I'm still waiting for a good definition for how something that is immaterial can know something. ... You, Spinoza99, have preconceived that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the brain to do it itself, and you surmise that there MUST be some "immaterial" entity at work. However, there is no indication that that's necessary, and there is every indication that the brain is doing these functions on its own.
Ok, this is a fair demand. I'm wrong to demand materialists to answer how material knows, and for that I apologize. But I'm not wrong to ask which is more logical for the source of knowledge, the material or the immaterial? After all you want to know it too. We both agree that knowledge exists, I think, and we both agree that knowledge, at least in one sense, is the ability to routinely choose the right choice. Neither of us can answer how material or the immaterial has knowledge but we can decide which is more logical to be the source of knowledge: material or immaterial? We can't observe immaterial but we can observe material and we are aware of its properties. When we analyze Brownian Motion we observe that its movements are utterly uncoordinated and without purpose. It would be illogical to believe that the source of coordination lies in particles which are so incapable of coordination. Second, two identical bodies should act in the same way. If they behave differently then the source of that difference can't be in the body because the bodies are the same. Now, when we have a DNA sequence TCGAAAG and the next body must be C, well why does C go there when all four of the nucleobases have the property to come next. All of those nucleobases have the property to attach to that DNA backbone but somehow there is a knowledge that they must be sequenced a certain way. Well, all four have the same property to bind to that sugar and phosphate but they don't always bind, what is the source of that difference? That source can't be located in the bodies because the bodies are the same.
You don't have to code the language. You just have to code the ability. That's why there are myriad languages. The words aren't coded - they are invented by the brains. The brains are capable of language. You don't have to code every instruction and every output - we're not card reading computers.
If we're not card readers then I suppose we have to choose the right card on our own free will. If all bodies act according to physical laws, then where does choice come from?
No it isn't. It absolutely is NOT a necessary consequence of materialism or monism that there be a random word generator in our heads.
It is. If you know a word exists and that word is not coded for in space then it must exist in the immaterial. If it exists and its source cannot be material then its source is immaterial.
Magnetism can also coordinate two or more bodies. ... gravity can coordinate material, but it does so mindlessly.
This is a very important point because you have to understand what coordination is. Coordination requires the routine selection of a right choice picked out from a very large set. Magnetism attracts all objects according to a predictable law. It does not choose anything.
******
And now the side issues:
"I don't know" is not the same as "I can't possibly have an explanation." ... It's all just a way to take "I don't know" and replace it with an arbitrary explanation that makes one feel better.
This is like saying, just because I don't have a material explanation for something does not mean there isn't one, which is tantamount to saying: I know that there is a material explanation for everything, even though there are some things that I cannot account for.
Modern science has uncovered that certain sections of the brain are responsible for certain things, even our moral sense.
I think that would be difficult to prove, seeing as it's so hard to agree on what moral is.
Basically, groups of neurons form functional networks which do the thinking, remembering, perceiving, interpreting, moralizing, dreaming, longing, etc. The structures in the brain do these things without the need, as far as we can tell, of an outside "immaterial" influence.
I agree that certain locations in the brain are responsible for certain things. Remember I believe in the Samuel Taylor Cooleride theory of mind: the right neurons in the right order. You need a mind to coordinate the neurons, they can't coordinate themselves.
It's not necessarily that language itself conferred the advantage - the large, more capable brain is a powerful tool and only one of its many abilities is language. As it happens, language does provide a huge advantage - even rudimentary grunts and calls provide an advantage - because messages can be sent over longer distances than face-to-face, and knowledge can be passed from one generation to another (even very basic knowledge).
I'm not convinced. The languageless also get to pass on their genes. Moreover, two humans of the same tribe would have to have the same mutation at the same time.
the amino acid sequence
of histone H4 from a
pea and from a cow differ at only 2 of the 102
positions.
That would mean that 100 of those amino acids mostly likely are necessary and can only be sequenced one way, but let's be dishonest and say that only 90 are necessary.
Necessary for what? When? And, why can they only be sequenced "one" way?
[/quote]
Certain functions are necessary to the cell's life. You read what Albert said, he said the proteins are precisely built and he's a Darwinist. The Histone H4 as you can see has barely changed over millions of years. If there is another way, it has not appeared in nature. Some of the same proteins do appear differently in other animals, unfortunately Albert did not give us more information on how different they are.
spinoza99 wrote:
What are the odds of forming a protein 90 amino acids long spontaneously?
Evolution doesn't say the string of 90 or 100 were formed "spontaneously," though, does it?
If it doesn't work it's discarded. There is a minimum number of amino acids before a protein refuses to be discarded. It depends on the protein, some of them require 2000, which are horrendous odds.
spinoza99 wrote:
around one in 10^90. That's just one protein. That's how hard it is to do one baby step. There are about two million known proteins, though they all have different function, even if you imagine that a million protein sequences are available for a certain function, the odds are still one in 10^84. I've already stated numerous times in this forum that if each atom were to try to form a protein for every nanosecond in the history of our universe that would still only bring us to only 10^106 events.
However, what you've described is a straw man. Evolution doesn't suggest it happening that way.
It does, evolution cites the baby-steps formula. One protein is one baby-step. A protein that does not work does not make a successful step. That baby-step is too large to be crossed through undirected means.
And, you're making false associations anyway. Like ...all atheists are monists/materialists - or if monism/materialism is wrong then there is a god, etc. One, so what if it was a necessary consequence of monism/materialism? Either we have language or we don't. Either it evolved or was specially created. Dualists can certainly accept evolution, and due, and so can monists, and monists can believe in gods and often do.
It would be illogical to think:
A. The Universe is partly coordinated
B. I believe coordination is due to an immaterial force
C. But I don't believe the Universe is coordinated due to an immaterial force
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.
