Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Quora: Is it possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that intelligence was required to create life?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Josh Anderson writes:

Yes, it is. Here’s the question you should ask yourself: Is symbolic code something that blind, intelligence-free physical processes could create and use? Or is mind alone up to the task?

The legendary John Von Neumann did important work on self-replicating systems. A towering giant in the history of mathematics and pioneer in computer science, he was interested in describing machine-like systems that could build faithful copies of themselves.

Von Neumann soon recognized that it would require both hardware and software. Such a system had to work from a symbolic representation of itself. That is, it must have a kind of encoded picture of itself in some kind of memory.

Crucially, this abstract picture had to include a precise description of the very mechanisms needed to read and execute the code. Makes sense, right? To copy itself it has to have a blueprint to follow. And this blueprint has to include instructions for building the systems needed to decode and implement the code.

Here’s the remarkable thing: Life is a Von Neumann Replicator. Von Neumann was unwittingly describing the DNA based genetic system at the heart of life. And yet, he was doing so years before we knew about these systems.

The implications of this are profound. Think about how remarkable this is. It’s like having the blueprints and operating system for a computer stored on a drive in digital code that can only be read by the device itself. It’s the ultimate chicken and egg scenario.

How might something like this have come about? For a system to contain a symbolic representation of itself the actualization of precise mapping between two realms, the physical realm and an abstract symbolic realm.

In view here is a kind of translation, mechanisms that can move between encoded descriptions and material things being described. This requires a system of established correlations between stuff out here and information instantiated in a domain of symbols.

Here’s the crucial question: Is this something that can be achieved by chance, physical laws, or intelligence-free material processes? The answer is decidedly NO. What’s physical cannot work out the non-physical. Only a mind can create a true code. Only a mind can conceive of and manage abstract, symbolic realities. A symbolic system has to be invented. It cannot come about in any other way.

If you think something like this – mutually interdependent physical hardware and encoded software  can arise through unguided, foresight-less material forces acting over time, think again. If I were to ask you to think of something, anything that absolutely requires intelligence to bring about, you’d be hard pressed to think of a better example. It’s not just that no one understands how it could be done, it’s that we have every reason to believe that it is impossible in principle. No intelligence-free material processes could ever give you something like this.

But wait, how can we be so sure this feature of life was not forged by evolution, built up incrementally by the unseen hand of natural selection? What’s to say this is beyond the ability of evolution to create?

The question answers itself. In order for evolution to take place you have to have a self-replicating system in place. You don’t evolve to the kind of thing we’ve been describing. That is, necessarily, where you begin.

The DNA and the dizzyingly complex molecular machinery that it both uses and describes did not evolve into existence. This much is clear. Any suggestion that it did is not based on a scintilla of empirical evidence or any credible account of how it could have come about in this way.

The conclusion is clear: The unmistakable signature of mind is literally in every cell of every living thing on earth.

Watch a few seconds of this to remind yourself of the kind of mind-bending sophistication in view here:

Quora

Note that John von Neumann mathematically showed that the information content of the simplest self-replicating machine is about 1500 bits of information. This is a vast amount of information, since information bits are counted on a logarithmic scale, and it cannot be explained by any natural process, since it far exceeds the information content of the physical (non-living) universe. Therefore, since self-replicating organisms obviously exist on Earth, their origin must come from the only known source of this level of information – an intelligent mind of capability far beyond our mental ability – consistent with the biblical view of God.

Comments
Origenes @471, In physics, complex interactions are often simplified or abstracted to be able to tease them apart from their integrated unity. Once this is accomplished, details and nuances are then addressed and the model is refined. Orbital mechanics is one example. To Kairosfocus' points, modularity can be used as a method of abstraction when dealing with complex arrangements/relationships/behaviors. Synergy is a gain in complexity and function due to arrangements. For example, one can represent all digital logic with NAND and NOR gates alone. But this not magic. Information is embodied into the arrangement by the designer (similarly with arrangements of nucleotides and epigenetic markers). So my question is how one can determine whether the phenomena under consideration are a "unity" or whether they are an arrangement.
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. -Hebrews 4:12 ESV
-QQuerius
December 22, 2022
December
12
Dec
22
22
2022
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus @473
>>And it is interesting that KF uses the idea of emergence,>>
7: Yes, I learned that from the Russians, systems gain function from organisation and interaction of components. Something that is not poof magic.
Or is it **POOF**? see #437 :)Origenes
December 22, 2022
December
12
Dec
22
22
2022
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
VL: >>Sure, everything can reduce to addition,>> 1: analysis, i.e. as ALUs demonstrate, addition, shifting and complements with accumulators take in all the four rules and their extensions. 2: So, at this level, the point is made and acknowledged. >> but without the “emergence, by which interactions of lower order components give a higher order complex but unifiable operation,” such as multiplication, math would be impossible.>> 3: Synthesis and modularity. 4: Subtraction is a module, multiplication and division are modules. Matrix and vector addition and subtraction are modules, matrix multiplication is a module. Matrix inversion is too complicated to be modularised as is integration. 5: Notice, traceable structures and patterns of interaction embedding a logic of process. This is not emergence from nothing by poof magic. >>Jerry idiosyncratic position is totally unfeasible from a practical point of view, but he is attached to being an iconoclast.>> 6: Jerry has pointed to something that is important, that product of primes is modularised summing of primes in accord with a particular process logic. >>And it is interesting that KF uses the idea of emergence,>> 7: Yes, I learned that from the Russians, systems gain function from organisation and interaction of components. Something that is not poof magic. >> as that seems to be a concept getting quite a bit of negative press in some other threads (which I am not following).>> 8: It is a poof magic something from nothing issue. KFkairosfocus
December 22, 2022
December
12
Dec
22
22
2022
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT
AF, definitionitis, that here substitutes precising definition for definition, in a context of self referentiality. We cannot adequately define life, but that does not mean we cannot recognise and deal with it in biology through key cases and family resemblance, with ourselves involved. We are undeniably self aware, conscious, minded, rational but error prone creatures. We are inside Origenes' circle of self reference. We know we make decisions, move our fingers, type text, even texts of hyperskeptical objection. We know that mind influences and directs matter, and there are interesting models of quantum influence for that, BA77 has a point. So, we need to trim our sails to the wind and seas, and work within willing recognition of such realities. KFkairosfocus
December 22, 2022
December
12
Dec
22
22
2022
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
Querius @468
I believe a person consists of a spirit, a soul/personality, and a physical body, and that their soul/personality consists of an intellect, a will, and emotions. But these are simply empirical categories.
We share this belief.
So, what’s the utility of your “unity” model that I’m missing?
I offer a model for the spirit/soul/person that we both believe to exist. I posit that it is a unity — a ‘simple substance.’ In my view, the person being a unity can explain several essential things. For instance, in #465 I touch on the ‘unity of experience.’ In #456 I briefly refer to ‘incredible cooperation.’ And I (again briefly) hint that the traditional laws of causation do not apply to aspects of unity. Thoughts, feelings, intentions, and consciousness work in concert in an ‘incredible’ way, as you have noticed :) . I (again briefly) argue that these ‘things’ [thoughts, feelings, and so on] cannot be understood in isolation (as things on their own), but can only be understood as ‘aspects’ in the context of the person as a unity. Lastly, I propose that unity can explain the mystery of all mysteries, namely self-awareness. My attempt here is to offer a very short rough sketch of my view, without hijacking this thread entirely.Origenes
December 22, 2022
December
12
Dec
22
22
2022
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT
Regarding consciousness, the problem is that we can’t even define it.
I agree and suggest the problem is insurmountable until there is some consensus on what consciousness is. I also think the problem for substance and property dualists is to explain the interface. How does the mind impinge on the physical realm?Alan Fox
December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
Curiosity? Don’t you mean a ‘lack of storytelling ability’?
Euglena is a real, live animal. With minimal effort, you could observe them yourself under a microscope.Alan Fox
December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT
Origenes @461,
Querius @457, my argument involving the unity of the individual person was not scientific, not about causality between distinct entities (physics), not about quantum mechanics, not about emergence, not about cosmic consciousness, and not about the Monkeys.
Okay, so maybe you can appreciate my confusion. When you assert self observation, you enter the strange world of information and quantum mechanics, especially considering that it may be the entirety of the interface between the the spiritual world and the physical world. Regarding consciousness, the problem is that we can't even define it. We know that consciousness involves a number of observable, measureable results: - Awareness of choices - The ability to choose - The ability to collapse the wavefunction as a result - The ability to affect quantum entanglement - The ability to affect the precision of conjugate variables - The ability to experience emotion I believe a person consists of a spirit, a soul/personality, and a physical body, and that their soul/personality consists of an intellect, a will, and emotions. But these are simply empirical categories. So, what's the utility of your "unity" model that I'm missing? -QQuerius
December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
AF at 458, Curiosity? Don't you mean a 'lack of storytelling ability'? Evolution is filled with explanations that actually explain nothing. I work with people who produce fiction at the professional level. I understand good storytelling. Explanations for alleged evolutionary events don't fall into the "good" fiction category.relatd
December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
Alan Fox @464
I wonder how something non-physical interacts with something physical. There must be an interface.
I agree.
Wouldn’t physical observation of this involve violation of the natural laws such as causeless effects?
If the person steers the body, if "I" type this sentence, if fermions and bosons are not the ultimate sources of the sentence ... the sentence would come about by violating natural laws. Unless the 'interface' operates at the quantum level and the laws are open at that level. WRT mental-physical interaction, how do you interpret measurement/observation & quantum mechanics?Origenes
December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT
William James' argument for unitary consciousness:
‘Take a sentence of a dozen words, and take 12 men and tell to each one word. Then stand the men in a row or jam them in a bunch, and let each think of his word as intently as he wills; nowhere will there be a consciousness of the whole sentence.’
The core of the argument is the unity of experience, for it is this unity that points to the simplicity of the person. Two possible explanations of such unity – a complex material entity or a simple immaterial one. The material alternative is rejected on the grounds that a multipart entity could not account for the simple unity of experience.Origenes
December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT
~a simple (non-physical) substance.
I wonder how something non-physical interacts with something physical. There must be an interface. Wouldn't physical observation of this involve violation of the natural laws such as causeless effects?Alan Fox
December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT
How do you know that for a fact?
I don't. It's a bald assertion. I've yet to have been presented with counter-examples, though. For instance, the Terminator hypothesis remains fictional... ...for the moment.Alan Fox
December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT
Alan Fox @459
So consciousness is some sort of “form”? I’m pretty sure you can’t provide a useful description of consciousness but what do you mean by “form”?
To be clear, I propose that the individual person is a ‘unity’, a simple (non-physical) substance. Next, I propose that consciousness should be viewed as the ‘form’ of this simple substance, and thoughts, intentions, and feelings as aspects of the ‘content’ of the simple substance.
The bigger problem is nobody (or any entity) is capable of understanding the workings of their own self-awareness by thinking about it.
I am curious. How do you know that for a fact?Origenes
December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT
Querius @457, my argument involving the unity of the individual person was not scientific, not about causality between distinct entities (physics), not about quantum mechanics, not about emergence, not about cosmic consciousness, and not about the Monkeys.Origenes
December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT
What’s going on when I’m unconscious?
Have you had a general anesthetic ? My impression is of being switched off, then coming round with no impression of the passage of time. The more interesting (though unanswerable) question is what is going on physically when you are alert and fully conscious and you think about something.Alan Fox
December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT
Undeniably, consciousness must be the form that observes itself.
So consciousness is some sort of "form"? I'm pretty sure you can't provide a useful description of consciousness but what do you mean by "form"? I avoid the problem of there being no commonly accepted definition of "consciousness" by substituting the words "awareness" and "self-awreness". The bigger problem is nobody (or any entity) is capable of understanding the workings of their own self-awareness by thinking about it.Alan Fox
December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
Which means absolutely nothing if the creature did not have a brain able to interpret this
The lack of curiosity among ID proponents commenting here is a bit discouraging. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyespot_apparatusAlan Fox
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
Origenes @ 456, Sounds like this to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnbfuAcCqpY The only way we can study science is through causality. So, there must be causality to create emergent results. Anything else is outside the realm of science. Experiments in quantum mechanics demonstrate the Von Neumann chain of collapsing wavefunctions are apparently triggered only by conscious human observation. Cameras and other devices don't collapse the wavefunction until then according to the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation. Many believe that this is due to the intimate involvement of the transfer of information, and that limits to extracting information are observed in measurements of conjugate variables. For example When we continuously observe a radioactive atom, it will not decay as long as it’s being observed. This is called the Quantum Zeno Effect. However continuously recording the radioactive atom will NOT delay the its decay. In November, 2015, an experiment in the Canary Islands found that when “entangled” photons were separated by 143 kilometers, observing one of photons instantly affected the other one. Astonishingly, the information propagated faster than the speed of light. Recording one of the photons does not have this effect until the recording is consciously observed by a human. These phenomena seem to falsify cosmic consciousness. -QQuerius
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT
About consciousness. Suppose the person is a unity. Now think of consciousness as the ‘form’ of this unity. This form encompasses its ‘content’ that consists of further aspects, such as thoughts, feelings, intentions, and so on. Note that no aspect of this unity, that is the person, can be understood in isolation, on its own; we are talking about 'aspects' not 'parts'. E.g. ‘intention’ cannot be understood without the involvement of feelings, thoughts, and of course, consciousness, all of which are aspects of unity (which explains their incredible cooperation), that is the person. Given this context of unity, form, and content, what is consciousness? Undeniably, consciousness must be the form that observes itself. However, starting with a non-conscious form, this notion does not explain self-awareness. Similarly, a camera that observes itself is not self-aware. Here is the paradox: consciousness must be, I see no other way, the form that observes itself starting from self-observance. That is to say, the form is ‘already’ observing itself when it observes itself. Yes, I intentionally used the term paradox.Origenes
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
Viola Lee @453, 454, Yeah, you can say that again! ;-) The problem is defining "consciousness." When I fry a egg for breakfast, does the egg white responding to the environment by turning white mean it's conscious? (gulp) Yikes! I'm eating it alive! -Q P.S. What's going on when I'm unconscious?Querius
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
There could also be unknown properties of whatever lies behind the quantum world that we observe that manifest internally in a living organism. Whatever the basis of consciousness is, it seems to me obvious that their is something, starting with the simplest organisms, by which the organism has an internal recognition of external stimulus and reacts accordingly. Watch a bird flying through branches to catch an insect: surely the bird is conscious, in some way of the environment. How about a frog catching a fly. I think it's easier and easier to think it's just consciousnessless stimulus and response as you think about simpler and simpler organisms, but I also think it's hard not to think that a gorilla has a consciousness like ours, without the abstract, language-based abilities. Therefore, from a design perspective, it seems reasonable to think that whatever consciousness is, it was designed and developed over time in tandem, so to speak, with bodies.Viola Lee
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
There could also be unknown properties of whatever lies behind the quantum world that we observe that manifest internally in a living organism. Whatever the basis of consciousness is, it seems to me obvious that their is something, starting with the simplest organisms, by which the organism has an internal recognition of external stimulus and reacts accordingly. Watch a bird flying through branches to catch an insect: surely the bird is conscious, in some way of the environment. How about a frog catching a fly. I think it's easier and easier to think it's just consciousnessless stimulus and response as you think about simpler and simpler organisms, but I also think it's hard not to think that a gorilla has a consciousness like ours, without the abstract, language-based abilities. Therefore, from a design perspective, it seems reasonable to think that whatever consciousness is, it was designed and developed over time in tandem, so to speak, with bodies.Viola Lee
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
Viola Lee @450,
And to a design theorist, the emergence of consciousness could be attributed to design: that is, the progressive design of the mind could have accompanied the progressive design of the body over the many millions of years that there have been an increasing variety of organisms.
Not only could be attributed, but often has. The problem though is that there's no zero evidence of any "consciousness property" in the standard model of particle physics such that a careful arrangement of molecules could amplify consciousness. There's always panpsychism/universal consciousness, though . . . https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-universal/ -QQuerius
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
Sir Giles @385
Querius: So am I correct in concluding that you’re intolerant of Islamic Sharia law being acceptable in your country? Sir Giles: If the people imposing it and the recipients of it are doing so of their own free will, I don’t really care.
I see. But if something is imposed, I’m not sure that the recipients will agree that it’s of their own free will. So let’s see . . . If Islamic Sharia Law is imposed on your country, would you, Sir Giles, accept it of your own free will? Regarding my education, let me just say that I was taught about the Miller-Urey experiment both in high school and college classes. The college classes went into more detail, but homochirality was never mention, nor was the fact that the reaction products hit a chemical dead end. At the college level, I was taught something like this: Miller and Urey's analysis of the reaction products demonstrated that complex step-wise chemical reactions could spontaneously form simple organic molecules, including amino acids. Thus, they proved that organic molecules could form under the conditions in the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis, and that a primordial soup likely existed in Earth's history for the origin of life. They admitted that the composition of gases in the Miller-Urey experiment had been refined since that time, but that the general process was demonstrated. -QQuerius
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
I don't believe the bicycle analogy makes sense as all. And to a design theorist, the emergence of consciousness could be attributed to design: that is, the progressive design of the mind could have accompanied the progressive design of the body over the many millions of years that there have been an increasing variety of organisms.Viola Lee
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
Emergentism – a discussion:
Relatd: Experiment: Take all the parts for a bicycle. Leave them in a pool of water for one million years. Result? Nothing happens.
Ori: Perhaps consciousness emerges?
VL: Yes, possibly, from the quantum substrate, perhaps. It’s not an unreasonable hypothesis.
Question is, can the newly emerged consciousness generate enough downward causation to reassemble some unused bicycle parts into a flagellum or a close precursor?Origenes
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
SG at 445, Ooooooh, the hypocrisy! Sorry, I missed it.relatd
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
re 444: According to you and others, God is the designer. Although in pure ID theory, the question of who is the designer is off-limits: only the detection of design is relevant.Viola Lee
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
Related to one of the sub-threads here:
The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science – i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy – and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions. - Wittgenstein
Viola Lee
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
1 2 3 16

Leave a Reply