Darwinian evolution is not a valid research program

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 7, 2015

Culture, Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Darwinian evolution is not a valid research program

I do not have a cat entered in the fight, so I don’t really care that much.

But look at this post, and the ensuing comments, and ask yourself, why should any of Darwin’s followers’ rubbish be publicly funded?

If you were an investor, would you invest? Note: Your money, not the government’s (= other people’s)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Upright BiPed, I do not know what you are talking about. It necessarily follows that you do not know what you are talking about. QEDMung_{September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT}

Neither of us know what you are talking about.
You say the silliest things RD, straining to say something derogatory.
You talk about empirical evidence for “ID”…
No, I wasn’t. I was talking about your biases and inabilities. And you walked right into it. Couldn’t help yourself. ... Remember this? ”none of you ID folks are able to follow any sort of subtle or conditional argumentation … You have put your fingers in your ears, and you are screaming for me to stop telling you what the truth is, because you don’t want to hear it. “END!” you cry. “Stop, please, don’t say any more … “End!” you cry! “No more evidence, please!” It tipped me off that you have a few. :|Upright BiPed_{September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

intelligence:
a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) [bold added]
the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment And William Dembski offers up the following: Intelligent Design is not Optimal Design But then again we have been down this road before and that exposes your agenda of obfuscation.Virgil Cain_{September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

RDFish: You talk about empirical evidence for “ID”, but you refuse to say what you mean by “ID”. Maybe I can help: Something is "intelligent" if it can arrange matter in ways that require three things: 1. Foresight and imagination The ability to "see" possible outcomes prior to acting. 2. Capability The physical resources to instantiate imagined projections in the material world. 3. Motivation The desire/will to do it. Is it really that hard to grasp? So, then, for example, is something like the DNA/ribosome coded system something that required intelligence to produce or not? This is the sort of question ID deals with. It is certainly not a meaningless question or pursuit. For some reason, you never seem to be able grasp these simple ideas.mike1962_{September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Hi Upright BiPed, Neither of us know what you are talking about. You talk about empirical evidence for "ID", but you refuse to say what you mean by "ID". Perhaps you mean "conscious thought"? Perhaps you mean "the ability to produce CSI"? Perhaps you mean "able to learn and solve novel problems"? Perhaps you mean "neither determined nor random"? Perhaps you mean "the ability to choose freely"? Perhaps you mean all of these, or none of them. I've heard all of these and many other definitions here. Since "intelligence" is the sole explanatory construct of this entire "theory" of ID, one might think there would be some consensus on what it is supposed to be referring to, but no. We cannot talk about empirical evidence for something when nobody will say what that something is supposed to be. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Good afternoon RDFish:
I am NOT saying that ID lacks evidence. Rather, I am saying that ID lacks meaning.
What does that mean? At a minimum ID means we are here intentionally. That means there is a purpose, beyond the mundane, to our existence. And that means we should be figuring out what that is and how to achieve it. It also means there is more to life than physics and chemistry can account for. And that means we have more to figure out with respect to biology.Virgil Cain_{September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

You are asking me to provide a definition of “intelligence” that makes ID into a meaningful, coherent, and empirically supported theory – which of course nobody can do – and then when I don’t you accuse me of dodging your question? This is truly a new height of absurdity, even in this forum!
No rational person reading this exchange thinks that I was asking you to provide an operational definiton of intelligence. This is the type of thing someone says in order to have anything at all to say. A child could see through this RD; it is 100% pure deflection.
You basic error, UB, is this one mistake: I am NOT saying that ID lacks evidence. Rather, I am saying that ID lacks meaning. Read that a few times until you understand it.
And so is this.Upright BiPed_{September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Hi Upright BiPed,
This is the non-engagement that I predicted upthread, demonstrating again the validity of my comment. Not only can you not acknowledge any empirical evidence in support of ID, you can’t even bring yourself to conceive of a response to evidence that even you would not argue with. Hence, your challenge in place of an answer to the question. You took the easy way out.
You are asking me to provide a definition of "intelligence" that makes ID into a meaningful, coherent, and empirically supported theory - which of course nobody can do - and then when I don't you accuse me of dodging your question? This is truly a new height of absurdity, even in this forum! You basic error, UB, is this one mistake: I am NOT saying that ID lacks evidence. Rather, I am saying that ID lacks meaning. Read that a few times until you understand it. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

This is the non-engagement that I predicted upthread, demonstrating again the validity of my comment. Not only can you not acknowledge any empirical evidence in support of ID, you can't even bring yourself to concieve of a response to evidence that even you would not argue with. Hence, your challenge in place of an answer to the question. You took the easy way out. What is interesting about this is not that you won't give up an answer to the hypothetical, it's that you imagine yourself to be rational about the evidence in support of ID.Upright BiPed_{September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

RDFish- what you ask for has already been provided.Virgil Cain_{September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Hi Upright BiPed,
I simply asked what you would do if presented with a definition as legitimate as that used by SETI
You aren't making sense. What I would do (argue) if I was presented with some definition of "intelligence" in the context of ID depends entirely on what that definition is of course. Why don't you try one and see? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

RD, the reason I say "You are not intellectually prepared to acknowledge any positive empirical evidence for ID based on an operational definition of intelligence" is because you are not intellectually prepared to acknowledge any positive empirical evidence for ID based on an operational definition of intelligence. It runs counter to your stated purpose here, remember? That's why I was asking you what you would do if someone presented you an operational definition of intelligence on par with that used by SETI. Notice also that I did not argue for any particular definition, nor did I attack your repeated arguments against whatever definitions you chose to attack. I simply asked what you would do if presented with a definition as legitimate as that used by SETI, and the question itself is apparently so repugnant to you that (even after being asked again and again and again) you've been completely unable to even ponder an answer. It’s clearly not a question you intend to engage, thereby demonstrating the validity of my comment.Upright BiPed_{September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

RDFish:
Good grief, what planet are you from? How could you misconstrue my points so badly?
and
I am pretty sure from our previous encounters that you will refuse to engage this argument, but there you have it.
Oh, the irony! ID has an operational definition of "intelligence". ID has a methodology to determine design from nature, operating freely. All RDFish can do is ignore what ID actually says and hump a strawman in its place.Virgil Cain_{September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

Hi UprightBiPed,
There is no ad hominem is my statement. You are not intellectually prepared to acknowledge any positive empirical evidence for ID based on an operational definition of intelligence.
That is hilarious. You deny making an ad hominem statement by immediately making an ad hominem statement regarding my personal intellect. Classic!
The term “purposeful” was not my term; it was used by SETI in describing the presence of an extra-terrestrial narrow-band radio transmitter.
Yes, and what might your point be?
Your overall points about SETI are not in conflict with my points about SETI.
Great, we agree! SETI uses a well-defined definition of "intelligence" to frame its search, and is motivated by looking for something known to science ("life as we know it").
Your points about astrobiology are not particularly germane to the issue.
Yes, that was the point about "life as we know it".
Your points about ID are mostly self-serving positioning statements, and have become a permanent fixture in your comments here (despite of any amount of correction) and therefore they are not of any particular interest.
You refuse to ever address my points, apparently because you are unable to.
Is there something extra in your comments that you wanted me to respond to?
Well yes: That in contrast with SETI, ID provides no operational definition for "intelligence", and looks for something completely unknown to science (some sort of human-like conscious mind that is not itself a property of a complex organism and which is capable of creating universes, setting physical constants, etc). ID is in many ways the opposite of SETI: SETI looks for things that do not occur in nature outside of human activity, seeking to infer extra-terrestrial life forms; ID looks at things that DO occur in nature outside of human activity, seeking to infer extra-terrestrial NON-life forms!
You previously stated that SETI is only looking for a source of intelligence, and you tried very obviously to position their activity as a search for so much as a non-conscious, non-aware, non-problem-solving, non-learning, perhaps even non-biological entity producing narrow-band radio signals.
Huh? No, of course the SETI search is all about looking for alien life forms - everybody knows that!!! How many times must I say it? They hire astrobiologists because they are looking for life as we know it on some other planet! What is wrong with you? However, they have operationalized their definition of "intelligence" so their search is well-defined and unambiguous. In SETI, the word "intelligence" means "capable of producing narrow band transmissions". Why can't you understand this?
In truth, by their own words, SETI is very clear that they are searching for signs of a sophisticated technologically-advanced civilization on par with our own — presumably because such a civilization would likely be necessary to build the working radio transmitter required to create the type of signal that SETI is looking for.
Yes of course! A civilization of complex living organisms on some other planet!
And when presented with SETI’s own words on this matter, you tried to imply that those terms (i.e. “sophisticated”, “technologically, “advanced”, “civilization”) probably resulted from the hopeful and giddy whims of astrobiologists, instead of being based on their cornerstone observation that the only source of a narrow-band radio signal is a “purposely built radio transmitter”.
Good grief, what planet are you from? How could you misconstrue my points so badly? What I said was that their operational definition of "intelligence" referred only to producing transmissions, and not any other aspect normally associated with intelligence (learning, novel problem solving, etc). If the search turns up a narrow-band transmission, it will be up to theorists to argue what particular characteristics we might validly infer as to the source.
Well, don’t sweat it RD, I was only asking what you would do if you were given an operational definition of intelligence on par with that of SETI. You are not going to answer that question, so I’ll move on.
Your are consistently wrong, even about this. If you say that ID's operational definition of "intelligence" is "able to produce CSI", then I will argue that ID is a vacuous hypothesis: "The CSI in biology is produced by something that is able to produce CSI". Again as opposed to SETI, ID does not associate "intelligence" with "life as we know it" or with any other entity known to our empirical experience (for obvious reasons), and so has no justification for associating any other attribute beyond the bare operational definition. I am pretty sure from our previous encounters that you will refuse to engage this argument, but there you have it. Cheers, RDFIsh/AIGuyRDFish_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

I can’t make sense of this.
I know better.
And here is what I’ve been waiting for, where you invariably stop trying to debate the issues and instead resort to childish ad hominems.
There is no ad hominem is my statement. You are not intellectually prepared to acknowledge any positive empirical evidence for ID based on an operational definition of intelligence. I was merely asking you how you would handle it if you were presented with such a case.
You have no response to my points about purpose, SETI, astrobiology, and ID.
The term "purposeful" was not my term; it was used by SETI in describing the presence of an extra-terrestrial narrow-band radio transmitter. Your overall points about SETI are not in conflict with my points about SETI. Your points about astrobiology are not particularly germane to the issue. Your points about ID are mostly self-serving positioning statements, and have become a permanent fixture in your comments here (despite of any amount of correction) and therefore they are not of any particular interest. Is there something extra in your comments that you wanted me to respond to? You previously stated that SETI is only looking for a source of intelligence, and you tried very obviously to position their activity as a search for so much as a non-conscious, non-aware, non-problem-solving, non-learning, perhaps even non-biological entity producing narrow-band radio signals. In truth, by their own words, SETI is very clear that they are searching for signs of a sophisticated technologically-advanced civilization on par with our own -- presumably because such a civilization would likely be necessary to build the working radio transmitter required to create the type of signal that SETI is looking for. And when presented with SETI’s own words on this matter, you tried to imply that those terms (i.e. “sophisticated”, “technologically, “advanced”, “civilization”) probably resulted from the hopeful and giddy whims of astrobiologists, instead of being based on their cornerstone observation that the only source of a narrow-band radio signal is a “purposely built radio transmitter”. By suggesting that I haven’t responded to your points, are you indicating that you would like to go on defending your characterization of SETI's intent –or– are you simply trying to obscure your characterization from view? Well, don’t sweat it RD, I was only asking what you would do if you were given an operational definition of intelligence on par with that of SETI. You are not going to answer that question, so I'll move on.Upright BiPed_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Hi Upright BiPed,
Try as he might, he just can’t obscure the fact that an operational definition of intelligence (based on nothing but the universal observations of human investigators) is used to identify the action of an entirely unknown intelligence — without any additional properties or characteristics of that intelligence being necessary to the test.
I can't make sense of this. Are you saying that other characteristics of the source would be empirically warranted if we detected a narrow-band signal? What inferences of characteristics would you say would be empirically justified? The reason SETI established an operational definition is precisely because the term "intelligence" is recognized to be unclear and ambiguous.
It must be a drag for you RD. Tell us, what are you going to do if anyone should ever give you an operational definition of intelligence that is appropriate to biology? Obviously, you are not intellectually prepared to accept the empirical data (as would be the case in the proper conduct of science) so what would you do? This is, of course, a rhetorical question, but if it weren’t, I would imagine that you’d simply make it easy on yourself and just say it’ll never happen, or that it’s impossible. Perhaps you could flower it up with your normal irrelevant babble.
And here is what I've been waiting for, where you invariably stop trying to debate the issues and instead resort to childish ad hominems. You have no response to my points about purpose, SETI, astrobiology, and ID. Instead you just declare my arguments are irrelevant babble, as though that was a counter-argument. Since you refuse to engage the argument, I once again have no choice but to consider that you concede it. Thanks. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

the operational definition makes their search meaningful and coherent
Try as he might, he just can't obscure the fact that an operational definition of intelligence (based on nothing but the universal observations of human investigators) is used to identify the action of an entirely unknown intelligence -- without any additional properties or characteristics of that intelligence being necessary to the test. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - It must be a drag for you RD. Tell us, what are you going to do if anyone should ever give you an operational definition of intelligence that is appropriate to biology? Obviously, you are not intellectually prepared to accept the empirical data (as would be the case in the proper conduct of science) so what would you do? This is, of course, a rhetorical question, but if it weren’t, I would imagine that you’d simply make it easy on yourself and just say it’ll never happen, or that it’s impossible. Perhaps you could flower it up with your normal irrelevant babble.Upright BiPed_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
In contrast, ID fails to agree on what the operational definition of “intelligence” is,
Incorrect. IDists give you different definitions because they don't understand your game, which is to obfuscate.
Such a thing is obviously unknown to science, and thus would require actual evidence in order for anyone to accept it as a scientific result.
And the evidence has been presented. Ignoring it will not make it go away.Virgil Cain_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Hi Upright BiPed,
Our universal observation of narrow band radio signals is that they are only produced by “a purposely built transmitter” (SETI).
Purpose is subjective; the objective fact of the matter is that they are produced by "human-built transmitters".
SETI explicitly considers such signals as a reliable correlate of intelligent action (i.e. an effect caused by an intelligent agent).
SETI is not a theory nor a discipline - it is a collection of people searching for signals from outer space. They have adopted an operational definition for "intelligence", and that is what they are looking for.
This is where you part from SETI, for what can only be personal reasons.
I don't "part from" SETI, for reasons personal or otherwise. They have published an operational definition for the term "intelligence", which allows scientists to objectively determine what they looking for and establish unambiguously if they find it.
You may envision the possibility of some distant planet containing a rock formation or some simple tube worm that emits narrow band radio signals,...
Or some previously unknown effect deriving from quantum loops or non-local retro-causality or - most likely - something entirely beyond our ability to comprehend, just as quantum phenomena were unimagined 100 years ago and still defy our attempts at conceptualizing the underlying reality of these bizarre effects.
...but SETI is explicitly clear that they view the receiving of such a signal as evidence of a “transmitting civilization” and “technically-sophisticated beings” and “technological civilizations” that are at a “technological level at least as advanced as our own” (SETI).
Well of course SETI people (many of them astrobiologists!) will assume that complex living beings ("life as we know it", as the SETI folks say) would be responsible for such a signal! They aren't going to posit that something completely unknown to us - such as some sort of thing that has human-like mental abilities without the benefit of a brain! That is why they discuss evolution, encephalization quotients, and other aspects of astrobiology when they estimate the likelihood of finding extra-terrestrial life forms. So, they provide a clear operational defintion of "intelligence", and they also explain they are looking for something that we are familiar with ("life as we know it"). Although SETI is not a theory or a discipline, the operational definition makes their search meaningful and coherent, and their focus on astrobiology aligns their motivation with known science. In contrast, ID fails to agree on what the operational definition of "intelligence" is, and seeks to demonstrate the existence of something that transcends "natural processes" - something that would be capable not only of designing eyeballs and flagella, but also of creating a universe and setting the physical constants by acts of will. Such a thing is obviously unknown to science, and thus would require actual evidence in order for anyone to accept it as a scientific result. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @ 42
I have no desire to argue a point that is obvious to anyone who grasps the distinction between “nothing in common with human beings” and “technologically-advanced civilization”.
Indeed. But you have to understand that obscurantism is RDFish’s game. In my How to Land a Red Fish post I asked him to put up or shut up on his claim that no monist believes there is nothing but matter in motion. He responded with a bunch of gibberish, and this is my response to him:
You are the one who says over and over that no monist believes that the universe consists of only matter in motion in space-time. I ask you to tell us what monists believe exists in addition to matter in motion in space-time, and you’ve got nothing. Instead you give us some X Files song and dance about how the truth is out there. Here’s the bottom line. You have enough sense to know that mindless matter in motion through space-time cannot possibly account for the observations. Yet you absolutely refuse to countenance the most obvious answer – guiding intelligence – because that answer has theological implications you do not like. You don’t like the answer that is staring you in the face, but you don’t have another answer. So you resort to obscurantism. I can understand why you want to wallow in obscurantism Fish, but for the life of me I don’t know why you expect the rest of us to wallow with you.
Barry Arrington_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Well said Box! :) http://images.jordansdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/26-anniversary-michael-jordan-slam-dunk-contest-570x450.jpgbornagain77_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

RDFish: 1) Are there any guided material processes? BOX: How about you typing a post? A material process guided by an intelligent agent.

RDFish: Hmm, in that case, what would constitute a guided immaterial process?
Rational inference is an immaterial process guided by an understanding mind.
RDFish: I’m confused by this talk of “material” vs “immaterial”. After all, BA77 just argued that all of physical reality is nothing but information (and I think that may have some truth to it), but people here keep talking about “unguided material processes” so I’m trying to figure out what they mean.
So you are confused by the concept that matter is ultimately dependent on mind? Now you see no difference between e.g. a rock and e.g. your consciousness whatsoever. I find that hard to believe. Blind watchmaker evolution is posited as a non-teleological “unguided material process” and I think you know full well what is meant by that.
RDFish: 3) What are guided processes guided by? BOX: Well the creation of a post is obviously guided by an intelligent agent.

RDFish: Well, it’s performed by a human being, if that is what you mean. But is my behavior “guided” or “unguided”?
Obviously your material fingers are guided by you — as an intelligent agent.
RDFish: Are you saying that mind is ontologically distinct from matter, but the former somehow influences the latter? In that case yes, I’d like to understand how this “influence” takes place, and how you know about it.
Mind-body and body-mind causal interaction is a well known problem — even for materialism. BTW I’m spiritual monist.
RDFish: I’d also like to know why that influence is “immaterial”, but an influence like quantum entanglement or even gravity is “material”.
The defining feature here is that the influence from the mind is teleological. Purpose — having a goal in mind — is something we do not ascribe to material processes that behave according to natural law and quantum physics.
RDFish: 4) What sort of processes are responsible for human cognition? BOX: An immaterial mind.

RDFish: OK, so you are declaring that substance dualism is true, got it. Would you agree that if substance dualism was not true, then the arguments for ID would fall apart?
By assuming, per impossible, that blind non-rational purposeless particles in motion are a sufficient cause for our consciousness, rationality and thoughts, we have assumed a material cause for information. However, notice that we only arrive at a sufficient cause for information by (also) assuming a brain. Not "entangled particles" or "gravity" produces information, only the brain does. Do ID arguments fall apart under these circumstances? I don’t think so. How about the Fine-tuned Universe argument? If fine-tuning is real obviously a brain cannot be posited as a cause. How about the origin of life in our universe? Obviously a brain cannot be a cause. How about the origin of life on earth? Obviously only an alien brain can be posited as a cause. Lastly only an alien brain can be an explanation for the bacterium flagellum or the bat’s echolocation system. BTW I’m spiritual monist.
RDFish: How do you know material forces are “blind”? Haven’t you been reading what BA77 posts regarding, say, delayed-choice quantum eraser experiments?
By “blind” is meant having no goal in mind — being non-teleological.Box_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

RDFish:
Well there’s yet another definition I’ve seen, OK.
Many times. You seem to want to lock it down to one, which means you are on some agenda.
But inferring “purpose” from causality is subjective, isn’t it?
Not to people who know what they are doing.
For example, doesn’t water manipulate the earth to carve a riverbed for the purpose of flowing to lower ground?
No.
I think you need to add another element to this particular definition in order to make it work for you – you need to add “libertarian free will”.
I think you have never investigated anything and as such don't understand investigations.
On the contrary – simply read this thread and you will see that ID says intelligence was the cause of living things on Earth!
ID doesn't say anything about the intelligence.
In addition, at least some ID proponents say that intelligence transcends physical causality, and that it is ontologically distinct from matter.
Irrelevant to ID.
And this very same set of observations and experience confirm that intelligent agency invariably arises from complex mechanism.
No, all we know is intelligence comes from intelligence.
You are assuming here that “nature” for some reason excludes “human beings”. What is your basis for that distinction?
Forensic science, archaeology and SETI depend on that distinction. If someone can show that nature can produce humans then ID fails.
So that means we can just as safely infer that some complex organism was responsible.
That would be where to start.
So if we really follow the evidence instead of religious teachings, we end up inferring that life on Earth came from complex life elsewhere.
It's still ID.
And if we came from complex life elsewhere, it’s more likely that we are simply the descendents of those life forms rather than the products of their advanced bioengineering.
That's OK with ID. It would mean that life on Earth was not the result of differing accumulations of countless genetic accidents- which is untestable anyway.
Once you actually follow the evidence, that is where you end up.
So what?Virgil Cain_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

RD: You are quite right – SETI looks specifically for “the capacity to transmit a narrow band signal detectable from earth”. That is their operational definition of “intelligence”. UB: Correct. And we can see that their operational definition is based on our universal observation of effects caused by intelligent agents. RD: Well no, our universal observation of effects caused by intelligent agents are not equivalent to “creating narrow-band transmissions” obviously. In fact very few people or animals are capable of doing that, right?
Our universal observation of narrow band radio signals is that they are only produced by “a purposely built transmitter” (SETI). SETI explicitly considers such signals as a reliable correlate of intelligent action (i.e. an effect caused by an intelligent agent). The fact that few people actually know how to build a transmitter has nothing to do with it. What is universal is our *observation* of the source of narrow-band signals, not the *number* of agents capable of building a transmitter.
RD: Whatever other inferences might be made if a signal is ever received is currently outside the scope of SETI (which, after all, is not a theory nor a scientific discipline, but merely a search for these signals). UB: Again correct. They would have confirmed an instance of intelligent action; made valid without additional knowledge of the source. RD: Yes. And again, they make clear that by the term “intelligent” they mean nothing more or less than “capable of producing narrow-band transmission”. There may be something out in the universe that produces narrow-band transmissions but has nothing else in common with human beings – it isn’t conscious, can’t solve novel problems, can’t learn, etc. – but by SETI’s definition it would still be “intelligent”.
This is where you part from SETI, for what can only be personal reasons. You may envision the possibility of some distant planet containing a rock formation or some simple tube worm that emits narrow band radio signals, but SETI is explicitly clear that they view the receiving of such a signal as evidence of a “transmitting civilization” and “technically-sophisticated beings” and “technological civilizations” that are at a “technological level at least as advanced as our own” (SETI). This is the central primary feature of the SETI project, made evident throughout their activities. We can look at your descriptors (non-conscious some-things, unable to solve problems and unable to learn) and we can directly compare those to SETI’s published statements (technologically-sophisticated civilizations, capable of constructing radio transmitters for communication, advanced in technologies at least as much as our own civilization) and we easily see the level of disconnect at work in your comments. I have no desire to argue a point that is obvious to anyone who grasps the distinction between “nothing in common with human beings” and “technologically-advanced civilization”. The only point I am making is that they would have confirmed an act of intelligence (via an operational definition of intelligence) without knowing any else about the source of that intelligence.Upright BiPed_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

Hi Upright BiPed,
Correct. And we can see that their [SETI's] operational definition is based on our universal observation of effects caused by intelligent agents.
Well no, our universal observation of effects caused by intelligent agents are not equivalent to "creating narrow-band transmissions" obviously. In fact very few people or animals are capable of doing that, right?
Again correct. They would have confirmed an instance of intelligent action; made valid without additional knowledge of the source.
Yes. And again, they make clear that by the term "intelligent" they mean nothing more or less than "capable of producing narrow-band transmission". There may be something out in the universe that produces narrow-band transmissions but has nothing else in common with human beings - it isn't conscious, can't solve novel problems, can't learn, etc. - but by SETI's definition it would still be "intelligent". The case is the same with ID: There may be something out in the universe that satisfies the operational definition (given by some, but not all, ID authors) for "intelligence", viz. "capable of producing CSI", but has nothing else in common with human beings - it isn't conscious, can't solve novel problems, can't learn, and so on. That is the point that seems so challenging for most people here to grasp. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

Hi Virgil Cain,
RDFish: Likewise, ID’s operational definition of “intelligence” appears to be “the capacity to produce complex specified information”. VC: The ability to manipulate nature for a purpose.
Well there's yet another definition I've seen, OK. But inferring "purpose" from causality is subjective, isn't it? For example, doesn't water manipulate the earth to carve a riverbed for the purpose of flowing to lower ground? Doesn't the moon reflect sunlight for the purpose of making our nights more romantic? I think you need to add another element to this particular definition in order to make it work for you - you need to add "libertarian free will".
RDF: The main point here is that ID reifies “intelligence” as though it is a known causal entity apart from the complex organism that behaves intelligently. VC: ID doesn’t say anything about the intelligence.
On the contrary - simply read this thread and you will see that ID says intelligence was the cause of living things on Earth! In addition, at least some ID proponents say that intelligence transcends physical causality, and that it is ontologically distinct from matter.
The point about CSI and intelligence is that through our observations and experiences CSI arises only via intelligent agency activity.
And this very same set of observations and experience confirm that intelligent agency invariably arises from complex mechanism. Right?
We have never seen nature producing anything close to it.
You are assuming here that "nature" for some reason excludes "human beings". What is your basis for that distinction?
That means when we see CSI and didn’t directly observe it arise, we can safely infer some intelligent agency did it.
So that means we can just as safely infer that some complex organism was responsible. So if we really follow the evidence instead of religious teachings, we end up inferring that life on Earth came from complex life elsewhere. And if we came from complex life elsewhere, it's more likely that we are simply the descendents of those life forms rather than the products of their advanced bioengineering. Once you actually follow the evidence, that is where you end up. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT}

Hi Box,
RDFish: 1) Are there any guided material processes? BOX: How about you typing a post? A material process guided by an intelligent agent.
Hmm, in that case, what would constitute a guided immaterial process?
RDFish: 2) Are there any unguided immaterial (or non-material?) processes? Box: Unguided by an intelligent agent?
You tell me! I'm confused by this talk of "material" vs "immaterial". After all, BA77 just argued that all of physical reality is nothing but information (and I think that may have some truth to it), but people here keep talking about "unguided material processes" so I'm trying to figure out what they mean.
The coming into existence of a desire for the truth, for instance, is not something that one creates/guides.
OK, so when people desire the truth, that is "unguided" and "immaterial" - got it.
RDFish: 3) What are guided processes guided by? BOX: Well the creation of a post is obviously guided by an intelligent agent.
Well, it's performed by a human being, if that is what you mean. But is my behavior "guided" or "unguided"?
RDFish: How are they guided? BOX: What do you mean? Are you asking how mind influences matter?
I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Are you saying that mind is ontologically distinct from matter, but the former somehow influences the latter? In that case yes, I'd like to understand how this "influence" takes place, and how you know about it. I'd also like to know why that influence is "immaterial", but an influence like quantum entanglement or even gravity is "material".
RDFish: 4) What sort of processes are responsible for human cognition? BOX: An immaterial mind.
OK, so you are declaring that substance dualism is true, got it. Would you agree that if substance dualism was not true, then the arguments for ID would fall apart?
RDFish: How do you know? BOX: For one thing because the alternative — non-rational blind material forces — is an insufficient cause; see e.g. the argument from reason.
How do you know material forces are "blind"? Haven't you been reading what BA77 posts regarding, say, delayed-choice quantum eraser experiments? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

You are quite right – SETI looks specifically for “the capacity to transmit a narrow band signal detectable from earth”. That is their operational definition of “intelligence”.
Correct. And we can see that their operational definition is based on our universal observation of effects caused by intelligent agents.
Whatever other inferences might be made if a signal is ever received is currently outside the scope of SETI (which, after all, is not a theory nor a scientific discipline, but merely a search for these signals).
Again correct. They would have confirmed an instance of intelligent action; made valid without additional knowledge of the source.
ID’s operational definition of “intelligence” appears to be “the capacity to produce complex specified information”. Granting that biological systems are chock-full of just that, ID validly infers that whatever produced this CSI in living systems was indeed capable of producing it. By itself, that is a perfectly vacuous conclusion of course – no matter what caused the CSI in living systems it would have to be – by definition! – capable of producing it!
This is more than slightly gratuitous.Upright BiPed_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Flinging poop is also a guided material process. A pro throwing a fastball a bit more guided. Most of the material processes we witness daily are guided. Can't think of any unguided ones I saw today, at the moment. Nothing but guided atoms in motion on the material process front.ppolish_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
1) Are there any guided material processes?
Have you given up your silly claim that "modern" matter is not composed of particles that collide with each other? Splash.Mung_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply