Bob Marks Knocks it Out of the Park on AI

_{Barry Arrington

February 26, 2023

Intelligent Design}

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

This is a great discussion about whether AI (1) is currently sentient and (2) can, in principle, be sentient. All three panelists agree that it not currently sentient. It is 2 to 1 on whether it can, in principle, be sentient. As you might expect, how the materialists reach their conclusion follows more from metaphysical commitments than evidence. Max and Melanie (the materialists) see no reason why, in principle, computers cannot in the future be conscious. Why not? they ask, we are all just material stuff. And if you agree with their metaphysical premises, that is an unanswerable question. Max, especially is committed to this view and thinks we should be more humble. He is so blinkered by his commitment to materialism that it does not seem to occur to him that there can be any possible reason to think machines cannot be conscious other than arrogance.

Bob is a dualist and reaches the opposite conclusion, and he gives some excellent reasons to question materialist premises. I commend this excellent discussion to you.

BTW, Bob Marks really knows his stuff, and he presents his arguments in a very winsome fashion. We should all follow his example.

Comments

Jerry @442,
Until everyone starts thinking logically and not emotionally, there will be no progress.
And that's why there's been no progress in OOL since Van Helmont's famous and seemingly successful experiment in spontaneous generation. Similarly, how many generations of alchemists were massively funded to find a way to turn lead into gold? It was simply a matter of finding the right set of steps for lead to evolve into gold! Hey, I just thought of a new scientific title: Evolutionary Alchemist. If I were a billionaire, I bet I could fund a chair in Evolutionary Alchemy, Phrenology, and Water Witching! :D -QQuerius_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PST}

ID people have to start thinking in a new direction, one that uses logic. There is too much emotion involved on both sides. This discussion is mainly about OOL. But OOL uses natural selection just as Darwinian Evolution does. However, people are in a straight jacket on just what natural selection is. They think if only refers to the final state of a population of live entities called a species. But we readily use if for viruses which are nothing more than a combination of proteins and not alive. So why not chemical compounds? Natural selection is essentially a tautology. Whatever ends up as a stable situation is what natural selection is, that is it cannot be temporary but has to be stable and enduring. It is what ever nature says is a stable situation. This was explained over a month ago as an attempt to discuss natural selection. See https://uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/paul-davies-on-the-gap-between-life-and-non-life/#comment-775881 No one was interested in trying to understand just what natural selection is. If there is a natural origin to life, it had to follow a natural selection path to the first cell. In other words, it had to evolve or pass through an extremely high number of stable states to become life. For example, if it was a hundred steps, then each step must lead to a stable state, not one that is temporary. My guess it would require thousands of steps, and each step along the way has to be a stable end point. Because it became stable, it was an example of natural selection. In other words nature kept this state as a permanent state for a long period of time. It could also require that two or more separate processes are working to reach the state called life. For example, one process could be the nucleotide accumulation and another could be the cellular wall building independently of each other. But each would have to have many step all of which are stable because it represents some process of many steps that leaves a stable end product. The above has to be logically true, if life was assembled somehow naturally. The search for an OOL solution is then reduced to a search for the possible various steps. The end product is easily done by a superior intelligence but almost impossible for a natural process. Until everyone starts thinking logically and not emotionally, there will be no progress. I am going to post this on the other OP that is being discussed currently.jerry_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PST}

Alan Fox/423
What do folks here think Upright Biped should do next with his Semiotic Hypothesis ?
The polite answer is that he should write the theory up as a paper and submit it to appropriate journals for publication, If it is as groundbreaking as he believes then he owes it to science to put it out there so that it can contribute to the advancement of human knowledge.Seversky_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PST}

Alan Fox How does leucine tRNA synthetase recognize six different tRNAs that match the leucine codons in mRNA and not recognize any other tRNAs?
Haha...
Alan Fox Everything in cell is about chemistry.
Yep!but no! You just admited in first comment that life is more than chemistry.Sandy_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PST}

Alan Fox
How does leucine tRNA synthetase recognize six different tRNAs that match the leucine codons in mRNA and not recognize any other tRNAs?
So, this is your *real* question? And you are saying that it is "unanswerable" by ID?Origenes_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PST}

I promised my wife I'd give it a rest this weekend so I'm done till we get back on Monday.Alan Fox_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PST}

It's not a trick question. I could frame it using more anthropomorphic language if you prefer. How does leucine tRNA synthetase recognize six different tRNAs that match the leucine codons in mRNA and not recognize any other tRNAs?Alan Fox_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PST}

Alan Fox @434 In another thread you posed your question like this:
There are six codons that result in leucine being incorporated into a polypeptide sequence yet only one aminoacyl tRNA synthetase that charges all six tRNAs with leucine. What’s the ID explanation? Anyone can answer. In fact delete “ID” from the question, otherwise it’s unanswerable.
I note that McLatchie (#433) is doing just fine by pointing out that the structure of DNA is such that it "mitigates the effects of errors that might be incorporated during translation."Origenes_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PST}

But my question is more specifically about how one aminoacyl tRNA synthetase for leucine works with six different tRNAs.Alan Fox_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PST}

Well, McLatchie has an agenda there. (Don't we all? ;) ). His agenda in that quote is to refute the idea that the current genetic code shows signs of having evolved from a simpler doublet code with fewer amino-acids(15). Nick Lane discusses the evidence for a simpler doublet code in his book that I mentioned earlier.Alan Fox_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PST}

Alan Fox Perhaps this is an answer to your question about leucine that you also repeated a couple of times in another thread.
How Is the Genetic Code Finely Tuned? As previously stated, the genetic code is degenerate. This means that multiple codons will often signify the same amino acid. This degeneracy is largely caused by variation in the third position, which is recognized by the nucleotide at the 5' end of the anticodon (the so-called “wobble” position). The wobble hypothesis states that nucleotides that are present in this position can make interactions that aren’t permitted in the other positions (though it still leaves some interactions that aren’t allowed). But this arrangement is far from arbitrary. Indeed, the genetic code found in nature is exquisitely tuned to protect the cell from the detrimental effects of substitution mutations. The system is so brilliantly set up that codons differing by only a single base either specify the same amino acid, or an amino acid that is a member of a related chemical group. In other words, the structure of the genetic code is set up to mitigate the effects of errors that might be incorporated during translation (which can occur when a codon is translated by an almost-complementary anti-codon). For example, the amino acid leucine is specified by six codons. One of them is CUU. Substitution mutations in the 3' position which change a U to a C, A or G result in the alteration of the codons to ones which also specify leucine: CUC, CUA and CUG respectively. On the other hand, if the C in the 5' position is substituted for a U, the codon UUU results. This codon specifies phenylalanine, an amino acid which exhibits similar physical and chemical properties to leucine. The fact in need of explaining is thus that codon assignments are ordered in such a way as to minimize ORF degradation. In addition, most codons specify amino acids that possess simple side chains. This decreases the propensity of mutations to produce codons encoding amino acid sequences which are chemically disruptive. [Jonathan McLatchie]
https://evolutionnews.org/2011/11/the_finely_tuned_genetic_code/Origenes_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PST}

I've just been glancing through Life Ascending by biochemist and OoL researcher, Nick Lane. Published in 2009, so might be missing the latest research, it nonetheless covers much ground and is written for a lay audience. Is 10$ too much to spend?Alan Fox_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PST}

I don't expect anything.Alan Fox_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PST}

Did you expect an equal number? 1 codon and 1 aminoacyl tRNA synthetase for leucine?Origenes_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PST}

It's not a problem; just a curious fact, among others.Alan Fox_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PST}

Alan Fox @427
There are six codons that result in a leucine residue yet only one aminoacyl tRNA synthetase charges all six tRNAs with leucine. How does that work?
Can you explain the problem with there being "only one aminoacyl tRNA synthetase charges all six tRNAs with leucine"?Origenes_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PST}

@ Uptight Biped RNA World still drives a coach and horses through your "hypothesis". Question for you to ponder: There are six codons that result in a leucine residue yet only one aminoacyl tRNA synthetase charges all six tRNAs with leucine. How does that work?Alan Fox_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PST}

Well, no problem, Upright Biped, I'm nobody. But what about your "Semiotic Hypothesis"? You first went public with it in 2011, as far as I remember. Twelve years and counting with the mainstream ignoring you completely. Nobody notable among ID proponents has picked up on it either. So what next, Upright Biped?Alan Fox_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PST}

. checking back in, shaking my head... Alan, lol, you are a prime case study in how to go down in flames. The standing claim against contemporary materialists (among non-materialists, agnostics, and many materialists themselves) is that they always tend to clamor and fuss about "science", but cannot defend themselves with evidence, and require pure dogma over and over and over again. And here you are, having been completely pummeled by the documented history of science ... and sure enough, the last string you pull is dogma. - - - - - - - - - - - It occurs to me that every time I respond to this thread, you will do it all again. There is nothing else for you to do, and obviously you cannot stop yourself. We've gone from "Upright Biped, Upright Biped, Upright Biped!!!" to ringing Pavlov's bell. The distance between them was short.Upright BiPed_{March 17, 2023
March
03
Mar
17
17
2023
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PST}

AF, you are trying to rhetorically pretend -- using Alinsky personalise-polarise trollish tactics -- that the observational evidence anchored consensus of science built up since the 40s and 50s is not that DNA and mRNA are coded information storage string elements. Where, coded algorithmic information is what is being stored, pointing strongly to language using intelligence as the best explanation of the architecture of cell based life. What you have now succeeded in doing by resort to closed minded denialism is to back handedly confirm that this central point is decisive and that it is so powerful that denial tactics have to be used. UB and KF, et al have no need to do anything more than point out that the Emperor is parading around in his undies, pretending to be wearing the richest of robes, with his nobles and officials joining in the pretence. Then, we can point to someone like Tour on the challenges with the Darwin pond or the like. Design at the root, OoL, there is no good reason to rule out design across the taxonomic tree of life forms, up to and including for our own body plan. KFkairosfocus_{March 17, 2023
March
03
Mar
17
17
2023
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PST}

I'm serious about this question. What do folks here think Upright Biped should do next with his Semiotic Hypothesis ?Alan Fox_{March 17, 2023
March
03
Mar
17
17
2023
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PST}

So many misrepresentations from Querius' bonanza of straw-men. So little time to point them out. Evolution is cumulative change in allele frequency within populations of organisms that are sharing genomes. Individual genomes don't change during the lifetime of individuals. Evolution in reality is not a process of searching, it is a process of living.Alan Fox_{March 17, 2023
March
03
Mar
17
17
2023
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PST}

Kairosfocus @419,
AF, after over a decade, are we now back to the fallacious dichotomy, natural vs supernatural?
Of course. All that's needed is the famous god-of-the-gaps, MUSTA. This god makes anything possible! Thus, swimming to Hawaii from Los Angeles uses an identical process as swimming to Hawaii from the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, or even the Arctic. It's been demonstrated in swimming pools at countless universities as follows: 1. Pick a random direction from any open sea or ocean. 2. If you hit a coast, change direction randomly. 3. Paddle with arms and kick with legs. 4. Repeat as needed. Over millions of years, it's absolutely a FACT that swimmers MUSTA reached Hawaii. -QQuerius_{March 16, 2023
March
03
Mar
16
16
2023
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PST}

Nevertheless, UB's "semiotic hypothesis" remains ignored by the mainstream. RNA World refutes UB's main assertion. Where next for UB and his hypothesis?Alan Fox_{March 16, 2023
March
03
Mar
16
16
2023
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PST}

AF, after over a decade, are we now back to the fallacious dichotomy, natural vs supernatural? From Plato in The Laws, Bk X, c 360 BC, we have known that the proper distinction is natural vs ART-ificial causes [techne]. Intelligence, acting by art, often yielding FSCO/I as a characteristic sign. See the UD weak argument correctives. And, practically speaking, geological etc processes are maximally implausible as causes of such FSCO/I, for fairly manifest reasons. Let us say, empirically or practically impossible for short. As impossible as jumping into the water at Los Angeles and proceeding to swim without interruption or support, to Hawaii. One may be a distance swimmer and may even be able to swim in stages with support, but that is a very different process. KFkairosfocus_{March 16, 2023
March
03
Mar
16
16
2023
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PST}

Bornagain77 @415, Great post! I really liked the first video that you recommended:
The Intersection of Science and Religion – Craig Hazen, PhD – video https://youtu.be/xVByFjV0qlE?t=745
The issue about science not being capable of operation in the domain of morality or character qualities might be expressed like this:
Science operates in a limited domain. Just as Kurt Gödel’s 1931 incompleteness theorems prove that a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematical systems is impossible, it’s also reasonable that the scientific method cannot extend to many areas intrinsic to human experience—literature, art, music, ethics, faith, and so on. You can’t measure compassion in calories or candelas.
I think this also applies to A.I. -QQuerius_{March 16, 2023
March
03
Mar
16
16
2023
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PST}

Ba77, As you have pointed out on numerous occasions, unguided evolution has no credible basis. Of the various reasons unguided evolution supporters have given here for their unflinching support boils down to a commitment to materialism. This regardless of facts to the contrary. So what amounts to a campaign here by pro-unguided evolution spokesmen continues. That commitment cannot be broken, even by the best arguments and references. And today, Jerry proclaims "Evolution is a fact." but with no evidence to back that up, and an explanation that is just a muddle.relatd_{March 16, 2023
March
03
Mar
16
16
2023
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PST}

Origenes @410,
I’m only refuting your claim that an iPhone cannot be formed through natural processes, such as erosion, mineral deposition, and geological activity . . .
Haha, love it! This is a nice turnabout, exposing the original argument as refuting nothing, but only asserting that it does. Well done. -QQuerius_{March 16, 2023
March
03
Mar
16
16
2023
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PST}

In other news, Dr. Craig Hazen, in the following video at the 12:26 minute mark, 'supernaturally' performed a 'miracle' for an audience of college professors and students simply by raising his arms.
The Intersection of Science and Religion – Craig Hazen, PhD – video https://youtu.be/xVByFjV0qlE?t=745
On the other hand, denying that man has any 'supernatural' component to his being has led to the insanity that is Everett's MWI in quantum mechanics. Specifically, “(Everett) was repulsed by the fact that the human mind seemed to be given a special role (in quantum mechanics)—a conclusion that Everett thought smacked of the supernatural.”
The Atheist War Against Quantum Mechanics – Nov 28, 2021 Excerpt: A dyed-in the-wool nihilist, Everett is known for ordering that his ashes be dumped into a trashcan when he died—a practice that Everett’s daughter later copied upon committing suicide. Everett brought this same dedication to bear in his scientific career. Today, Everett’s disciples praise him for bringing an atheistic scorn of the immaterial back to quantum mechanics. As a graduate student in the 1950s, Everett was alarmed to discover that traditional quantum mechanics did not line up with his materialist commitments. He was repulsed by the fact that the human mind seemed to be given a special role—a conclusion that Everett thought smacked of the supernatural. There seemed to be “a magic process in which something quite drastic occurred, while in all other times systems were assumed to obey perfectly natural continuous laws.”[4] In Jonathan Allday’s words, Everett firmly believed that such a “‘magic process’… should not be considered in quantum physics.” Everett therefore devised the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics—perhaps the most widely-known interpretation in contemporary popular culture. The purpose of the interpretation was, in essence, to create a consistent model of quantum mechanics that would preserve Thomas Huxley’s materialistic dismissal of the mind. Everett’s model continues to be extremely influential. David Deutsch, a militantly atheistic contemporary physicist, regards himself as a sort of apostle of Hugh Everett. “Everett was before his time,” says Deutsch. Before Everett, “things were regarded as progress which are not explanatory, and the vacuum was filled by mysticism and religion and every kind of rubbish. Everett is important because he stood out against it.”[5] Deutsch’s words of praise are important: Everett’s greatest achievement is not the elegance of his mathematical model, but that the fact that his model pushed back against “religion,” which is of course false. https://www.staseos.net/post/the-atheist-war-against-quantum-mechanics
The late Steven Weinberg, an atheist, put to irresolvable dilemma for Darwinian atheists like this, ““,,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,,”
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf
Hence, either man has a 'supernatural' component to his being, (namely free will), which is not reducible to the laws of nature, or else we are left with the insanity of MWI.
Atheist Physicist Sean Carroll: An Infinite Number of Universes Is More Plausible Than God - Michael Egnor - August 2, 2017 Excerpt: as I noted, the issue here isn’t physics or even logic. The issue is psychiatric. We have a highly accomplished physicist, who regards the existence of God as preposterous, asserting that the unceasing creation of infinite numbers of new universes by every atom in the cosmos at every moment is actually happening (as we speak!), and that it is a perfectly rational and sane inference. People have been prescribed anti-psychotic drugs for less. Now of course Carroll isn’t crazy, not in any medical way. He’s merely given his assent to a crazy ideology — atheist materialism —,,, What can we in the reality-based community do when an ideology — the ideology that is currently dominant in science — is not merely wrong, but delusional? I guess calling it what it is is a place to start. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/atheist-physicist-sean-carroll-an-infinite-number-of-universes-is-more-plausible-than-god/
Unsurprisingly, many atheists here on UD, and elsewhere, prefer the insanity of MWI rather than ever admitting the obvious fact that man a 'supernatural' component to his being. Sad! But alas, contrary to what Darwinian atheists believe, man is not a purely material being, as Sedgwick told Charles Darwin, "There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly",, And as this recent article from Salvo magazine stated, "Jesus is alive and well and living in the radical spiritual fervor of a growing number of young Americans who have proclaimed an extraordinary religious revolution in his name. Their message: the Bible is true, miracles happen, God really did so love the world that he gave it his only begotten son." https://salvomag.com/post/running-with-the-wind
Miracles: Keener’s Reflections – video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE6sDPPQ7WA Description: Dr. Craig Keener, author of “Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts” discusses in this web series some of the accounts of people being raised from the dead and people being healed of sicknesses from around the world. It’s Okay to Expect a Miracle | Christianity Today – Keener Excerpt: I got seven eyewitness accounts of people being raised from the dead. One was my sister-in-law, Therese. I asked my mother-in-law to tell me about it, with my wife translating from one of the local languages. My mother-in-law described how Therese was bitten by a snake. By the time my mother-in-law got to her, she wasn’t breathing. No medical help was available. She strapped the child to her back and ran to a nearby village, where a friend who was an evangelist prayed for Therese. She started breathing again. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/december/okay-to-expect-miracle.html?
bornagain77_{March 16, 2023
March
03
Mar
16
16
2023
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PST}

Alan Fox @ 412
Origenes is claiming iphones arose supernaturally?
No, I am claiming that the iPhone's appearance and complex structure could be due to chance and random arrangements of minerals. However, I freely admit that the iPhone's origin is best explained by intelligent design.Origenes_{March 16, 2023
March
03
Mar
16
16
2023
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PST}

1 2 3 … 15 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply