1. Comment #286752 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on November 19, 2008 at 10:24 am

Anyone else read the whole article' The man isn't inherently religious, but he's clearly attempting to find some validation for Cartesian dualism. Reductionism is in and of itself not especially comforting, and perhaps he's seeking that comfort. I agree with the sense of swe and wonder that nature invokes, I just don't see any need to label it transcendantally or supernaturally...

Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher

2. Comment #286757 by Caudimordax on November 19, 2008 at 10:31 am

I felt compelled to correct the following from this article:

There are things that we just can't deduce from particle physics YET-- life, agency, meaning, value and this thing called consciousness. The fact is that we can act on our own behalf and make choices. So agency is real. With agency comes value. Dinner is either good or bad. There's consciousness in the universe. We may not be able to explain it YET, but it's true.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

3. Comment #286761 by mismos00 on November 19, 2008 at 10:34 am

"I just don't see any need to label it transcendantally or supernaturally... "

...what about sacred? Would Richard Dawkins not consider nature sacred? I was taken aback by the first sentence there. I guess it depends on what you mean by sacred but this definition would allow me to consider nature sacred: "regarded with reverence". Does Stuart mean 'sacred' in any different way than that?

Other Comments by mismos00

4. Comment #286768 by Animavore on November 19, 2008 at 10:41 am

"Would Richard Dawkins not consider nature sacred?"

According to the very first paragraph in TGD the answer is yes.

Other Comments by Animavore

5. Comment #286770 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on November 19, 2008 at 10:47 am

Mismos> If he doesn't, then I'm not disagreeing with him... it is certainly construed that he intends more from sacred than your definition allows. Claiming there is some sort of emergent complexity that is as pervasive in the evolution of life as natural selection, as Stuart does unless I misread him, is not a rational conclusion. He can "feel" that all he wants, but without evidence it's nothing better than conjecture.

Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher

6. Comment #286776 by Caudimordax on November 19, 2008 at 10:51 am

He did say, "There's a consciousness in the universe."

Other Comments by Caudimordax

7. Comment #286789 by Logicel on November 19, 2008 at 11:05 am

Kauffman's stance most likely is what Dawkins refers to as bad poetic science (regarding the earth as a living, breathing, conscious Gaia is another).

Other Comments by Logicel

8. Comment #286790 by severalspeciesof on November 19, 2008 at 11:06 am

From the article:

Well, Dawkins does not want to bridge that gap. He wants to convince those religious believers that they're wrong.

Absolutely. But I think Richard is wrong. Not that there's a supernatural god. I think that there's something else. I think the creativity in nature is so stunning and so overwhelming that it's God enough for me, and I think it's God enough for many of us if we think about it. You see, Richard's view, and those of the new atheists, is simply not going to reach out and persuade those who hold to the standard Abrahamic religious views to consider something else. Whereas I hope what I'm saying may help create a new kind of sacred space.

-Emphasis mine.

Dualism anyone?

People who don't believe in god only need to point out the 'wrongness' of god belief, if they want to. Non believers need not 'reach out'. And there is no 'new kind of sacred space' between non-believers and believers which 'reaching out' seems to imply...

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

9. Comment #286803 by God fearing Atheist on November 19, 2008 at 11:15 am

I think I read one of Sturat Kauffmann's books on complexity many years ago. If its the same chap, I can't believe he's sucking up to godsquad. He must be going ga-ga.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

10. Comment #286828 by Janus on November 19, 2008 at 11:38 am

Ultimately, this is what it comes down to: There are people who just have to believe that some part of the universe (usually the mind) is beyond all explanation, which is just another way of saying that it's magical. Those people are pretty rare among scientists, but they exist. Kauffman is one, Jaron Lanier is another.

The rest of what Kauffman says, about "the sacred" and "reaching out" to believers, obviously has nothing to do with the truth of his central belief in magic. That Kauffman's brand of supernaturalism is more likely to please the sensibilities of monotheists than the cold harsh reality doesn't change reality. It's just an attempt to distract us from the fact that Kauffman's belief is profoundly anti-scientific, in the same way that vitalism was anti-scientific.

Other Comments by Janus

11. Comment #286833 by j.mills on November 19, 2008 at 11:58 am

Exasperating stuff.

I think the creativity in nature is so stunning and so overwhelming that it's God enough for me

Bad enough that Einstein said "God does not play dice", that Hawking said we would "know the mind of God". Why can't scientists just stay away from this inflated language? It's just food for quote-mining.

For example, I was sitting on my patio and started thinking about the trees around me. I thought I'm one with all of life. If I'm going to cut down a tree, I better have a good reason. It's not just an object. It's alive.

Genius. And this is his "new scientific worldview".

He wants to ascribe mystery to consciousness (it might be quantum, woo-woo!) and give a role to autocatalysis and emergent phenomena, and call evolution "creative". He claims that 'agency' (minds, so far as I can see) add 'meaning' to the universe. All this is unexceptional, but he seems to think it means science is missing something, and that words like 'sacred' and 'god' fill the gap.

If we can't transform our secular humanist, consumerist worldview into one in which we have this sense of responsibility, awe and wonder for the planet and all life, then we can't invent a global ethic. Yet we need it to create a transnational, mythic structure to sustain the global civilization that's emerging.

The last thing we need is more 'mythic structures'...

I really feel that scientists do more harm than good when they resort to language like this. A pretend-religion of deified wonderment will not seduce theists, but it will muddy the waters unhelpfully.

Other Comments by j.mills

12. Comment #286835 by Diacanu on November 19, 2008 at 12:00 pm

(Weird Al)

..well not really..but you're God enough for nowww.

Other Comments by Diacanu

13. Comment #286837 by Ishruul on November 19, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Oooh...Diacanu, such pleasant thought just came to my mind. Thank you ;)

Other Comments by Ishruul

14. Comment #286838 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Comment #286828 by Janus

Kauffman is not a supernaturalist, and his ideas are thoroughly scientific. What he is suggesting is that there are emergent properties in complex systems (life included) that cannot be explained at a lower level, even these properties are fully determined by interactions at that lower level. There is nothing wrong with that idea at all. Kauffman suggests that there are are principles regarding the evolution of life in addition to natural selection, and that features such as eyes or wings or brains will always appear in certain circumstance. His scientific ideas are exciting, even though I find his attempts to re-label "sacred" to cover purely rational principles seems a bit naive to me.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

15. Comment #286839 by Not the Messiah on November 19, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Odd article.

I can accept the possibility that physical processes, by some as-yet-undiscovered law, might have a natural tendency towards increased complexity or "order" - after all the Universe is a lot more structurally complex and diverse than it was in the early days: We've gone from the physics of hydrogen fusion, to galaxies, planets, and black holes, then organic chemistry, simple life, complex organisms, a human cultural explosion, and now perhaps a new paradigm of technological evolution.

I don't see how this idea alone invalidates the scientific worldview Kauffman characterises as "reductionist". Obviously studying human culture at the level of fundamental particles will never work, but who is trying to? We have lots of different rules of thumb for studying the universe at different scales, what's important is that we pursue that study by a rational process, without recourse to giant leaps of wishful thinking.

He says that the current theories of physics can never explain the evolution of life or consciousness. Fair enough, though I'm not sure I agree; but then he conflates this with the idea that people need some kind of spirituality to believe in, and we should deify the natural world because atheistic materialism will never appeal to people of faith.

It makes it sound like he's arguing against materialism, and saying that there's some kind of supernatural force of purpose underlying the universe, manifested most clearly in human consciousness.

On analysis I don't think he is saying that, but this interview I think can only damage his credibility.

Other Comments by Not the Messiah

16. Comment #286841 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Comment #286839 by Not the Messiah

It makes it sound like he's arguing against materialism, and saying that there's some kind of supernatural force of purpose underlying the universe, manifested most clearly in human consciousness.

No, he certainly isn't arguing that.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

17. Comment #286842 by Larry Moran on November 19, 2008 at 12:20 pm

A physician by training, Kaufmann is a widely admired biologist; ...

I don't think this is an accurate statement. I would estimate that roughly 98% of biologists have never heard of him. Among those who have heard of him, the opinions are equally divided between: "is a biologist, don't admire him," "is a biologist, admire him," "isn't a biologist, don't admire him," and "isn't a biologist, admire him."

I've read his books and listened to him speak. I fall into the third category.

Other Comments by Larry Moran

18. Comment #286843 by Titania on November 19, 2008 at 12:21 pm

2. Comment #286757 by Caudimordax

Caudi,

You got an AMEN from me.

Other Comments by Titania

19. Comment #286846 by Elemental79 on November 19, 2008 at 12:32 pm

"But there's no way of getting from physics to the emergence of hearts in the evolution of the biosphere."

I hate statements worded like this. It makes the person writing it look insane. I wonder how he knows this with such certainty.

I interpret this article as an attempt to find a middle ground between religion and science. Behind all the poetic fluff there is no reason to believe that we are any more than a complex and wonderful chemical reaction without any debt owed to us from nature or the universe. No amount of wishing will give any objective value or meaning to our existence. The problem comes when people think science should make them feel good about themselves. It is like expecting a tape measure to tell you the time of day.

Other Comments by Elemental79

20. Comment #286848 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Comment #286776 by Caudimordax

Kauffman is right to say there is consciousness in the universe. Ours!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

21. Comment #286849 by Not the Messiah on November 19, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Comment #286841 by Steve Zara

Thanks for your post - I think we must have both been typing at the same time. :)

Your short summary of Kauffman's ideas does him a lot more favours than the interview! I still find his concept of "agency" as a significant force which can't be explained by physical interactions at a lower level to be a problem, considering the progress in neuroscience and related fields

Other Comments by Not the Messiah

22. Comment #286850 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Comment #286846 by Elemental79

I hate statements worded like this. It makes the person writing it look insane. I wonder how he knows this with such certainty.

It is a perfectly respectable statement. So, call me insane if you like.

No amount of examining the Schrodinger Wave Equation or Newtonian Mechanics will allow you to predict what happens at the level of biological systems.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

23. Comment #286851 by aquilacane on November 19, 2008 at 12:38 pm

The fact is that we can act on our own behalf and make choices

not sure that this has been proven

Other Comments by aquilacane

24. Comment #286852 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Comment #286849 by Not the Messiah

I still find his concept of "agency" as a significant force which can't be explained by physical interactions at a lower level to be a problem, considering the progress in neuroscience and related fields

The problem is with the term "explained by".

What happens at all levels is fully determined by physical interactions. But that does not help us explain what is going on. You do get agency when you you examine what does on in our brains neural networks, but it makes no sense at lower levels.

There is a huge difference between "is a result of" and "is explained by".

We see this kind of difference of levels in physics. Collections of atoms have properties like entropy and temperature, but what is the temperature of an individual atom?

What Kauffman is suggesting is that there are emergent principles in biology above the level of natural selection: the evolutionary equivalents of entropy and temperature, where natural selection is equivalent to the interaction between atoms.

This is an exciting idea, I think.

Where he falls down is regarding his poor understanding of the philosophy of consciousness.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

25. Comment #286853 by aquilacane on November 19, 2008 at 12:40 pm

looks like a substitution response out of ignorance. Shame he is unable to say I have no idea. Big human weakness that.

Other Comments by aquilacane

26. Comment #286854 by aquilacane on November 19, 2008 at 12:45 pm

When will people realize that chaos is the sign of intent not order.

Other Comments by aquilacane

27. Comment #286855 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Comment #286854 by aquilacane

What chaos? Our brains aren't chaotic. They are ordered, and have agency.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

28. Comment #286858 by Brian English on November 19, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Our brains aren't chaotic. They are ordered, and have agency.

Speak for yourself!

Other Comments by Brian English

29. Comment #286859 by beanson on November 19, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Is this man saying anything other than 'the universe is awe-inspiring'? if he isn't then I'm happy to agree with him.

If, however, he means something supernatural or transendental by the word 'sacred' then he's a twat.

Emergent properties are entirely material- nothing supernatural there.

Is he just saying consciousness is difficult to explain? No proof of 'sacred' there

Other Comments by beanson

30. Comment #286861 by j.mills on November 19, 2008 at 12:54 pm

I don't know if aquilcaine's right, but our brains aren't intended.

Other Comments by j.mills

31. Comment #286862 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Comment #286859 by beanson

Is this man saying anything other than 'the universe is awe-inspiring'? if he isn't then I'm happy to agree with him.

Indeed. I have followed what he has been saying for a while now. He is not saying anything more than that.

What is (clumsily, I think) saying is that if we label our awe and amazement about the universe as "sacred" then scientific rationalism can be a substitute for religion for those who need that kind of thing.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

32. Comment #286863 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Comment #286861 by j.mills

I don't know if aquilcaine's right, but our brains aren't intended.

Kauffman isn't saying that. What he is saying is that once brains appear, you have the possibility of intent - our thinking!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

33. Comment #286865 by phil rimmer on November 19, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Where he falls down is regarding his poor understanding of the philosophy of consciousness.

Pah! A mere detail!

So when are we allowed to use the term wish-thinking here?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

34. Comment #286866 by j.mills on November 19, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Given that this interview is promo for a book called Reinventing The Sacred, it's not enough for his science to be sound - the science isn't what he's saying. His whole thrust seems to be an attempt to relabel natural systems as 'sacred'. I think it's both futile and misguided.

Other Comments by j.mills

35. Comment #286867 by retrospy on November 19, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Biologist Stuart Kauffman has plenty of experience tilting at windmills.

Love the Don Quixote reference.

I am ok with everyone trying to re-define the word "God". In the long run, the variety of definitions make the word less valuable as a communication tool.

Other Comments by retrospy

36. Comment #286868 by Elemental79 on November 19, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Comment #286850 by Steve Zara

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the statement then. I understand this to mean physics can't explain the eventual evolution of hearts. Do you interpret this to mean our understanding of physics is inadequate to predict evolution or the evolution of complex organs breaks the laws of physics' Or am I just way off the mark'

Other Comments by Elemental79

37. Comment #286869 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Comment #286866 by j.mills

I agree.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

38. Comment #286870 by j.mills on November 19, 2008 at 1:00 pm

aquilcaine said:

When will people realize that chaos is the sign of intent not order.

Actually, aquilcaine, what did you mean? I'm interested now!

Other Comments by j.mills

39. Comment #286872 by beanson on November 19, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Agency is real, so meaning is real in the universe. Value is real, at least in the biosphere. And these things can't be talked about by physicist

Oh- he's just stipulated that by fiat. Thanks mate, I guess we can all go home now, it means theres a god or like something else out there man

what a twat

Other Comments by beanson

40. Comment #286873 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Comment #286868 by Elemental79

Do you interpret this to mean our understanding of physics is inadequate to predict evolution

I would express this as "our understanding of physics is inadequence to predict the course of evolution.

This does not mean that you need anything more than physics in our universe. It just means that the only way to predict the course of evolution is to let the universe run and see what happens. There is nothing in the equations of physics that can be used to predict, say, dinosaurs.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #286874 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Comment #286872 by beanson

Oh- he's just stipulated that by fiat. Thanks mate, I guess we can all go home now, it means theres a god or like something else out there man

No, it doesn't.

All it means is that you can get intent, agency and meaning once you get brains.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

42. Comment #286875 by beanson on November 19, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Basically this guy is dealing in ambiguity- he just wants to call the universe 'God'- to redifine 'God' to mean just 'the universe'

I don't hink it's gonna satisfy the faith-heads and it sure as hell annoys the shit out of me

Other Comments by beanson

43. Comment #286877 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Comment #286875 by beanson

Fine, be annoyed. But don't make stuff up, such as implying that Kauffman has any supernatural beliefs.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

44. Comment #286879 by beanson on November 19, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Steve Zara

He must be intending to say somehing other than just: the universe is amazing because otherwise what's the point of him baiting Dawkins?

Other Comments by beanson

45. Comment #286880 by decius on November 19, 2008 at 1:10 pm

There is nothing in the equations of physics that can be used to predict, say, dinosaurs.

But organic chemistry, biochemistry and neurochemistry do a good job at it, don't they?

Other Comments by decius

46. Comment #286882 by Border Collie on November 19, 2008 at 1:11 pm

I'm reading Daniel Dennett's 'Consciousness Explained'. Seems as if he has a pretty good handle on consciousness and what it is. Like many of you, my experience of the concept of God, as it was crammed down my throat in the Screamer Baptist Church, was not good. I have something of a 'sacred' view of the natural world, but it has nothing to do with religion and or church and or the predominant concept of God. In fact, it irks the s*&t out of me, when someone tosses the word 'God' into the context of my awe of something in the natural world. When I stop by the side of the road during the Spring to stretch my legs and admire the millions of flowers that cover the prairie, I don't want the concept of the God of the Desert tarnishing what I see. I hope that made a little sense.

Other Comments by Border Collie

47. Comment #286883 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Comment #286879 by beanson

Baiting? I think it is called "disagreeing with the approach of". That is supposed to be part of rational debate. There is no need to try and press the "troll" button for Kauffman.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

48. Comment #286885 by j.mills on November 19, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Good for you, Border Collie, and I hope you enjoy the Dennett as much as I did!

Other Comments by j.mills

49. Comment #286886 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Comment #286880 by decius

But organic chemistry, biochemistry and neurochemistry do a good job at it, don't they?

Not really, no. They can explain how a dinosaur "works", but none of them will help you predict that evolution will give you dinosaurs.

Comment #286882 by Border Collie

I completely agree. I think Kauffman is mistaken in his attempt to redefine "God".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #286888 by beanson on November 19, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Steve

But don't you see that he's just obfuscating with the word 'sacred'?

Other Comments by beanson