Another species of “hominin” still alive?

_{News
April 21, 2022

Human evolution, Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Human evolution
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

Yes, Viola Lee. As interesting as Bigfoot, grassman, sasquatch and yeti sightings. Which, BTW, are indeed very interesting.ET_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

Agreed.JHolo_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

I just read an interesting and fairly reasonable article about these possible hominids. I agree it seems very unlikely they still exist, but it's still an interesting situation. from livescience.comViola Lee_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

F/N, evo gave us free will fails as Miller should know, precisely as it is about survival not accuracy, multiplied by, computational substrates are dynamic stochastic entities, they do not reason, they simply play out cause effect chains based on architecture and programming. A sounder approach would pay closer attention to Haldane:
"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.]
Then, Miller needs to answer to Provine instead of giving a clever confident manner clip:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]
KFkairosfocus_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

ET, correct, DD is refusing to heed the logic of inference on tested, reliable sign. L cite as a simple summary . . . this traces to early diagnostics and Hippocrates, including his facies of death. Link: https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Communication/Argument_and_Debate/Arguing_Using_Critical_Thinking_(Marteney)/07%3A_Reasoning/7.03%3A_Types_of_Reasoning
Sign reasoning involves inferring a connection between two related situations. The theory is that the presence or absence of one indicates the presence or absence of the other. In other words, the presence of an attribute is a signal that something else, the substance, exists. One doesn't cause the other to exist, but instead is a sign that it exists. Football on television is a sign that Fall has arrived. Football on television does not cause Fall to arrive; they just arrive at the same time. A flag is flying at half-staff. is a sign that that there has been a tragedy or a significant person has died. The flag flying at half-staff did not cause the death. It is a sign that the situation occurred.
As an example, over the past several weeks, the Ukraine flag has been flying alongside the Union Jack here, at HE Governor's Office. The Governor being an officer of FCDO and representative of HM, Queen Elizabeth II. Obviously, there are also natural signs, a famous one being where there is smoke there is fire. Here, where there is code using alphanumeric text in strings, there is language, and where there is an algorithm expressed thereby, there is a stepwise goal directed halting procedure indicative of purpose. Such are signs of intelligence, and are not only found on the Internet but in the living cell. KFkairosfocus_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

DD, you have point by point responses in this thread [much less elsewhere] to your five points above, from me in 108 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/another-species-of-hominin-still-alive-cue-the-flores-people/#comment-752609 which was quickly endorsed by SA in 110, 109 being a citation of the UD glossary in the Resources tab on intelligence, which you and others have long been invited to attend to. He makes a further endorsement at 118. While, in 116, he replies point by point, with others commenting on points in between, see 116 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/another-species-of-hominin-still-alive-cue-the-flores-people/#comment-752628 Yet in 119 there you are rhetorically posing on want of response. This then is a case of a strawman fallacy on your part and raises serious questions as to whether what SA endorsed at 118 is only too relevant: "There are good, well warranted answers on the table but they are unwelcome so we see selectively hyperskeptical denial and crooked yardstick dismissiveness." I suggest, that you reconsider what you have done. KFkairosfocus_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

dog doc: '
Anyway, this is nonsense – AI systems generate novel CSI all by themselves, period.
Not by means of blind and mindless processes. Everything AI systems do traces back to the minds that designed them.
ID PERSON: If you can’t show another way that life began, then my theory about something with conscious beliefs, desires, and intentions (but was not necessarily even a physical thing!) is the best answer.
Nice strawman. You and yours get the first shots at it. You have failed. The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. Your position relies on your imagination and ignorance.ET_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

DogDoc
Evolutionary theory makes no claims whatsoever about free will. Where did you ever get that idea?
Search term: "evolutionary theory and free will" There are a few hundred articles by evolutionists explaining what evolutionary theory claims about this. How about Ken Miller?:
There’s a wonderful quote by J. B. S. Haldane, the great evolutionary biologist, that basically says, “If my brain is wholly made up of atoms, and I see no reason to believe that it is not, then even my belief that atoms exist is determined by the atoms in my brain and therefore I have no reason for believing it to be true.” The argument that I tried to make is that if we do have genuine free will, it was evolution that gave it to us. Therefore, evolution is not the enemy of free will. Evolution, if free will exists, is actually its creator. https://behavioralscientist.org/the-human-instinct-a-conversation-with-ken-miller/
Ken Miller, as usual, is irrational and incoherent. A deterministic process cannot create human freedom. [To my fellow IDists - Where is BA77? He's got a dozen of these ... we need his reference library posted somewhere]Silver Asiatic_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

DogDoc
If the world is deterministic, then my actions are determined, and I could not refrain from making my arguments. How can you not understand that?
Noting your outrage and self-refuting question here ... "Because I was determined not to". See?
And here you go off the rails.
You've really got nowhere to go with this. The blind watchmaker cannot produce the results. But you claim "you don't know" that is the case. i then challenge you to show what blind natural causes can produce. But clearly, that's a waste of time.
I didn’t say it was infinite, but nobody knows if it is or not, or how it got started.
Nobody knows if we have traversed an infinite sequence to arrive at today?
Yes – it is not a general purpose language like humans use; it is more like computer code.
You're saying "you don't know" if a natural cause can produce something like a computer code.
Stop pretending that science has proven that brains aren’t deterministic, you’re just wrong about that.
If your thoughts are determined by an unintelligent cause, then being right or wrong is irrelevant. Those are categories used for a rational mind. A deterministic brain cannot be rational. Darwin knew that and was troubled by it. But I'm willing to accept your proposal: Your thoughts are determined by some non-intelligent physical cause, like gravity or chemistry. So why should anyone care about what you have to say?Silver Asiatic_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

SA:
I invite you review to the UD Glossary: https://uncommondescent.com/glossary/ You’ll find intelligence defined there.
Gosh, why didn't you just use that earlier? Here it is: “capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.” Now you're half way there - all you have to do is actually show evidence that all of these abilities can be attributed to your hypothetical Intelligent Designer by scientific evidence. First up: Learning. How can you show that whatever caused the universe and first life actually learned how to do these things, rather than simply being able to do them by virtue of its nature, like an instinct? Could it learn to do something else besides cause the phenomena we are trying to explain? For example, do you have evidence that the Intelligent Designer could to play the piano, or how to play WORDLE, or to apply differential calculus to a problem it had never encountered? Obviously you have no evidence that any of these traits apply to the Intelligent Designer, so it really isn't intelligent after all. What about "comprehending ideas"? Does that mean consciously comprehending ideas? If so, then strike two: You have no evidence that the Intelligent Designer of the universe experiences conscious awareness. Just because humans are consciously aware of some (but by no means all or even most!) of our thoughts doesn't mean that something utterly foreign to us that does not even have a brain also experiences conscious awareness. As I've said, nobody knows the necessary and sufficient conditions for experiencing consciousness. And if you aren't trying to claim scientific evidence for the conscious awareness of the Intelligent Designer (which would be a smart move), then what does it mean for it to "comprehend"?
An AI system simulates human intelligence.
Oh, I see you are trying to backtrack on your claim that AI systems are intelligent! Hahaha, I was waiting for that. Too late, I'm afraid, your position was stated on this very page. Anyway, this is nonsense - AI systems generate novel CSI all by themselves, period. If I could learn to play Go as well as an AI computer people would think that was an intelligent thing to do. Alpha Go learned to play Go better than any human - that isn't a simulation, it happened in reality.
It reflects a rational process and is built on software logic.
Programmers did not tell Alpha Go how to play Go - they themselves had no idea how to beat world champion Go players. They built a system that could learn, and it learned to play Go all by itself.
Again, your challenge is to show any known natural process on earth that can produce an AI system, computer software or human intelligence. You could just produce some code like a Shakespeare play.
GPT-3 can produce text that is grammatical, meaningful, coherent, and can even adopt various styles (like Shakespearean English). And there is not non-natural or supernatural going on inside GPT-3! Just electrons, semiconductors, and other purely natural phenomena.
Thus far, you’ve offered nothing but sophistry and a parsing of definitions.
I've laid out my arguments against you for all to see, and even numbered them. Let's see how you're doing in response:
1) You have assumed a libertarian metaphysics that has no scientific basis (by saying AI systems are deterministic while human beings are not) NO RESPONSE 2) AI proves that deterministic mechanisms can exhibit intelligent behavior, which undermines ID’s entire argument against “naturalistic” processes not being able to produce CSI You try to backtrack and claim AI is only "simulated" intelligence rather than "real" intelligence, which is nonsense. And you claim that AI systems accomplish their intelligent feats because the logic of those tasks has been programmed by humans; but in most AI systems now their abilities are learned rather than programmed. 3) The fact that humans design AI systems in no way contradicts the fact that deterministic mechanism can exhibit intelligent behavior; my point about a regress of deterministic intelligent designers illustrated that point. NO RESPONSE 4) ID does not define “intelligence” in a way that can be evaluated against the evidence. (In fact, you STILL haven’t provided any definition at all.) Finally you provided a definition - well done! I was hoping for that, so I could provide a few reasons why by your own definition you have no way of showing that your Intelligent Designer actually qualifies as intelligent. 5) There is nothing wrong with saying there is no known answer to some question; in fact it is the only intellectually honest thing to do. (I provided a list of such questions that science can’t answer). NO RESPONSE and now 6) ID cannot be falsified because ID theory provides nothing whatsoever that is somehow outside the ability of an "Intelligent Designer". Could it build a new biological species over 100 million years? Sure! Could it do the same thing in a fraction of a second? No problem! ID can explain anything, which as we all should know, means that it really explains nothing. Your response is to pretend that by showing no other theory can explain the existence of the universe or first life, that means ID must be true. I gave you an illustration of why that reasoning is invalid. Your response? NO RESPONSE
AND NOW FOR YOUR NEXT RESPONSE. IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR ME IF YOU CONSOLIDATED YOUR RESPONSES IN ONE POST. ANYWAY, LET'S SEE WHAT YOU'VE ADDED...
If you’re stating that human thought is deterministic, then that is self-refuting.
You are claiming that you have solved the problem of free will. You have not. Contrary to what you might read here, determinism is not self-refuting or incoherent.
I accept that evolution claims that humans have no free will and all thought is deterministic material outcomes.
You don't appear to be well versed in the topic at hand. Evolutionary theory makes no claims whatsoever about free will. Where did you ever get that idea?
This denies logic and rationality. There’s no need to discuss, teach, argue, learn. Evolution tells you what to do.
Wow, this is seriously confused. Again, you are confusing philosophy of mind with evolutionary theory; they are completely orthogonal (except of course when ID folks assume contra-causal libertarianism and don't even realize what assumptions they are making).
But if you believe that, you refute it by your actions in attempting to convince and argue.
I find this silly, sophomoric argument particularly annoying. If the world is deterministic, then my actions are determined, and I could not refrain from making my arguments. How can you not understand that? My view is that libertarianism is incoherent, but I don't claim that as a scientific result. Rather than argue about free will, I am simply saying that there is no scientific resolution of the problem. Evolutionary theory makes absolutely no statements about it - evolution is compatible with any possible position on the matter. However, ID requires libertarianism in order to make any sense at all, which is why I argue that its reliance on one particular view on free will makes ID unscientific.
2) AI is the product of intelligent design. It is software designed by human beings. It is intelligent in the sense that it can engage a logical order. It cannot truly design in the sense of making free choices. I introduced AI to refute your idea that only biological agents have intelligence.
This relies on the assumption of metaphysical libertarianism, so it is not scientific or proven in any sense (it is in fact the minority view among philosophers of mind, but that is neither here nor there). Please respond to my example of a regress of deterministic intelligent designers if you wish to counter my argument.
If you walked in a room and saw a wood carving of Abraham Lincoln, you would know it was the product of intelligent design.
I would know it was the product of HUMAN BEINGS, because I know a huge number of things about human beings. Nowadays I would also be open to the possibility that an AI system had designed it. But no, just like archeologists, forensic scientists, and so on, I would never posit that "an intelligent designer" was responsible, because that doesn't mean anything useful.
So, the robot cannot truly design on its own.
Of course it can. Please take a course in AI - or at least read a book about it - before you say things like that.
AI does not refute ID at all.
You agreed that AI systems are intelligent. Real, bona fide, intelligence. Now you're trying to backtrack and say no, they are just doing what their programmers tell them to do. That is factually incorrect; modern machine learning systems do things their programmers had no idea how to do. So you were right the first time - AI is intelligent. It is also deterministic. Deterministic intelligence undermines ID's arguments.
A deterministic process that resembles intelligence, as with AI, is necessarily derived from a true, non-deterministic source.
You called AI an intelligent cause, not something that "resembles" intelligence. You were right the first time, why did you change your tune? Stop pretending that science has proven that brains aren't deterministic, you're just wrong about that. It's just one position in an ancient and unresolved debate about metaphysics, not a foundation for a scientific theory.
The fact that the AI system contains intelligence means there must have been a source for it.
By that reasoning, the fact that the Intelligent Designer "contains" (?) intelligence means there must have been a source for that!
There cannot be an infinite regress of nothing but “derived intelligence”.
I didn't say it was infinite, but nobody knows if it is or not, or how it got started.
We observe coded, functional language in the cell. It performs logic-based actions.
Yes - it is not a general purpose language like humans use; it is more like computer code.
I can demonstrate something that works and functions like what we see in the cell – namely software.
Right, obviously.
You can try to produce the effect (software) with a non-intelligent cause.
And here you go off the rails. You can't prove one theory simply by showing that nobody else can explain it either. EDIT TO ADD: ID PERSON: If you can't show another way that life began, then my theory about something with conscious beliefs, desires, and intentions (but was not necessarily even a physical thing!) is the best answer. ME: If you can't show another thing that Dark Matter consists of, then my theory about it being made of cheese that doesn't reflect, emit, or absorb light is the best answer. Yes, the Dark Matter = cheese theory is quite preposterous. But hopefully you can see that science doesn't progress by making some hypothesis that can't be falsified and then claiming yours is the best answer because no other theories explain the data without having been falsified! Go ahead, prove that Dark Matter isn't cheese!dogdoc_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

KF
There are good, well warranted answers on the table but they are unwelcome so we see selectively hyperskeptical denial and crooked yardstick dismissiveness.
There is quite a lot of wisdom packed into that one sentence. The key phrase: "they are unwelcome". Yes, that's it.Silver Asiatic_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

AndyClue
What do you mean by “determinism” ? The laws of nature are products of intelligence, reflecting rational, non-deterministic thought. They are therefore non-deterministic.
Yes, that's certainly a reasonable view. The laws of nature cannot be the product of unintelligent, deterministic causes. They operate in an orderly and predictable manner and therefore indicate that they came from an intelligent cause. But we also know what the term "deterministic" means in this context and that is "determined by the laws of nature". Since those laws have predictable outcomes we can call those outcomes "determined", even though, as you rightly say, the order and predictability of the laws point to an initial order or lawmaker, so to speak. So, they're evidence of intelligent design. But we can also contrast determinism of unintelligent, physical causes (like rocks rolling down a hillside) with non-deterministic, designed actions (like Mount Rushmore).Silver Asiatic_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

DogDoc
1) You have assumed a libertarian metaphysics that has no scientific basis (by saying AI systems are deterministic while human beings are not)
If you're stating that human thought is deterministic, then that is self-refuting. I accept that evolution claims that humans have no free will and all thought is deterministic material outcomes. This denies logic and rationality. There's no need to discuss, teach, argue, learn. Evolution tells you what to do. But if you believe that, you refute it by your actions in attempting to convince and argue. Design is the product of free choice and therefore rational thought.
2) AI proves that deterministic mechanisms can exhibit intelligent behavior, which undermines ID’s entire argument against “naturalistic” processes not being able to produce CSI
AI is the product of intelligent design. It is software designed by human beings. It is intelligent in the sense that it can engage a logical order. It cannot truly design in the sense of making free choices. I introduced AI to refute your idea that only biological agents have intelligence. If you walked in a room and saw a wood carving of Abraham Lincoln, you would know it was the product of intelligent design. But it could have been carved by an AI-enhanced robot. The robot represents an intelligent agent, but the intelligence it posseses is not its own - it is embedded with human intelligence. So, the robot cannot truly design on its own. AI does not refute ID at all. Either with a human carving the wood or a robot, both are products of intelligence - one the source of it (the human) and one a carrier of intelligence in human designed software.
3) The fact that humans design AI systems in no way contradicts the fact that deterministic mechanism can exhibit intelligent behavior; my point about a regress of deterministic intelligent designers illustrated that point.
A deterministic process that resembles intelligence, as with AI, is necessarily derived from a true, non-deterministic source. The fact that the AI system contains intelligence means there must have been a source for it. There cannot be an infinite regress of nothing but "derived intelligence".
4) ID does not define “intelligence” in a way that can be evaluated against the evidence. (In fact, you STILL haven’t provided any definition at all.)
See the other posts with definitions.
5) There is nothing wrong with saying there is no known answer to some question; in fact it is the only intellectually honest thing to do. (I provided a list of such questions that science can’t answer).
When a strong inference is available, then the honest thing to do is to accept it until or unless a better one appears.
Here’s an example: I believe that Dark Matter is made of a particular type of cheese that does not absorb, emit, or reflect light.
You'd have to demonstrate something that is like what you're talking about. We observe coded, functional language in the cell. It performs logic-based actions. I can demonstrate something that works and functions like what we see in the cell - namely software. You can try to produce the effect (software) with a non-intelligent cause.Silver Asiatic_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

@Silver Asiatic:
But “determinism” is reserved for the regular, physical laws that govern energy and matter.
What do you mean by "determinism" ? The laws of nature are products of intelligence, reflecting rational, non-deterministic thought. They are therefore non-deterministic.AndyClue_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

dog doc:L
4) ID does not define “intelligence” in a way that can be evaluated against the evidence. (In fact, you STILL haven’t provided any definition at all.)
So, archaeologists can't determine an artifact from a rock? Forensic scientists can't determine a homicide from a natural death? Seriously?ET_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Dogdoc ID can’t even provide a definition of the term that can be used to evaluate against the evidence.
:) The base of life is the code/ the sign system that is dual : a part is visible(letters AGTC )and a part invisible, is NOT THERE (THE MEANING). If you recognize one purpose of tens of intertwined(but very different) sub-systems of the body that work like a unity ,you don't believe in evolution.
Kairosfocus In any sane world, once DNA had been identified and decoded it would have been recognised prima facie that this is design.
Psalms: The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” This is the test. God allows it to "separate" goats from sheep.Sandy_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

SA, yes, programmed is not the same as determinism, it is after the fact of intelligent choice. KFkairosfocus_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

KF Great response - thank you. One additonal thought that DogDoc is confused on: Software (which is what AI is in implementation) is non-deterministic in the same way that a novel or sheet music of a symphony is not deterministic. Those are products of intelligence, reflecting rational, non-deterministic thought. They've been "determined" in a form by intelligence, and on their own cannot change or create new designs beyond what they're programmed to do. But "determinism" is reserved for the regular, physical laws that govern energy and matter.Silver Asiatic_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

PS: UD's Glossary cited the same Wiki Article over a decade ago, notice it has not significantly changed from: >>Intelligence Intelligence – Wikipedia aptly and succinctly defines: “capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language [--> by inference, creatively, rationally and aptly . . . cf R/DNA in the cell vs machine code in embedded systems], and to learn.”>>kairosfocus_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

DD, This is a public forum and I have just completed a key development phase so I can take a little time to respond on points to your assertions directed to SA: >>1) You have assumed a libertarian metaphysics that has no scientific basis (by saying AI systems are deterministic while human beings are not)>> 1: The matter is antecedent to science, it is about basic credibility of reason and its products such as claimed knowledge. 2: If we lack freedom to exert rational judgement and follow ground consequent or evidence, best explanation inferences, if our claimed rationality reduces to blind chance and necessity of GIGO driven computation on a substrate, then we reduce to grand delusion and knowledge, logic, mathematics, science, moral principles and more collapse. 3: But we -- including objectors -- show that instead there are first principle, branch on which we sit first plausibles at work: we are evidently responsibly, rationally, significantly free, which CANNOT be reduced to GIGO-limited blind, dynamic-stochastic computation on a substrate. 4: This is more plausible than its self refuting, self discrediting denial. >>2) AI proves that deterministic mechanisms can exhibit intelligent behavior, which undermines ID’s entire argument against “naturalistic” processes not being able to produce CSI>> 5: AI is by and large exaggerated and at most it shows that intelligently designed software riding on good architecture can "can" intelligent behaviour. 6: The attempt to appeal to known cases of intelligently directed configuration based FSCO/I to try to dismiss the observation that FSCO/I reliably comes about by design is a fallacy of desperation. 7: In fact, it is tantamount to ceding the case. >>3) The fact that humans design AI systems in no way contradicts the fact that deterministic mechanism can exhibit intelligent behavior; my point about a regress of deterministic intelligent designers illustrated that point.>> 8: The programs show that well designed algorithms work. The intelligence comes from the designers and are manifest in codes, algorithms so language and goal directed procedures. 9: Of course, this inadvertently leads to the similar patterns in the living cell, and on FSCO/I as strong sign, warrant inference to design of cell based life. 10: Determined denial on your part does not constitute overthrow of the design inference on our part. >>4) ID does not define “intelligence” in a way that can be evaluated against the evidence. (In fact, you STILL haven’t provided any definition at all.)>> 11: Intelligence is a rather familiar concept, strongly illustrated by 7 billion cases just on the current population. Where we EXEMPLIFY, we do not exhaust. 12: For starters try Wikipedia's admissions against interest:
Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. Intelligence is most often studied in humans but has also been observed in both non-human animals and in plants despite controversy as to whether some of these forms of life exhibit intelligence.[1][2] Intelligence in computers or other machines is called artificial intelligence . . . . From "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an op-ed statement in the Wall Street Journal signed by fifty-two researchers (out of 131 total invited to sign):[8] A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.[9] From Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (1995), a report published by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association: Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.[10]
13: If you don't like that summary and the associated industry that measures intelligence, let us hear your alternative and its justification. >>5) There is nothing wrong with saying there is no known answer to some question; in fact it is the only intellectually honest thing to do. (I provided a list of such questions that science can’t answer).>> 14: Why, trivially yes. 15: However, that is not the present case. There are good, well warranted answers on the table but they are unwelcome so we see selectively hyperskeptical denial and crooked yardstick dismissiveness. KFkairosfocus_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

DogDoc Youi're repeating things that I have answered already, and denying your own problems in assessing the ID inference.
Once again, simply provide a concise definition of the term “intelligence” in the context of ID and you will have made your point.
I invite you review to the UD Glossary: https://uncommondescent.com/glossary/ You'll find intelligence defined there. An AI system simulates human intelligence. It reflects a rational process and is built on software logic. Again, your challenge is to show any known natural process on earth that can produce an AI system, computer software or human intelligence. You could just produce some code like a Shakespeare play. Thus far, you've offered nothing but sophistry and a parsing of definitions. As I explained, even professional scientists who are ID opponents know what the challenge is. You're pretending that you don't understand and the idea of intelligence is a mystery that nobody can understand. You've claimed also that ID cannot be falsified. What do you think Dawkins was attempting with his Weasel? Or the Monkeys typing Shakespeare? There's no mystery about it. The only thing you've offered so far was GPT-3 which is an intelligently designed product. The problem in this conversation is 100% your own. I cannot see that you're taking any of the information that you have access to seriously.Silver Asiatic_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Sandy, what is of course being dodged is how a simple description of a functional target distinguishes itself from having to quote the string for a randomly selected outcome like a winning lottery outcome. They are forgetting that we are dealing here with alphanumeric code, so language and worse that includes algorithms which are goal directed finite sequences of steps thus directly implicating design. In any sane world, once DNA had been identified and decoded it would have been recognised prima facie that this is design. Intelligently directed configuration. We are up against crooked yardstick thinking, driven by a priori commitment to Lewontin's evolutionary materialistic scientism [and yes, there are fellow travellers, those ready to pounce . . . ], with institutional domination and a sometimes ruthless slaughter of the dissidents mindset. Remember the latest stunt we saw here, an attempt to reduce literally trillions of cases of observation of FSCO/I by design to one case and an alleged weak inference. There is something seriously rotten in the state of science and so of our civilisation. KFkairosfocus_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

SA: Here are five of my arguments to which you have failed to respond: 1) You have assumed a libertarian metaphysics that has no scientific basis (by saying AI systems are deterministic while human beings are not) 2) AI proves that deterministic mechanisms can exhibit intelligent behavior, which undermines ID's entire argument against "naturalistic" processes not being able to produce CSI 3) The fact that humans design AI systems in no way contradicts the fact that deterministic mechanism can exhibit intelligent behavior; my point about a regress of deterministic intelligent designers illustrated that point. 4) ID does not define "intelligence" in a way that can be evaluated against the evidence. (In fact, you STILL haven't provided any definition at all.) 5) There is nothing wrong with saying there is no known answer to some question; in fact it is the only intellectually honest thing to do. (I provided a list of such questions that science can't answer). Again: You have provided no responses to these arguments.
That’s another way of saying, “Yes, I was mistaken about that and I built an entire argument on a false premise”.
I originally said only complex living organisms exhibited intelligent behavior, leaving out AI because most ID proponents deny that AI systems exhibit intelligence (a very silly but pervasive response from ID folks). You then actually agreed that AI systems DO exhibit intelligent behavior, and I congratulated you on your correct position, and pointed out that your admission that AI exhibits intelligence undermines all of ID's argument against natural processes producing CSI. That is what happened (it's all here on this very page), and your attempt to spin this into something that undermines my argument is hilariously wrong.
Yes, and instead of responding to what I said, you replied with sophistry and the pretense that you don’t know what an intelligent cause is versus a blind, unintelligent natural cause.
Once again, simply provide a concise definition of the term "intelligence" in the context of ID and you will have made your point. But of course you won't, because you can't. Although the entirety of ID theory rests on this single concept, intelligence, ID can't even provide a definition of the term that can be used to evaluate against the evidence. Go ahead - just try it. Here, I'll start it for you: "According to ID, a cause is 'intelligent' if and only if it ______________" Tell me, what fills in the blank? Something that can be tested against our empirical observations? Nope. What is your answer? Maybe "Can learn from the environment" or "Can solve novel problems" or "Scores over 60 on an IQ test" or "Can speak in grammatical sentences" or "Can acquire and apply knowledge" or "Is neither deterministic nor random"? (Hint: If you simply answer "Can produce CSI" then you will have put yet another nail in the coffin of ID).
If a blind, unintelligent effect could account for the origin of the thing observed, then the ID inference would be falsified. That’s a basic test. We can show the intelligence can produce the effect. All you have to do is show the a blind, unintelligent action can produce it.
I just got through explaining to you that you can't falsify one theory by showing that some other theory fails, or by showing that no theory succeeds at accounting for the phenomenon in question. Here's an example: I believe that Dark Matter is made of a particular type of cheese that does not absorb, emit, or reflect light. You can only falsify my theory if you come up with some other answer that you can prove correct. See? If that was all it took to make a falsifiable scientific theory then everyone could do it. Nobody knows what Dark Matter is. And nobody knows how the universe or first life came to exist.dogdoc_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

KF
A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator
The people doing this know exactly what they're trying to prove. They know what they're trying to falsify. It's testing ID - and failing miserably. But they know what information is. They know what intelligent design is. If they ever succeeded (impossible as that is) the entire world would hear about how ID was falsified. But now that they're a ridiculous failure, suddenly nobody really knows what intelligent design actually means. Nobody knows what information is. What is intelligence after all? Nobody knows. It's all just a foggy concept and anything can happen, and the monkeys will eventually be successful. It's only been 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years and, come on - they got the word Valentine. And you IDists thought the full text of Shakespeare was impossible! So it is just as they told us: "We proved evolution by the antibiotic resistance we observed in bacteria." Therefore according to this, we should know for certain - bacteria clearly evolved into human beings and all other life forms on earth. It just takes some time. Who could doubt it with so much robust evidence?Silver Asiatic_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Again some classic responses today: In another case, the guy says he doesn't know what Intelligence is. Let's ignore the UD glossary and Wikipedia and every ID critic who says there is no evidence of Intelligence in the design of nature. No - all of a sudden, we don't know what intelligence is. Thus our excellent answer: "Nobody knows". Now in this next case, we supposedly don't know what information is. No idea. Forget information theory. It's all just a mystery in which we can say nothing. And specified functional complexity is another "incoherent concept", supposedly. We can provide metrics, we can even use Dawkins' Weasel which was set up to prove the materialistic origin of specified complexity - but again, "Nobody knows, and we're not going to try to find out". Next up: "Nobody knows what design means". When you're running away from something you don't like, any direction will do the job - even running in circle will work, as long as you're just staying ahead of the truth that is chasing you down.Silver Asiatic_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Fred Hickson 1. There is no known correlation between fitness, or any other measure of degree of adaptation, and the simplicity with which we can describe an organism’s genotype or phenotype.
:))) How is this explaing the emergence of information from ...physical laws?Sandy_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

FH, JF is blowing blue smoke and using mirrors. Had you checked the link you would have seen that FUNCTIONALLY SPECIFIC, complex organisation and associated information, FSCO/I, is readily recognised and is obviously functionally relevant, The terminology is a summary that comes from Thaxton et al [1984] and beyond them Wicken and Orgel, i.e. back to 1973. In the cell, start with D/RNA algorithmic coded information, algorithms and associated molecular nanotech rooted in deep knowledge of polymer science. That's language, algorithms so goal directed process, which are already deeply associated with intelligence. The reasons we can be confident it is maximally unlikely to emerge by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity are similar to those of the statistical mechanical analysis that undergirded and refined classical thermodynamics. Build a perpetuum mobile and it is dead but we will not hold our breaths. FYI, 500 bits is a search space of 3.27 *10^150 configs and 1000 is 1.07*10^301. Where a wide array of observation from protein fold domains in AA sequence space to the sharply diverse sex determination systems, point to how functionality based on configs comes in deeply isolated islands of function. Right parts, right orientation and organisation, coupled to yield function, no surprise. Available resources for blind search will be maxed out at sol system level 10^57 atoms, or cosmos level 10^80, long before anything more than a negligible fraction of such spaces will vbe searched. And as search is sampling of subsets, the set of searches is effectively the power set of the onfig space, with 2^[3.27*10^150] elements, at the low end of the threshold of interest, Search for a golden search is exponentially harder than direct search. As for Dembski, I bet JF failed to note that WmAD stated in NFL, that in biological systems, CSI is cashed out in terms of function. he tried to do a general analysis on search challenge relevant to deeply isolated target zones, and that has been rhetorically twisted every which way for 20 years. That is the context where I have declared intellectual independence and simply say, show us an actually obseerved case of FSCO/I by blind chance and mechanical necessity. The random doc people tried and they are a factor of 10^100 shy of the low end threshold config space so far with no serious hope for progress in sight. KF PS. just for record, Wiki testifying against interest on infinite monkeys:
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 any 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 entire observable universe would type a single 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). The theorem can be generalized to state that any sequence of events which has a non-zero probability of happening will almost certainly eventually occur, given enough time . . . . The theorem concerns a thought experiment which cannot be fully carried out in practice, since it is predicted to require prohibitive amounts of time and resources. Nonetheless, it has inspired efforts in finite random text generation. One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on 4 August 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".[27] A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on 1 July 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
there are all but 1/50 millionth of time to heat death remaining, and not even that much more would make a practical difference, especially as we see FSCO/I in the world of life which we are told is about 1/3 way back to the singularlity. There is reason for high confidence in FSCO/I as a reliable, powerful sign of design, intelligently directed configuration or contrivance as key cause. Where as noted, a von Neumann self replicator facility such as in the cell vastly multiplies the quantity of FSCO/I. Every further bit doubles the search space. PPS, kindly note I am speaking in terms of search challenge not probability calculations, and the Newton rule that inferred causes should be observed to have the relevant causal power before being embedded into our schemes of conventionally accepted, institutionalised, claimed knowledge. Chemical evolution fails that test, and so design is candidate to beat for cell based life pivoting on language, codes, algorithms and linked molecular nanotech, thus the root of the tree of life. Perforce, the same applies to claimed mechanisms of body plan origin and the icon, the tree of life.kairosfocus_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

but they can add up.
No they don’t. I know that’s the conventional wisdom. But there’s no evidence for it. And as I said. It’s self refuting.jerry_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.
Page 118:
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained. By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.
Fred doesn't even understand the basics.ET_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply