# Ask the Creationist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2005, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555 "2005-05-12T13:18:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/321 "2005-06-06T08:48:07Z")
> [@o-w](#): > > **Sentient** , early on, when you claimed that “Everything is physical”, I assumed (reasonably, I think) that you meant that there were some sort of distinguishing characteristics, or properties, or a description or definition that the word “physical” represented, and that a good case could be made that everything could be shown to fit this description or have these distinguishing characteristics (with no remainder). Yes, I do: a temporal arrangement of particles in spacetime. If a thing or process can reasonably be considered _solely_ to be some kind of arrangement of matter and energy in space, over time, then I suggest that it be labelled _physical_. This word is an arbitrary choice or letters and phonemes. But “be _shown_ to fit this description”? That is impossible, for _any_ label. Can you _show me_ that the land-mass south of Irian Jaya fits the description “Australia”? Can you _show me_ that those humans near the Aegean 3000 years ago fit the description “Ancient Greek”? No, you **cannot**. These labels are arbitrary conventions which we merely **agree** to follow. > [@](#): > > Now, numerous posts later, I realize that my assumption was flat-out wrong: it seems that there are no distinguishing characteristics which would definitively identify something as “physical” (or anything else, for that matter); all such descriptions or definitions are arbitrary. Labelling a thing as a word is arbitrary. One can, as I did with my definition of physical, set forth **arbitrating criteria**. Now, the choice of which arbitrating criteria forms the definition or description of a sequence of letters or phonemes is, in my opinion, just as arbitrary as the choice of the letters and phonemes themselves (_ie._ there is no **non-arbitrary** philosophy). I would beg you to accept that this is _irrelevant_, a _different debate_, to the simple question of what labels we two human beings (SentientMeat and other-wise) apply to things like life, computers, Shakey the Robot and ultimately _human beings_, even when we’re not looking at them. > [@](#): > > With this new understanding, **Sentient** , I can step off the roundabout. What do I think? I think if one arbitrarily declares that the universe is arbitrary, we all become Humpty-Dumptys; posting words that mean just what we choose them to mean—neither more nor less. “Everything is Everything” is a statement that gives no information: it’s a roundabout. I absolutely, 100% agree. We post words which mean what we choose to mean and ask each other **if they make the _same choice_**. Can we now put this behind us and continue to talk about what you, **you, YOU** call physical, or life, or computation, and what you don’t? Please answer this question “Yes” or “No”: _Is Shakey the Robot, **in your opinion** , solely an arrangement of photons, charges, memory which is **as** physical **as** the table in front of you?_ ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/322 "2005-06-06T09:57:31Z")
And, having read the past 3 pages yet again, it is this exchange which defines the roundabout you are still stuck on: **SM** : Why can’t a “calling entity” be physical? **o-w** :Because you need a calling entity in order to call a calling entity “physical”. This answer is a _non sequitur_. Calling entities can be computers like Shakey, we have both agreed. Now substitute: **SM** : Why can’t a “calling entity” be a computer? **o-w** :Because you need a calling entity in order to call a calling entity “a computer”. You see the logical disjunct here? We could substitute _any_ words in to bring out the logical structure of your answer : “Why can’t X be in the set A?” “Because X=X” is your trivially true but _irrelevant_ reply. _Given that_ you and I **are** calling entities, we can proceed to ask each other what we **do** label things as. I have provided a definition of “physical”: _an arrangement of particles in spacetime._ I have provided a definition of “computation”: _input and output configurations differing via access to working memory._ I have provided a definition of “life”: _a combination of growth, metabolism, motion, replication and stimulus response_. I suggested which part of the definition of “process” was relevant: _Advance **in time** _. I have provided an example of Shakey, a computer which _labels_ things in its visual field as “box” or “not box”. Again I ask: do we agree that the computational processes which cause Shakey’s ability to label things are _entirely physical_? I struggle to see what more I can do to get you off the roundabout, although your agreement that processes like life and computation are physical (as labelled by the tautologically necessary labeller, _you_!) is a great step for future reference. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/323 "2005-06-06T14:57:26Z")
> [@SM](#): > > I have provided a definition of “physical”: an arrangement of particles in spacetime. This definition is useful as a differentiation between the physical and the non-physical. (The non-physical being such as delusions - granting that even delusions have a physical basis.) When used to describe the whole universe, it has no advantage over “an arrangement of perceptions in consciousness”. Debating which of these two constitutes the “real” universe is futile and silly, don’t you think? Or would you propose a scientific test to decide the question? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/324 "2005-06-06T15:06:43Z")
> [@](#): > > When used to describe the whole universe, it has no advantage over “an arrangement of perceptions in consciousness”. Debating which of these two constitutes the “real” universe is futile and silly, don’t you think? Or would you propose a scientific test to decide the question? There are still _data_ which must be _accomodated_ by either description. First and foremost is that my consciousness is only a number of years old, whereas it seems that _something_ existed **before** my consciousness, the _alternative conclusions_ being that my consciousness **emerged** from something which **was not** my consciousness, or I was conscious for the aeons before I was born. I feel that we can still _debate_ these two alternatives, with me arguing for the former. Indeed, that is precisely is what is happening [over here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=315717). Are such debates futile or silly? Maybe so, but for some reason, my brain seeks them out nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/325 "2005-06-06T16:41:54Z")
You suggest that “I was conscious for the aeons before I was born.” is a consequence of saying that “the universe is an arrangement of perceptions in consciousness”. I do not see how that follows. Please be clear that I am not advocating subjectivism. I suggest only that the debate is without substance. And of course, I am in no position to ridicule anyone for taking any philosophical position whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/326 "2005-06-06T17:04:13Z")
> [@](#): > > You suggest that “I was conscious for the aeons before I was born.” is a consequence of saying that “the universe is an arrangement of perceptions in consciousness”. I do not see how that follows. It is **a** consequence (_ie_ **one** of two _alternative_ consequences). We then debate which one of those two is **the** consequence we plump for. **If** the universe is an arrangement of perceptions in consciousness, then _either_ that consciousness existed for billions for years **or** it emerged from that which was **not it**. If you _disagree_ that the first alternative follows, then you, like me, are an [emergentist](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#8). Hey presto, debate has yielded useful agreement or disagreement between us (and we might go on to discuss _what kind of_ emergentist you are: reductive-supervenience like me or _non-reductive_ like epiphenomenalists?) > [@](#): > > I suggest only that the debate is without substance. Well then, set forth one which you think _is_ substantial and I’ll gladly contribute (or, if I think it _isn’t_, will politely withold such an opinion :).) ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/327 "2005-06-06T18:53:09Z")
**Sentient** , I started writing a response, but it was just a rehash of my previous posts. I simply don’t know how to work with arbitrary labels when the things that they label are arbitrary themselves. And _to me_, saying that “physical” is a concept that did not exist for 13.7 billion years, while at the same time saying that 13.7 billion years ago the universe was “physical” is like saying a flower produced the seed it grew from. We can’t make our ends meet, friend. So be it. I think I’ve learned from this thread (although at the moment, I couldn’t tell you what… it just sure feels like I’ve learned something). I’ll be saving this thread to re-read it a few more times… maybe I’ll gain an insight I didn’t catch before. I’ll also try to keep your views in mind at our next encounter, to avoid getting us sucked onto the roundabout; I can’t admit to understanding your views any better, but their parameters do seem clearer (As physicist Christopher Stubbs said regarding his work: “We’re entering a state of much more sophisticated confusion.”) ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/328 "2005-06-06T19:00:29Z")
**Sentient** , I started writing a response, but it was just a rehash of my previous posts. I simply don’t know how to work with arbitrary labels when the things that they label are arbitrary themselves. And _to me_, saying that “physical” is a concept that did not exist for 13.7 billion years, while at the same time saying that 13.7 billion years ago the universe was “physical” is like saying a flower produced the seed it grew from. We can’t make our ends meet, friend. So be it. Thank you for making me think; I’ve learned a lot from this thread (although at the moment, I couldn’t tell you what… it just sure feels like I’ve learned something). I’ll be saving this thread to re-read it a few more times… maybe I’ll gain a pivotal insight I didn’t catch before. I’ll also try to keep your views in mind at our next encounter, to avoid getting us sucked onto the roundabout; I can’t admit to understanding your views any better, but their parameters do seem clearer (As physicist Christopher Stubbs said regarding his work: “We’re entering a state of much more sophisticated confusion.”) ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/329 "2005-06-06T19:04:46Z")
Well, **that** was weird. **Sentient** , you can ignore that first draft (which I swear posted itself). It’s the same as the second post _which I actually posted_, except that I forgot to thank you. o-w ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/330 "2005-06-07T09:27:58Z")
Oh, OK, that’s the end? You kept saying you’d come back to what I considered the most important parts of several posts after you’d asked, Columbo-like, _jusht one more question_. 🙂 Nevertheless, thanks in return, and do please read through the past 3 pages a couple more times. My position is far more simple than you seem to think, and yet we get caught up in diversion after diversion when all I really want to know is what _you_ call things. Ask yourself how you justify _to yourself_ the labels _you_ use, such as “Australia”, “Ancient Greek” and “weird”, and then ask whether the labels “arrangement”, “physical” or even “arbitrary” are any different whatsoever in this regard. (And I was rather amazed how you _immediately_ accepted when I labelled something “arbitrary”, but would accept my labelling of something “physical” over your dead body!) As I’ve said before, if we refuse to indicate any position we _do_ hold, we are default **nihilists** , and should not be surprised if others seem wary of engaging in meaningful debate with us. Maybe one final example of a labelling device would be useful: **Honeybees** label nectar sources “near” and “far”. Like us (or Shakey) causing arbitrarily chosen symbols to appear on a screen, so the honey bee displays a [round symbol for “within 75m” and a waggly symbol for “further than 75m”](http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/B/BeeDances.html) on the hexagonal comb (with the orientation to the sun similarly labelling the _direction_). Again, this labelling protocol is only possible by _access to memory_: specifically, the **stored** sequence of images received by their eyes as they fly. The bee’s cognition upon arrival at the comb (when its eyes _at that moment_ are receiving _different_ sequences) is thus: ```auto IF (past sequence)=x THEN label “near” ELSE IF (past sequence!=x) THEN label “far”. ``` The _particular choice_ of symbol is arbitrarily selected from natural variations (_eg._ highly _complex_ symbols are not naturally selected since they are too much effort, just as the symbols we construct labels out of are the simple Roman alphabet of minimal strokes). I would hope that instead of asking me for a definition in order to differentiate bees from non-bees, you would just go ahead and used the label, as though you understand perfectly well what a bee is and we need not waste our time or electricity on such a distraction. I would hope that we could agree that bees (which came **before** humans and Shakey, and _long_ before you and me) are labelling devices, _and **were still** labellers when you and other humans weren’t around_. I would even avoid the “p” word if you could avoid the “a” word, and simply ask you whether you accepted that the process by which a bee labelled things was _understood and explained_. If we did agree so, I guess that the particular label we attached to that processing apparatus comprising the bee’s neuroanatomy doesn’t really… …_matter_. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/331 "2005-06-07T13:48:23Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > **If** the universe is an arrangement of perceptions in consciousness, then _either_ that consciousness existed for billions for years **or** it emerged from that which was **not it**. You’re right about that. “The universe is an arrangement of perceptions in consciousness” implies panpsychism, given the absence of sentient individual consciousnesses for part (most) of its history. It does not imply that my\* individual\* consciousness was there at the big bang. However, if one accepts the Hindu “Atman is Brahman” doctrine, and thus my individual consciousness _is_ an aspect of the universal consciousness, then you’re closer yet to being right. Your friend Mr. Ramachandran seems to flirt with this view. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/332 "2005-06-07T17:21:31Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Oh, OK, that’s the end? You kept saying you’d come back to what I considered the most important parts of several posts after you’d asked, Columbo-like, _jusht one more question_. 🙂 My apologies. What did I say I’d come back to that I haven’t already addressed? (BTW, what ever happened with Shipmans [Quantum Honeybees?](http://science.box.sk/newsread_print.php?newsid=6321)) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/333 "2005-06-07T21:11:17Z")
Whatever happened to Stone Girl? ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/334 "2005-06-08T00:38:40Z")
Yeah. [She](http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/large/10104000/10104209.jpg) was hot. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/335 "2005-06-08T09:06:28Z")
> [@o-w](#): > > My apologies. What did I say I’d come back to that I haven’t already addressed? Never mind, they’ll crop up again next time. You obviously consider the answers you _have_ given to be relevant to those points, whereas I simply can’t see it. Read the last 3 pages again, and perhaps you could write an OP some time in future setting out the specific proposition for debate. > [@](#): > > (BTW, what ever happened with Shipmans Quantum Honeybees?) Like Penrose’s quantum consciousness, the appeal to quantum weirdness is possible (although unlikely, indeed impossible to many) but ultimately _unnecessary_ given the vast computational power of even a few million neurons if they are [interconnected](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/connectionism/) (as they are in insect neuroanatomy). Yet again, we _all_ know the _questions_ - even the toddler can keep asking them ad infinitum. Roundabout exits and progress in a debate require us to _accept premises_ and **focus** in order to avoid the infinity of possible distractions. And again, if a single explanatory gap renders an entire scientific field fundamentally flawed, why then, we must _all_ become Creationists. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/336 "2005-06-08T09:08:46Z")
Sorry, quantum consciousness conscidered [impossible](http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v61/i4/p4194_1) by many. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/337 "2005-06-08T17:51:49Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > . . .the appeal to quantum weirdness is possible Did you find Chalmers’ comment on this as funny as I did? > [@](#): > > The attractiveness of quantum theories of consciousness may stem from a Law of Minimization of Mystery: consciousness is mysterious and quantum mechanics is mysterious, so maybe the two mysteries have a common source. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/338 "2005-06-09T00:52:17Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Never mind, they’ll crop up again next time. You obviously consider the answers you _have_ given to be relevant to those points, whereas I simply can’t see it. Read the last 3 pages again, and perhaps you could write an OP some time in future setting out the specific proposition for debate. I was scanning your exchange with **II Gyan II** in hope of finding some new angle to understand your viewpoint, when I was struck by this (bolding mine): > [@SentientMeat](#): > > Waves, or accelerations, or computer programs don’t necessarily weigh anything **or have spatial co-ordinates either**. I am suggesting that consciousness is, effectively, a running program. That surprised me. I thought that in your worldview waves and computer programs _do_ have spatial coordinates. > [@](#): > > Like Penrose’s quantum consciousness, the appeal to quantum weirdness is possible (although unlikely, indeed impossible to many) but ultimately _unnecessary_ given the vast computational power of even a few million neurons if they are [interconnected](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/connectionism/) (as they are in insect neuroanatomy). Yet again, we _all_ know the _questions_ - even the toddler can keep asking them ad infinitum. Roundabout exits and progress in a debate require us to _accept premises_ and **focus** in order to avoid the infinity of possible distractions. And again, if a single explanatory gap renders an entire scientific field fundamentally flawed, why then, we must _all_ become Creationists. Actually, I was just wondering if anyone had figured out how to test Shipmans theory, or had come up with an alternate explanation for the presence of the flag manifold in both the mathematics of QM and the dance of the honeybees (my fault- I worded the question poorly). ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/339 "2005-06-09T08:48:15Z")
> [@o-w](#): > > That surprised me. I thought that in your worldview waves and computer programs do have spatial coordinates. Well, yes, but perhaps not in the way **Gyan** was specifying (of a _single_ spatial location with no temporal element), not perhaps in any way that was _relevant_ (since what the program _does_ is far more important than _where_ the apparatus is). It was hard enough keeping _this_ thread on track, let’s not start pulling in stuff from others arbitrar… feck it. Enough! 🙂 > [@](#): > > I was just wondering if anyone had figured out how to test Shipmans theory Not that I know of. Which, of course, makes it either _proto_science, or _pseudo_science. > [@](#): > > or had come up with an alternate explanation for the presence of the flag manifold in both the mathematics of QM and the dance of the honeybees From your own source: _“When you have a physical phenomenon like the honeybee dance, and it follows a mathematical structure, you have to ask what are the physical laws that are causing it to happen.” At this point Shipman departs from safely grounded scholarship and enters instead the airy realm of speculation._ She says herself that the _hexagons_ are coincidental: just the arbitrar… oh, errm, _natural, statistical_ selection of an efficient close-pack arrangement. And yet the shape of the symbols _cannot_ have been selected, purely and simply, by evolutionary statistics in exactly the same way? Why not? Seeing the “flag manifold” is like playing Stairway to Heaven backwards and hearing [Satanic lyrics](http://www.nyas.org/snc/readersReport.asp?articleId=25&page=1#) (click link near bottom of page). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555.md?page=16)