Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Mindless
Well, relevant to recent discussions about Jerry Coyne's version of "determinism," we have Coyne himself now saying:I've just returned from a two-hour lecture and Q&A session at the Woodlawn Charter School, a public school run by the University of Chicago on the South Side of the city. Some of the high-school biology students are reading Why Evolution is True, and I gave a presentation on the evidence for evolution—with a tiny bit about why religion prevents Americans from accepting evolution, for I was asked to mention that topic—followed by an hour of questions.Well, of course they were "impervious," Jerry ... since you have confidently "opined" that they are incapable of any choice in the matter. Why would you expect these automatons to be anything but impervious to your faux "reason" and "logic" and "evidence" that you were spouting simply because "every physical atom and electron" in your brain just happened to be in that particular position at that moment?
Some of the questions were good, and some of the students really interested, but there was also a lot of religious pushback. One student, I was told, sat through the entire lecture muttering about how she shouldn't be forced to listen to this stuff since it went against her faith. Another student's "question" was to inform me that she was offended that I said that Adam and Eve never existed (I talked about the human bottleneck of 1200 people), and asked me how I knew that. ...
It's all a bit depressing. These kids are not southern fundamentalist Bible-thumpers: they are disadvantaged black kids who were simply brought up in religious homes or among religious peers. And there's no doubt that that upbringing is rendering many of them resistant to the idea of evolution. I spent an hour showing them the evidence for evolution, and some of them were simply impervious.
How could they 'accept' evolution if they had no ability to choose?
.
Comments:
<< Home
This doesn't seem quite fair, again.
Computer programs can be completely deterministic, and yet capable of making "choices". The point is that these choices give different behaviors in response to different inputs.
If Jerry went to visit a class of intelligent robots, he might also lament the fact that he was unable to provide the appropriate inputs for them to improve their mental model of the world (as it was formed by previous inputs and programming).
Computer programs can be completely deterministic, and yet capable of making "choices". The point is that these choices give different behaviors in response to different inputs.
If Jerry went to visit a class of intelligent robots, he might also lament the fact that he was unable to provide the appropriate inputs for them to improve their mental model of the world (as it was formed by previous inputs and programming).
It's more than fair, it's actually a bit incomplete criticism.
Coyne is aware of the survey data showing that when confronted with facts that contradict their beliefs, people will tend to choose their beliefs.
He could have modified his message and communicated in much the same way as the NCSE in these situations - pointing to theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller for instance - but that wouldn't have conformed with his ultimate desired outcome of getting people to give up religion altogether.
He can "lament" all he wants, but it's not determinism that drives this, it's close-mindedness - it's a choice he's refusing to reconsider in the face of evidence he's now seen with his own eyes.
So, Jeffery, among all the other problems with your analogy, there's the fact that he has knowledge of an "appropriate input" that might have started those students thinking and questioning, but it's one Coyne refuses to use.
Coyne is aware of the survey data showing that when confronted with facts that contradict their beliefs, people will tend to choose their beliefs.
He could have modified his message and communicated in much the same way as the NCSE in these situations - pointing to theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller for instance - but that wouldn't have conformed with his ultimate desired outcome of getting people to give up religion altogether.
He can "lament" all he wants, but it's not determinism that drives this, it's close-mindedness - it's a choice he's refusing to reconsider in the face of evidence he's now seen with his own eyes.
So, Jeffery, among all the other problems with your analogy, there's the fact that he has knowledge of an "appropriate input" that might have started those students thinking and questioning, but it's one Coyne refuses to use.
# posted by 
: 7:29 AM
: 7:29 AM
If Jerry went to visit a class of intelligent robots, he might also lament the fact that he was unable to provide the appropriate inputs
But why lament it, since he had no choice but to give them inadequate inputs because of his own previous inputs and programming? It's his own mental model of the world that failed as much as any of the other robots.
But why lament it, since he had no choice but to give them inadequate inputs because of his own previous inputs and programming? It's his own mental model of the world that failed as much as any of the other robots.
"Computer programs can be completely deterministic, and yet capable of making "choices". The point is that these choices give different behaviors in response to different inputs."
Provided you defne "choice"
to mean "mechanical outcome of a particular set of inputs" which lacks an important sense that the word "choice" normally conveys in English. To be consistent with your philosophy you need to adopt such express language so you don't mislead and confuse.
"Choice" is infused with the concept of free will and in a discussion of free will to use terms like "choice" or "decision" is to play games with language. Have the courage of your convictions. Instead of trying to redefine terms infused with the concept of free will, use language that makes clear that you are referring to a tramlined mechanical process that can have only one outcome.
And, of course, our host is entirely correct that if one is a determinist, the proper reaction to cultivate to the annoying actions of others is equanimity or, really more appropriate, indifference. Afterall, whatever will happen will happen and none of the participants can alter any part of it.
Provided you defne "choice"
to mean "mechanical outcome of a particular set of inputs" which lacks an important sense that the word "choice" normally conveys in English. To be consistent with your philosophy you need to adopt such express language so you don't mislead and confuse.
"Choice" is infused with the concept of free will and in a discussion of free will to use terms like "choice" or "decision" is to play games with language. Have the courage of your convictions. Instead of trying to redefine terms infused with the concept of free will, use language that makes clear that you are referring to a tramlined mechanical process that can have only one outcome.
And, of course, our host is entirely correct that if one is a determinist, the proper reaction to cultivate to the annoying actions of others is equanimity or, really more appropriate, indifference. Afterall, whatever will happen will happen and none of the participants can alter any part of it.
# posted by : 9:53 AM
: 9:53 AM
But why lament it, since he had no choice but to give them inadequate inputs because of his own previous inputs and programming?
If we assume a naive determinism then he had no choice but to lament it. Coyne was reporting that he did lament it (which was true). And, of course, assuming the same naive determinism he had no choice but to lament it.
The "why" in your comment seems to assume choice on Coyne's part or, at least, the assumption by Coyne of choice on his audiences part (on the basis that if you have no choice then you are not culpable). It rather begs the question of that basis.
If we assume a naive determinism then he had no choice but to lament it. Coyne was reporting that he did lament it (which was true). And, of course, assuming the same naive determinism he had no choice but to lament it.
The "why" in your comment seems to assume choice on Coyne's part or, at least, the assumption by Coyne of choice on his audiences part (on the basis that if you have no choice then you are not culpable). It rather begs the question of that basis.
The "why" in your comment seems to assume choice on Coyne's part or, at least, the assumption by Coyne of choice on his audiences part (on the basis that if you have no choice then you are not culpable). It rather begs the question of that basis.
Perhaps this was part of your point, Tony, but this of course highlights the complete irrationality of Coyne's "naive determinism," which I think was John's intention. In his post, Coyne talks about "educating people" and "defeating religion," but his own doctrine that humans cannot choose any of their mental dispositions would render any such education impossible on both sides of the equation (teacher and student). And as for "defeating" religion, that, like everything else in the universe, is something we can only passively watch unfolding, without any agency to influence the outcome. Grab the popcorn!
Perhaps this was part of your point, Tony, but this of course highlights the complete irrationality of Coyne's "naive determinism," which I think was John's intention. In his post, Coyne talks about "educating people" and "defeating religion," but his own doctrine that humans cannot choose any of their mental dispositions would render any such education impossible on both sides of the equation (teacher and student). And as for "defeating" religion, that, like everything else in the universe, is something we can only passively watch unfolding, without any agency to influence the outcome. Grab the popcorn!
which I think was John's intention
Yes.
The "why" in your comment seems to assume choice on Coyne's part or, at least, the assumption by Coyne of choice on his audiences part (on the basis that if you have no choice then you are not culpable). It rather begs the question of that basis.
But, since I have no choice in the matter under Coyneism, begging the question is no fault either. ;-)
Yes.
The "why" in your comment seems to assume choice on Coyne's part or, at least, the assumption by Coyne of choice on his audiences part (on the basis that if you have no choice then you are not culpable). It rather begs the question of that basis.
But, since I have no choice in the matter under Coyneism, begging the question is no fault either. ;-)
2015-12-18keyun
chanel bags
ugg boots sale
oakley sunglasses wholesale
ugg boots outlet
air max 90
nike running shoes for men
uggs boots for women
uggs on sale
ugg boots
hollister kids
ray-ban sunglasses
hollister jeans
air force 1 trainers
true religion jeans outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michaek kors outlet
cheap uggs sale
ugg boots outlet
jordan 11s
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet
jordan 11 concord
instyler
gucci outlet
nike huarache white
ray ban outlet
coach outlet online
tory burch outlet
ugg outlet store
uggs for chea
cheap ray ban sunglasses
canada goose
oakley store
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
abercrombie & fitch
coach outlet
toms outlet
ray bans
fitflop clearance
Post a Comment
chanel bags
ugg boots sale
oakley sunglasses wholesale
ugg boots outlet
air max 90
nike running shoes for men
uggs boots for women
uggs on sale
ugg boots
hollister kids
ray-ban sunglasses
hollister jeans
air force 1 trainers
true religion jeans outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michaek kors outlet
cheap uggs sale
ugg boots outlet
jordan 11s
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet
jordan 11 concord
instyler
gucci outlet
nike huarache white
ray ban outlet
coach outlet online
tory burch outlet
ugg outlet store
uggs for chea
cheap ray ban sunglasses
canada goose
oakley store
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
abercrombie & fitch
coach outlet
toms outlet
ray bans
fitflop clearance
<< Home
