Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Author

News

Rob Sheldon: Did humans see the color blue before modern times?

Perhaps we should say, we cannot discriminate "blue" without a word for it? For sure. This is the property of language. As linguists will say, a word excludes more than it includes. And if we don't have a word, we lack the ability to discriminate (or, as Aristotle shows us, we make up a word on the spot, we "categorize".) Read More ›

Gull wing stability prompts talk of “design” in nature

One wonders how the proper authorities are coming with Darwinizing our language, so as to take out all suggestion of design or agency in nature and in humans. Not far, it seems. Maybe, instead of following Dawkins and insisting that design in nature is an illusion, researchers should just be agnostic about it for discussion purposes, given that that is how they routinely talk about it anyway. Read More ›

Evolution or art? The chicken as a human artifact

We’ve probably had even more influence on the dog, of course. But here’s the interesting thing: When dogs run wild, they just go back to being wolfhounds after a few generations. Apparently, feral chickens just breed with still wild fowl and revert to ancestral types. Just how really significant irreversible changes occur remains unclear. Read More ›

Why artificial intelligence (AI) cannot produce a Universal Answers Machine

Okay, let’s start with Can an algorithm be racist? Well, the machine has no opinion. It processes vast tracts of data. But, as a result, the troubling hidden roots of some data are exposed. Read More ›

A definition of consciousness: “The intentional power of the mind”

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor offers this definition by way of explaining that there is one sense in which consciousness IS an illusion: We are not aware of our consciousness; only of its objects. I believe that the most satisfactory definition of consciousness is the intentional power of the mind — the ability of thought to be “about” something. Consciousness is always directed to an object, whether that object is physical, emotional, or conceptual. If there is no “aboutness,” there is no consciousness. All intentionality entails two things: the process by which (1) we think about something, and the thing about which (2) we think. When I perceive a tree, I am perceiving (1) a tree (2). When I think about justice, I Read More ›

Michael Shermer’s Case for Scientific Naturalism

Shermer’s piece, in which he is looking back on his years as a Scientific American columnist, feels like an elegy. The reality today is that, however people may universally seek freedom, China is dedicated to using the high tech born of science to stamp it out and enlisting many other natures to do the same. And science, as opposed to technology, is coming under serious assault from those who demand that nature itself do their social justice bidding. Read More ›

Theoretical physicist takes on panpsychism. Bam! Pow!

It’s the basic problem of the coffee mug. If naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism,” is true, either you and the mug are both conscious or neither of you is. The comments at BackRe(Action) illustrate the difficulty many have grasping that that is a serious problem. Read More ›

Maybe the “March for” fad will die out before the anti-Semitism hits science

The reason this subject interests us is that the social justice warriors (SJWs) have set their sights on science (remember the March for Science?). Which means that the science media and groups that are trying to accommodate them would be forced to accommodate the anti-Semitism as well. With any luck, the marching Woke (SJWs) will all break up quarreling before it gets that bad. Read More ›

Steve Meyer on the information enigma in evolution

Steve Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt, offers a handy illustration of the sort of specified complexity that life forms show, which indicates design, in an April 2018 essay: Cryptographers distinguish between random signals and those carrying encoded messages, the latter indicating an intelligent source. Recognizing the activity of intelligent agents constitutes a common and fully rational mode of inference. More importantly, [design theorist William] Dembski explicates criteria by which rational agents recognize or detect the effects of other rational agents, and distinguish them from the effects of natural causes. He demonstrates that systems or sequences with the joint properties of “high complexity” (or small probability) and “specification” invariably result from intelligent causes, not chance or physical-chemical laws. Dembski noted that Read More ›

Can cities serve as cauldrons of evolution (speciation)?

For spiders, raccoons, and such? Big, high-tech cities are new and different. But you don’t get remarkable results from these independent theatres of evolution. That’s clear from a recent long article, well worth reading, mostly for the fascinating information but also for the need, so common these days, to assert that something is happening which obviously isn’t. Read More ›

Experimental physicist: Particle theory is “in a crisis” and a bigger collider IS the answer!

So we should do it because we can, not because we really expect to learn very much? It may be that Dorigo is just not a good spokesperson for his position; he spends a good deal of time attacking Hossenfelder and her book. Anyway, somehow, naturalism (nature is all there is) isn’t providing the hoped-for return on investments. Read More ›