rhetoric

When I was maybe five or six years old, my mother (a distinguished teacher) said to me about problem solving, more or less: if you can draw a picture of a problem-situation, you can understand it well enough to solve it. Over the many years since, that has served me well. Where, after so many months of debates over FSCO/I and/or CSI, I think many of us may well be losing sight of the fundamental point in the midst of the fog that is almost inevitably created by vexed and complex rhetorical exchanges. So, here is my initial attempt at a picture — an info-graphic really — of what the Complex Specified Information [CSI] – Functionally Specific Complex Organisation and/or Read More ›

It seems that self-aware mindedness is now on the table for discussion. In that context, I see that Reciprocating Bill is arguing: Given the fact that you entertain the notion that brains aren’t necessary for dreaming, why can’t that which dreams without a brain be a rock? This is a carry over from a discussion where I have pointed out: And also how a neural network is an example of how refined rock organised into a GIGO-limited computational unit still has not broken through from mechanical cause effect computation — which a raw rock obviously cannot do — to self-aware insightful reasoning contemplation: . . . in the brain:   That is, just as for a Thomson Mechanical Integrator: . Read More ›

Sometimes, an objector to design theory brings to the table a key remark that inadvertently focuses the debate back on the core basics. In his comment at 339 in the ongoing nature/detection of intelligence thread here at UD, longtime objector RDFish does so in these initial remarks: Intelligent Design Theory 1) No current theory of evolutionary biology can account for the complex form and function of living organisms. 2) This sort of complex form and function (let’s call it “CSI”) is, in our experience, produced only by human beings. 3) ID argues that the best explanation (let’s call it the “Designer”) for biological complexity can therefore be inferred to be similar to human beings in that both human beings and Read More ›

One of the underlying debates linked to the design issue is the notorious mind-brain gap challenge. It keeps coming up, and on both sides of the ID debate. I would therefore like to spark a bit of discussion with a clip from a Scott Aaronson Physics course lecture: >> . . . If we interpret the Church-Turing Thesis as a claim about physical reality, then it should encompass everything in that reality, including the goopy neural nets between your respective ears. This leads us, of course, straight into the cratered intellectual battlefield that I promised to lead you into. As a historical remark, it’s interesting that the possibility of thinking machines isn’t something that occurred to people gradually, after they’d Read More ›

I recently read about some study whose results conflict with Darwinian evolution. Despite the conflict, the author’s logic basically said that even though Darwinian thinking could not explain what nature contains, the fact that this happened meant that ‘somehow’ evolution had brought about this result, and that more study was needed to find out just how this had happened. It occurred to me—for the first time—that this type of argument is made over and over again by Darwinists (evolutionary biologists, for the easily offended). What do we hear: (1) Even though the ‘odds’ of all the necessary elements and individual components of the ‘original’ cell and its contained DNA (or RNA, if we want to dream) is astronomically high, meaning Read More ›

My first post on UD, a mere 6 weeks ago, covered some basic principles about information. Specifically, I addressed the misunderstandings of those who deny that there is anything special about the information contained in, say, DNA, as opposed to a pile of rocks or Saturn’s rings.  We had a very productive discussion, with a number of issues explored.  (Incidentally, I used the word “contain” as a shorthand way of expressing what Mung suggested we call “sequences of symbols” that “represent information.”  I’m fine with that longer formulation, as we are saying the same thing substantively.  Any nuance there isn’t germane to the point of today’s brief post.) As we were winding up the thread, Mung asked if I had any sources of people who espoused Read More ›

Fair warning to the regular readership. Typically I like to cover intelligent design and evolution-related issues, but I trust I may be permitted a bit of a detour.  There have been a couple of interesting posts recently by Sal, vjtorley and Barry about issues of a more philosophical bent.  vjtorley’s OP, in particular, quoted parts of an essay from Professor Jerry Coyne.  I would like today to share some thoughts on point. With apologies to those not of the Judeo-Christian tradition, my comments will focus in part on the Bible, given that the Bible and the God of the Bible have been the brunt of many new atheist attacks recently, including Coyne’s.  Similar points, no doubt, could be made with Read More ›

I think we need to watch a video by Friend of UD, Kirk Durston. But first, a loop-back note: I have been rather busy elsewhere with issues like AS-AD, Kondratiev waves, Hayek’s investment triangle, SD and Schumpeterian creative destruction.(Pardon the resulting absence.) BTW, this line of thought leads me to hold that the oh- so- dominant . . . and too often, domineering . . . evolutionary materialism of the past few generations has run its course and is about to be overtaken by ideational creative destruction in an information age.  A patently superior idea — we live in an obviously designed world, and we and other living creatures show further compelling signs of design — is going to prevail, Read More ›

Not too many months ago I ran across Richard Dawkins’ statement that life got its start when, somehow, on the early Earth a self-replicating molecule formed.  I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.  I had read the quote before, and he has repeated the idea in various writings and interviews, but after having studied the issues with abiogenesis in a bit more detail, in particular the concept of a self-replicating molecule to kick off the origin of life, the idea struck me as particularly preposterous. In this post, I want to follow up on the other recent thread regarding abiogenesis.  This time, however, I want to focus on the matter of self-replication. The Abiogenesis Paradigm As mentioned, the idea Read More ›

Recently we have been discussing Dr. Sewell’s thermodynamics-related paper/video on this thread.  In addition to some excellent discussion on the Second Law, the question of abiogenesis has naturally arisen.  Though related to the Second Law issue (by way of the compensation argument), I would like to move discussion of the abiogenesis question to this new thread, both so we can keep the other thread more focused on the Second Law, and also so we can have a more in-depth discussion here on this most fascinating topic of abiogenesis. —– I find posts that go on for dozens of pages to be rather tedious.  Notwithstanding my original intent, this post grew in length as I laid out the various points.  In Read More ›

A couple of days ago Dr. Granville Sewell posted a video (essentially a summary of his 2013 Biocomplexity paper).  Unfortunately, he left comments off (as usual), which prevents any discussion, so I wanted to start a thread in case anyone wants to discuss this issue. Let me say a couple of things and then throw it open for comments. 1. I typically do not argue for design (or against the blind, undirected materialist creation story) by referencing the Second Law.  I think there is too much misunderstanding surrounding the Second Law, and most discussions about the Second Law tend to generate more heat (pun intended) than light.  Dr. Sewell’s experience demonstrates, I think, that it is an uphill battle to Read More ›

UD commenter, ayearningforpublius [AYP], has his own blog where he has many interesting posts informed by a lifetime of varied experiences. He is also an advocate for the idea that nature shows compelling observable signs of design, and in “dialog with folks at and surrounding the National Center for Science Education (NCSE)” has encountered a typical challenge, which he noted on in a March 27, 2014 comment in a current OOL thread, i.e.: “Mac: Wrong question, since as a YECist IDiot you cannot conceive of undesigned systems like all life forms have proven to be to the point where evolution is a scientifically acknowledged fact. Show me just one life form that was designed top down, with the evidence, process Read More ›

First of all I want to thank the Uncommon Descent moderators for allowing me to post, with a particular hat tip to StephenB.  As I indicated on a prior thread, I am not sure how often I will take the time to create a new thread, but hopefully I can occasionally post something of interest.  Kudos to gpuccio for a wonderful first thread, relating to the basic definition of “design”.

—-

Intelligent Design Basics – Information

In this post I want to consider a fundamental aspect of intelligent design theory: the concept of “information”. Read More ›