In recent days, objector ES has been twisting the concept of Wickensian functionally specific information-bearing complex organisation into post-modernist deconstructionist subjectivist pretzels, in order to obfuscate the plain inductive argument at the heart of the design inference and/or explanatory filter.
For example, consider these excerpts from the merry go round thread:
ES, 41: . . . If a conscious observer connects some observed object to some possible desired result which can be obtained using the object in a context, then we say that the conscious observer conceives of a function for that object . . . . In science, properties of the material just are, without purpose, because everybody knows purpose is subjective. Functionality comes in when you get engineerial, and then it’s more up to the “objective functionality” of the engineer than of the material . . .
KF, 42: When one puts together a complex composite such as a program or an electronic amplifier ckt or a watch or an auto engine or many other things, function is not projected to it by an observer. I wuk, or i nuh wuk, mon. Was that a bad starter motor, a run down battery, out of gas, dirty injector points and more. Was that a bug in syntax or in semantics. Was that a BJT miswired and fried, did you put in the wrong size load resistor so it sits in saturation when it was meant to be in the middle of the load line, did you put in an electrolytic cap the wrong way around, etc. Is this a heart attack triggered by a blood clot etc. Function is not a matter of imagination but observation. And you full well know that or should.
Joe, 44: Earth to E. Seigner- functionality, ie a function, is an OBSERVATION. We observe something performing some function and we investigate to try to figure out how it came to be the way it is. Within living organisms we observe functioning systems and subsystems. As for “information”, well with respect to biology ID uses the same definition that Crick provided decades ago. And we say it can be measured the same way Shannon said, decades ago.
ES, 46: To an observer it looks like cars take people to work and shopping. But most of the time cars stand in garage motionless, and sometimes they fail to start. If the observer is truly impartial, then it’s not up to him to say that the failure to start or mere standing is any less of the car’s function than the ability of being driven. The car’s function is what the car does and when the car fails to start then that’s what it does and this is its function. Of course this sounds silly, but it’s true . . .
BA, 48: It is clear to me now. You have drunk deeply from the post-modernist/constructivist Koolaid. Kairosfocus and gpuccio be advised — attempting to reason with such as E.Seigner is pointless.
Let’s first remind ourselves as to what the glorified common-sense design inference process actually does as an exercise in inductive, inference to the best current explanation on empirically observed evidence:
. . . and also, of the significance of Wickensian functionally specific, complex information and Orgellian informational specified complexity for a blind, needle in haystack search; as highlighted by Dembski et al:
While we are at it, let us remind ourselves of what FSCO/I looks like in the form of functionally specific organisation in the technological world:
Fig 6: An exploded view of a classic ABU Cardinal, showing how functionality arises from a highly specific, tightly constrained complex arrangement of matched parts according to a “wiring diagram.” Such diagrams are objective (the FSCO/I on display here is certainly not “question-begging,” as some — astonishingly — are trying to suggest!), and if one is to build or fix such a reel successfully, s/he had better pay close heed.. Taking one of these apart and shaking it in a shoe-box is guaranteed not to work to get the reel back together again. (That is, even the assembly of such a complex entity is functionally specific and prescriptive information-rich.)
. . . and, in the life of the cell, as the Ribosome constructs a protein (which is a functionally specific string structure) based on the coded algorithmic information in the mRNA tape:
Step by step protein synthesis in action, in the ribosome, based on the sequence of codes in the mRNA control tape (Courtesy, Wikipedia and LadyofHats)
. . . not to mention, the parallel in the punched paper tape reader used for older computers and NC machines:
Punched paper Tape, as used in older computers and numerically controlled machine tools (Courtesy Wiki & Siemens)
(When things have been strawmannised and twisted into pretzels, it helps to straighten them back out again. Where also, a picture is worth a thousand words.)
However, Mr Arrington has a point.
While those caught up in po mo deconstructionist schemes are hardly likely to have a sudden change of heart on the strength of a mere blog comment or even a headlined post, the rest of us can draw lessons from what we see laid out before us. I therefore crave the indulgence of a promoted comment to headlined status, including a snippet of intensely personal history of my homeland. For, comments get buried and forgotten within hours, but a headlined post is for the record:
It may be entertaining to play semantics games with terms like function, but that simply reveals that your problem is not with science, it is with common sense reality tracing to some of the sillier bits of post-modernist radical subjectivism and deconstructionism.
Perhaps, it has not dawned on you that survival of the fittest or hill-climbing algorithms or natural selection or the like pivot on the objectivity of function. Have you gone to Panda’s Thumb, TSZ, ATBC or the like Darwinist agitator sites to challenge the core concepts of evolution based on differential reproductive success pivoting on functional differences of life-forms? I safely bet not, you are reserving such talking-points for those you object to, regardless of inconsistencies or outright incoherence.
[Ill-]Logic with a swivel.
Patently, revealingly, sadly, you have indulged in incoherent selective hyperskepticism.
And if you genuinely imagine that a stalled car with a dead engine, or a leaky roof, or a crashed computer, or a PA system that distorts sounds horribly are functionally distinct as a mere matter of subjective opinion, your problem is a breach of common sense.
Do you — or a significant other — have a mechanic? Are you a shade-tree mechanic? Do you have even one tool for maintenance? Do you recognise the difference between sugar, salt and arsenic in your cup of coffee? Between an effective prescription correctly filled and faithfully carried out when you get sick and a breakdown of that process? Etc?
I put it to you that you cannot and do not live consistent with your Lit class seminar-room talking points.
And, your evasive resort to clinging to such absurdities to obfuscate the issue of functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, speaks loudest volumes for the astute onlooker.
Own-goal, E-S.
The bottom-line of the behaviour of several objectors over the past few days, speaks inadvertent volumes on the real balance on the merits of the core design theory contention that there are such things as reliable empirical markers — such as Wickensian FSCO/I — that are strong signs of design as key causal process.
But, many are so wedded to the totalising metanarrative of a priori Lewontinian evolutionary materialism that they refuse to heed the 2350 year old warning posed by Plato on where cynical radical relativism, amorality opening the door to might makes right nihilism and ruthless factions points to for a civilisation. Refusing to learn the hard-bought, paid for in blood lessons of history, they threaten to mislead our civilisation into yet another predictably futile and bloody march of folly. As the ghosts of 100 million victims of such demonically wicked deceptions over the past century warn us.
The folly on the march in our day is so arrogantly stubborn that it refuses to learn living memory history or the history passed on first hand to our grand parents.
Here is Sophia (personification of Wisdom), in the voice of Solomon echoing hard-bought, civil war triggered lessons in Israel c 1,000 BC:
Prov 1:20 Wisdom [Gk, Sophia] cries aloud in the street,
in the markets she raises her voice;
21 at the head of the noisy streets she cries out;
at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:
22 “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
and fools hate knowledge?
23 If you turn at my reproof,[a]
behold, I will pour out my spirit to you;
I will make my words known to you.
24 Because I have called and you refused to listen,
have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
25 because you have ignored all my counsel
and would have none of my reproof,
26 I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when terror strikes you,
27 when terror strikes you like a storm
and your calamity comes like a whirlwind,
when distress and anguish come upon you.
28 Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer;
they will seek me diligently but will not find me.
29 Because they hated knowledge
and did not choose the fear of the Lord,
30 would have none of my counsel
and despised all my reproof,
31 therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way,
and have their fill of their own devices.
32 For the simple are killed by their turning away,
and the complacency of fools destroys them;
33 but whoever listens to me will dwell secure
and will be at ease, without dread of disaster.”
A grim warning, bought at the price of a spoiled, wayward son who fomented disaffection and led rebellion triggering civil war and needless death and destruction, ending in his own death and that of many others.
Behind the Proverbs lies the anguished wailing of a father who had to fight a war with his son and in the end cried out, Oh Absalom, my son . . .
History sorts out the follies of literary excesses, if we fail to heed wisdom in good time.
Often, at the expense of a painful, bloody trail of woe and wailing that leads many mothers and fathers, widows and orphans to wail the loss of good men lost to the fight in the face of rampant folly.
But then, tragic history is written into my name, as George William Gordon’s farewell to his wife written moments before his unjust execution on sentence of a kangaroo court-martial, was carried out:
My beloved Wife, General Nelson has just been kind enough to inform me that the court-martial on Saturday last has ordered me to be hung, and that the sentence is to be executed in an hour hence; so that I shall be gone from this world of sin and sorrow.
I regret that my worldly affairs are so deranged; but now it cannot be helped. I do not deserve this sentence, for I never advised or took part in any insurrection. All I ever did was to recommend the people who complained to seek redress in a legitimate way; and if in this I erred, or have been misrepresented, I do not think I deserve the extreme sentence. It is, however, the will of my Heavenly Father that I should thus suffer in obeying his command to relieve the poor and needy, and to protect, as far as I was able, the oppressed. And glory be to his name; and I thank him that I suffer in such a cause. Glory be to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and I can say it is a great honour thus to suffer; for the servant cannot be greater than his Lord. I can now say with Paul, the aged, “The hour of my departure is at hand, and I am ready to be offered up. I have fought a good fight, I have kept the faith, and henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge shall give me.” Say to all friends, an affectionate farewell; and that they must not grieve for me, for I die innocently. Assure Mr. Airy and all others of the truth of this. Comfort your heart. I certainly little expected this. You must do the best you can, and the Lord will help you; and do not be ashamed of the death your poor husband will have suffered. The judges seemed against me, and from the rigid manner of the court I could not get in all the explanation I intended . . .
Deconstruct that, clever mocking scorners of the literary seminar room.
Deconstruct it in the presence of a weeping wife and mother and children mourning the shocking loss of a father and hero to ruthless show-trial injustice ending in judicial murder.
Murder that echoes the fate of one found innocent but sent to Golgotha because of ruthless folly-tricks in Jerusalem c. 30 AD.
(How ever so many fail to see the deep lesson about folly-tricks in the heart of the Gospel, escapes me. New Atheists and fellow travellers, when you indict the Christian Faith as the fountain-head of imagined injustice, remember the One who hung between thieves on a patently unjust sentence, having been bought at the price of a slave through a betrayer blinded by greed and folly. If you do not hear a cry for just government and common decency at the heart of the Gospel you would despise, you are not worth the name, literary scholar or educated person.)
And in so doing, learn a terrible, grim lesson of where your clever word games predictably end up in the hands of the ruthless.
For, much more than science is at stake in all of this.
GEM of TKI >>
_________________
I trust that the astute onlooker will be inclined to indulge so personal a response, and will duly draw on the hard-bought lessons of history (and of my family story . . . ) as just outlined. END
PS, Sept 30: ES has been making heavy weather over the idea of a primitive tribe encountering a can opener for the first time and not understanding its function (which he then wishes to project as subjective):
A rotating cutter can opener in action
And, a modern development showing meshing serrated gears:
modern rotary action can opener with meshing gears (Both images HT Wiki)
However, this is both incorrect and irrelevant to recognising from aspects of the can opener that exhibit FSCO/I, that it is designed:
1 –> Whether or not the primitive seeing an opener for the first time can recognise its purpose and contrivance that integrates materials, forces of nature and components into a functioning whole, that functionally specific, complex organisation for a purpose exists and is embedded in how the opener is designed.
2 –> Just by looking at the evident contrivance manifested in FSCO/I that is maximally unlikely to obtain by blind chance and mechanical necessity — as with the fishing reel above, the primitive is likely to perceive design.
3 –> The rotating gears with matched teeth set to couple together alone implies highly precise artifice to build centred disks, cut matching gearing, mount them on precisely separated and aligned centred axes, with other connected parts already demonstrates design to a reasonable onlooker.
4 –> The precisely uniformly thick handles joined in a pivot, and reflecting rectangle-based shapes would be equally demonstrative.
5 –> Where, actual intended function has not been brought to bear. (And note, we see here again the implicit demand that the design inference be a universal decoder/ algorithm identifier. That is a case of setting up and knocking over a strawman, where . . . just on theory of computation, such a universal decoder/detector is utterly implausible. The point of the design inference is that on inductively confirmed reliable signs such as FSCO/I we may confidently identify design — purposefully directed contingency or contrivance — as key causal factor. It seems that any number of red herrings are led away from this point to convenient strawman caricatures that are then knocked over as though the actual point has been effectively answered on the merits. It has not.)
6 –> But of course, that functionality dependent on specific components and an arrangement otherwise vanishingly improbable, reeks of design and the function can be readily demonstrated, as the patents diagram shows.
7 –> Where, again, it must be underscored that, per my comment 49 to ES:
[the] ultra-modernist, ugly- gulch- between- the- inner- world- and- the outer- one [of] sophomorised Kantianism fails and needs to be replaced with a sounder view. As F H Bradley pointd out over a century ago, to pretend to know that the external world is un-knowable due to the nature of subjectivitiy . . . the denial of objective knowledge . . . is itself a claim to objective knowledge of the external world and a very strong one too. Which therefore is self-referentially incoherent. Instead, it is wiser to follow Josiah Royce’s point that we know that error exists, undeniably and self evidently. Thus, there are certain points of objective knowledge that are firm, that ground that objective truth, warrant and knowledge exist, and that schemes of thought that deny or denigrate such fail. Including post modernism, so called. Of course, that we know that error exists means we need to be careful and conservative in knowledge claims, but the design inference is already that, it is explicitly inductive on inference to best explanation on observed patterns and acknowledges the limitations of inductive knowledge including scientific knowledge. [A Po-Mo] selectively hyperskeptical focus on the design inference while apparently ignoring the effect of that same logic on science as a whole, on history, on common sense reality and on reason itself, simply multiplies the above by highlighting the double standard on warrant.
8 –> In short, we have here a case of clinging to an ideological absurdity in the teeth of accessible, well-warranted correction.
Comments
SB: Members of the tribe will immediately detect the design features in the can opener, but they will not know its function or why it was designed if they have never observed a can.
ES: Good. So your original claim “Can we perceive its function? Of course.” is overturned.
What really does this have to do with anything?
Is someone here denying that hemoglobin objectively exists, and objectively carries oxygen to replenish the body?
If not, then the question regarding design in biology does not hinge on the objective existence of function, it’s about how the informational constraint over inanimate matter came into existence.
ES, I’ve pointed out to you the intractable inference to design on that front.Upright BiPed
September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PST
StephenB
Any observer can detect its [can opener's] design features even without knowing its function.
But what did you say just before? You said: "Can we perceive its function? Of course." Well, of course we cannot perceive can opener's function unless we see it in its *intended* context. It's not up to the observer to determine what the intended context is. The observer might see it in any random context.
StephenB
The “idea” or “definition” of a can opener is obviously subjective. All ideas and definitions are subjective.
I didn't mean any random idea, but the can opener's function as a can opener. (This requires from you the ability to understand my words in context.) So let's conclude that we agree that it's subjective.
StephenB
Members of the tribe will immediately detect the design features in the can opener, but they will not know its function or why it was designed if they have never observed a can.
Good. So your original claim "Can we perceive its function? Of course." is overturned.
Mung
ES: Projecting some structure or pattern is a necessary precondition to make any sense of anything.
Are you saying that in order to sense something, one must first make sense of it?
Or are you saying that to make sense of something, one must first sense it?
Neither? Both?
Sensing is one thing, making sense is another thing, and both are needed to make sense of anything. To achieve that, one must relate the thing in one's own mind to other similar things, to separate it from unrelated things, and/or to mentally place it in different contexts to hopefully come up with the most appropriate context. Where one "senses" the thing first may not be the appropriate context to determine its function.
You people here think that making sense of things, "perceiving function" and "detecting design" is something totally straightforward, self-evident and uncontroversial. Well, there are totally straightforward, self-evident and uncontroversial examples to the contrary and I just discussed one more such example with StephenB. And more will follow below.
Mung
I believe that things exist in reality, independent of the human mind.
I believe that for the human mind to “make sense” of things that exist in reality, the sensing of them comes prior to the making sense of them (assuming that we’re not just equivocating).
But for the human mind to “make sense” of these things, they must have some characteristics or properties (form, structure, shape, pattern) that really exists.
Not just characteristics or properties of the thing, but also its operation (or immobility) and context are necessary. The observer judges based on context and background information. Not everybody judges things the same way, and not everybody even senses the same way. Some people don't see some colours, some don't see rapid motion.
It's not so simple that things are out there and that's it. When we are talking about perceiving things, then we are talking about interaction and there's stuff that depends on the observer. No need to violently overinterpret this as if I denied the reality of things, but when you think things are out there and everybody should come to the same conclusions about them, you are obviously wrong. Do you come to the same conclusions as Darwinists when you study biology? Well, there.
I don't place epistemology above ontology. The problem is in that you seem to acknowledge too little role for epistemology.
SteRusJon
Exchange:
“Simple question: Doesn’t the weight of the program depend on the programming language you use to write it?”
It depends on many [t]hings. That’s why I say “minimal”.
Your retort:
“And that’s why I say – incalculable, undetectable, subjective.”
In point of fact, any computer program is run at the CPU instruction level, regardless of the language it is written in. That object code can be optimized to a minimal set of CPU operations that successfully solve the problem in the particular way the program was designed to solve it. The precise amount of program bits can be calculated.
Of course the precise amount of the program bits can be calculated, but the question is what counts as the *minimal* program. What programming language should we take? Why exactly that language and none other? Perhaps we can devise a more efficient language and the whole framework changes again...
SteRusJon
I think your comment amounts to whining. “Ah, this is too difficult to do! Can’t we just make it go away by quibbling about which part is not objective enough for my taste?”
And your comment amounts to trampling your feet and insisting it is objective enough when it obviously isn't.
Mung
Humans “make sense” of things via the method of abstraction. This is in great part what sets them apart from other animals.
Now you're talking. Indeed, when we talk about sensing as distinct from "making sense", then other animals, even though they sense, do not even begin to *make sense*. And this is one more example how making sense of things, "perceiving function" and "detecting design" presupposes a lot from the observer.
Mung
In spite of cultural difference about what belongs in which category, it seems to be a universal truth that humans employ abstraction in the process of categorization (taxomony).
Yes, every human does this, but they do it in different ways. Similarly, everyone has some morality or another, but there are differences of moral norms from society to society and differences of moral sensitivity from person to person.
Mung
How is this even possible under the assumption that:
“Projecting some structure or pattern is a necessary precondition to make any sense of anything.”
Our ability to abstract is activated in observation, thus projected when we are trying to make sense of the thing observed. The result depends on the individual ability to abstract, former familiarity with the thing, etc. All this goes under what I call projection.E.Seigner
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PST
SteRusJon @74,
In point of fact, any computer program is run at the CPU instruction level, regardless of the language it is written in. That object code can be optimized to a minimal set of CPU operations that successfully solve the problem in the particular way the program was designed to solve it. The precise amount of program bits can be calculated. Allowances can be made for possible CPU operation order flexibility. It may not be simple and easy but, in principle, it is always calculable.
If any object is handed over to you, will you be able to calculate the bits required to create it ? Will everyone come with the same answer ? If not, how can that be objective? I definitely don't see the relevance of computer programs and bit calculations in ID.the bystander
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PST
Dionisio @62
To make it easy for you, you may choose any of the over 400 examples posted in the Third Way thread News started in this blog about 4 months ago....
Do you see the point?
You are all over the post! Yes.I see the point - you are indicating there is no mystery in the various biological processes, but you have shown in various links how complex the biological process can be.
It seems Evolution theory needs to be worked over. Don't you think Darwin didn't see the complexity of various process and that his theory was good enough for his time, but not today ?
KF @ 63
Look here. Life engineering technologies generation 0.1 or maybe 0.01
The wiki page is about Human Genome Project and synthetic genes. Don't be annoyed but I still don't see any significance of this to how agents work.
What do you mean by 0.1 or maybe 0.01?the bystander
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PST
Further on my comments @ 71.
Humans "make sense" of things via the method of abstraction. This is in great part what sets them apart from other animals.
But in order for the human mind to create abstractions, there must be sensible things which individually and distinctly share something in common, commonly referred to as their shape, pattern, form or structure. The denial of such universals ultimately results in self-refuting incoherence.
Mung: Plants and animals really do exist. They are not projections of the human mind.
E.Seigner: "Do you think their taxonomy is objectively real or is it man-made? Plants and animals are empirically real, but the way we categorize and classify them is open to interpretation. It has changed significantly over the millennia and still displays marked cultural differences."
If by "taxonomy" you mean their classification (categorization) into genus and species I would say that this is man-made. Taxonomy employs abstraction.
I agree they are empirically real. It is their form, shape, structure, pattern, that permits, even encourages, their classification. If their form, shape, structure, pattern, were not objectively real, then abstraction would be impossible. But abstraction is possible.
In spite of cultural difference about what belongs in which category, it seems to be a universal truth that humans employ abstraction in the process of categorization (taxomony).
How is this even possible under the assumption that:
"Projecting some structure or pattern is a necessary precondition to make any sense of anything."Mung
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PST
ES
Exchange:
“Simple question: Doesn’t the weight of the program depend on the programming language you use to write it?”
It depends on many [t]hings. That’s why I say “minimal”.
Your retort:
"And that’s why I say – incalculable, undetectable, subjective."
.
In point of fact, any computer program is run at the CPU instruction level, regardless of the language it is written in. That object code can be optimized to a minimal set of CPU operations that successfully solve the problem in the particular way the program was designed to solve it. The precise amount of program bits can be calculated. Allowances can be made for possible CPU operation order flexibility. It may not be simple and easy but, in principle, it is always calculable.
I think your comment amounts to whining. "Ah, this is too difficult to do! Can't we just make it go away by quibbling about which part is not objective enough for my taste?"
StephenSteRusJon
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PST
Mung:
ES appears to place epistemology above ontology.
I wish that it just ended there. Alas, it goes much further to the point where the epistemology crowds out the ontology altogether--where subjective philosophy devours objective existence--where what we say about things determines the essence of things--where the individual and collective mind creates the very nature of reality.StephenB
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PST
E.Seigner:
Of course we are projecting the idea of “can opener” onto the thing.
We are projecting the idea of "can opener" on to what thing? The can-opener-thing?
We could just place the can in the fire and wait for it to explode. Then we could attempt to convince the natives that the fire isn't really a fire, but rather a can opener.Mung
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PST
E.Seigner:
Projecting some structure or pattern is a necessary precondition to make any sense of anything.
Are you saying that in order to sense something, one must first make sense of it?
Or are you saying that to make sense of something, one must first sense it?
Neither? Both?
I believe that things exist in reality, independent of the human mind.
I believe that for the human mind to "make sense" of things that exist in reality, the sensing of them comes prior to the making sense of them (assuming that we're not just equivocating).
But for the human mind to "make sense" of these things, they must have some characteristics or properties (form, structure, shape, pattern) that really exists.
Projecting some structure or pattern is a necessary precondition to make any sense of anything.
Therefore, I profoundly disagree.
And I would really like to understand where you're coming from and on which points we agree and on which points we differ.
thank youMung
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PST
SB,
I think that perhaps I begin to perceive some of the issue here, and I should not be surprised.
ES appears to place epistemology above ontology. It's not a can opener because the aborigines don't know that it's a can opener. I could be wrong. I would welcome being wrong.
There's nothing particularly wrong about being coy I suppose. I tend to it myself. But so much ground could be covered by allowing some generalizations.
ES objects when people get the wrong impression (and rightly so). But statements like the following:
Projecting some structure or pattern is a necessary precondition to make any sense of anything.
Make me scratch my head.Mung
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PST
Joe:
So we couldn’t say that Stonehenge was designed until we knew how it was constructed?
What makes you think Stonehenge was constructed at all? I think it was the result of numerous meteor strikes over many thousands of years that just happened to end up in the present configuration. No designer(s) needed.
Those funny looking rocks on easter island? Pretty much the same thing with some erosion tossed in. Its' an island, after all.
Wait, isn't GB an island as well?
Well, there you have it!
Islands attract meteor strikes.
What other evidence do you need?Mung
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PST
SB: The solution, it seems to me, is to replace bad philosophy with good philosophy.
ES: Indeed. Happy to agree on something with you. Let’s hope this is not the last time.
Agreed.StephenB
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PST
E. Seigner
Of course we are projecting the idea of “can opener” onto the thing. This is because the can opener works in conjunction with cans that can be opened with such an opener. Without those cans, the can opener is a pointless object, without function.
The can opener is designed independently of the observers "projections." It is an objective fact because someone did, in fact, design it for a purpose, which means that the design is inherent in the object. Any observer can detect its design features even without knowing its function. In the same way, I can detect the design features in a surgeon's tool without knowing its function.
The "idea" or "definition" of a can opener is obviously subjective. All ideas and definitions are subjective. The things that the ideas and definitions refer to are objective. Accordingly, the fact of the can opener's existence and its inherent design are objective. A subject conceived the design for a purpose and then transformed it into an objectively real artifact with objectively real design features, which, in turn can be detected by another subject. You have it backwards. The design was not projected by the observer; it was projected by the the designer.
This point is easily seen when you go to some stone-age tribe (still found in e.g. Amazon and Papua) who have no cans and you show them the can opener. They will naturally “perceive its function” according to their own canless culture, not according to ours.
Members of the tribe will immediately detect the design features in the can opener, but they will not know its function or why it was designed if they have never observed a can. They will know that it is not a random conglomeration of parts and will wonder why it was designed. The one thing they will not do is try to answer that question by projecting their cultural experience onto the can opener. To do that would be to destroy intellectual curiosity and eliminate the possibility of asking about its real purpose. Only a bad philosopher or an academic would do that.StephenB
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PST
StephenB
Can we detect the design in a can opener? Of course. Can we perceive its function? Of course. Are we projecting our philosophy onto the can opener? No.
Of course we are projecting the idea of "can opener" onto the thing. This is because the can opener works in conjunction with cans that can be opened with such an opener. Without those cans, the can opener is a pointless object, without function.
This point is easily seen when you go to some stone-age tribe (still found in e.g. Amazon and Papua) who have no cans and you show them the can opener. They will naturally "perceive its function" according to their own canless culture, not according to ours.
StephenB
The solution, it seems to me, is to replace bad philosophy with good philosophy.
Indeed. Happy to agree on something with you. Let's hope this is not the last time.E.Seigner
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PST
Hi GPuccio. Thanks for your contribution. It is much appreciated.
It appears that we may be operating from a mildly different philosophical framework. If so, there’s no problem, but let’s find out.
Let me summarize my definitions:
Subject = perceiver of a thing or operation
Object = the thing or operation perceived
Subject = the perceiver of the design
Object - the design itself
Accordingly, a subject (God or a human) can create an objective design or function with a subjective purpose. (Why it was intended to operate that way). Another subject can detect or perceive the design or function that was created. I am here making a sharp distinction between the subjective purpose (the reason it was designed) with the objective function (its operation),
For example, a subject writes a paragraph with an objective design component for the subjective purpose of persuading. Another subject detects the objectively formed design and subjectively perceives the objective meaning intended.
Similarly, the Creator designs a liver as a human organ that performs the objective function of filtering for the subjective purpose of keeping a human alive. A human can subjectively detect that objective function and provide a subjective definition for it, but the definition, it seems to me, remains subjective and the function itself remains objective. Even if no one recognized that the liver performs a function, (the one subjectively intended by the Creator) it would, nevertheless, continue to function as an objective reality because it was designed to operate that way. No human perceiver is necessary.
Now, let’s apply this framework to the current problem under discussion.
ES claims that the observer projects a personal or communal philosophy of design onto the object. If that person’s subjective philosophy is pro-design or anti-design, it is that projection alone that determines the answer to the question--design or not designed? In other words, for her, the subject (the perceiver) decides whether or not the artifact or organism (object) was designed. The subject who designed it or the thing itself have nothing to say about it.
For her, it doesn’t matter if the Creator designed the human liver or if a human designed a written paragraph. In either case, she holds that a design inference cannot be made under any circumstances—period. That is because, again, for her, the design is in the perceiver, not the thing perceived. So it is with function.
The function is, for her, not in the operation of the thing that functions, it is in the one who defines the function, that is, the subject. With this philosophy, no designs or functions can be detected. All designs and functions are projected by the subject onto the thing that is designed or functions in some way.
If the function (as opposed to its definition) is in the observer, then the observer can decide if the function exists or doesn’t exist and the designer of the function has nothing to say about it.
Can we detect the design in a can opener? Of course. Can we perceive its function? Of course. Are we projecting our philosophy onto the can opener? No. Does our capacity to perceive these things have anything to do with the fact that it was designed or can function in that way? No.
The solution, it seems to me, is to replace bad philosophy with good philosophy. As far as I can tell, the only philosophical presuppositions that precede the design inference are the first rules of right reason. Yes, these do come first. However, the design process itself begins with an observation, not a philosophical projection.StephenB
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PST
ES: By now it is fairly obvious that you have a core that you are shielding and will not seriously examine. The problems have been identified and exposed long since, starting with the OP and onwards. I suggest you ask yourself what you are really showing by insisting on clinging to what is self referentially incoherent. KFkairosfocus
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PST
TB: Look here. Life engineering technologies generation 0.1 or maybe 0.01 KFkairosfocus
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PST
59 the bystander
Any biological process [...] like complex protein structure formation, new organ development.
Do you know how they work? Can you describe any of those processes? Do you know anyone who can explain it?
If you do, then go ahead and describe one of them. To make it easy for you, you may choose any of the over 400 examples posted in the Third Way thread News started in this blog about 4 months ago.
Serious scientists in the 'cutting edge' labs around the world are working hard trying to figure out how those processes work, hence they have no time to discuss how we got those processes to begin with. First things first.
Do you see the point?Dionisio
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PST
gpuccio
“Simple question: Doesn’t the weight of the program depend on the programming language you use to write it?”
It depends on many [t]hings. That’s why I say “minimal”.
And that’s why I say – incalculable, undetectable, subjective.
I won't even pretend to understand what you guys are talking about. Programming language in biology? The lowest bit would be for assembly language. How does that relate to design bits ?the bystander
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PST
gpuccio
To go back to proteins, one may argue in his imagination that some 50 AAs peptide could do what ATP synthase does. But the simple truth is that we know nothing that can do what ATP synthase does.
Or to go back to the groups of stones, one may argue in his imagination that stones do what a circle's ratio to its diameter does. But the simple truth is that we know nothing that can do what a circle's ratio to its diameter does... Or am I missing something essential in your point?
The thing is, I find #47 more full of holes than any of your previous comments. The most glaring fundamental ones we already covered in discussion just before, so I won't go over them again.
gpuccio
“Simple question: Doesn’t the weight of the program depend on the programming language you use to write it?”
It depends on many [t]hings. That’s why I say “minimal”.
And that's why I say - incalculable, undetectable, subjective.E.Seigner
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PST
Dionisio @57
Please, can you be more specific? Which biological process?
Any biological process that would defy Evolutionary explanation like complex protein structure formation, new organ development.DNA and RNA's seeming 'intelligence'
Joe @58
Why do you think intervention is required? Why can’t it be that organisms were intelligently designed to evolve and evolved by that design?
Wouldn't that still need an explanation of how an agent can design intelligent organism to evolve? I thought ID was about intervention and guiding complex biological/evolutionary process by ID agent.the bystander
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PST
the bystander:
I am asking (in many different posts) how an agent intervenes in a biological process, is there any theory of how agents work ?
Why do you think intervention is required? Why can't it be that organisms were intelligently designed to evolve and evolved by that design?Joe
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PST
54 the bystander
I am asking (in many different posts) how an agent intervenes in a biological process, is there any theory of how agents work ?
Please, can you be more specific? Which biological process?Dionisio
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PST
52 E.Seigner
Did you mean “weight loss program”? :)Dionisio
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PST
E. Seigner:
"So “the minimal complexity of a program” (as weight in bits) is the crux of the matter."
Yes.
"Simple question: Doesn’t the weight of the program depend on the programming language you use to write it?"
It depends on many hings. That's why I say "minimal". As we want to stay empirical, I will add "minimal known". Let's say the simplest known compiled program that can do the trick.
To go back to proteins, one may argue in his imagination that some 50 AAs peptide could do what ATP synthase does. But the simple truth is that we know nothing that can do what ATP synthase does. And, throughout evolution, and 4 billion years of mutations, about 700 AAs in the sequence of just the alpha and beta subunits could not change, a clear indicator that they are essential to the function.gpuccio
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PST
gpuccio @44
I have suggested many times my possible scenario: some conscious intelligent purposeful agent, probably not physical, interacts with biological matter exactly in the way that our consciousness interacts with our body and brain: through a consciousness / matter interface, probably implemented at quantum level, so that no natural laws needs to be violated.
That line of inquiry should definitely be explored
Joe @46
So we couldn’t say that Stonehenge was designed until we knew how it was constructed?
Of course not. I am asking (in many different posts) how an agent intervenes in a biological process, is there any theory of how agents work ?
KF @48
Beyond, we already have in hand the work of Ventner et al on the world of micro-biology which already shows feasible ways to effect biological designs
I could find some articles about Shotgun sequencing but I couldn't relate the material to ID agent.Sorry to be daft, but how does Shotgun sequencing explain how an agent works ?the bystander
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PST
52 E.Seigner
What do you mean by "the weight of the program"?
Thank you.Dionisio
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PST
gpuccio
I think this is the key passage:
So, I may have a 20 bit program which makes something very important (like giving a key to open a database) or a 1 million bit program which make something very trivial (like ordering a simple list). What is important is the minimal complexity of a program which can do what I have defined.
The idea is that no sequence which can do something which requires a minimum complexity of n bits (let’s say 500, to stay in the UPB) will ever arise spontaneously in a real system by a random search/walk.
So "the minimal complexity of a program" (as weight in bits) is the crux of the matter. Simple question: Doesn't the weight of the program depend on the programming language you use to write it?E.Seigner
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PST
48 kairosfocus
How design is carried out is separate from recognising that it has been carried out on signs.
Agree. Two completely separate issues.
How design is carried out could be a technological secret that could only be known to others if the designer reveals it or through espionage in the case of human designs. Even reverse engineering may not reveal how design was carried out, but just what it produced, and maybe not accurately.
Recognising that design has been carried out may require just common sense a desire to admit it.Dionisio
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PST
47 gpuccio
What is important is the complexity necessary to implement the function
It would be really sad if your interlocutor doesn't understand this. I can't say it shorter or clearer that this.Dionisio
It may be entertaining to play semantics games with terms like function, but that simply reveals that your problem is not with science, it is with common sense reality tracing to some of the sillier bits of post-modernist radical subjectivism and deconstructionism.
Perhaps, it has not dawned on you that survival of the fittest or hill-climbing algorithms or natural selection or the like pivot on the objectivity of function. Have you gone to Panda’s Thumb, TSZ, ATBC or the like Darwinist agitator sites to challenge the core concepts of evolution based on differential reproductive success pivoting on functional differences of life-forms? I safely bet not, you are reserving such talking-points for those you object to, regardless of inconsistencies or outright incoherence.
[Ill-]Logic with a swivel.
Patently, revealingly, sadly, you have indulged in incoherent selective hyperskepticism.
And if you genuinely imagine that a stalled car with a dead engine, or a leaky roof, or a crashed computer, or a PA system that distorts sounds horribly are functionally distinct as a mere matter of subjective opinion, your problem is a breach of common sense.
Do you — or a significant other — have a mechanic? Are you a shade-tree mechanic? Do you have even one tool for maintenance? Do you recognise the difference between sugar, salt and arsenic in your cup of coffee? Between an effective prescription correctly filled and faithfully carried out when you get sick and a breakdown of that process? Etc?
I put it to you that you cannot and do not live consistent with your Lit class seminar-room talking points.
And, your evasive resort to clinging to such absurdities to obfuscate the issue of functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, speaks loudest volumes for the astute onlooker.
Own-goal, E-S.
The bottom-line of the behaviour of several objectors over the past few days, speaks inadvertent volumes on the real balance on the merits of the core design theory contention that there are such things as reliable empirical markers — such as Wickensian FSCO/I — that are strong signs of design as key causal process.
But, many are so wedded to the totalising metanarrative of a priori Lewontinian evolutionary materialism that they refuse to heed the 2350 year old warning posed by Plato on where cynical radical relativism, amorality opening the door to might makes right nihilism and ruthless factions points to for a civilisation. Refusing to learn the hard-bought, paid for in blood lessons of history, they threaten to mislead our civilisation into yet another predictably futile and bloody march of folly. As the ghosts of 100 million victims of such demonically wicked deceptions over the past century warn us.
The folly on the march in our day is so arrogantly stubborn that it refuses to learn living memory history or the history passed on first hand to our grand parents.
Here is Sophia (personification of Wisdom), in the voice of Solomon echoing hard-bought, civil war triggered lessons in Israel c 1,000 BC:
A grim warning, bought at the price of a spoiled, wayward son who fomented disaffection and led rebellion triggering civil war and needless death and destruction, ending in his own death and that of many others.
Behind the Proverbs lies the anguished wailing of a father who had to fight a war with his son and in the end cried out, Oh Absalom, my son . . .
History sorts out the follies of literary excesses, if we fail to heed wisdom in good time.
Often, at the expense of a painful, bloody trail of woe and wailing that leads many mothers and fathers, widows and orphans to wail the loss of good men lost to the fight in the face of rampant folly.
But then, tragic history is written into my name, as George William Gordon’s farewell to his wife written moments before his unjust execution on sentence of a kangaroo court-martial, was carried out:
Deconstruct that, clever mocking scorners of the literary seminar room.
Deconstruct it in the presence of a weeping wife and mother and children mourning the shocking loss of a father and hero to ruthless show-trial injustice ending in judicial murder.
Murder that echoes the fate of one found innocent but sent to Golgotha because of ruthless folly-tricks in Jerusalem c. 30 AD.
(How ever so many fail to see the deep lesson about folly-tricks in the heart of the Gospel, escapes me. New Atheists and fellow travellers, when you indict the Christian Faith as the fountain-head of imagined injustice, remember the One who hung between thieves on a patently unjust sentence, having been bought at the price of a slave through a betrayer blinded by greed and folly. If you do not hear a cry for just government and common decency at the heart of the Gospel you would despise, you are not worth the name, literary scholar or educated person.)
And in so doing, learn a terrible, grim lesson of where your clever word games predictably end up in the hands of the ruthless.
For, much more than science is at stake in all of this.
GEM of TKI >>