Trouble in the “belief enforcement” science world gets noticed even in the New York Times

CJYMan,

Uhuh, and the reason I posted his and others’ definition, and showed you that they were all dealing with the same phenomenon in very similar wording, is to refute another one of your bald assertions re: unspecified designers, when you stated that “nobody dares to say anything whatsoever about what it is ID is actually talking about.”

Very well I stand corrected. But of all these, I believe only Meyer actually says something meaningful with reference to our uniform experience. When Meyer makes the claim that the Designer is conscious we all know what that means. So this claim is meaningful, although it is also a completely unsupported hypothesis. "Weeding out of possibilities"? What Dembski really means (as he's admitted) is contra-causal free will from a causal immaterial mind. And how is it we are supposed to determine if the Designer had the sort of intent that Trevor and Abels refer to? Can intent be unconscious?

I apologize if I wasn’t clear enough … in that context, specific = targeted. So, yes, evolution is an excellent example of artificial/unconscious intelligence.

Why would you say evolution is artificial??? In any event, it's interesting for you to concede that Darwinian evolutionary processes are intelligent. This puts even more distance between your position and those of the majority of ID folks, since now you've admitted that the debate is not between intelligent and non-intelligent processes at all, but rather between one particular description of an intelligent process (the trial-and-error intelligence of evolution) vs. another description (the unspecified sort of intelligence advanced by ID).

AIGUY: So Meyer adds “conscious deliberation” to his particular notion of intelligence. But obviously we have no way of knowing if the cause of life was conscious at all, much less conscious in a way recognizably like our human experience of consciousness. It’s all just anthromorphic projection and unsupportable assertions. CJYMAN: That comment of yours is itself an unsupported assertion

You think I lack evidence for my claim that you lack evidence for a conscious designer? Uh, well, my evidence that you lack evidence is simply the fact that you have no evidence, of course :-)

unless you can show FSCI being generated absent conscious foresight in that FSCI’s causal chain.

Of course I can demonstrate FSCI being generated absent conscious foresight! People who talk in their sleep are not conscious of their actions, but generate high levels of FSCI in their grammatical sentences. Much of our mental activity is known to proceed unconsciously - everything from our complex physical planning tasks required to ride a bike or drive a car to the way we often solve difficult math problems when we're not consciously thinking about them.

But I’ve already explained this to you many times, how we experience that certain patterns do require foresight — ie: complex circuitry or these comments — and you have yet to deny that an engineer requires foresight (as I have defined it above) to design complex circuitry.

Humans are sometimes conscious of their own thought processes while designing things, and sometimes not. It's very well known that insights "come to us" when we're thinking about something else (often in the shower when we're relaxed!). So it just isn't true that we know about this thing called "foresight" and it is some special power of consciousness. Rather it appears that our brains employ processes that are only partially accessible to our consciousness, and that often we become aware of solutions to difficult problems when we are not consciously thinking about them.

And again, the reason I posted Meyers definition of intelligence is to show that you are fond of merely making unsupported assertions yourself when you stated that “nobody dares to say anything whatsoever about what it is ID is actually talking about.

Again I stand corrected. You are right. To the extent that ID folks do dare to say something specific about what this word "intelligence" is supposed to mean in the context of ID, their assertions are unsupported. Not only is it obvious that whatever this Designer is supposed to be, it is necessarily vastly different from human beings (and so we have no grounds to suspect it has a brain that works like ours), but even in the case of human intelligence we see that the causal role of consciousness is unknown, and it's clear that much (most really) of our thought processes proceed without conscious awareness.

AIGUY: And how might Trevors and Abel suggest we determine if the Designer of ID intended to cause the particular patterns we see? Maybe the Designer is completely unconscious and for reasons completely unknown to us just created the patterns for no reason at all. How would we ever know?” CJYMAN: Because we are talking about science here, not sci fi, metaphysics, or pure speculation.

Actually, you are talking about pure speculation. We have no basis to guess anything about some hypothetical entity of some unknown type that we make up in our imagination to explain the origin of life. We have no way of determining if such a thing exists, much less that it has "conscious intentions". (Or unconscious intentions for that matter).

AIGUY: Here’s something that might make this clearer to you. ID is making a claim of equivalence here, just the way Newton did. But while Newton succeeded in showing his equivalance was true (because he was a scientist) ID fails utterly (because they don’t even try).” CJYMAN: What does that have to do with my statement? Which part of my statement above do you deny?

What I deny is this: We do not know what "foresight" is, so we can't say "foresight" is a "necessary cause" of FSCI. What I deny is that we have any reason to believe that what we do with our brains when we design things is the same thing that the cause of life did.

Second, I can’t believe that you are trying to lecture me about what ID Theory is trying to say, when you’ve just been shown to be wrong about your understanding of ID Theory on at least a few levels.

The only thing I've been wrong about is that nobody dares to say anything about the designer. You're right - Meyer said it was conscious, which is pure speculation.

I’ve also already shown you the analogy between ID Theory and the Big Bang and you have provided no objection that you can back up.

???? I've shown that BB and ID are radically different!!! BB provides a detailed testable model of the mechanism thought to be responsible for what we observe, while ID provides nothing of the sort!!!

AIGUY: If Newton had simply said “Gravity is the thing that makes apples fall and planets orbit the sun”, then he would have explained absolutely nothing, and he would not have become famous. CJYMAN: No, he formulated a law that describes effects without even providing a mechanism. The mechanism of gravity came much later and is still being debated today.

Yes of course the mechanism (or the nature) of gravity is still being debated! But he formulated a set of laws that characterize his idea about gravity in great detail. In Newton's view it is a force that acts between every two bodies, and he described exactly what that force does in great detail so we could see if this force actually operates as he described it. In stark contrast, the "intelligence" of ID is not characterized one bit in terms of what it does and what its effects are supposed to be.

1. Foresight as I have defined it exists.

The way you define "foresight" it is just a label for the unknown processes that take place when human beings solve planning problems. It means nothing more than "the ability to create FSCI".

2. Engineers utilize their foresight (as I have defined it above) — or it just happens in their brains (take your pick) — in order to design FSCI.

In other words, human beings generate FSCI by using their ability to generate FSCI. You can call this ability "foresight", but that doesn't tell us anything about it.

3. FSCI has not been shown to be generated absent foresight in its causal chain.

FSCI has not been shown to be generated absent biological brains in its causal chain. * * * continued...

AIGUY: Now let’s take a look at ID. ID also makes an equivalence claim: It says that the same thing that allows human beings to design a watch or a car or a trip to Europe is what also accounts for the creation of the first living cell. CJYMAN: OK, fine – that’s an equivalance claim, so let’s see why we should believe it. Does ID tell us what is required in order for “intelligence” to act?

No.

Does Big Bang theory tell us what is required for a Big Bang to occur? Not at all … it’s all speculation at this point and even more so when it was originally hypothesized.

WRONG. BB Theory does not purport to explain why it occurred in the first place - that is speculation of course. What it does explain is what we observe - red shift, background radiation, etc. And it is very clear about what is required for that to occur - a singulartity of a particular amount of mass/energy that is acted upon according to well-specified forces.

So, tell me why we would need to know how intelligence operates in order to experience it, utilize it to generate FSCI, and infer its operation from its known effects?

We do not experience the "intelligence" that ID posits of course. So in order to figure out if any such thing exists, we would need to know what is required to support the existence of it.

Here is what ID Theory says about intelligence in answer to your question: 1. Intelligence is summed up in foresight. 2. Foresight exists as per our experience. 3. We utilize our foresight to generate complexities that can be measured and defined in terms of FSCI. 4. There is no evidence that FSCI can be generated absent foresight in its causal chain. Which of the above do you deny?

Once again, because you can't say one single thing about what this "foresight" is or what it does, it doesn't help one bit to defined one unspecified term (intelligence) with this other one. You can't say what foresight is, what it does, when it operates, how it operates, what it can and can't do, if it requires specific physical substrates, whether it transcends physical cause, how it is connected to conscious awareness... You can't say anything at all about it. To say "FSCI is created by foresight" means exactly the same thing as "FSCI is created by some unspecified thing that creates FSCI".

More correctly, it is foresight which allows us to search through vast configuration spaces in the present to find islands of function. Again, refer to my engineer example. He envisions a future target that does not yet exist and then configures matter and energy in the present to accomplish that goal. Do you disagree that this occurs?

The word "envision" is a metaphor that describes how it feels to be conscious of some solution; it refers to our experience of a "mind's eye" where we "picture" future states. This may have something to do with how we solve problems, and it may just be our experience of our brains' unconscious problem-solving mechanisms when we solve them. We just don't know what foresight really is.

First, you yourself have implied that you can not define “physical” in any scientifically useful way, so if you drop that, then yes, I believe that the designer and FSCI must exist simultaneously.

In fact, CJYMan, this idea appeals to me too... but when I talk about these things it's so clear that it is nothing but wild philosophical speculation... the opposite of grounded science.

When it comes down to it, I believe that reality has some sort of fundamental structure and this structure is itself FSCI rich and is inherently intelligent and/or proto-conscious (Penrose and Hameroff).

Well, I happen to agree. It isn't that I discount the possibility that we will ever inform these questions with testable science, and I think Hameroff and others may be closing in on some actual tests. Certainly Libet, wegner, etc have shown that some of these ancient philosophical problems may soon be illuminated by empirical tests.

So what are you denying here: -foresight exists. …or… -the engineer envisions a future goal which does not yet exists, sets that as a target, and manipulates matter and energy to accomplish that target. …or… -you use foresight to develop these comments of yours. …or… -all of the above.

I deny we know the referent of the word "foresight". We don't know how we generate FSCI, and "foresight" (or "intelligence") is the word we use to refer to this ability that we can't explain.

aiguy: Maybe the mechanisms and algorithms – hardware and software – differ very radically. Maybe one system is conscious and the other is not. Maybe the only feature common to both systems is that they are both complex physical mechanisms that output FSCI. (But of course evolutionary processes meet that requirement too). CJYman: Yes, there are lots of maybes that we may be able to study scientifically at some point, or maybe not.

And when we do ID may or may not have a leg to stand on. Until then it is pure speculation.

aiguy: But I’ve shown (1) Meyer claims that his cause is conscious, which is utterly without warrant; CJYMan: Now, I will first admit that I actually don’t like subscribing to a fundamental designer that is actually conscious as we are … however, historical science is based on inference from experience and that is all we have to go on. It is the best approximation that we can come up with at the moment. This is science’s limitation. So far, we only see FSCI generated when there is an actual conscious intelligence in its causal chain.

I've tried to explain why we have no reason to suspect that things which are radically different from human beings (as presumably the Designer may be) would have a consciousness like humans do. Wegner has shown we can't tell when we are consciously causing something to happen - we can think we're consciously choosing something when we're not, and we can consciously think we are not choosing something when we are. It is all so mysterious, and so tied to human neural function, that we have absolutely no grounds whatsoever to blithely claim that this hypothetical being we invent to explain life would necessarily have human-like conscious awareness!

AIGUY: In order to determine if some posited cause actually exists, you really do have to be able to characterize it in a way that allows people to figure out if it exists or not, CJYman: Have you ever envisioned a target that does not yet exist? If so, foresight exists.

I have "pictures" in "my mind's eye", yes. I have no idea of this conscious experience has anything to do with my ability to generate FSCI, and nobody else has any idea either.

Have you ever used that target as a “diving board” to search through present configurations of matter in order to bring that target to fruition. If so, you have applied your foresight. Congratulations, you are intelligent:)

I have no idea if I "search" through configuations. It feels to me (and to many people) that ideas "come to me" rather than me searching and finding them.

Here (http://telicthoughts.com/wisdo.....ent-230373) is my explanation for how intelligence accounts for the phenomenon in question, and here (https://uncommondescent.com.....ent-337588) is my explanation for how law+chance do not and actually can not account for the phenomenon in question. Many other ID proponents and theorists have provided similar accounts.

I'm running out of time here so I can't start reading other threads... If you have solved the problem of how humans think I'm very happy for you, because the rest of us in the scientific community still believes it is not understood at all. So, since we do not understand what "intelligence" or "foresight" is, except for saying "it is what creates FSCI", then saying "the FSCI in biology was created by foresight" is exactly as vacuous as saying "the FSCI in biology was created by whatever enables human beings to create FSCI". Maybe this is true, and maybe not, but until we know something about how we do, it should be clear to you that we can't possibly determine if there was a Designer who used the same thing.aiguy

August 9, 2010

August

08

Aug

9

09

2010

08:26 AM

8

08

26

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

CJYman: "1. I possess and utilize foresight — or it just happens in my brain. Take your pick." aiguy: "Since you can’t provide a way to decide if things which produce FSCI use foresight or not, this isn’t helpful at all." So what are you denying here ... -foresight exists. ...or... -the engineer envisions a future goal which does not yet exists, sets that as a target, and manipulates matter and energy to accomplish that target. ...or... -you use foresight to develop these comments of yours. ...or... -all of the above. CJYman: "2. I infer that other people around me have foresight since they are extremely similar biologically, come to exist through the same process which caused my existence, and they produce the same patterns that I produce through the use of my foresight." aiguy: "This is a fairly strong inference, yes. We can perform experiments on each other, analyze each other’s brains, etc etc. This is the way we solve “the problem of other minds” for other human beings." Sure, its a strong inference. Do you deny it? And yes, we only know that other people are intelligent by the effects the leave upon our senses ... ie: FSCI. IOW, we use the design inference every day. aiguy: "Now even if we accept functionalism to be true, it’s not clear that two different entities, both using information processing mechanisms (brains, silicon chips, whatever) to design things, can be said to be accomplishing their design task in the same way." Now here is where I do agree with you. aiguy: "Maybe the mechanisms and algorithms – hardware and software – differ very radically. Maybe one system is conscious and the other is not. Maybe the only feature common to both systems is that they are both complex physical mechanisms that output FSCI. (But of course evolutionary processes meet that requirement too)." Yes, there are lots of maybes that we may be able to study scientifically at some point, or maybe not. CJYman: "Furthermore, this shows that Meyers argument is perfectly sound, since he refers to intelligence as the best explanation of the first life-form and I have shown that based on our observations and inference, the first intelligence need not be living." aiguy: "But I’ve shown (1) Meyer claims that his cause is conscious, which is utterly without warrant;" Now, I will first admit that I actually don't like subscribing to a fundamental designer that is actually conscious as we are ... however, historical science is based on inference from experience and that is all we have to go on. It is the best approximation that we can come up with at the moment. This is science's limitation. So far, we only see FSCI generated when there is an actual conscious intelligence in its causal chain. aiguy: "that (2) You still haven’t said what is the same between human mentality and this hypothetical mentality except that both process information with complex physical mechanism. This characterization doesn’t even exclude Darwinian processes!" Actually, the similar characterization is that of foresight -- envisioning a future goal that does not yet exist and organizing matter and energy in the present to accomplish that future goal. CJYman: "Tell me, aiguy, what can the Big Bang not do?" aiguy: "The Big Bang cannot do anything except what the currently known laws of physics tells us it does. The Big Bang itself cannot cause blue-shifted spectra from stars; it cannot produce expansion of space that is not accompanied by a uniform background radiation; it cannot produce iron within seconds of the initial singularity; it cannot cause the heavy elements to revert to lighter elements; it cannot part the Red Sea or change water into wine." I'm sorry. I misunderstood when you asked me what a foresighted system could not do. I thought that by "what can it not do," you meant "what kind of effects can it not cause." aiguy: "See what I mean?" Actually I don't. I misinterpreted your statement. aiguy: "In order to determine if some posited cause actually exists, you really do have to be able to characterize it in a way that allows people to figure out if it exists or not," Have you ever envisioned a target that does not yet exist? If so, foresight exists. Have you ever used that target as a "diving board" to search through present configurations of matter in order to bring that target to fruition. If so, you have applied your foresight. Congratulations, you are intelligent:) aiguy: "and if it actually accounts for the phenomena in question." Here (http://telicthoughts.com/wisdom-from-jj-thomson/#comment-230373) is my explanation for how intelligence accounts for the phenomenon in question, and here (https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/polanyi-and-ontogenetic-emergence/#comment-337588) is my explanation for how law+chance do not and actually can not account for the phenomenon in question. Many other ID proponents and theorists have provided similar accounts. aiguy: "ID doesn’t even try to do this;" You can say you disagree with ID accounts, but why are you instead resorting to bald assertions that are based on your own personal ignorance of ID Theory. aiguy: "as far as ID is concerned the hypothetical designer can do anything and everything that we could ever want it do in order to explain whatever it is we want to explain… " ummm, no ... we experience that foresight is required to produce FSCI, and along with the other arguments I've provided, we then infer if FSCI then previous foresight. Foresight is not some magic fairy that'll fly you to never never land. You are the only one here who has characterized it as such and I'm the one who merely refers to our experience of what we use to produce FSCI. aiguy: "but ID never says just how the Designer manages to do anything at all." And that's relevant to the ID inference how? aiguy: "So on this count (and many others) it’s a non-starter." Unless you are going to deny any of my main points, ID theory does exactly what it purports to do ... infer from effect to cause based on our uniform and repeated experience.CJYman

August 9, 2010

August

08

Aug

9

09

2010

12:35 AM

12

12

35

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Now, let's continue... aiguy: "If Newton had said “Gravity is something that makes things move in accordance with their natural tendencies” then he would have been just another forgotten philosopher who never figured anything out of value." Excellent little tidbit, aiguy. That is quite obvious. aiguy: "But instead, Newton characterized gravity in a way that let people actually see for themselves whether or not this hypothesized cause could actually account for both falling apples and orbiting planets." Yes, he formulated a mathematical representation of regularities that could be applied in many different instances. Believe it or not, most of us here at UD already know this type of stuff. aiguy: "And sure enough, Newton’s careful characterization of gravity demonstrated that yes, it was the same thing in both cases, acting according to the same careful description that Newton had figured out. This thing acted between any two bodies, acted instantaneously at a distance, was invariably attractive, and caused an acceleration between every pair of masses that varied in proportion to the product of their masses, and inversley with the square of the distance between them, and according to a fixed constant that was the same everywhere in the universe." Thanks for the little bit of history of science reprieve. Now, let's get back to business ... aiguy: "Now let’s take a look at ID. ID also makes an equivalence claim: It says that the same thing that allows human beings to design a watch or a car or a trip to Europe is what also accounts for the creation of the first living cell. OK, fine – that’s an equivalance claim, so let’s see why we should believe it. Does ID tell us what is required in order for “intelligence” to act?" Does Big Bang theory tell us what is required for a Big Bang to occur? Not at all ... it's all speculation at this point and even more so when it was originally hypothesized. So, tell me why we would need to know how intelligence operates in order to experience it, utilize it to generate FSCI, and infer its operation from its known effects? aiguy: "Newton said that mass was required for gravity to work… but ID refuses to say anything about what is required for intelligence to work." So does the Big Bang. In fact, since the laws of nature break down at the singularity, we may never know what causes Big Bangs -- especially from our uniform and repeated experience. Furthermore, I have already explained a few times how the operation of foresight makes no difference to the fact that it exists, we use it, and according to our repeat and uniform experience some patterns require it. If you think the operation of foresight makes a difference for any of those cases, please provide your argument. So, at this point, I really do not see what your problem is with ID Theory. aiguy: "Although it would seem obvious that we need working brains in order to think, ID doesn’t even want to respond to that basic bit of common knowledge," ... because, again, it makes no difference to the ID inference. All other extraneous speculation at this point is philosophical and unnecessary for the ID inference. aiguy: "Is there anything else ID says about intelligence that would allow us to decide if the same thing that humans use to build watches also accounts for flagella and eyeballs in nature?" Aiguy, you are making this much harder on yourself than you need to. The foundation of ID theory is really quite simple. Here is what ID Theory says about intelligence in answer to your question: 1. Intelligence is summed up in foresight. 2. Foresight exists as per our experience. 3. We utilize our foresight to generate complexities that can be measured and defined in terms of FSCI. 4. There is no evidence that FSCI can be generated absent foresight in its causal chain. Which of the above do you deny? aiguy: "What about how long it takes? When humans design things it typically takes from a few minutes to a few tens of years. Things like eyeballs and flagella appear to have taken many millions of years to come to exist. So that’s not very similar either…" Interesting questions. What does that have to do with negating the ID inference? aiguy: "So there’s the problem. ID folks would like us to believe that there is this thing called “intelligence” ..." So you disagree that foresight as I've defined it exists? aiguy: "... and “intelligence” is what lets human beings think," That's not a totally unfair characterization if ID. More correctly, it is foresight which allows us to search through vast configuration spaces in the present to find islands of function. Again, refer to my engineer example. He envisions a future target that does not yet exist and then configures matter and energy in the present to accomplish that goal. Do you disagree that this occurs? aiguy: "and that this exact same thing called “intelligence” is what enabled the Designer build a platypus." It is much more complex and nuanced than that ... but, yes, at least indirectly. aiguy: "Until ID can provide some characterization of this thing they’re referring to as “intelligence”, I’ll continue to believe that human mental and physical abilities are critically dependent on human bodies and brains, and without those we can’t say that there is anything in common between the cause of human inventions and the cause of biological systems." Well, I've already defined intelligence for you 54 or so times now and you haven't denied any of the main points I've made, so where is the hang up? aiguy: "Uh, that seems to me to be exactly what I said: You posited the cause of FSCI in biology was itself an FSCI-rich entity, because otherwise it would have nothing to do with our uniform and repeated experience." I was providing clarification on the term "body" and "material." aiguy: "So fine, that’s your solution to this particular conundrum that ID faces. But your version of ID – where the designer is already a complex physical being to begin with – is not such a good theory, and I don’t think very many ID enthusiasts would be happy with it." First, you yourself have implied that you can not define "physical" in any scientifically useful way, so if you drop that, then yes, I believe that the designer and FSCI must exist simultaneously. Second, I don't really care who does or doesn't like whatever. I'm an engineer and a scientist at heart and so I go for whichever solution works or most adequately provides causal explanation. When it comes down to it, I believe that reality has some sort of fundamental structure and this structure is itself FSCI rich and is inherently intelligent and/or proto-conscious (Penrose and Hameroff).CJYman

August 8, 2010

August

08

Aug

8

08

2010

11:49 PM

11

11

49

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

CJYman: "Dembski defines intelligence as the ability to weed out options in the present in order to provide a specific effect in the future." aiguy: "Fine – everybody has a different definition, and he’s entitled to his :-)" Uhuh, and the reason I posted his and others' definition, and showed you that they were all dealing with the same phenomenon in very similar wording, is to refute another one of your bald assertions re: unspecified designers, when you stated that "nobody dares to say anything whatsoever about what it is ID is actually talking about." aiguy: "Evolution weeds out options in the present, and provides specific effects in the future, so I guess Dembski thinks evolution is intelligent? No, of course not… because evolution doesn’t “know” that this is what its doing." I apologize if I wasn't clear enough ... in that context, specific = targeted. So, yes, evolution is an excellent example of artificial/unconscious intelligence. aiguy: "So Meyer adds “conscious deliberation” to his particular notion of intelligence. But obviously we have no way of knowing if the cause of life was conscious at all, much less conscious in a way recognizably like our human experience of consciousness. It’s all just anthromorphic projection and unsupportable assertions." That comment of yours is itself an unsupported assertion unless you can show FSCI being generated absent conscious foresight in that FSCI's causal chain. But I've already explained this to you many times, how we experience that certain patterns do require foresight -- ie: complex circuitry or these comments -- and you have yet to deny that an engineer requires foresight (as I have defined it above) to design complex circuitry. And again, the reason I posted Meyers definition of intelligence is to show that you are fond of merely making unsupported assertions yourself when you stated that "nobody dares to say anything whatsoever about what it is ID is actually talking about." CJYman: "Trevors and Abel refer to present choice with future intent as a necessary cause of patterns which we could sum up as FSCI." aiguy: "And how might Trevors and Abel suggest we determine if the Designer of ID intended to cause the particular patterns we see? Maybe the Designer is completely unconscious and for reasons completely unknown to us just created the patterns for no reason at all. How would we ever know?" Because we are talking about science here, not sci fi, metaphysics, or pure speculation. Do I really need to explain to you again that we utilize our foresight daily? Again, this is something that you have not denied. CJYman: "All that matters is that foresight exists and that certain patterns will not exist absent foresight, making foresight a necessary cause." aiguy: "Here’s something that might make this clearer to you. ID is making a claim of equivalence here, just the way Newton did. But while Newton succeeded in showing his equivalance was true (because he was a scientist) ID fails utterly (because they don’t even try)." What does that have to do with my statement? Which part of my statement above do you deny? Second, I can't believe that you are trying to lecture me about what ID Theory is trying to say, when you've just been shown to be wrong about your understanding of ID Theory on at least a few levels. I've also already shown you the analogy between ID Theory and the Big Bang and you have provided no objection that you can back up. aiguy: "If Newton had simply said “Gravity is the thing that makes apples fall and planets orbit the sun”, then he would have explained absolutely nothing, and he would not have become famous." No, he formulated a law that describes effects without even providing a mechanism. The mechanism of gravity came much later and is still being debated today. aiguy: "If Newton had said “Gravity is intelligent and intelligence has the ability to move things in any way it wants” then he would have explained nothing and we would not know his name." aiguy, if you keep obfuscating like this, then you'll confuse yourself even more when it comes to your understanding of ID Theory. In case you forgot, I've defined intelligence ... oh what, maybe 52 times now ... I've shown how it encompasses ID theorists definitions, and you have yet to either deny that it exists as I've defined it (in terms of foresight), deny that engineers require it to produce their designs, or show that FSCI can be generated absent foresight in its causal chain, so I really don't see what your problem here is. It seems that there is really not much more to be said, especially since you are now just going off on irrelevant tangents. But, I'll play along anyway. However, for us to make any progress I need to know which of my points you are denying, since you seem to be still disagreeing with me on some level. Do you deny that ... 1. Foresight as I have defined it exists. 2. Engineers utilize their foresight (as I have defined it above) -- or it just happens in their brains (take your pick) -- in order to design FSCI. 3. FSCI has not been shown to be generated absent foresight in its causal chain.CJYman

August 8, 2010

August

08

Aug

8

08

2010

10:59 PM

10

10

59

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

CJYMan, I missed this one!

Tell me, aiguy, what can the Big Bang not do?

The Big Bang cannot do anything except what the currently known laws of physics tells us it does. The Big Bang itself cannot cause blue-shifted spectra from stars; it cannot produce expansion of space that is not accompanied by a uniform background radiation; it cannot produce iron within seconds of the initial singularity; it cannot cause the heavy elements to revert to lighter elements; it cannot part the Red Sea or change water into wine. See what I mean? In order to determine if some posited cause actually exists, you really do have to be able to characterize it in a way that allows people to figure out if it exists or not, and if it actually accounts for the phenomena in question. ID doesn't even try to do this; as far as ID is concerned the hypothetical designer can do anything and everything that we could ever want it do in order to explain whatever it is we want to explain... but ID never says just how the Designer manages to do anything at all. So on this count (and many others) it's a non-starter.aiguy

August 8, 2010

August

08

Aug

8

08

2010

05:38 PM

5

05

38

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

CJYMan,

Dembski defines intelligence as the ability to weed out options in the present in order to provide a specific effect in the future.

Fine - everybody has a different definition, and he's entitled to his :-) Evolution weeds out options in the present, and provides specific effects in the future, so I guess Dembski thinks evolution is intelligent? No, of course not... because evolution doesn't "know" that this is what its doing. So Meyer adds "conscious deliberation" to his particular notion of intelligence. But obviously we have no way of knowing if the cause of life was conscious at all, much less conscious in a way recognizably like our human experience of consciousness. It's all just anthromorphic projection and unsupportable assertions.

Trevors and Abel refer to present choice with future intent as a necessary cause of patterns which we could sum up as FSCI.

And how might Trevors and Abel suggest we determine if the Designer of ID intended to cause the particular patterns we see? Maybe the Designer is completely unconscious and for reasons completely unknown to us just created the patterns for no reason at all. How would we ever know?

Meyers refers to consciousness, which appears to be intricately linked to our envisioning of future not-yet-existent goals in order to generate an FSCI structure in the present which will accomplish that goal/target.

Consciousness appears to be linked to no mental abilities whatsoever, because scientists have demonstrated that people can plan, schedule, design, and create FSCI without any conscious involvement at all. Besides that, just because we're conscious of what we're doing doesn't mean our consciousness is enabling us to do it.

All that matters is that foresight exists and that certain patterns will not exist absent foresight, making foresight a necessary cause.

Here's something that might make this clearer to you. ID is making a claim of equivalence here, just the way Newton did. But while Newton succeeded in showing his equivalance was true (because he was a scientist) ID fails utterly (because they don't even try). Newton looked at apples falling from trees and at planets moving across the sky and declared that the very same thing caused both of these phenomena. Now this was certainly not a popular idea at the time, but Newton was sure he was right. What was this cause this Newton said was responsible for both of these phenomena? It is called gravity. And why was he so sure that the same thing moved the apple toward the Earth and kept the planets orbiting around the Sun? Because of the way Newton characterized this "gravity" cause. If Newton had simply said "Gravity is the thing that makes apples fall and planets orbit the sun", then he would have explained absolutely nothing, and he would not have become famous. If Newton had said "Gravity is intelligent and intelligence has the ability to move things in any way it wants" then he would have explained nothing and we would not know his name. If Newton had said "Gravity is something that makes things move in accordance with their natural tendencies" then he would have been just another forgotten philosopher who never figured anything out of value. But instead, Newton characterized gravity in a way that let people actually see for themselves whether or not this hypothesized cause could actually account for both falling apples and orbiting planets. And sure enough, Newton's careful characterization of gravity demonstrated that yes, it was the same thing in both cases, acting according to the same careful description that Newton had figured out. This thing acted between any two bodies, acted instantaneously at a distance, was invariably attractive, and caused an acceleration between every pair of masses that varied in proportion to the product of their masses, and inversley with the square of the distance between them, and according to a fixed constant that was the same everywhere in the universe. So Newton got justifiably famous and convinced everybody that the same thing caused apples to fall and planets to orbit. Now let's take a look at ID. ID also makes an equivalence claim: It says that the same thing that allows human beings to design a watch or a car or a trip to Europe is what also accounts for the creation of the first living cell. OK, fine - that's an equivalance claim, so let's see why we should believe it. Does ID tell us what is required in order for "intelligence" to act? Newton said that mass was required for gravity to work... but ID refuses to say anything about what is required for intelligence to work. Although it would seem obvious that we need working brains in order to think, ID doesn't even want to respond to that basic bit of common knowledge, and instead insists that intelligence could exist without any complex physical mechanism (you take a different approach here, as we'll discuss below, but most IDers refuse to even go as far as you go in conceding the in our experience intelligence requires complex mechanism). Is there anything else ID says about intelligence that would allow us to decide if the same thing that humans use to build watches also accounts for flagella and eyeballs in nature? What about describing what intelligence does instead of how it works? Let's say intelligence outputs FSCI in both cases - when the human designs a watch and when the Designer designs the flagella. But that's like Newton just saying that gravity caused motion in both cases! Everybody already knew that both apples and planets moved, and it didn't help to just define gravity as "the thing that made things move". No, Newton actually had to characterize how gravity made things move before anyone would believe it was the same thing in both cases. Unfortunately, nobody in ID seems interested in doing what Newton did. ID never talks about how intelligence creates FSCI so that we could see for ourselves if the FCSI in watches is really caused by the same thing as the FSCI in flagella. What about how long it takes? When humans design things it typically takes from a few minutes to a few tens of years. Things like eyeballs and flagella appear to have taken many millions of years to come to exist. So that's not very similar either... So there's the problem. ID folks would like us to believe that there is this thing called "intelligence" and "intelligence" is what lets human beings think, and that this exact same thing called "intelligence" is what enabled the Designer build a platypus. I'm willing to consider it, but I'd like some reason to believe such a thing. Until ID can provide some characterization of this thing they're referring to as "intelligence", I'll continue to believe that human mental and physical abilities are critically dependent on human bodies and brains, and without those we can't say that there is anything in common between the cause of human inventions and the cause of biological systems.

aiguy:“You are very unusual in that you posit the Designer has a material body;” CJY: I have posited no such thing. I have merely stated that to solve your little original “dilemma” we could merely state that the best explanation based on what we presently understand is that the designer most likely is FSCI rich him/her/its-self.

Uh, that seems to me to be exactly what I said: You posited the cause of FSCI in biology was itself an FSCI-rich entity, because otherwise it would have nothing to do with our uniform and repeated experience. So fine, that's your solution to this particular conundrum that ID faces. But your version of ID - where the designer is already a complex physical being to begin with - is not such a good theory, and I don't think very many ID enthusiasts would be happy with it.

1. I possess and utilize foresight — or it just happens in my brain. Take your pick.

Since you can't provide a way to decide if things which produce FSCI use foresight or not, this isn't helpful at all. A psychologist would suggest particular experiments where the entity in question is faced with novel problems to solve, but we can't do that in the context of ID. A neuroscientist would examine the entity looking for brain structures known to be involved in planning, spatial relations, etc... but we can't do that with the Designer either.

2. I infer that other people around me have foresight since they are extremely similar biologically, come to exist through the same process which caused my existence, and they produce the same patterns that I produce through the use of my foresight.

This is a fairly strong inference, yes. We can perform experiments on each other, analyze each other's brains, etc etc. This is the way we solve "the problem of other minds" for other human beings.

3. I observe that the ability to reproduce is not necessary for a person to have foresight/ be intelligent. A guy goes under the scissors, gets snipped and he awakes with his foresight in tact. So, reproduction is not a requirement of a system which possesses foresight. Thus, a foresighted system doesn’t have to be “alive” in the sense of reproducing and evolving.

OK, yes. We know that people can still design things even if they can't reproduce.

4. A person’s body can be disfigured and/or unfortunately not usable except to support living functions, yet they can still be very intelligent, envisioning all sorts of amazing things for the future. Stephen Hawking is a case in point. So, a specific type/shape of functioning body is not required for intelligence, except to provide support for the operation of the intelligent system. Thus, intelligence doesn’t have to “look” a specific way.

Yes I would agree that many physiological systems in the human being can be disabled without destroying the human's ability to think.

5. The brain appears to be the root of where this foresight resides or operates. What is the brain? It is a sufficiently organized information processing system — it is a type of computer from what we can tell.

That's fine with me - let's say it is a type of computer, and when we disable the brain, as far as we know, all thinking ceases. No planning, scheduling, spatial relations, memory, desire, intent...

6. In conclusion, from our experience and observation, all that is required is a sufficiently organized information processing system, along with functional support, in order for intelligence to exist.

I'm fine with that, although I guarantee lots of other ID folks would not be. Anyway, what you describe is generally called functionalism. Now even if we accept functionalism to be true, it's not clear that two different entities, both using information processing mechanisms (brains, silicon chips, whatever) to design things, can be said to be accomplishing their design task in the same way. Maybe the mechanisms and algorithms - hardware and software - differ very radically. Maybe one system is conscious and the other is not. Maybe the only feature common to both systems is that they are both complex physical mechanisms that output FSCI. (But of course evolutionary processes meet that requirement too).

Furthermore, this shows that Meyers argument is perfectly sound, since he refers to intelligence as the best explanation of the first life-form and I have shown that based on our observations and inference, the first intelligence need not be living.

But I've shown (1) Meyer claims that his cause is conscious, which is utterly without warrant; that (2) You still haven't said what is the same between human mentality and this hypothetical mentality except that both process information with complex physical mechanism. This characterization doesn't even exclude Darwinian processes!aiguy

August 8, 2010

August

08

Aug

8

08

2010

03:59 PM

3

03

59

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

aiguy: "We observe FSCI in biology. ID Theory offers foresight as the cause of FSCI in biology. Since entities with foresight create FSCI, we can test our theory by seeing if there is FSCI in biology. Hey, there is! And so we’ve confirmed our theory. Hopefully you see the problem. The only evidence you are presenting is the very thing you are trying to explain! Unless you characterize your cause in some way that shows what it can and can’t do, we can never determine if it exists or not." The definition of foresight is not in its ability to generate FSCI. That it generates FSCI is merely a part of our uniform and repeated experience. I've already defined foresight in terms of what it can do -- basically, using a future (not-yet-existent) target to organize present matter. I honestly do not see the problem at all. Does anyone else here see the problem? So, according to aiguy, I don't use my foresight to design complex circuitry and I can't refer to my ability to envision a future goal as a necessary cause of the circuit in front of me, strictly because I can't define what a foresight utilizing system "can not do." I apologize but I'm having a hard time following the logic. Tell me, aiguy, what can the Big Bang not do? aiguy: "Since having ‘foresight’ tells us nothing about an entity except that it can create FSCI, then to say “X has foresight” says nothing more than “X can create FSCI”." I have no idea who you are arguing with, since I have never defined foresight in terms of its ability to create FSCI. You must have missed, where I've explained -- oh what ... 50 times now -- how foresight is the ability to envision a future goal that does not yet exist and then engineer matter and energy in the present to accomplish that future goal. Some of these future targets may exhibit FSCI and some may not. There is no logical necessary flow from my definition to FSCI. The connection between FSCI and foresight is one of measurement and experience. Secondly, the only way to negate the argument is to show that a foresighted system is not required in an instance of FSCI's causal chain.CJYman

August 8, 2010

August

08

Aug

8

08

2010

11:26 AM

11

11

26

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

aiguy: "What we mean by “unspecified” is of course that nobody dares to say anything whatsoever about what it is ID is actually talking about." Dembski defines intelligence as the ability to weed out options in the present in order to provide a specific effect in the future. Trevors and Abel refer to present choice with future intent as a necessary cause of patterns which we could sum up as FSCI. Meyers refers to consciousness, which appears to be intricately linked to our envisioning of future not-yet-existent goals in order to generate an FSCI structure in the present which will accomplish that goal/target. ... and I have utilized a commonly used term, "foresight," which again you seem to agree that you experience daily, to encompass the commonality between all of those explanations of what is meant by "intelligence." And note again, that it makes no difference to the foundational ID hypothesis whether we are free or determined in our foresight. All that matters is that foresight exists and that certain patterns will not exist absent foresight, making foresight a necessary cause. ... so, based on that, I have to seriously doubt you've read much at all about ID Theory. So, I have to wonder how it is that you think you can purport to critique something based on your ignorance of the subject matter. aiguy: "You are very unusual in that you posit the Designer has a material body;" I have posited no such thing. I have merely stated that to solve your little original "dilemma" we could merely state that the best explanation based on what we presently understand is that the designer most likely is FSCI rich him/her/its-self. Now, let's see what our observations and repeated, uniform experience really tell us ... 1. I possess and utilize foresight -- or it just happens in my brain. Take your pick. 2. I infer that other people around me have foresight since they are extremely similar biologically, come to exist through the same process which caused my existence, and they produce the same patterns that I produce through the use of my foresight. 3. I observe that the ability to reproduce is not necessary for a person to have foresight/ be intelligent. A guy goes under the scissors, gets snipped and he awakes with his foresight in tact. So, reproduction is not a requirement of a system which possesses foresight. Thus, a foresighted system doesn't have to be "alive" in the sense of reproducing and evolving. 4. A person's body can be disfigured and/or unfortunately not usable except to support living functions, yet they can still be very intelligent, envisioning all sorts of amazing things for the future. Stephen Hawking is a case in point. So, a specific type/shape of functioning body is not required for intelligence, except to provide support for the operation of the intelligent system. Thus, intelligence doesn't have to "look" a specific way. 5. The brain appears to be the root of where this foresight resides or operates. What is the brain? It is a sufficiently organized information processing system -- it is a type of computer from what we can tell. 6. In conclusion, from our experience and observation, all that is required is a sufficiently organized information processing system, along with functional support, in order for intelligence to exist. So, the only way that I posit that intelligence must have a "body," would be that it requires some sort of medium for information processing -- IMO, possibly the quantum structure of the universe or some deeper reality. Furthermore, I have no idea how you are defining "material" or "physical" so I can't take a position on whether this intelligence must be material or not. Furthermore, this shows that Meyers argument is perfectly sound, since he refers to intelligence as the best explanation of the first life-form and I have shown that based on our observations and inference, the first intelligence need not be living. And yes, of course we don't have any experience with non-living intelligence (except, one could argue, in AI), but then again, we have no experience with Big Bangs either. So we rely on further argumentation, and lines of evidence based on repeated and uniform experience and inferences to "logical ends" as I have just explained in points 1 to 6 above in this comment. aiguy: "most ID folks hold that the Designer is immaterial" Yes, they use philosophical and metaphysical arguments to dig deeper into possibilities. aiguy: "or refuse to entertain the question altogether." That is because, just as the operation (of which there could be many hypothesis) of how quantum fluctuations could produce a Big Bang and our universe makes no difference to the inference that the Big Bang occurred, so the operation or metaphysical status of foresight makes no difference to the fact of the occurrence of foresight and the link between foresight and specific effects. aiguy: "Beyond saying the Designer is a “designer”, ID says not one single thing about what it is we’re talking about. That’s why we say it “unspecified”." Ignoring others' (including my own) definitions and explanations of intelligence is not an argument.CJYman

August 8, 2010

August

08

Aug

8

08

2010

10:59 AM

10

10

59

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

CJYMan,

RE: point 3) First, I have specified the main characterization of what ID Theory hypothesizes as a cause for ID artifacts many times for you. That main characterization of the cause of ID artifacts is foresight — something I have defined above, and you seems to not deny that you experience on a regular basis. IE: without a system that first envisions a future goal that does not yet exist and then manipulates matter and energy in the present to accomplish that goal in the future, will an engineer’s circuit design come to fruition? So, we are only dealing with an inference from something we experience on a regular basis.

So at last somebody is willing to actually make an actual argument! Great! Let's take a look! You say that statement #3 is in error, because you believe you have characterized the cause ID posits in a way we can use to tell if what ID is positing exists and is the actual cause of the FSCI we observe. And what is this characterization? It is foresight. Let's make sure we're clear here. 1) BB Theory seeks to explain observable phenomena such as the red shift. In order to do that, physicists characterize a set of forces, and then use these characterizations to determine what we ought to observe if those forces actually existed. 2) ID Theory seeks to explain observable phenomena such as FSCI in living cells. In order to do that, ID theorists characterize an intelligent designer, and then use this characterization to determine what we ought to observe if that designer actually existed. Right so far? 3) In BB Theory it is determined that uniform cosmic background radiation ought to be observable, because if physics is right about these forces this prediction will be correct. We look for this radiation and voila it appears! So now we have reason to believe that we understand this thing that caused both the red shift and background radiation. 4) In ID Theory... well, too bad. There are no other predictions that can possibly be made. Why? Because absolutely nothing follows from claiming that something has 'foresight'. What do 'foresighted' entities do? We have no idea. What don't they do? No clue - as far as ID theory goes, 'foresighted entities' can do absolutely anything at all. They can create universes or living cells; they can create blood-clotting cascades and aardvarks. Why do we observe octopi? Because the foresighted entity is capable of designing them. Why don't we observe mammals with infrared vision? Because the foresighted entity didn't want to make those. So no, CJYMan, this characterization of 'foresight' does nothing to enable us to see if the cause we posit actually exists and is responsible for the observable FSCI we see. Of course you could say the following: Foresighted entities are what creates FSCI, so by seeing FSCI we have confirmed our hypothesis that something with foresight was responsible for the FSCI in biology. Would you like to go with that? Great! Now here is what you have said: We observe FSCI in biology. ID Theory offers foresight as the cause of FSCI in biology. Since entities with foresight create FSCI, we can test our theory by seeing if there is FSCI in biology. Hey, there is! And so we've confirmed our theory. Hopefully you see the problem. The only evidence you are presenting is the very thing you are trying to explain! Unless you characterize your cause in some way that shows what it can and can't do, we can never determine if it exists or not. This is as different from physics and Big Bang theory as it could possibly be.

It matters not that we don’t know what produces foresight, and whether we are “free” or “determined” to experience and/or utilize it, just as we don’t what produces Big Bangs. All we know is that we can infer these causes from effects that are reasonably linked through experience, mathematics, and other lines of reasoning (ie: rewind the tape of cosmological history and what do we see?)

Since having 'foresight' tells us nothing about an entity except that it can create FSCI, then to say "X has foresight" says nothing more than "X can create FSCI". So ID Theory becomes nothing more than the statement that whatever created FSCI in biology is something that is capable of creating FSCI! It tells us not one single thing more than that... and so it tells us nothing at all.

ID theory is actually on a more solid foundation, based on our experience, than is the Big Bang, since we’ve never experienced anything remotely similar to the Big Bang yet we experience the operation of foresight as a fact of our existence every day

We experience the operation of human beings. You describe our ability to create FSCI as "foresight" - fine. But all we know is human beings can create FSCI one way or the other - and you don't think it is important to know how we do it. So we might as well call this ability "FSCI-creating ability". All you are saying is that we experience "FSCI-creating ability", and so we can explain the FSCI in biology by appeal to "FSCI-creating ability". Nice theory!aiguy

August 8, 2010

August

08

Aug

8

08

2010

10:12 AM

10

10

12

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Petrushka: "What do you mean by foresight?" Before, I give you some links (and the comment in this thread) to where aiguy and myself have already discussed foresight, and I've provided definitions, I'll let you take a stab at defining "foresight." When someone says they have foresight in a certain area, let's say business, or someone tells you that you had good foresight in a plan that you implemented, what does that mean to you?CJYman

August 8, 2010

August

08

Aug

8

08

2010

08:51 AM

8

08

51

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Petrushka:

What do you mean by foresight?

The ability to see ahead and plan accordingly.Joseph

August 8, 2010

August

08

Aug

8

08

2010

08:50 AM

8

08

50

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

And the game of rhetorical tangency continues, even ignoring what has already been addressed . . .kairosfocus

August 8, 2010

August

08

Aug

8

08

2010

08:47 AM

8

08

47

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

I think we need to carefully distinguish the instant of the singularity proper from the results thereof in our space-time domain (including in the first 10^-43 s). While what happened in that first 10^-43 - 10^37 or so s is highly speculative [and one begins to wonder how much is "science" and how much "mathematics-ised" philosophy, it still does not get us to the singularity, proper. Much less, "beyond" it. And, we do not have any good idea of he cause of that singularity, speculations on fluctuations [of what, where? . . . and I do not mean that trivially] and the like notwithstanding.kairosfocus

August 8, 2010

August

08

Aug

8

08

2010

08:44 AM

8

08

44

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

That main characterization of the cause of ID artifacts is foresight

What do you mean by foresight? Does that include the ability of populations to modify their genomes?Petrushka

August 8, 2010

August

08

Aug

8

08

2010

08:33 AM

8

08

33

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

...just as it is not the mechanism of the Big Bang that the BB Theory focuses on, it is the artifacts of that event itself...

Actually that is about as wrong as a statement can get and still consist of correctly spelled words. The articacts are evidence for, but most research is concerned with mechanisms.Petrushka

August 8, 2010

August

08

Aug

8

08

2010

08:06 AM

8

08

06

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Upright Biped, I feel your frustration in attempting to get aiguy to not misrepresent a position and to understand the underlying argument that we are providing. It appears that aiguy is also developing a very selective memory, where he will forget points that have been already brought up that have addressed his incorrect assertions. aiguy: "1) ID has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (FSCI in biology). 2) BB has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (red shift, radiation) 3) ID has no characterization of the cause (the Designer) of ID artifacts 4) BB has detailed characterizations of the cause (forces) of BB artifacts." Are you serious? Listen to yourself. RE: point 3) First, I have specified the main characterization of what ID Theory hypothesizes as a cause for ID artifacts many times for you. That main characterization of the cause of ID artifacts is foresight -- something I have defined above, and you seems to not deny that you experience on a regular basis. IE: without a system that first envisions a future goal that does not yet exist and then manipulates matter and energy in the present to accomplish that goal in the future, will an engineer's circuit design come to fruition? So, we are only dealing with an inference from something we experience on a regular basis. Furthermore, you should add two more points, that have been explained to you over and over again, which make quite the difference. Those two points would be: 5) It matters not that we don't know what produces foresight, and whether we are "free" or "determined" to experience and/or utilize it, just as we don't what produces Big Bangs. All we know is that we can infer these causes from effects that are reasonably linked through experience, mathematics, and other lines of reasoning (ie: rewind the tape of cosmological history and what do we see?). 6) ID theory is actually on a more solid foundation, based on our experience, than is the Big Bang, since we've never experienced anything remotely similar to the Big Bang yet we experience the operation of foresight as a fact of our existence every day.CJYman

August 8, 2010

August

08

Aug

8

08

2010

07:33 AM

7

07

33

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Aiguy, First off, the tone of your last post is not particularly surprising, and as a strategist, I must confess that I am more than happy to receive it. Nothing is more satisfying than to watch your opposition retreat into a mouthy flank against a strong position. And, you did it with such a sense of confidence and superiority. One can easily imagine you standing there with the palm of one hand in front of you, slapping it with the other as you demand answers to your questions. The bravado that comes from intellectual prowess fills the room like the smoke of congratulatory cigars. Let me be clear about this, just so that I may extend to you the courtesy that you’ve extended to me in your last post - I am more than happy to consider you no more than highly-trained idiot. Moreover, if you think that I am impressed by the idea that (gasp) modern philosophers disagree with one another about a subject, then you are not even as smart as I might have given you credit for. You perhaps have the training, yet you lack the basic wisdom of a matured farm hand. As much as I am disposed to congratulate you on retreating to an area small enough to defend, unfortunately for your purposes, you cannot defend it. This entire Big Bang conversation began as nothing more than a sideline comment that ID attempts to do no more than the BB theory - in that neither theory can answer the question of ultimate cause, yet both can explain the effects of that cause. A balanced person would hear this comparison and would completely understand the underlying point as well as its validity. You however, have a need to misrepresent ID as a means to ignore its actual arguments, so you’ve latched on to the rather obvious point that BB uses mathematical physics in order to explain the observed effects which lead to the formulation of the theory. (What exactly would the alternative be?) This wholly uncontested point offers you a distinction you’d like to advance. You want press the idea BB has the rigors of mathematical physics behind it while ID has nothing of the sort. You only need misrepresent ID to maintain the charade. In the end it’s a ridiculous position which does absolutely nothing to the original point of the comment. Now clearly, by repeatedly posting your list of questions containing the misrepresentation of ID you’d like to drive home the point that BB has rigorous physics as its basis while ID has nothing – or perhaps whatever ID has to offer is certainly not of the value of mathematical physics. Not only is this a silly view of how knowledge is gained, it is also non-operational in the real world. If I find my neighbor dead in his living room with a knife in his back, should I consult the periodic table for answers? Well…should I? Or, is it more realistic to suppose that different subjects of interest require different methodologies of inquiry? Perhaps this is the question you wanted the fair readers of this thread to decide? They might even decide that rationality is a central ingredient at least as important as any methodology (including theoretical and mathematical physics). In any case, you seem incapable of properly describing the ID argument. When you write “ID has no characterization of the cause (the Designer) of ID artifacts” you are willfully misrepresenting ID. ID does not attempt to characterize the designer, but only the observable artifacts of design. This is exactly why I provided the link which you ignored. If the question is asked “what is the cause of the bio-function within living things?” then that question may be pursued through observation. The functional organization observed within the cell is caused by constraints placed upon matter in the form of nucleic sequencing. If you had bothered, you would have found a thorough analysis of the possible sources of that sequencing, and a logical conclusion as to its source. Since you refuse to address the misrepresentation, I can think of no reason to waste my time on it.Upright BiPed

August 8, 2010

August

08

Aug

8

08

2010

05:31 AM

5

05

31

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

UB,

So let me get this straight: You want me submit myself to a test of questions based upon a mischaracterization of ID – one that I and others have repeatedly and laboriously highlighted over and over again, and one you have repeatedly refused to address – and if I don’t do as you ask, then you will label me as non-responsive and having conceded your point? Have you lost your effin mind?

You accuse me of refusing to address your points, but unfortunately you will not actually say which points I've failed to address. On the other hand, I've presented you with a concise summary of my points four times now, and you refuse to respond at all. You had argued (in #40) the following:

It is not the mechanism of the design that ID focuses on, it is the artifacts of the design itself – just as it is not the mechanism of the Big Bang that the BB Theory focuses on, it is the artifacts of that event itself

I have quite clearly pointed out that you were mistaken. Although ID fails to characterize the mechanism that supposedly resulted in FSCI, BB theory quite clearly characterizes the mechanisms that resulted in red shift, background radiation, and the other effects it explains. I will once again clearly repeat those points for all to see: 1) ID has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (FSCI in biology). 2) BB has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (red shift, radiation) 3) ID has no characterization of the cause (the Designer) of ID artifacts 4) BB has detailed characterizations of the cause (forces) of BB artifacts. After going on about how nobody explains how the Big Bang was caused (of course not!) and how I was confusing causes and effects (I clearly was not!) and all manner of other misdirections, you now simply refuse to acknowledge the clear difference between how BB Theory is substantiated by clear, testable characterizations of its causes while ID Theory offers no characterizations of its cause at all. I am quite content to leave it to the fair reader to decide which of us is avoiding the debate on that point.

And now you want to go farther into the weeds over the word “volition”? I use the term in its conventional sense as the act of an independent will, and you’ll no doubt want to go off into a reductive account of intentionality and feedback? No thanks. Are you going to channel Alfred Mele for me?

Unfortunately you are not familiar with the science, so this will be difficult. Benjamin Libet performed a famous set of experiments on Volition in the 1970s, which have been replicated and extended by many others since then. You are under the naive impression that our "conventional sense" of "independent will" is somehow known to be true. In fact, you are talking about something called "libertarian free will" (or contra-causal will), which (as every philosopher and cognitive scientist knows) is only one particular conjecture among many in the ancient problem of free will. Apparently you are not willing to learn about the science, and would rather simply assume that whatever you happen to believe about this unresolved issue must be true and everybody else is wrong. Again, I will leave this to the fair reader to decide who is being closed-minded and refusing to acknowledge where doubt and uncertainty exists. Whatever you want to believe simply must be true, even if scientists and philosophers are still actively debating these issues with evidence and arguments that you don't even know about.

I’ve already posted a link that contradicts your list, and (like clockwork) once again highlights your mischaracterization of the ID argument. Perhaps, you should have read it.

If you believe you can contradict my list, simply tell me which of these four simple statements you believe to be in error. This is now the sixth time I am asking you to do this, but of course you will refuse again, for the simple reason that every statement on that list is obviously true. Sorry, but everyone can see for themselves that I'm right. Once again for your convenience: 1) ID has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (FSCI in biology). 2) BB has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (red shift, radiation) 3) ID has no characterization of the cause (the Designer) of ID artifacts 4) BB has detailed characterizations of the cause (forces) of BB artifacts. I won't make you go offsite and read some thread, and I won't allude to previous refutations I've made. I present you right here, right now, with these points, and await your rebuttal: 1) ID has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (FSCI in biology). 2) BB has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (red shift, radiation) 3) ID has no characterization of the cause (the Designer) of ID artifacts 4) BB has detailed characterizations of the cause (forces) of BB artifacts. Which statement is false, UprightBiped? :-)aiguy

August 7, 2010

August

08

Aug

7

07

2010

10:08 PM

10

10

08

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Aiguy, So let me get this straight: You want me submit myself to a test of questions based upon a mischaracterization of ID – one that I and others have repeatedly and laboriously highlighted over and over again, and one you have repeatedly refused to address - and if I don’t do as you ask, then you will label me as non-responsive and having conceded your point? Have you lost your effin mind? And now you want to go farther into the weeds over the word “volition”? I use the term in its conventional sense as the act of an independent will, and you’ll no doubt want to go off into a reductive account of intentionality and feedback? No thanks. Are you going to channel Alfred Mele for me? I've already posted a link that contradicts your list, and (like clockwork) once again highlights your mischaracterization of the ID argument. Perhaps, you should have read it.Upright BiPed

August 7, 2010

August

08

Aug

7

07

2010

07:27 PM

7

07

27

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

UB,

Aiguy, let’s cut to the chase.

I simplified my statement of our differences to four simple statements and asked you to tell me which, if any, you disagreed with. Again, they were: 1) ID has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (FSCI in biology). 2) BB has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (red shift, radiation) 3) ID has no characterization of the cause (the Designer) of ID artifacts 4) BB has detailed characterizations of the cause (forces) of BB artifacts. But you declined to comment. Instead of simply refuting or conceding these points you instead chose to ignore them altogether, so we could instead wander down into miscommunication and confusion. So I will ask you one more time to look at those four simple statements and tell me which, if any, you think are in error. If you again decline to comment I will assume you agree with all of them (they are, after all, evidently true). The conclusion is that while BB theory explains the phenomena it claims to explain by characterizing the causes in detail, ID theory fails to characterize its cause at all.

You are a student of synthetic intelligence that has a hang up about the “I” word in “ID”, yet you refuse to reference the “I” word in relation to the effect of design (as ID proponents must) instead you relate it to the designer (which ID proponents can't).

I was under the impression that the word "design" referred either to a verb or a noun. As a verb, it means (in Meyer's words) "the action of a conscious, rational, deliberative agent". As a noun, it means "the artifacts produced by a conscious agent". Are you using these words differently? Equivocation of terms is always a danger in these discussions. For example, "design" as a noun could also mean "a pattern containing FSCI". So in order to prevent further miscommunication, could you please tell me exactly what you mean by "design" (verb) and "design" (noun) in these discussions?

It hardly passes un-noticed that you fail to address any of the arguments for ID on their merit; instead you want to stay off in the definitional weeds where it’s safe to argue. That’s fine, knock yourself out.

I'm arguing about what ID means when it talks about intelligent agency. Considering "intelligent agency" is the sole explanatory concept in ID, it would seem to be reasonable to discuss this. If you don't want to discuss this, that's fine. But you seemed to want to discuss these points until I show you are mistaken - as with the four simple points at the top of this post which you refused to concede - and then you want to move on quickly :-)

However, if I handed you a strip of paper that had series of extended mathematical calculations on it, no one could tell if those calculations came directly from a human intelligence or a machine that the human intelligence created, yet we could all be certain of one thing – it didn’t come about by means of unguided processes like wind and erosion.

I would know that only a human or human-built machine printed that, because in my experience those two things are the only things that print out those sorts of symbols. I would know that a whale or dolphin (both called "intelligent" in other senses) did not do it. And if I suggested to you that some immaterial, disembodied entity printed out those equations, you would think I was delusional!

Likewise, if I handed you a red plastic ball. You may have no idea of its origin, but upon study you would find that the material in the ball is following all the laws of physics with great fidelity, yet none of those laws could be said to cause the plastic to form a sphere and dye itself red. That required something else.

Again, human beings (and their tools) mold plastic like that, and nothing else in our experience does. Again,if I suggested that some disembodied entity (like a ghost or a poltergeist or a god) was responsible for creating the ball, I would be rightly told I should seek psychiatric help. So the "something else" was - as we all know - a human being. But - as we all know - human beings could not have been responsible for designing life. So that hypothesis is completely refuted.

They required an act of volition.

Volition is something that you do not understand, because nobody does. Philosophers have argued about volition for millenia. There has in the last fifty years actually been some scientific research on the subject, which you are probably unaware of as well. You should read about this research (by Benjamin Libet, Daniel Wegner, and others) before you make these claims about what requires "volition" and what doesn't.

I disagree for all the reasons I’ve stated, not the least of which is your constant mischaracterization of the ID argument.

If you accuse me of mischaracterizing some argument, please tell me exactly what you mean, along with the relevant quote from my post. Otherwise you are making unsupported accusations that I can't respond to.

You also like to argue that ID has no rigorous characterization of the subject, which is another claim that is patently false.

Yes, I have been told that ID is not concerned with characterizing the designer at all. Rather, ID is supposedly only concerned with studying the designs. Isn't that what ID proponents say? (hint: Yes, it is, and I can find plenty of quotes to back that up if it doesn't ring a bell). So yes, there is absolutely nothing said about what the designer of ID is, what it does, how it does it, where it does it, when it did it, or anything else. Again, I think we should carefully simplify our arguments and define our terms so we do not speak past each other. I would start with the four simple statements I asked you to comment on. If you'd like me to comment on particular, specific arguments of yours, please put them succinctly and I will respond. So here they are again: 1) ID has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (FSCI in biology). 2) BB has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (red shift, radiation) 3) ID has no characterization of the cause (the Designer) of ID artifacts 4) BB has detailed characterizations of the cause (forces) of BB artifacts. Can you tell us which of these statements is false? If not, we can all see that while scientific theories provide detailed characterization of the causes they posit, ID does nothing of the sort.aiguy

August 7, 2010

August

08

Aug

7

07

2010

04:40 PM

4

04

40

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Aiguy, let’s cut to the chase. You are a student of synthetic intelligence that has a hang up about the “I” word in “ID”, yet you refuse to reference the “I” word in relation to the effect of design (as ID proponents must) instead you relate it to the designer (which ID proponents can’t). This penchant for mischaracterizing ID arguments is not in the slightest bit concealed in your comments. It hardly passes un-noticed that you fail to address any of the arguments for ID on their merit; instead you want to stay off in the definitional weeds where it’s safe to argue. That’s fine, knock yourself out. However, if I handed you a strip of paper that had series of extended mathematical calculations on it, no one could tell if those calculations came directly from a human intelligence or a machine that the human intelligence created, yet we could all be certain of one thing – it didn’t come about by means of unguided processes like wind and erosion. Likewise, if I handed you a red plastic ball. You may have no idea of its origin, but upon study you would find that the material in the ball is following all the laws of physics with great fidelity, yet none of those laws could be said to cause the plastic to form a sphere and dye itself red. That required something else. So when we find such artifacts, and approach them soberly with a patent and sincere intent to understand their origin, we can study their characteristics and say with a degree of confidence that they required input beyond the natural order and chaotic forces and processes that we measure in the natural world. They required additional controlling principles and constraints placed upon their structure in order to exist as they do. They required an act of volition. Among other inferences to design, ID has found its strip of paper and red plastic ball inside the genome. You like to argue that we can’t get there by some definitional hang-up you have. I disagree for all the reasons I’ve stated, not the least of which is your constant mischaracterization of the ID argument. You also like to argue that ID has no rigorous characterization of the subject, which is another claim that is patently false. So please feel free to stay out in the weeds arguing over words and mischaracterizing the ID position. Rational people will understand it is the concepts themselves in play, not the words. At some point your argument is as misguided as a sound engineer arguing that the Big Bang didn’t happen because there was no audible Bang, and no ears to hear it. :)Upright BiPed

August 7, 2010

August

08

Aug

7

07

2010

10:52 AM

10

10

52

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

UB, Just so we don't go around in another circle, please just go through these four simple statements and tell me which one is false: 1) ID has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (FSCI in biology). 2) BB has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (red shift, radiation) 3) ID has no characterization of the cause (the Designer) of ID artifacts 4) BB has detailed characterizations of the cause (forces) of BB artifacts If all four statements are true (and of course they are all true) then I have shown your point to be mistaken: ID theory is not at all like Big Bang theory, because BB theory actually describes what we think caused that which we observe.aiguy

August 7, 2010

August

08

Aug

7

07

2010

10:27 AM

10

10

27

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

UB,

2) ID Theorist offers no guess as to the ultimate cause of life (“The Designer”) but have a detailed characterization of the artifacts (of design)

1) ID has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (FSCI in biology). 2) BB has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (red shift, radiation) 3) ID has no characterization of the cause (the Designer) of ID artifacts 4) BB has detailed characterizations of the cause (forces) of BB artifacts

Not describing an agent does not mean that we cannot know when an agent has acted

I think you're mistaken. Unless you characterize "agents" in terms of what they can and cannot do, you can't possibly determine if the artifacts you see were actually the result of these agents or not. Physicists say exactly what physical forces can and cannot do, and so they can examine the artifacts and see clearly if they are consistent with their carefully characterized causes or not.

Now, if you are looking for a model of intelligence that can explain why Susie likes chocolate ice cream and red cars, then I suggest you haven’t made room in your knowledge base for the difference between intelligence and hydrogen. Funny, that.

All you need to do is to provide some meaningful description of what you mean by "intelligent", rather than the typical "I know it when I see it" sort of thing ID folks usually say. Just explain how you can distinguish something intelligent from something that isn't intelligent in an objective way. But of course you can't do that, because there is nothing that all intelligent agents can do which no non-intelligent-agents can do. There is nothing that follows from the claim that some entity is "intelligent". By telling you something is intelligent, I have told you not one single thing about what this entity can or cannot do. That is the huge, qualitative difference between something like Big Bang theory and ID. Again: 1) ID has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (FSCI in biology). 2) BB has a detailed characterization of the artifacts (red shift, radiation) 3) ID has no characterization of the cause (the Designer) of ID artifacts 4) BB has detailed characterizations of the cause (forces) of BB artifacts.aiguy

August 7, 2010

August

08

Aug

7

07

2010

10:18 AM

10

10

18

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

geeeez. You've repeated yourself yet again, and this time at volume. Allow me to help once again. "2) ID Theorist offers no guess as to the ultimate cause of life (“The Designer”) but have a detailed characterization of the artifacts (of design) Not describing an agent does not mean that we cannot know when an agent has acted - - - - - Now, if you are looking for a model of intelligence that can explain why Susie likes chocolate ice cream and red cars, then I suggest you haven't made room in your knowledge base for the difference between intelligence and hydrogen. Funny, that.Upright BiPed

August 7, 2010

August

08

Aug

7

07

2010

09:17 AM

9

09

17

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

UB,

Allow me to adjust your last paragraph for you. “In contrast, BB offers no description at all for the Cause of the universe. There is nothing that BB says about the Cause that would allow anyone to determine if the Cause as described by BB theory exists or not”. I have done nothing more here than supplant BB for ID, and Designer for Cause. Now, it should come completely clear to you that in sentence number two I (you) have ascribed to the BB theory something that the theory itself does not attempt – mainly a description of the cause of the BB. Now, slow down, stay with me here for a moment. These are your own words structured in your own sentences, and it is a demonstration of exactly what you are doing to ID theory.

And your modified paragraph is 100% true - just as I said, BB theory has no model of what caused the BB (the beginning of the universe). So BB Theory explains what it purports to explain, while ID theory does not: BIG BANG THEORY: * Purports to explain expansion/red shift, background radiation, etc. * Consists of specific, detailed models of how physical law acted in the first seconds of the universe to produce the uniform red shifts and radition that we observe. * Explains our observations, and provides reason to believe the cause we are describing (the forces of physics) exist as we describe them. ID THEORY: * Purports to explain biological systems. * Says nothing whatsoever about how biological systems were created * Provides no way of telling if the hypothesized cause (the Designer) exists

At the core of the BB theory is the idea that the cause of the observable effects was an immense release of energy in the unobservable past. Ask a BB theorist; what does the theory suggest as the ultimate cause of the observable effects? “There is no practical way of knowing, just Boom!”. Okay, so you got nothing of interest on the Boom itself? “No”. So what do you got? “Observable effects, artifacts, nice ones”.

Correct. The observable effects are red shifts, radiation, etc, and that is what the BB models explain. Good so far.

ID theory is the exact same thing. What was does the theory suggest as the ultimate cause? “Intelligence”. Okay, got anything of interest on the Intelligence? “No way to know”. So what do you got? “Observable effects, artifacts, nice ones”.

The exact same thing???? That is the exact opposite, even as you yourself describe it!: 1) BB Theorist offers no guess as to ultimate cause of universe, but explains expansion, radiation, etc. with detailed characterizations of the cause (the physical forces) 2) ID Theorist claims to know the ultimate cause of life ("intelligence") but has no detailed characterization of the cause (the designer)

ID, like BB, does not attempt to study the ultimate cause of the EFFECTS, it only attempts to study the effects.

BB tries to explain observations of red shift, radiation, etc ID tries to explain observations of FSCI in biology The cause BB offers is the action of physical forces which are described in great detail The cause ID offers is the action of an agent which is not described at allaiguy

August 7, 2010

August

08

Aug

7

07

2010

02:08 AM

2

02

08

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Aig, I am not confused about this in the least. What I see is that you keep repeating yourself, and with each repetition you seem to expect a new level of clarity. In every case, you do not remove your argument when describing ID. That’s a problem. Allow me to adjust your last paragraph for you. "In contrast, BB offers no description at all for the Cause of the universe. There is nothing that BB says about the Cause that would allow anyone to determine if the Cause as described by BB theory exists or not". I have done nothing more here than supplant BB for ID, and Designer for Cause. Now, it should come completely clear to you that in sentence number two I (you) have ascribed to the BB theory something that the theory itself does not attempt - mainly a description of the cause of the BB. Now, slow down, stay with me here for a moment. :) These are your own words structured in your own sentences, and it is a demonstration of exactly what you are doing to ID theory. At the core of the BB theory is the idea that the cause of the observable effects was an immense release of energy in the unobservable past. Ask a BB theorist; what does the theory suggest as the ultimate cause of the observable effects? "There is no practical way of knowing, just Boom!". Okay, so you got nothing of interest on the Boom itself? "No". So what do you got? "Observable effects, artifacts, nice ones". ID theory is the exact same thing. What was does the theory suggest as the ultimate cause? "Intelligence". Okay, got anything of interest on the Intelligence? "No way to know". So what do you got? "Observable effects, artifacts, nice ones". ID, like BB, does not attempt to study the ultimate cause of the EFFECTS, it only attempts to study the effects.Upright BiPed

August 6, 2010

August

08

Aug

6

06

2010

05:13 PM

5

05

13

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Upright,

A ball lands in the water. Waves ripple out from the point of impact. An effect is not a mechanism of a cause. Studying an effect is not studying the mechanism of a cause. Building a model of an effect is not building a model of a cause. Neither BB proper, nor ID proper, addresses the cause, they only address the effect. If this is in question, then I’ll leave you to it.

Sorry but I think you're still confused about this. The mechanisms involved in the Big Bang are those described by physics. Physics uses mathematics to describe four fundamental causes, or forces, and then explains things that happen (effects) by invoking these forces. The forces are gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, and in physics everything that happens is a result of these causes acting on matter/energy. So physicists have built a model of what happened at the very beginning of the universe in terms of these causes. Then, by looking at their model, they can see what sorts of effects would take place if they have characterized their causes correctly. Once they compute these hypothetical effects (or predictions), they can make empirical observations to see if the hypothetical effects match the actual effects we can observe. So Big Bang theory addresses the cause of the expanding of the universe, and it addresses the cause of the microwave background radiation. (It also addresses the cause of various other things, like some aspects of the large-scale structures we observe in the universe). I'm not saying all questions have been answered, and I'm certainly no expert at all in these things, but that's the basic situation. Now what we do not have a model of is the cause of the Big Bang itself. This is because we have no way of determining what - if anything - happened before the universe itself began. So while we can't explain what caused the Big Bang, we can explain what the Big Bang caused, and we can explain how it caused it, with detailed descriptions of the causes involved. In contrast, ID offers no description at all for the cause of biological complexity. There is nothing that ID says about the "Designer" that would allow anyone to determine if the "Designer" as described by ID theory exists or not. That's a very different situation.aiguy

August 6, 2010

August

08

Aug

6

06

2010

03:57 PM

3

03

57

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Aiguy, A ball lands in the water. Waves ripple out from the point of impact. An effect is not a mechanism of a cause. Studying an effect is not studying the mechanism of a cause. Building a model of an effect is not building a model of a cause. Neither BB proper, nor ID proper, addresses the cause, they only address the effect. If this is in question, then I'll leave you to it.Upright BiPed

August 6, 2010

August

08

Aug

6

06

2010

03:19 PM

3

03

19

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

To make CJY and UB's analogy more clear: 1) BIG BANG Observable red shift led us to think the universe is expanding in all directions We determined that if we followed the expansion back in time it would come to a single point We used physical models that have been confirmed by our experience (quantum physics, relativity) to build a model of the mechanisms involved in the Big Bang This model yielded testable predictions (e.g. background radiation) We observed the background radiation (and other things) and confirmed the predictions So we say we have an understanding of the Big Bang including the mechanisms by which it proceeded. However, we have no scientific knowledge of how the mechanisms involved in the Big Bang came to exist in the first place. 2) ORIGIN OF FIRST LIFE Observable complex form and function in biology Let us say (arguendo) we have no idea how that complexity came to exist in terms of physical chemistry We see that complex life forms (humans) can create complex mechanisms, but obviously life forms can't have been responsible for the first life forms. So that doesn't help. We can hypothesize that there exists other sorts of things that are not life forms but still have the same sorts of abilities and conscious experiences that we have. But we have no evidence that this is true (except maybe from paranormal research). So we have no scientific knowledge of how the first life came to existaiguy

August 6, 2010

August

08

Aug

6

06

2010

10:46 AM

10

10

46

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

UprightBiped,

AIGUY: “I don’t object to anything you’re saying, but I hope you agree that this is like the various speculations in physics regarding what caused the Big Bang itself. UB: I think this is exactly the point that CY and others have repeatedly been trying to get you to acknowledge. Just because we do not have an explanation for onset of the Big Bang, does not mean we throw out what we, in fact, can observe.

We're talking past each other here. We have very good evidence that the Big Bang occured, because we have characterized it carefully and could thus say specific things about what would be true if the Big Bang happened (red shift, background radition, etc). So we all (I'm assuming) pretty much believe that the Big Bang occurred. However, we have no way to characterize what events preceeded the Big Bang (if that even makes sense to say), and we have no scientific way to determine what (if anything) caused the Big Bang to occur.

AIGUY: I see a huge difference: Big Bang theory had a number of testable predictions, and those predictions were found to hold true. Nobody has any idea how we might go about trying to decide among these speculations about first cause of mind/mechanism, however. UB: And this is where you make the jump, or, as has been said before “smuggled in” your argument. It is not the mechanism of the design that ID focuses on, it is the artifacts of the design itself – just as it is not the mechanism of the Big Bang that the BB Theory focuses on, it is the artifacts of that event itself.

But everybody agrees on the "artifacts" - we all agree that complex life forms exist on Earth. What we'd like to know is some sort of explanation for how these complex life forms came to exist in the first place. As for the Big Bang, sorry but I think you're pretty confused about that. Physicists are very involved in studying the mechanism of the Big Bang - that is precisely what BB Theory focuses on (read Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes" - it's fascinating!). That is why we say we actually have a "theory" about the Big Bang - because we have managed to carefully characterize the mechanism and could use that characterization to generate testable predictions... and the predictions have held up (more or less I guess).

AIGUY: The inference to the Big Bang is based on observations in the present and within our uniform and repeated experience. UB: Which is exactly Meyer’s point you wish to refute. The inference to the presence of DESIGN is based upon our universal observations “in the present and within our uniform and repeated experience”.

But what we observe is complex physical beings creating complex mechanism. We have no experience of any sort of thing that can create complex mechanisms which could have preceeded all complex mechanisms. So that hypotheses runs aground immediately. CJYMan solves that problem by deciding that OK, the Designer must actually be a complex physical thing itself. That's OK I guess, but I don't think it's a very good theory either, and it certainly isn't consistent with what Stephen Meyer is talking about.

The inference is to the presence of design and is based upon our universal experience. Your argument that it must answer the method of implementation doesn’t hold water in the either the Big Bang or ID.

In the Big Bang the entire theory is all about the "implementation" (mechanism) of the origin of the universe. That part is well-grounded in our experience, both of the evidence of the BB itself (red shift, microwave background radiation, etc) and in our experience of the fundamental physics involved (all of our experimental evidence for quantum theory and relativity).

Background radiation is an effect of the Big Bang, it is not the cause.

That is exactly right. Scientists understand the mechanism of the Big Bang itself, but can't say how it got started. They can describe "the first three minutes" of the universe, but can't say what happened "before" then (in fact we can't even say there was "time" before then!)

Studying the background radiation is a study of the effect of the Big Bang, not a study of the of the cause.

Again, detecting the background radiation was a confirmation of our theory (our model) of the mechanism of the Big Bang. Really - read that book by Steven Weinberg, it is a great introduction.aiguy

August 6, 2010

August

08

Aug

6

06

2010

10:32 AM

10

10

32

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link