Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Materialism As One Long Intellectual Tantrum

I have unexpectedly got the morning off, something to do with testing.  Testing has killed public education in the United States, another ironic result of the religion of scientism as held by the middle-brow college educated population.

It being late in the month I'll once again bring up the fact that the materialists haven't given any answer to that test I gave to one of their pet ideas, the "brain only" claim, the claim that our ideas are the mere epiphenomena of physical structures and chemistry in our brains.

For anyone who wasn't here for previous sessions, my question is how any one human brain would know how to make exactly the right structure to represent an idea of an external thing or reality BEFORE any structure containing the information of that idea existed, physically, in the brain.  There would be no way for the brain to know a. that it needed to make a new structure, b. what that structure would have to be to produce the correct epiphenomenon to be the required idea. c. that it had produced the right and not the wrong structure to produce that idea.  There would be no way for the brain to do that because, under the materialist framing of minds, the idea would not be there to inform it of what to make.

The most popular materialist answer to that was to magically incant the words "DNA" and "natural selection" as if nothing further were needed by way of explanation.  The other was just to make the claim that "the brain does it", as if the question were the answer to it.  Read what I said in my earlier post about the rhetorical incompetence of materialists.

My response to that was that it only made things worse because all DNA does is, through the action of very complex cellular chemistry, make chains of amino acids which aren't even biologically active until they are folded in the right way in order to be introduced into the physical structure of our bodies.  It complicates the problem, it doesn't even stand up when put against our experience.

Christian Afinsens, who won the Nobel Prize for his work on protein folding said:

If the chain explored all possible configurations at random by rotations about the various single bonds of the structure, it would take too long to reach the native configuration.  For example, if the individual residues of an unfolded polypeptide chain can exist in only two states, which is a gross understatement, then the number of possible randomly generated conformations is 1045 for a chain of 150 amino acid residues ( although, of course, most of these would probably be sterically [spacially] impossible ones  If each conformation could be explored with a frequency of molecular rotation (1012 sec.-1) , which is an overestimate, it would take approximately 1026  years to examine all possible conformations.  Since the syntnesis and folding of a protein chain such as that of ribonuclease or lysozyme can be accomplished in about 2 minutes, it is clear that all conformations are not traversed in the folding process.  Instead, it appears to us that, in response to local interactions, the peptide chain is directed along a variety of possible low-energy pathways (relatively small in number), possibly passing through unique intermediate states, toward the confirmation of lowest free energy.  

Quoted by Rupert Sheldrake in Science Set Free:  Is Nature Purposeful

That was a description of just the known problems of explaining how a short amino acid chain could form into the right shape to be biologically active.  Clearly the ultimate atheist resort of random trial and error can't explain it in even its most basic and banal function.   I would love to know how they would explain the process of DNA creating the exact form to embody the semoitic content of just the right idea to produce anything like any truth, especially one to be deemed "objective" truth.  Especially as, by their own claims, that information could not be present to inform the action of the brain.   

Two minutes.  I don't know how fast the minds of materialists work but my experience of thinking couldn't be accounted for that way, remembering that every, single idea that is involved, those we keep and the many more we discount or use in a different modified and unique form would have to be being produced, in real time, by the mechanism proposed.  Citing DNA or, by extension, "natural selection" does nothing to make the claimed mechanism more plausible, it makes it stupendously less plausible. 

Materialism, far from being an objective truth, is an obviously incoherent and incompetently framed ideology that can't even account for the thing that invented it, human minds.  I have said that it leads to the ultimate act of intellectual decadence, of materialists having to impeach everything about minds, ideas, etc. and claiming that the product of those degraded, dismissed minds and ideas, science, then provides the proof of that impeachment.  It's worse than trying to build a sand castle on sand, it's like trying to build one on water.  It is so incredibly decadent that it doesn't even understand that it is a problem.   Materialism is probably most comprehensively understood as being one long atheist intellectual tantrum in which anything that is said loudly is asserted to be the truth.  No one else, though, has to get caught up in it, which only makes the rage of the one having the tantrum even worse. 

1 comment:

  1. I"m not even sure the discussion is about materialism so much as it is about logical positivism.

    Which (the latter) is deader than the proverbial door-nail. Not that people with zero exposure to philosophy (most American and British scientists, apparently, and most Americans for certain) would know that.

    Funny how people who insist education is the cure for ignorance refuse to educate themselves on a subject as old as Western civilization itself.