Another species of “hominin” still alive?

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 21, 2022

Human evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

Between Ape and Human: An Anthropologist on the Trail of a Hidden Hominoid by [Gregory Forth]

No, it does not make nearly that much sense. The Flores people were real.

Meanwhile, here’s the story by anthropologist Gregory Forth, author of Between Ape and Human (2022) — a summary of his book, more or less — advancing a remarkable claim about still-missing “hominins” at The Scientist:

Coming from a professional anthropologist and ethnobiologist, my conclusions will probably surprise many. They might even be more startling than the discovery of H. floresiensis—once described by paleoanthropologist Peter Brown of the University of New England in New South Wales as tantamount to the discovery of a space alien. Unlike other books concerned with hominin evolution, the focus of my book is not on fossils but on a local human population called the Lio and what these people say about an animal (as they describe it) that is remarkably like a human but is not human—something I can only call an ape-man. My aim in writing the book was to find the best explanation—that is, the most rational and empirically best supported—of Lio accounts of the creatures. These include reports of sightings by more than 30 eyewitnesses, all of whom I spoke with directly. And I conclude that the best way to explain what they told me is that a non-sapiens hominin has survived on Flores to the present or very recent times.
Gregory Forth, “” at The Scientist (April 2018, 2022)

So no one has ever found one of them but we are supposed to take this seriously?

Also:

Lio folk zoology and cosmology also include stories of natural beings, specifically humans, transforming permanently into animals of other kinds. And they do this, in part, by moving into new environments and adopting new ways of life, thus suggesting a qualified Lamarckism.
Gregory Forth, “” at The Scientist (April 2018, 2022)

Which is supposed to make the evidence stronger?

Our initial instinct, I suspect, is to regard the extant ape-men of Flores as completely imaginary. But, taking seriously what Lio people say, I’ve found no good reason to think so.
Gregory Forth, “” at The Scientist (April 2018, 2022)

There is no evidence for the existence of any such life form.

Okay. Untraceable hominins. Elves, fairies, the Abominable Snowman? So this is all “science” now?

Note: The Scientist story riffs off Flores Man, which was a genuine find.

Comments

@ Dogdoc post 64 - So you say. but reality must be dealt with by all...and yeah that means you too. Back to the so you say part - you say you have been studying all your 'life' ... and you still can't seem to come to any conclusions... again cool... I'm fine with folks admitting that no matter how much they know ..or in your case how much you claim to know..... that they still just don't know anything conclusive. Cool.... nice you spent your life to study so much and not get anywhere. Personally I think you know much...learned much ... but learning sometimes is not everything ...case in point.. you can't decide , despite your self-proclaimed ed. What I pass off as intellectual laziness is not that you studied all your life... and can't make a decision ... it is that you won't even try to be balanced enough to make one. hence lazy...had you anything of substance to offer you would have....instead you seem content in your self-proclaimed intellect but go no further in offering your reasoning..... got to wonder why Nobody is claiming to 'know the origins' what is being claimed is the most likely..... based on scientific observation. .... not faith ....not rumor.... just proven observation much like the scientific method. ps... I love your ad hominin ...suits the whole discussion Trumper

All intelligent causes are living organisms, without exception. – DogDoc
That is based on your ignorance. So, it's meaningless ET

UBP @213 - great response, thank you.
Such systems can only function because of their capacity to specify things among alternatives.
Yes. We got side-tracked on the question of free-will in the discussion with DD believing there is no difference between deterministic-brain and a free, rational one. In that view, rational or logical processing would be determined by physical causes. The recent example given of an arrangement of stones spelling "Welcome To Wales". For the sake of argument, let's imagine the virtually-impossible event occurred where a "physical determination" caused it. The stones just landed in that position. In that case, there would be zero information communicated by the stones. If it was a deterministic event, there would be no reason to think you were in Wales. There would be no reason to evaluate the phrase for information or truth content - since the deterministic event has no intention, no purpose or capability of communicating meaning through symbols.
If it was your intent to refute the design inference, you should not go away mistaken – you have completely failed to do so.
An important confirmation. Silver Asiatic

DD
Thank you for a civil discussion in any case.
My thanks to you also. I do not think there should be such an impasse between our views, but that's just the way it is and we did our best to solve it and that's all we can do for now. Silver Asiatic

UB, great to see you. Of course, AI also uses stochastic processes, or sometimes substitutes pseudorandom processes for convenience. Decision and heuristics are issues. Underneath, is the designed reality of the programming and that of the architecture of the substrate. KF kairosfocus

. Doc: AI systems are purely mechanical, deterministic systems This comment appears to be highly uninformed. Such systems can only function because of their capacity to specify things among alternatives. (I am not sure how aware you are of the Periodic Table, but there is no measurement of semantic qualities among any form of atomic matter). Such systems can only accomplish the feat (of specification) by using two sets of objects; a set of rate-independent memory tokens and a set of coordinated constraints. Far from being “purely mechanical, deterministic”, all such systems are based on rate-independent control of a rate-dependent process. This is why such systems require complimentary descriptions; one for the dynamic aspects of the system and another for the symbolic aspects. This is well established in the literature. Unfortunately, this kind of catastrophic misunderstanding at such a basic level appears to be a flaw in the good majority of your comments. You also seem to cling to the false notion that ID has no empirical foundation. This, again, is just a catastrophic flaw in your reasoning. Frankly speaking, it is the type of reasoning that often results from spending extended periods of time in an echo chamber. I am not suggesting this accurately describes your experience, but taking your comments here as a whole, it does indeed appear that way. The design inference in biology is the logical result of specific predictions followed by numerous experimental confirmations. By this I mean, specific researchers conducting specific experiments on specific dates, confirming specific predictions made prior to those experiments. In other words, the design inference is part of the historical record of modern science. The key observations are not even controversial. If it was your intent to refute the design inference, you should not go away mistaken – you have completely failed to do so. Upright BiPed

SA, I agree we're not likely to make progress here. Thank you for a civil discussion in any case. I'll leave you with these quotes:
All intelligent causes are living organisms, without exception. - DogDoc AI systems are not living organisms. - Silver Asiatic
And
I fully grant that my theology would crumble with the advent of intelligent machines. - William Dembski
dogdoc

Folks, it is important to see what is being exposed inadvertently. Thin gruel. KF kairosfocus

Several of us in this discussion have said the same thing to DD ... it keeps going in circles and I will agree that it's not worth just repeating again and again. Silver Asiatic

I will agree with others here that the discussion with DD is not making progress. Responding to some of his comments, going back to a few I missed:
If our thoughts were determined by physics, then the reason we would care about something is because we were destined to care about it. Our caring about it is the result of physical interactions from the first instant of the universe.
You're saying that physics can cause us to care about things. That would mean, physical interactions are capable of creating the illusion of free choice and the ability to be concerned. From a textbook on Evolutionary Biology:
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.” (Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)
"Uncaring process of natural selection" - that's what physical interactions give us.
According to SETI, if we found signals similar to what humans transmit then we would infer some advanced technological civilisation was responsible.
This refutes just about everything you said. SETI does not know what "kind of intelligence" aliens have. According to you, they wouldn't be able to make any inferences at all. But instead, they infer that alien intelligences are somewhat like human. But you won't permit ID to do the same with the "Designer of human intelligence". What exists in the effect must exist in the cause. The cause of life must be in some ways like life.
The Intelligent Designer of first life, or of the universe itself, couldn’t possibly be anything at all like a civilisation of life forms, obviously.
It's "first life on earth" first of all, and you skipped over my multiple references to IDists who believe life was seeded by aliens. So, this refutes your objection to ID right there. Additionally, SETI does not know what alien life is like. This does not stop them. But you insist that ID must stop because the designer of life could not be "anything at all like life forms". What you permit for SETI, you refuse for ID.
Yet somehow these cells [of the eye] work together and accurately identify geometrical shapes, compute the speed and direction of moving objects, and so on. Deeper in the cortex, the neurons – following nothing but the laws of physics!
"Somehow" they work together, but this is also "nothing but" the laws of physics. As stated, you don't know that it's "nothing but".
And I didn’t say science was certain there was nothing but the current laws of physics of course.
This contradicts your claim about the operation of the eye. You do not know if it is "nothing but" the laws of physics in operation.
A deterministic mind is completely, utterly, 100% indistinguishable from a mind that has contra-causal free will.
This is self-refuting, irrational and absurd. But yes, as with solopisism, you can believe that nothing but your own mind exists. Everything else (including the people you're discussing things with) are an illusion. Or, even farther - you can insist that nothing at all exists, not even yourself. The response by the solopsist is "try to refute it!" Claiming that we have an illusion of free rational thought entirely determined by physics renders everything pointless. That's basic atheistic belief. Alex Rosenberg is probably the most honest - "The Atheist's Guide to Reality" makes it clear. Again, another evolutionary TEXTBOOK (the authors didn't understand evolutionary theory?)
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
You said:
You have only a vague, anthropomorphic notion of “intelligence” that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny in the context of ID.
Anthropomorphic refers to human beings. But here's the double-standard. You have no problem with SETI looking for non-human intelligence based on their "anthropomorphic" understanding of intelligence. So, you're not consistent.
Again if you read them, SETI would infer an advanced technological civilisation, because that’s the only thing we know that might send interstellar signals.
As above, understanding of human intelligence (anthropomorphic) applied to non-human intelligence. It's ok for SETI but not for ID in your view. Maybe you really have a problem with what ID is pointing to?
As I’ve said, the definition of “intelligence” that you provided includes attributes (learning, conscious comprehension, general-purpose language, etc) that are true of humans but we have no way of knowing if they are true of the cause of OOL / biological complexity.
Yet again "we have no way of knowing if they are true of alien life". ID does not insist that the first biological life must have originated on earth, but only that blind (yes, they are blind as evolutioists have taught us) natural (not designed, as Dawkins has insisted) causes could not have produced it on earth.
The answer has nothing to do with “blindness” or “natural-ness” – we just look at every possible explanation and see which one is the best, and human activity was the obvious answer.
You're obscuring the difference between a natural cause and a designed cause. Dawkins' book is called "The Blind Watchmaker" for a reason. He doesn't think there's confusion about that.
But now you have to see that unless you clarify specifically what sort of intelligence you are talking about, the word is completely without meaning, and can’t be used as an explanation for anything.
"Unless SETI specifies specifically what kind of intelligence aliens have, then the term "alien inteligence" is without meaning". Jumping back to free will
I think it’s clear that the science of evolutionary biology is independent of the question of free will.
Evolution has to explain every feature of biological life on earth.
The opinions of David Barash or E.O. Wilson regarding free will is not part of evolutionary theory. Your quote from Dawkins says nothing about free will or ethics.
It says quite a lot that evolutionary theorists are actually incorrect about their own theory. But there's supposedly some evolutionist out there that is correct?
[Evolution] is a theory about how speciation occurs by means of the accumulation of small heritable changes from random variations that confer reproductive advantage.
Evolution claims to have an explanation for the origin of all life organism and all of their features beginning with the first living form. Silver Asiatic

This has nothing to do with ID but describes an anti ID person almost perfectly.
No effort whatsoever on her part to defend the truth of the statement, acknowledge that she made it, or show any remorse for saying something she cannot & will not defend as true,
https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1519508194883690502 jerry

dog doc's strawman:
1) There is no evidence that anything within our brains – or anywhere else – transcends or violates the laws of physics.
No one has ever made the claims that physics is violated.
What you’ve tried to present as a falsification criterion is nothing but a change of subject – instead of showing what observation would be inconsistent with ID, you instead claim that ID should be considered true unless some other theory can account for the phenomena observed.
Liar. We have told you exactly what observations would be inconsistent with ID. One is nature producing coded information processing systems. Another is nature producing a living organism. Again, for the learning impaired: ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92): 1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. So, by demonstrating #3 is false, ID is falsified.
An evolution proponent could just as easily say that the only way you could falsify evolution would be to show us how the Intelligent Designer created the species, and until then evolutionary theory remains true!
You clearly can't follow along. You are clearly just a willfully ignorant troll.
HAHAHAHA I love when folks start hurling insults! It proves you’re all out of arguments.
It's a fact, not an insult. And you just proved it, again! ET

Best prediction #7:
I hope this doesn’t entice the bloviators to join in
So far over 40,000 words. At 300 words per page, that a 130 page book. Second best prediction #15
He is here like nearly all the rest to irritate. And UD commenters are quite willing to oblige because the objective seems to be generating comments which just allows more opportunities for irritation. Understanding is never the objective for most
Nothing settled except "I don't know." jerry

3) If we assume A – that our minds are reliable – then our minds are reliable no matter what else is true.
:lol: So your definition of reliable do not includes the truth? How is that working? Hasn't your brain exploded yet? Sandy

BTW, on subject, hominin species, the first problem is that species is a hard to define concept. Just in this region, in several islands it was discovered that amerindians were absorbed into the general population. Why is it not possible that that happened with various sub populations, at least in part? KF kairosfocus

F/N: I draw attention to Plato, in The Laws, Bk X on the self-moved:
Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second.
[--> notice, the self-moved, initiating, reflexively acting causal agent, which defines freedom as essential to our nature, and this is root of discussion on agents as first causes. Mind, is of course the centre of volitional freedom, intellectual, rational reflection, responsible thought and decision, and thus self motion. Absent responsible, rational freedom, there can be no credibility of mind, no ability to genuinely attend to, evaluate, decide the balance of merits, warrant, know, seriously converse, be open minded etc. These are some of the issues J B S Haldane spoke to]
[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? [--> soul is of course broader than mind but includes it] Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler?
Wikipedia, that ideologically tainted source, is forced to concede:
The mind is the set of faculties responsible for mental phenomena. Often the term is also identified with the phenomena themselves.[2][3][4] These faculties include thought, imagination, memory, will and sensation. They are responsible for various mental phenomena, like perception, pain experience, belief, desire, intention and emotion. Various overlapping classifications of mental phenomena have been proposed. Important distinctions group them together according to whether they are sensory, propositional, intentional, conscious or occurrent. Minds were traditionally understood as substances but it is more common in the contemporary perspective to conceive them as properties or capacities possessed by humans and higher animals . . . . Mind or mentality is usually contrasted with body, matter or physicality. The issue of the nature of this contrast and specifically the relation between mind and brain is called the mind-body problem.[5] Traditional viewpoints included dualism and idealism, which consider the mind to be non-physical.[5] Modern views often center around physicalism and functionalism, which hold that the mind is roughly identical with the brain or reducible to physical phenomena such as neuronal activity[6][need quotation to verify] though dualism and idealism continue to have many supporters. Another question concerns which types of beings are capable of having minds (New Scientist 8 September 2018 p10).[citation needed][7] For example, whether mind is exclusive to humans, possessed also by some or all animals, by all living things, whether it is a strictly definable characteristic at all, or whether mind can also be a property of some types of human-made machines.
This subject is of course self-referential, which makes it particularly prone to self referential incoherence and resulting necessary falsification. However, once one has made the false into yardstick principles, that in itself becomes further problematic as that which is straight, accurate, upright will not, cannot, conform to crookedness. Therefore, we need to heed the many ways in which evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers reduce to self-defeating absurdity and frankly admit their necessary falsity. These have fatally stumbled in the starting gates, they are not viable as frameworks for thought much less on something so central as the mind. Going further, there has been a tendency to try to reduce mind to computation on a wetware computational substrate, or for AI, a hardware one. The basic problem is as was stated before the latest evasive hyperskepticism above:
KF, 198: there is no good reason to infer that mindedness reduces to gigo constrained computation on a substrate, which is in itself a dynamic stochastic cause effect non rational process, though it may reflect the design work of programmers and designers of the architecture and functional organisation involved.
Anything that asserts, suggests or invites the notion that mindedness reduces to computation on a substrate fails. KF kairosfocus

FH, You chose to side-step standard dictionary summaries of what mindedness and mind mean; where the unusual length of some definitions points to the centrality of the term. In so side-stepping, you now wish to substitute the suggestion that I am idiosyncratically referring to consciousness, which is but one aspect and one that is not present when we are in dreamless sleep or unconscious etc. In short, you are failing the seriousness test. Let me clip, just to focus this potential side track:
CED: the state or quality of being minded [--> i.e. having a mind] . . . where, Abused: mind that which reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, etc.; intellect or understanding [--> something any educated person knows, despite your rhetorical pretences] . . . AmHD: mind, The faculty of a human or other animal by which it thinks, perceives, feels, remembers, or desires . . . Philosophy The phenomena of intelligence, cognition, or consciousness, regarded as a material or immaterial aspect of reality . . . CED, mind, (Psychology) the human faculty to which are ascribed thought, feeling, etc; often regarded as an immaterial part of a person 2. (Psychology) intelligence or the intellect, esp as opposed to feelings or wishes . . . the faculty of original or creative thought . . .
Where, on -ness as suffix:
Merriam-Webster: -ness noun suffix Definition of -ness (Entry 2 of 2) : state : condition : quality : degree goodness
Of course, this little exchange suffices to suggest that, regrettably, you are playing the hyperskeptic intent on clouding rather than clarifying the matters. Similar, to playing delay and side track games over arrangement of tables, height of chair legs, etc in the Korean War negotiations. Duly noted. KF kairosfocus

I think it a very common human conceit to imagine we understand our own thinking processes. But KF, in that copypasta, you neglected to tell me what you mean by "mindedness". If you mean "awareness", maybe use that word instead. Fred Hickson

FH, you exhibit self aware -- "I . . .", conscious responsible rational freedom but claim not to be aware of what such mindedness is. Okay, we see an inadvertent sign here of what thinking i/l/o the official shadow shows in the cave present as claimed reality ends up doing. KF PS, mindedness:
mind·ed (m?n?d?d) adj. 1. Disposed; inclined: I am not minded to answer any of your questions. 2. Having a specified kind of mind. Often used in combination: fair-minded; evil-minded. 3. Directed or oriented toward something specified. Often used in combination: civic-minded; career-minded. mind?ed·ness n. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. mindedness (?ma?nd?dn?s) n the state or quality of being minded Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014 mind that which reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, etc.; intellect or understanding; to care: Do you mind if I smoke?; to tend: mind the baby; heed or obey: mind the teacher Not to be confused with: mined – dug into the earth to extract ore, coal, precious stones, etc.; drew useful information from: He mined all of the reports on the subject. Abused, Confused, & Misused Words by Mary Embree Copyright © 2007, 2013 by Mary Embree mind (m?nd) n. 1. The faculty of a human or other animal by which it thinks, perceives, feels, remembers, or desires: studying the relation between the brain and the mind. 2. A person of great mental ability: the great minds of the century. 3. Individual consciousness, memory, or recollection: I'll bear the problem in mind. 4. a. Opinion or sentiment: He changed his mind when he heard all the facts. b. Desire or inclination: She had a mind to spend her vacation in the desert. 5. Focus of thought; attention: I can't keep my mind on work. 6. A healthy mental state; sanity: losing one's mind. 7. The thought processes characteristic of a person or group; psychological makeup: the criminal mind; the public mind. 8. Philosophy The phenomena of intelligence, cognition, or consciousness, regarded as a material or immaterial aspect of reality . . . . American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. mind (ma?nd) n 1. (Psychology) the human faculty to which are ascribed thought, feeling, etc; often regarded as an immaterial part of a person 2. (Psychology) intelligence or the intellect, esp as opposed to feelings or wishes 3. recollection or remembrance; memory: it comes to mind. 4. the faculty of original or creative thought; imagination: it's all in the mind. 5. a person considered as an intellectual being: the great minds of the past. 6. opinion or sentiment: we are of the same mind; to change one's mind; to have a mind of one's own; to know one's mind; to speak one's mind. 7. condition, state, or manner of feeling or thought: no peace of mind; his state of mind. 8. an inclination, desire, or purpose: I have a mind to go. 9. attention or thoughts: keep your mind on your work. 10. a sound mental state; sanity (esp in the phrase out of one's mind) 11. intelligence, as opposed to material things: the mind of the universe. 12. (Philosophy) (in Cartesian philosophy) one of two basic modes of existence, the other being matter 13. blow someone's mind slang a. to cause someone to have a psychedelic experience b. to astound or surprise someone 14. (Recreational Drugs) to cause someone to have a psychedelic experience 15. to astound or surprise someone 16. give someone a piece of one's mind to criticize or censure (someone) frankly or vehemently 17. in two minds of two minds undecided; wavering: he was in two minds about marriage. 18. make up one's mind to decide (something or to do something): he made up his mind to go. 19. on one's mind in one's thoughts 20. put one in mind of to remind (one) of vb 21. (when tr, may take a clause as object) to take offence at: do you mind if I smoke? I don't mind. 22. to pay attention to (something); heed; notice: to mind one's own business. 23. (tr; takes a clause as object) to make certain; ensure: mind you tell her. 24. (tr) to take care of; have charge of: to mind the shop. 25. (when tr, may take a clause as object) to be cautious or careful about (something): mind how you go; mind your step. 26. (tr) to obey (someone or something); heed: mind your father!. 27. to be concerned (about); be troubled (about): never mind your hat; never mind about your hat; never mind. 28. (tr; passive; takes an infinitive) to be intending or inclined (to do something): clearly he was not minded to finish the story. 29. (tr) dialect Scot and English to remember: do ye mind his name?. 30. (tr) Scot to remind: that minds me of another story. 31. mind you an expression qualifying a previous statement: Dogs are nice. Mind you, I don't like all dogs. [Old English gemynd mind; related to Old High German gimunt memory] Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
. Came up 1st hit at DDG. kairosfocus

KF writes:
FH & DD et al, actually, there is no good reason to infer that mindedness reduces to gigo constrained computation on a substrate, which is in itself a dynamic stochastic cause effect non rational process, though it may reflect the design work of programmers and designers of the architecture and functional organisation involved.
I've no idea what mindedness is so no worries on that score. Fred Hickson

FH & DD et al, actually, there is no good reason to infer that mindedness reduces to gigo constrained computation on a substrate, which is in itself a dynamic stochastic cause effect non rational process, though it may reflect the design work of programmers and designers of the architecture and functional organisation involved. KF PS, as you seem to need a for record, Haldane from 90 years ago:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For
if [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, "my brain," i.e. self referential] ______________________________ [ THEN] [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. [--> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?] [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [--> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence] [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]
In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
We would like to see substantial responsiveness, but continued doubling down on talking points of evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers in the end is a concession of the pivotal point. kairosfocus

SA, maybe, compose longer pieces in a text editor then transfer to combox? Text editors such as the built in wordpad, do not impose so called smart features that then cause problems on upload. KF kairosfocus

DD, first, you are simply willfully and repeatedly asserting clearly identified falsehoods regarding ID, as inference, theory and movement in the face of readily accessible information and corrections given. You are doing so to both appeal to prejudice and willfully spread misinformation [e.g. Wikipedia] designed to set up a weak caricature of ID and knock it over. So yes ET is correct regarding strawman fallacy, but this also includes many fallacies up to big lie tactics. Let me clip the just linked:
first we must mark out a matter of inductive reasoning and epistemology. Observed tested, reliable signs such as FSCO/I [= functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, “fun-skee”] beyond 500 – 1,000 bits point to design as cause for cases we have not observed. This is the design INFERENCE . . . . Following the UD Weak Argument Correctives under the Resources tab, we can identify ID Theory as a [small] research programme that explores whether there are such observable, testable, reliable signs, whether they appear in the world of life and in the cosmos, whether we may responsibly — notice, how duties of reason pop up naturally — use them to infer that cell based life, body plans, the cosmos etc are credibly the result of intelligently directed configuration . . . and that’s a definition of design. This, in a context where the proposed “scientific” alternative, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity has not been observed to actually produce things exhibiting FSCO/I etc. Logically, this is an application of inductive reasoning, modern sense, abduction. Which is common in science and is commonly held to ground scientific, weak philosophical sense, knowledge. Weak, it is open ended and can be defeated by further analysis and evidence, warranted, credibly true [and so reliable] belief. Going beyond, where we have further information, evidence and argument we may explore whodunit, howtweredun, etc. Such is after all commonplace in technical forensics, medical research, archaeology, engineering [esp. reverse engineering], code cracking etc. I guess, these can be taken as design-oriented sciences. Going back to 4th form I remember doing natural science explorations of springs. Manufactured entities. So are lenses, mirrors, glass blocks, radio systems, lasers etc. Beyond the theory, there is a movement, comprising supporters and friendly critics as well as practitioners consciously researching design theory or extending thinking on it and applying same to society or civilisation, including history of ideas.
As you full well know, an inference on observed evidence --thus, established sign -- leading to a best empirically supported explanation is in principle refutable through observation that the sign is not reliable enough to trust. FSCO/I coming about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity without intelligently directed configuration would do so. Notice, dynamic-stochastic processes and physical materials can be involved, cf the definition that engineering uses forces and materials of nature, economically towards design goals. As I cited from Paley, that inference holds even through setting up a von Neumann kinematic self replicator so the observed entity may be part of a chain of transmission of the original FSCO/I. As to Big Lie tactics, simply contrast the notoriously ideological misinformation driven Wikipedia article on ID:
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument [--> so much for neutral point of view] for the existence of God [--> a straight lie], presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] [--> omits, cosmology, body plan origins etc] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism [--> assertion of guilt by association with a bogeyman] that lacks empirical support [--> gross misrepresentation of facts that are all around us by the trillion] and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses [--> double lie], and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] [--> lies carried forward] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based [--> Libertarian, not Christian] in the United States.[n 1] . . .
. . . with, first, our own recent remarks just above, then with Discovery Institute's own summary:
Intelligent design — often called “ID” — is a scientific theory which holds that some features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that intelligent design can be inferred by finding in nature the type of information and complexity which in our experience arises from an intelligent cause. Proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution contend that the information in life arose via blind, mechanistic processes that show no scientific evidence of guidance by intelligent design. ID proponents contend that the information in life does not appear to have an unguided origin, but arose via purposeful, intelligently guided processes. Both claims are scientifically testable using the standard methods of science. But ID theorists say that when we use the scientific method to explore nature, the evidence points away from blind material causes, and reveals intelligent design. The cell confirms our expectations from design. Our DNA contains incredible amounts of encoded information. Living cells transform this encoded chemical message into machines which are engineered to perform necessary biochemical functions. The conversion of DNA into protein relies upon a software-like system of commands and biochemical codes. This is an information processing system which Bill Gates has described as “like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” The protein-machines produced by our DNA are often “irreducibly complex.” Irreducible complexity is a purposeful arrangement of parts, where if any part is removed or mutated, the structure ceases to assemble or function properly. For example, the “bacterial flagellum,” is a rotary-engine on bacteria which fails to assemble or function properly if we mutate any one of its approximately 35 protein components. Natural selection cannot account for this irreducible complexity because it only preserves structures which provide a functional advantage. In this “all-or-nothing” game, mutations cannot produce the complexity needed to provide a functional flagellar rotary engine one incremental step at a time, and the odds are too daunting for it to do it in a great leap. The past 50 years of biological research have found that life is fundamentally based upon: - A vast amount of complex and specified information encoded in a biochemical language. - A computer-like system of commands and codes that processes the information. - Irreducibly complex molecular machines and multi-machine systems. Where, in our experience, do language, complex and specified information, programming code, and machines come from? They have only one known source: intelligence. This is an argument based upon scientific methods and the evidence from nature — the argument is not based upon faith, religion, or divine revelation. Contrary to what many might suppose, ID is much broader than the debate over Darwinian evolution. That’s because much of the scientific evidence for intelligent design comes from areas that Darwin’s theory doesn’t even address. In fact, much evidence for intelligent design comes from physics and cosmology. The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is a profound example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. To give a few examples, the strength of gravity (gravitational constant) must be fine-tuned to within 1 part in 1035; the expansion rate of the universe be fine-tuned to within 1 part in 1055; and the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to within 1 part in 10120 Cosmologists have calculated the initial entropy of the universe must have been fine-tuned to within 1 part in 1010^123. That’s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it — a number far too long to write out! The Nobel Prize-winning physicist Charles Townes observed: Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all . . .
. . . and with the longstanding NWE article written by contrast with older forms of Wikipedia (which has only got worse and worse over the years as we here at UD have bothered to look from time to time):
Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things. Greater clarity on the topic may be gained from a discussion of what ID is not considered to be by its leading theorists. Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, with proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God. ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things. ID also is not considered by its theorists to be an "argument from ignorance"; that is, intelligent design is not to be inferred simply on the basis that the cause of something is unknown (any more than a person accused of willful intent can be convicted without evidence). According to various adherents, ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be intelligently designed even if it is flawed (as are many objects made by humans).
Persistent, loaded distortions, false accusations and lies such as we see at Wikipedia reflect agit prop and resulting crooked yardstick thinking driven by ideology not regard for truth or fairness. KF kairosfocus

SA,
I just wrote a long reply, almost line by line and dropped my internet signal while posting and lost 20 minutes of work on that …
I hate when that happens.
You said: “What created first life? Something intelligent. ” That’s good common ground. You disagree with ideas that come after that, but we have a starting point at least.
No, sorry, we do not actually share the same view at all. As I've said, the definition of "intelligence" that you provided includes attributes (learning, conscious comprehension, general-purpose language, etc) that are true of humans but we have no way of knowing if they are true of the cause of OOL / biological complexity.
I don’t believe ID would necessarily have a problem with a “deterministic intelligence”. As you rightly point out, an AI system cannot be the cause of the first life on earth. So, we’re capable of eliminating some intelligences. As I said, there are different levels of intelligence – plant, insect, bird, animal, human. AI is a type of intelligence.
OK good. But now you have to see that unless you clarify specifically what sort of intelligence you are talking about, the word is completely without meaning, and can't be used as an explanation for anything. It isn't so much of a problem in everyday conversation, because we are always talking about things (humans, animals, computer systems) that we know a lot about. But we obviously know nothing at all about the hypothetical Intelligent Designer of ID, so ID must actually say exactly what the word means in the context of ID - what attributes are supposed to apply. And when it does (like the definition you provided to me) we see that those attributes can't be supported by empirical evidence.
SETI is looking for signals based on what we know of human communication and language and knowing they may find something from beings that are quite different than humans.
True, but if you read SETI literature it's clear that they look for life as we know it.
This does not stop their inferential work.
Again if you read them, SETI would infer an advanced technological civilisation, because that's the only thing we know that might send interstellar signals.
So, the same should be true for ID.
No, wrong. The Intelligent Designer of first life, or of the universe itself, couldn't possibly be anything at all like a civilisation of life forms, obviously.
DD: Are you suggesting that neurons do not operate according to the laws of physics? SA: Keep in mind, you said: ” following nothing but the laws of physics!” So “nothing but” would rule out anything else and even some quantum effects are interpreted in a non-physical way as some believe consciousness to be.
Quantum effects are very much according to the laws of physics, obviously - they form the basis of our understanding of the physical world. Again I'm trying to make the point that it makes no sense to call modern physics "materialistic", because the explanatory constructs of modern physics do not include "matter" in any way we conceive of the term.
Beyond that, it would be a statement of 100% certainty that God does not exist and/or has no effect in sustaining the universe.
Nothing in science is ever 100% certaint. And I didn't say science was certain there was nothing but the current laws of physics of course. There is certainly more to physics than we already know.
DD: 1) Let’s say I observe some phenomenon and attempt to find an explanation SA: You see a rock with some scratching on it which could be deliberate etching or it could be scratches from the random movements of nearby rocks.
When you say "deliberate scratching", what do you mean? I think you mean scratching by a human being or some other animal, right? If you mean something else, say exactly what you mean.
DD: 2) I fail to find any explanation for that can be empirically tested and confirmed, so I say the answer is not yet known. SA: You look only at the movement of rocks and find no way to explain the etchings. You conclude, the answer is not known.
No, I would think a human or other animal was responsible.
DD: 3) You come up with some explanation that cannot be empirically tested and confirmed either. SA: I analyze and match against intelligently designed languages.
You mean human languages.
I notice the scratches can be modeled as certain patterns and, while not a known human language, does appear to be symbolic and also there does not seem to be any way a random, blind, natural source made them.
If they look like human languages (i.e. grammatical, recursive, etc), then I would infer that a human made them.
There is no way to empirically test the findings, but only that the scratches cannot be explained by a random cause, and they resemble an intelligently designed cause.
You mean a human cause.
DD: 4) I tell you, “Your theory can’t be empirically tested and confirmed” SA: I say, if you show me in a lab or on the mountainside where you found the rock – that the scratches can be replicated by a blind, natural process – through gravity or a volcano or erosion or glacial activity — then my inference to intelligent design is falsified.
No!!!! You made an inference to a human being, not anything else. You did not infer an "intelligence" in any general sense; that would be meaningless. The answer has nothing to do with "blindness" or "natural-ness" - we just look at every possible explanation and see which one is the best, and human activity was the obvious answer. Again, in your example, the cause is obviously a human being. If the rock was found on another habitable planet, we would infer that the markings were caused by a life form similar to a human being. If it was found floating in interstellar space we would still infer it was caused by a human-like life form, and that it somehow got sent into space. And if we determined the origin was in some uninhabitable region of the universe then we would have no idea what caused it! It would be a big mystery and the answer would be "We do not know!" Again,
DD: You reply, “Unless you can find a better theory, my theory is the best” SA: This is just a test between design and natural effects.
NO! There is no such dichotomy! That is the crux of the problem. You are treating "design" and "natural" as mututally exclusive, exhaustive properties, but they are not. "Design" to me means "created by a human being, or another animal, or an AI system". You try and make it mean something else, but you aren't saying what that is. You have only a vague, anthropomorphic notion of "intelligence" that doesn't hold up to scrutiny in the context of ID.
I didn’t notice and I assumed you were an evolutionary materialist – so that is good to hear.
I believe that evolutionary theory is fundamentally incomplete, and in its current state fails to explain the complex form and function we observe. I am not a "materialist", because that term is completely outdated and in fact meaningless given modern physics.
Plantinga’s argument: DD: 2) If our minds are reliable, then Plantinga’s argument is moot – we ended up with reliable minds whether by evolution or divine creation. SA: No, if our minds are reliable then they cannot be the product of a blind, natural, unintelligent cause as evolution would have it.
Look at the structure of my counter-argument: 1) Either our minds are reliable (in Plantinga’s sense) or they are not 2) We consider both possibilities - first by assuming the truth of the first case (assumption A), and then by assuming the truth of the second case (assumption B). 3) If we assume A - that our minds are reliable - then our minds are reliable no matter what else is true. Maybe Plantinga is right and there is a low probability that minds are reliable if they evolved, or maybe he's wrong about that, or maybe even though he assigns a low probability it happened anyway, or maybe some other unknown mechanism caused minds to exist, and so on and so on. The important thing to note is that under assumption A, our minds are reliable, and thus under assumption A any argument for naturalism is not self-refuting. 4) If we assume B - that our minds are not reliable - then there is no sense arguing, because our minds are not reliable. We can neither refute nor support naturalism or anything else. Now we see that in neither case does naturalism refute itself.
So, the fact that we consider our minds to be reliable and we do evaluate propositions for the truth, means they cannot be the product of irrational, unintelligent blind, natural forces like evolution as it purports to be.
It is not a "consideration", but rather an assumption that our minds are reliable. In fact, the assumption that our minds are reliable is unsupportable, because if our minds were not reliable, we would not know it. We proceed as though our minds are reliable, although that may be false. But the acceptance of naturalism does not refute the belief in our mental reliability. dogdoc

ET,
DD: 1) There is no evidence that anything within our brains – or anywhere else – transcends or violates the laws of physics. ET: Strawman. There isn’t any evidence that our brains are reducible to physics and chemistry.
Wow, you've made two big errors in a single sentence! First, you don't seem to know what a "strawman" argument is. Second, I never claimed there was evidence that brains (or minds) were reducible to physics and chemistry. That was a strawman argument, ET! hahahahahaha
DD: ID cannot be tested against empirical evidence because its explanation is consistent with any possible observation, so ID is not an empirically testable theory. ET: And yet we have said EXACTLY what would falsify ID.
What you've tried to present as a falsification criterion is nothing but a change of subject - instead of showing what observation would be inconsistent with ID, you instead claim that ID should be considered true unless some other theory can account for the phenomena observed. An evolution proponent could just as easily say that the only way you could falsify evolution would be to show us how the Intelligent Designer created the species, and until then evolutionary theory remains true!
You are clearly just a willfully ignorant troll.
HAHAHAHA I love when folks start hurling insults! It proves you're all out of arguments. dogdoc

Fred Hickson:
Modern evolutionary theory does propose an explanation for speciation. Reproductive isolation where a population separates (allopatry, sympatry, founder effect etc) into two populations that can diverge into separate species in exploiting separate niches. Cichlids are the iconic example of sympatry.
Reproductive isolation amongst prokaryotes. And you had to be given starting populations of prokaryotes. You are not going to be granted metazoans with existing developmental biology. ET

dog doc:
1) There is no evidence that anything within our brains – or anywhere else – transcends or violates the laws of physics.
Strawman. There isn't any evidence that our brains are reducible to physics and chemistry.
3) ID cannot be tested against empirical evidence because its explanation is consistent with any possible observation, so ID is not an empirically testable theory.
And yet we have said EXACTLY what would falsify ID. You are clearly just a willfully ignorant troll. ET

Modern evolutionary theory does propose an explanation for speciation
Takes 32 million years to reach reproductive incompatibility for birds. So essentially there are no real examples of speciation. People just make it up and call it speciation and then say look what I just made up. They then write textbooks about it and teach it and unsuspecting people actually believe their nonsense. jerry

Modern evolutionary theory does propose an explanation for speciation.
Not enough. A fish is transforming into...fish is not what darwinists preach. They need more.
Cichlids are...
Cichlids,lizards,etc. are the evidence of non-random mutations that act surgically, very quick (few generations not millions years :) ) Lieutenant Commander Data

@ Silver Asiatic, Evolutionary ethics just doesn't effectively exist. You are, as I said, tilting at windmills. Fred Hickson

1 2 3 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply