BA77 links on the consequences of mind = brain ideologies

_{kairosfocus

February 3, 2018

Amorality, Animal minds, Artificial Intelligence, Atheism, Evolutionary Incoherence, Food for thought, Humor, Lessons of History, mind and brain, rhetoric, worldview}

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

While we’re on a roll on AI and its import at the hands of evolutionary materialistic scientism dressed in a lab coat, BA77 has linked a comic strip — see here (main site here; cf. twist on The Cave currently top of the heap) — that is at first funny then soberingly serious:

As in, where do you think these issues fit in:

And perhaps Engineer Derek Smith’s model has a few points to ponder as we think about the higher order, supervisory controller in the cybernetic loop:

The Derek Smith two-tier controller cybernetic model

Food for thought. END

PS: Could I put up for reflection the notion that the human soul is at the interface of spirit and body, including Brain and CNS?

Comments

MB, I think there is a fundamental difference of view on issue drivers and what is pivotal. As I explained already, even the science issues are not driven by science but by things that impose crooked yardsticks which then make what is straight, accurate and upright seem absurd and even threatening. If that were not so, the matter would have been cleared up in ID's favour maybe twenty years ago as-- for just one instance -- the mere fact of coded text and linked information processing systems in the heart of cell based life is already decisive. Obvious fact, it hasn't happened. We have a bewitched civilisation that has become very warped and locked into ultimately suicidal agendas, a march of ruinous folly . . . as has happened over and over historically. Let me clip the UD About page, as that gives you a good overview:
Uncommon Descent holds that… Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution — an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.
Sobering and sound. That march of folly lock-in I mentioned is why we have to deal at adequate length with plumb-line tests that expose crooked yardsticks; knowing that we are dealing with many who will cling to absurdities but that eventually more and more will see the point so there will be a tipping point. Ask Wilberforce if you doubt me. My hope is, the tip-point will be before the cliff's edge crumbles underfoot. I am also (for all my sins I suppose) experienced with agit-prop, deceitful street theatre, false fronts of manipulated dupes, low level guerrilla warfare tactics, media amplifier games and linked lawfare . . . and, sadly, THAT is what we are facing at civilisation level, where as you can see from Lewontin et al, evolutionary materialistic scientism is part of the framework being advanced by various agendas as it opens room for where they wish to take our civilisation. On 2400 years of history, over the cliff. In this context, what will work is a cumulative case across the board, and guess what: few others are making it, especially i/l/o the design evidence and linked issues. KF PS: Also looking forward to your thoughts on the technical threads, especially as we open up the AI- agent action-intelligence- front. In progress as we speak.kairosfocus_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Jul3s @ 39- Do you understand what "etc." means? It means my list continues and is not limited to what came before the "etc.".ET_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Molson Bleu- Yes, people with low IQs and who are also proven to be scientifically illiterate are the type of people who "take pleasure in seeing the types of non-ID discussions they can draw us into. So again, why should we care as it exposes THEM for what they really are. That you can't see that reflects on you and not kairosfocus.ET_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

“However, KF is certainly one who often debates fundamental ID topics, and not only more general issues.” Very true. And I commend him for that. But he is also one of the first to be led off on hundred comment tangents by ID opponents. I have gone back over many of the recent long threads and he has been drawn into long arguments over things like abortion, pedophile rings, subjective morality, radical Islam, homosexuality, to just name a few. I’m sure that I am not the only one to have noticed this. I am certain that our opponents have. My friendly advice to him would simply be to refrain from taking the bait. And I don’t want to centre KF out because there are several others also guilty of readily taking the bait. “It’s not clear why our more valid interlocutors should be so shy as soon as important biological ID topics are discussed, while they are often so ready to intervene about religion, morals, politics, and so on.” I think that it is obvious. They take pleasure in seeing what types of non ID discussions they can draw ID proponents into. And given the fact that the majority of ID proponents are religious, they stick to the tried and true religious hot button topics. Things like abortion, morality, homosexuality, and the like. The solution to this problem is simple. Don’t participate in every tangent or every provocation instigated by our opponents. Make them address ID on its merits rather than play into their distraction tactics. Sadly, I am not confident that this advice will be heeded.Molson Bleu_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

PS: I should note on worldviews using Wiki as handy source:
A world view[1] or worldview is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view. A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.[2] The term is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung [?v?lt.?an??a?.??] (About this sound listen), composed of Welt ('world') and Anschauung ('view' or 'outlook').[3] The German word is also used in English. It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global description through which an individual, group or culture watches and interprets the world and interacts with it. Worldview remains a confused and confusing concept in English, used very differently by linguists and sociologists. It is for this reason that Underhill suggests five subcategories: world-perceiving, world-conceiving, cultural mindset, personal world, and perspective (see Underhill 2009, 2011 & 2012). Worldviews are often taken to operate at a conscious level, directly accessible to articulation and discussion, as opposed to existing at a deeper, pre-conscious level, such as the idea of "ground" in Gestalt psychology and media analysis. However, core worldview beliefs are often deeply rooted, and so are only rarely reflected on by individuals, and are brought to the surface only in moments of crises of faith.
it should be obvious why this is pivotal to UD's work, especially given that part of what we see is ideological redefinition of science imposed through agit-prop and lawfare. We also see disputes that boil down to challenging warrant of scientific findings or even knowledge itself. Further to these, we find those who challenge first principles of right reason. That is there are huge crooked yardstick problems that require dealing with plumbline tests.kairosfocus_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

Jul3s: Kindly read this:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . where of course "view" is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> "explanations of the world" is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised "demon[ic]" "supernatural" being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
. . . and Johnson's response:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.
[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:
"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses."
Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]
That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
. . . then tell me that we ought not to engage all the various fronts? Where, too, do or do not ideas have consequences? (And, all of this exchange, dear stander-by, is happening when a whole new front of technical discussion is emerging and is seeing the pattern of the "bad dogs" who are ever so prone to pounce being mysteriously silent and absent, even though many things have been confidently said elsewhere that have fallen to the ground once it is shown that such a thing as state space search exists.) KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

GP, perhaps its completely clear why. :)Upright BiPed_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

Molson Bleu: "I don’t mean to be rude, because I quite enjoy threads on religion, morality and the like, but I just don’t think that a site that claims to be about ID is the place for them. Doing so just provides further ammunition for our opposition." Well, let's say that people can certainly discuss those topics here, but I agree that more specific ID topics should be prevailing. However, KF is certainly one who often debates fundamental ID topics, and not only more general issues. As for me, I try to do my part, and I stick to biological ID discussions most of the time. Many others here regularly contribute to specific ID debates. The problem is that specific ID topics do not always attract a lot of discussants, especially from the other side. The lack of "enemies" in the discussion, especially the more serious enemies, is not of help, because in the end the discussion becomes some form of monologue. You can see something like that in my last OPs, for example: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-spliceosome-a-molecular-machine-that-defies-any-non-design-explanation/ https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-random-variation-a-simple-evaluation-of-the-probabilistic-resources-of-our-biological-world/ https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-natural-selection-an-interesting-open-discussion-with-gordon-davisson/ It's not clear why our more valid interlocutors should be so shy as soon as important biological ID topics are discussed, while they are often so ready to intervene about religion, morals, politics, and so on. However, as I have already said in my comment #23, discussions about AI, the nature of consciousness and its relation to brain and matter are certainly very scientific issues, and they are also strictly linked to ID theory. For example, all my basic definitions about ID depend strictly on a merely empirical approach to consciousness, which must avoid any pre-defined ideology about it.gpuccio_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

UD doesn't only complain about the consequences of beliefs that make rationality impossible. Criticizing this kind of idea is valid but UD attacks many other ideas with a weaker basis. I was talking about social or political consequences, like organ harvesting as mentioned in the OP. You glossed over the meat of the wow signal paper. The part that you claim has already been discussed is just the first part of the abstract and has nothing to do with their findings. If you don't want to check for yourself, I'll quote the relevant parts: "Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10^–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin. Plausible ways of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information. This is profound and goes way beyond what you were talking about. I don't live in the US so I can't buy the paper but I'd love to read it.Jul3s_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT}

Jul3s, there is such a thing as reduction to moral absurdity. There is also such a thing as the often bitterly costly example of history. In the case of minds and brains, reduction to grand delusion undermines the very possibility of responsible rational reflection much less discussion. Thus, it is absurd on the grounds that to arrive at such a "conclusion" as reducing mind to computational substrate one depends on exactly the validity of reasoning that is being undermined. Self-referential absurdity (and thus incoherence) on steroids. Which, BTW, is brought out in substantial detail above. KF PS: Mere links are not substantial, a money shot excerpt is advisable. The first of your urls links an abstract, beyond which is an apparently evasive paywall. I clip the excerpt:
It has been repeatedly proposed to expand the scope for SETI, and one of the suggested alternatives to radio is the biological media. Genomic DNA is already used on Earth to store non-biological information. Though smaller in capacity, but stronger in noise immunity is the genetic code. The code is a flexible mapping between codons and amino acids, and this flexibility allows modifying the code artificially. But once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known. Therefore it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature, if that conforms to biological and thermodynamic requirements. As the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out. A statistically strong intelligent-like “signal” in the genetic code is then a testable consequence of such scenario . . .
This is of course the same point made already above. The second case is an open access, PLOS article. Its abstract is:
Explaining the dramatic variation in species richness across the tree of life remains a key challenge in evolutionary biology. At the largest phylogenetic scales, the extreme heterogeneity in species richness observed among different groups of organisms is almost certainly a function of many complex and interdependent factors. However, the most fundamental expectation in macroevolutionary studies is simply that species richness in extant clades should be correlated with clade age: all things being equal, older clades will have had more time for diversity to accumulate than younger clades. Here, we test the relationship between stem clade age and species richness across 1,397 major clades of multicellular eukaryotes that collectively account for more than 1.2 million described species. We find no evidence that clade age predicts species richness at this scale. We demonstrate that this decoupling of age and richness is unlikely to result from variation in net diversification rates among clades. At the largest phylogenetic scales, contemporary patterns of species richness are inconsistent with unbounded diversity increase through time. These results imply that a fundamentally different interpretative paradigm may be needed in the study of phylogenetic diversity patterns in many groups of organisms.
This is indeed a new point in itself, though there will be the usual objections. For example, the radiation in the Cambrian era would be seen as in a window of time of perhaps as narrow as 5 - 10 MY or at most a few dozen MY, and it was at root level. So, it would not be a surprise on that to see that once a deep level body plan forms, it diversifies fairly rapidly on the timeline so the resulting levelling off of diversity suppresses an age signal. Where, too, morphological stasis is there as an issue . . . one that has been debated at UD time and again, with the usual exchanges. Remember, this is a field where on good chemical and biological as well as thermodynamic grounds, it was long since expected that we would not find soft tissues from the dinosaur era. Along comes Mary Schweitzer and suddenly we see a dismissing or a reworking and a ho-hum nothing there to see move along smartly. That, is what we are up against. The issue of root-level diversification first and linked morphological stasis is related, and this more or less the point made by Meyer in Darwin's Dilemma [c. 2013], by Loennig in his Dynamic genomes paper [2004] and by others in remarking on things like the Cambrian revolution. The basic points by these men are valid, and the matter is addressed in my briefing note here, and as usual it runs into the crooked yardstick standard challenge. [This note is linked through my handle and is therefore an implicit part of every comment I have ever made at UD. OP's don't link to the chosen link page for some reason.] Let me clip Loennig, late of the Max Planck Institute -- one of the earliest peer-reviewed world of life ID papers, one that was not subjected tot he hot controversy and personal attacks that Meyer and Sternberg faced:
examples like the horseshoe crab [apparently rated as morphologically static across c 250 Ma] are by no means rare exceptions from the rule of gradually evolving life forms . . . In fact, we are literally surrounded by 'living fossils' in the present world of organisms when applying the term more inclusively as "an existing species whose similarity to ancient ancestral species indicates that very few morphological changes have occurred over a long period of geological time" [85] . . . . Now, since all these "old features", morphologically as well as molecularly, are still with us, the basic genetical questions should be addressed in the face of all the dynamic features of ever reshuffling and rearranging, shifting genomes, (a) why are these characters stable at all and (b) how is it possible to derive stable features from any given plant or animal species by mutations in their genomes? . . . . A first hint for answering the questions . . . is perhaps also provided by Charles Darwin himself when he suggested the following sufficiency test for his theory [16]: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." . . . Biochemist Michael J. Behe [5] has refined Darwin's statement by introducing and defining his concept of "irreducibly complex systems", specifying: "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning" . . . [for example] (1) the cilium, (2) the bacterial flagellum with filament, hook and motor embedded in the membranes and cell wall and (3) the biochemistry of blood clotting in humans . . . . One point is clear: granted that there are indeed many systems and/or correlated subsystems in biology, which have to be classified as irreducibly complex and that such systems are essentially involved in the formation of morphological characters of organisms, this would explain both, the regular abrupt appearance of new forms in the fossil record as well as their constancy over enormous periods of time. For, if "several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function" are necessary for biochemical and/or anatomical systems to exist as functioning systems at all (because "the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning") such systems have to (1) originate in a non-gradual manner and (2) must remain constant as long as they are reproduced and exist. And this could mean no less than the enormous time periods mentioned for all the living fossils hinted at above. Moreover, an additional phenomenon would also be explained: (3) the equally abrupt disappearance of so many life forms in earth history . . . The reason why irreducibly complex systems would also behave in accord with point (3) is also nearly self-evident: if environmental conditions deteriorate so much for certain life forms (defined and specified by systems and/or subsystems of irreducible complexity), so that their very existence be in question, they could only adapt by integrating further correspondingly specified and useful parts into their overall organization, which prima facie could be an improbable process -- or perish . . . . According to Behe and several other authors [5-7, 21-23, 53-60, 68, 86] the only adequate hypothesis so far known for the origin of irreducibly complex systems is intelligent design (ID) . . . in connection with Dembski's criterion of specified complexity . . . . "For something to exhibit specified complexity therefore means that it matches a conditionally independent pattern (i.e., specification) of low specificational complexity, but where the event corresponding to that pattern has a probability less than the universal probability bound and therefore high probabilistic complexity" [23]. For instance, regarding the origin of the bacterial flagellum, Dembski calculated a probability of 10^-234[22].
kairosfocus_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT}

@ Kairosfocus I'm not sure what your first point is. I'm not calling IDists idiots, I'm saying that you are using arguments that are based on opposing principles. Claiming that we need to follow the evidence wherever it leads means we can't reject an idea simply because it has bad consequences. It means we accept the evidence. But UD also uses "this idea has awful consequences so we need to reject it" to argue against opposing ideas. But this way of arguing completely contradicts and undermines the first principle ID is based on, that of following the evidence. Also, the wow! signal paper I'm talking about has nothing to do with any of the arguments for ID that you mention. It strengthens ID in a way I have never seen before. See here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791 The other paper is here: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001381Jul3s_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

Jul3s, kindly cf the just above to MB. And allusion to IDiots who are ignorant, stupid insane or wicked is duly noted with the implications for your attitude and likely "sock[puppet]" status. KF PS: The Wow signal has come up several times here over the years and more broadly SETI has come up, even Sagan's "Contact." The point has repeatedly been made that, following Crick et al confirming von Neumann's prediction on requisites of kinematic self replication, the most relevant signals are in D/RNA and in linked proteins, backed by the associated information system that processes such. Clinging to a crooked yardstick continues even in the face of what the plumbline reveals. As for the other case, kindly feel free to outline and link documentation.kairosfocus_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

MB If you "took time" to look at the UD OP's and threads on AI and state/configuration space search, you will notice that in part they are responsive to objectors. Currently, one of the better class of objectors challenged the concept of search. Dembski et al failed to give a neat little mathematically flavoured definition acceptable to one and all, failed to state the problem just so, failed to summarise a neat little framework for algorithms. Much was made of differences from a long list of approaches. Now, I came to ID by way of informational implications of statistical thermodynamics, as the briefing that is always linked through my handle will testify. A copy of Dembski's No Free Lunch is within arm's length as I type (and a good part is accessible through Google Books). So, I know the significance of clusters of possibilities in zones of interest, and of a wider space symbolised traditionally as omega, sometimes [see Boltzmann's tomb] W. Including the significance of relative statistical weight and that of fluctuations. These are in fact foundational to the second law of thermodynamics, statistically understood. And indeed, I had up another recent technical thread on that which will be followed up in due course. As a result, search as sample based on blind walk or hop driven by chance and/or mechanical necessity and consuming resources leading to a constraint on what is plausible i/l/o sol system or observed cosmos has long been on my mind and to my certain knowledge it has long been in the discussion. Cf. my examples here and before that here. These and many other similar things will bring out a shocker: the design inference on FSCO/I etc as empirically tested, reliable sign is NOT dependent on sophisticated mathematics or exotic, rare, highly technical exercises in observation or experiment. Relatively speaking, its empirical and analytical basis is obvious. With a trillion member base all around us. Indeed, the following is a good example from so commonplace and so hostile a source as Wikipedia, on the futility of getting to strings at FSCO/I-relevant threshold [500 - 1,000 bits, i.e. 72 - 143 7-bit ASCII characters] by randomness-driven processes. Where, such meaningful or configuration-sensitive functional strings (vs gibberish strings) are deeply embedded in the heart of the living cell . . . D/RNA, Protein-linked AA chains etc. Let's clip the article in current form -- it has repeatedly featured here at UD over the years as a striking case of compelled testimony against known interest:
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. In fact the monkey would almost surely type every possible finite text an infinite number of times. However, the probability that monkeys filling the observable universe would type a complete work such as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but technically not zero). In this context, "almost surely" is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the "monkey" is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces an endless random sequence of letters and symbols. One of the earliest instances of the use of the "monkey metaphor" is that of French mathematician Émile Borel in 1913,[1] but the first instance may have been even earlier. Variants of the theorem include multiple and even infinitely many typists, and the target text varies between an entire library and a single sentence. Jorge Luis Borges traced the history of this idea from Aristotle's On Generation and Corruption and Cicero's De natura deorum (On the Nature of the Gods [--> NB: a cite from such heads my briefing note]), through Blaise Pascal and Jonathan Swift, up to modern statements with their iconic simians and typewriters. In the early 20th century, Borel and Arthur Eddington used the theorem to illustrate the timescales implicit in the foundations of statistical mechanics . . . . One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on August 4, 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the "monkeys" typed, "VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t" The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in "The Two Gentlemen of Verona". Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from "Timon of Athens", 17 from "Troilus and Cressida", and 16 from "Richard II".[24] A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on July 1, 2003, contained a Java applet that simulated a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took "2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years" to reach 24 matching characters: RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r"5j5&?OWTY Z0d... Due to processing power limitations, the program used a probabilistic model (by using a random number generator or RNG) instead of actually generating random text and comparing it to Shakespeare. When the simulator "detected a match" (that is, the RNG generated a certain value or a value within a certain range), the simulator simulated the match by generating matched text . . .
This particular type of example is old. Legend has it, it came up in Victorian-era debates on evolution though documentation at that level seems missing. Cicero raised it, in a classic design inference c. 50 BC. For sure it was in early C20 discussions of statistical thermodynamics -- monkeys at keyboards vs futility. Crick et al identified that DNA strings had coded textual character [as von Neumann predicted in discussing kinematic self-replicators in the late '40's] across the 1950's. Denton, 1985 raised it. Thaxton et al did so in the foundational ID technical work, TMLO. Dawkins tried to blunt it with the notorious but rhetorically effective Weasel and several successors have tried to make a less blatantly flawed attack on the blind watchmaker evolutionary search challenge. Which, is where Dembski came in. And, it has repeatedly come up since. So, the sort of objections currently being raised cannot be seriously grounded on the merits of the case. Indeed, the cumulative case is clear, and decisively in favour of the conclusion that FSCO/I is a strong, tested, reliable sign of design. So, why hasn't the case been settled and agreed long since in ID's favour? Because of established institutional power and dominant ideology, with Lewontin, US NAS and US NSTA as the clearest documentation. This points instantly to the relevance of worldviews, cultural/ policy/ legal/ political/ educational agendas tied to worldviews, also to the power of rhetoric and agit prop backed by lawfare. Indeed, c 2005, the first big move against ID was a lawfare gambit by which an ill-advised judge was induced to make rulings against ID including patently false findings that were textually 90+% copied from post-trial submissions of evolutionary materialistic scientism advocacy groups. So, though it is likely our most important single focus, pure science cannot be our only focus if we are to soundly address the matter at hand. If it were, that would have been settled over a decade ago and this blog would be likely an archive. This forces us to argue at multiple levels in multiple ways, and to deal with emerging objections found in the wild. The latest round of which happens to be ongoing: on one front, oh you IDiots didn't properly define search and search problems and search algorithms. (The subtext is quite clear, certainly in the discussion threads in the objecting penumbra.) On another, oh you don't focus enough on science. (When, on this, the issue is NOT evidence or inductive reasoning [and yes there is perpetual objection to that too] but epistemology and core principles of reasoning, even the worldviews level issues on minds vs brains and computational substrates. Which, under the focal themes of AI, is an emerging front.) So, there is a multi-front struggle, one that faces diehard, dyed in the wool objection that -- apart from obviously personal animus in too many cases -- is rooted in ideological and institutional dominance with implications for our whole civilisation. One of which BTW happens to be brought to a focus in the cartoon in the OP. Much is at stake. Where, a big part of the challenge is that if one makes a crooked yardstick his or her standard of straightness [being "true"], accuracy and uprightness, then what is really straight, accurate and upright cannot ever pass the demanded test of conformity with crookedness. This means that plumbline, self-evident or factually extremely hard to deny cases have to be brought to bear, exposing the root folly or absurdity. And even so, many in diehard mode will cling to their crooked yardsticks. But eventually, cumulatively, they will pay a price as more and more bystanders then just ordinary people become aware of the gap between the plumbline and the crooked yardstick. For instance, above in this comment, I put up the significance of strings and search-challenge to blindly discover FSCO/I rich strings. I challenge you to respond to this technical point. Explain to us why you accept or reject it, why. Explain why Crick was wrong to identify DNA as complex coded text, if you reject it. Or else, how plausible blind watchmaker search across a relevant configuration space will "easily" stumble upon such strings amidst the sea of non-functional, meaningless gibberish. A dodge away will itself tell us a lot. So, the ball is now in your court. KF PS: An unusually high hit per comment ratio suggests scrutiny, especially hostile scrutiny. The threads on the AI-agents-search space front show that pattern. In that context, the bad dog that is ever willing to pounce but now stays sullenly silent is itself suggestive.kairosfocus_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

@ Kairosfocus Don't be obtuse. Either tell people to follow the evidence wherever it leads (an idea this site has always promoted) OR tell them that the social consequences of an opposing belief are terrible and therefore it should be rejected on those grounds. You cannot do both without being a hypocrite. @ ET The evidence for ID is not limited to the topics you mention. Have you heard of the science paper "clade age and species richness are decoupled across the tree of life"? Or have you heard of the Wow! signal of the terrestrial genetic code? These papers unintentionally destroy key arguments in favor of evolution and yet I have NEVER seen them discussed here. Because falling for the distractions of skeptics is more important apparently.Jul3s_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

But why is it that many of the most active tangent threads are on subjects initially brought up by those opposed to ID?
Because they clearly cannot deal with the science and have to form some sort of distraction. Look our opponents and critics are not rational nor are they reasonable. I definitely don't care what they think as it is all but proven that they are intellectual cowards who couldn't support the claims of their position if their lives depended on it.ET_{February 3, 2018
February
02
Feb
3
03
2018
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

“So to fill in the gaps there has to be other topics that are of interest and also pertain to the overall argument/ culture war.” But why is it that many of the most active tangent threads are on subjects initially brought up by those opposed to ID? Am I the only one who has noticed this? Am I the only one who sees this as an intentional tactic used by evolutionists to distract us so that they can sneer and make fun of ‘those religious fundies’ who can’t keep on topic or on message? So that they can point out to others how easy those ‘IDists’ are to manipulate and lead by the nose. Surely we are smart enough not to be led down these rabbit holes.Molson Bleu_{February 3, 2018
February
02
Feb
3
03
2018
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

Molson Bleu- How many times can we talk about flagella, cilia, ATP synthase, spliceosomes, ribosomes, the genetic code, etc.? You do realize that the evidence for ID is finite and has been discussed to death. So to fill in the gaps there has to be other topics that are of interest and also pertain to the overall argument/ culture war.ET_{February 3, 2018
February
02
Feb
3
03
2018
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

Seversky, I think the history of Eugenics and beyond speaks for itself. Do I need to call Dr Mengele or others by name? Then, there is China on unfortunately very recent organ harvesting. KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2018
February
02
Feb
3
03
2018
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

KF, Yes, that would be a good thing, IMO.daveS_{February 3, 2018
February
02
Feb
3
03
2018
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

@ What is this infatuation with these Jack Chick-style cartoons? They might at least try to get things right rather than just parroting the prejudices of their intended audience.
Well, according to this machine, you are missing the part of your brain that causes consciousness.
Leaving aside the fact there is no such machine, there is not thought to be a single "part of the brain that causes consciousness". Pretty much the whole brain seems to be involved to some extent
Well, you can still behave like anyone else, you just don't experience anything.
Zombies and Turing tests notwithstanding, there is no way to know what another individual is actually experiencing and no machine that can tell us.
Oh, well, since you don't technically count as a person, I'm legally allowed to harvest your organs and put them into someone who can appreciate them.
Where to start. One, you don't need to be conscious to be entitled to basic human rights. Doctors do not have the right to harvest your organs just because you are unconscious, not even if you are in a persistent vegetative state or coma. Two, organs can only be harvested after the death of the donor has been verified multiple times. Three, organs can only be harvested in 'opt-in' systems with the explicit consent of the donor, their next-of-kin or legal guardians. In 'opt-out' systems, the individual must explicitly refuse to allow their organs to be used, otherwise they are presumed or deemed to have assented.Seversky_{February 3, 2018
February
02
Feb
3
03
2018
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

DS, I would not be surprised to meet Max on the other side, maybe Prince too. But I don't know. KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2018
February
02
Feb
3
03
2018
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

MB, we do not control comments; people choose what they want to talk about. I am a bit surprised this thread popped up as actively as it did, but this is where you and others have chosen to focus. KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2018
February
02
Feb
3
03
2018
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

PS: Note BA77 in another thread as was picked up in the OP:
“(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.” J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004 https://www.scribd.com/document/183053947/Experience-Meta-consciousness-and-the-Paradox-of-Introspection And there you have it folks, absolute proof that when you deny the reality of your own mind you have in fact lost your mind!
kairosfocus_{February 3, 2018
February
02
Feb
3
03
2018
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

“MB, Currently, there are four active OP’s by the undersigned on technical topics.“ With a total of five comments by people other than you amongst all four. While the top five threads in the last thirty days are about morality x 2, climate change, methodological naturalism and a thread about where UD stands amongst web sites on the internet. And even the one on methodological naturalism had a good helping of religion and God in the comments. I don’t mean to be rude, because I quite enjoy threads on religion, morality and the like, but I just don’t think that a site that claims to be about ID is the place for them. Doing so just provides further ammunition for our opposition.Molson Bleu_{February 3, 2018
February
02
Feb
3
03
2018
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

KF,
PS: Could I put up for reflection the notion that the human soul is at the interface of spirit and body, including Brain and CNS?
If you believe that some animals such as dogs are conscious, does that mean that they too are transdimensional hybrids? Possibly with souls? 🤔daveS_{February 3, 2018
February
02
Feb
3
03
2018
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

MB, Currently, there are four active OP's by the undersigned on technical topics. A major theme in those topics is state space search challenge and its implications for the implied capability of blind needle in haystack search. One in particular directly responds to claims made about search by highlighting the reality of state space search [an AI and statistical thermodynamics connected approach]. This responds in part to challenges made at an objector site. In addition, I just counted something like thirteen other OP's on the opening page on technically related topics. So, there is significant discussion on such matters. Right now, there seems to be studious silence from objectors in the face of the corrective aspect of OP's on state space search, where strong claims were made in apparent ignorance of that approach on its own merits as a statistical thermodynamics anchored view and the fact of its extension to computing. That said, UD is not only about technical ID matters but addresses concerns tied to science, worldviews, society and policy i/l/o the history of our civilisation. The themes you just complained about are therefore within the ambit of the discussion. Indeed, this very thread has in it a direct implication on the meaning of conscious intelligent agency, connection to debates over explaining responsible, rational freedom [thus also rights and responsibilities] on computational substrates, and the ethical implications. Though the cartoon cited on fair use is simplistic, dehumanisation tied to mind-brain or genetics claims etc is a known issue; indeed, it is there in the opening passage of H G Wells' War of the Worlds -- a well known Sci Fi novel, that, had its warning been heeded, would have made a difference to C20 history. (Yes, a popular novel can serve as a warning to a civilisation, as Uncle Tom's Cabin did in mid C19 in the USA.) You will see that from the OP on, I have raised relevant technical research including the Smith cybernetic model and issues of quantum interfaces. Currently, this is the most active discussion thread at UD. So, there is no neat and simple line of partition on the issues at stake. KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2018
February
02
Feb
3
03
2018
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

as to 19:
“In other words, a non-religious person should rationally conclude that life was designed.” "Yet few do."
Actually, even many leading atheists themselves readily admit that life and nature appear to be designed:
“This appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature.... Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science.” George Gaylord Simpson - “The Problem of Plan and Purpose in Nature” - 1947 living organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed" Richard C. Lewontin - Adaptation,” Scientific American, and Scientific American book 'Evolution' (September 1978) “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit - p. 138 (1990) "Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this" Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit - p. 30 “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins – The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1
Yet, atheist try to explain away this appearance of the design, which they themselves readily admit is apparent for all to see, by reference to 'natural selection, i.e. the supposed 'designer substitute':
“Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21 quoted from this video – Michael Behe – Life Reeks Of Design – 2010 – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY 4:30 minute mark: "It cannot come about by chance. It's absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance. That's absolutely out.,,, It's out of the question.,,, So where (does the appearance of design)) it come from? The process of gradual evolution by natural selection.” Richard Dawkins - From a Frog to a Prince - video https://youtu.be/ClleN8ysimg?t=267 Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought By Ernst Mayr - November 24, 2009 Excerpt: Every aspect of the “wonderful design” so admired by the natural theologians could be explained by natural selection. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought/ "The real core of Darwinism,,,, the 'design' of the natural theologian, by natural means." Ernst Mayr Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer - Francisco J. Ayala - May 15, 2007 Excerpt: "Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for the 'design' of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes,",,, Darwin's Explanation of Design Darwin's focus in The Origin was the explanation of design, with evolution playing the subsidiary role of supporting evidence. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567.full
Yet, the mathematics of population genetics has now cast the supposed 'designer substitute' of natural selection to the wayside: For instance:
The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. ,,, While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution.,,, Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. ,,, When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/
Thus, as Dr. Richard Sternberg states, "if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
“Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.” Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q
bornagain77_{February 3, 2018
February
02
Feb
3
03
2018
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

“MB, what people do and what they should do on warrant are categorically different things. This is one reason why subjectivism and relativism fail.” You won’t hear me disagree with you about this. But how does arguing about the nature of morality, or what end of the political spectrum Nazis fall, or the abortion issue, or homosexuality, or some of the other subjects repeatedly discussed here, advance the acceptance of ID? From the little I have seen on this site, it is almost always an ID opponent who first brings up these subjects. And, far too predictably, we fall right into their trap and get drawn into long winded discussions, often covering multiple threads, about things that have more to do with religious views than the science of ID. I just wish that we would stop falling for this obvious ploy.Molson Bleu_{February 3, 2018
February
02
Feb
3
03
2018
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Off topic: For all who think the fossil evidence for human evolution is cut and dried, this video series that Dr. Paul Giem is currently doing may shock you
Review of "Contested Bones" by John Sanford (Paul Giem) (Part 2 - Chapter 2 "A Theory in Crisis") https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spSmQ08Nx80 Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ZOKj-YaHA
bornagain77_{February 3, 2018
February
02
Feb
3
03
2018
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Molson Bleu: But "consciousness outside the brain" is a scientific problem. Consciousness is observable, and the brain is observable too. The relationship between the two is definitely relevant to science.gpuccio_{February 3, 2018
February
02
Feb
3
03
2018
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply