to have more exact details in the case, but I don't think they're publicly available (I've looked), so we have to go with what we've got. I think it's pretty reasonable to posit that what he has for a brain can't be functioning the way a normal brain does, would be incapable of it, and must somehow be relying at least partially on other parts of the body.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.