Bob Marks Knocks it Out of the Park on AI

_{Barry Arrington
February 26, 2023

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

Alan Fox Nonsense.
Nonsense.
Nonsense.
Nonsense.
Nonsensewhistler_{March 1, 2023
March
03
Mar
1
01
2023
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

. Good grief Alan. Let me get this straight; you and Fred are unable to deal with the argument in front of you, so you want me to suddenly (somehow) lose over a decade of reading and understanding, so that you can find an inconsequential nit to pick in the verbiage of an old blog comment? You ask this like it’s a real question. Have at it Fred. I’ll check back later in the day.Upright BiPed_{March 1, 2023
March
03
Mar
1
01
2023
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

It is easy to see why Alan Fox would deny that Intelligence is required to explain life. Alan Fox denies that intelligence is required for him to write his own sentences.
BA77: “So AF holds that the ‘niche”, not AF himself, is responsible for the information that he himself is writing in his posts?” Alan Fox: “Yes, sort of, though I don’t know,,,,” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-for-darwinism-pregnancy-is-the-mother-of-all-chicken-and-egg-problems/#comment-771084
If Alan Fox wants to claim that there is no intelligence behind his own sentences, who are we to argue with him? :)bornagain77_{March 1, 2023
March
03
Mar
1
01
2023
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox @75
I’m asking Upright Biped if the 2012 version of his “hypothesis” is the current one before pointing out in detail where it is erroneous.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a challenger!Origenes_{March 1, 2023
March
03
Mar
1
01
2023
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT}

*Chuckles* Reciprocating bill urges Upright Biped to put up a website. I'm off the hook.Alan Fox_{March 1, 2023
March
03
Mar
1
01
2023
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT}

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-strikes-again/ Déjà-vu https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-strikes-again/#comment-501341 Some blast-from-the-past names in those comments.Alan Fox_{March 1, 2023
March
03
Mar
1
01
2023
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

Sandy “If you read any scientific paper even those that have no touch with darwinism will bring some eulogy to darwinism like a confirmation that the author is part of the darwinian church(as an obedient member).” It’s the secularist creation story. Vividvividbleau_{March 1, 2023
March
03
Mar
1
01
2023
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT}

"Expertise" doesn't help in ideologies (like darwinism =atheist story of "Genesis") . The "scientists" are taught "the absolute truth" of darwinism in school and all their careers try to adapt the evidences to fit with darwinist dogma . If you read any scientific paper even those that have no touch with darwinism will bring some eulogy to darwinism like a confirmation that the author is part of the darwinian church(as an obedient member).Wink wink ;)Sandy_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

My attempt would be riddled with mistakes. So, I can fully understand why you would both prefer that I lay out the argument, instead of Upright Biped doing it himself.
Nonsense. I'm not asking Origenes. I'm asking Upright Biped if the 2012 version of his "hypothesis" is the current one before pointing out in detail where it is erroneous.Alan Fox_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

So does Upright Biped confirm he is still happy with his semiotic hypothesis as in the 2012 OP? From a quick glance, 8 and 9 are erroneous.Alan Fox_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed,
Was there once a person named Charles S Peirce in the 1860’s who wrote that anything acting as a sign would necessarily be part of a larger triadic system of sign, referent, and interpretant? Yes. Was there a person named Alan Turing who wrote in 1933 a famous paper about computation that could become programable by changing the interpretations within the system? Yes. Was there a person named John Von Neumann who in 1948 used Turing’s programable ideas to predict that a symbol system would be the critical requirement for autonomous self-replication? Yes. Was there a person named Francis Crick in 1953 who after discovering the structure of DNA, predicted that a set of proteins would be found working in the system, and that it would be the core role of these proteins to establish the interpretation of the gene code? Yes. Was there a pair of researchers in 1956-58 named Paul Zamecnik and Mahlon Hoagland who not only confirmed Crick’s prediction but also Von Neumann’s prediction that the gene code would be established from encoded memory? Yes. Was there a physicist named Howard Pattee who wrote for five decades (from purely a physics perspective) that the gene system was indeed a system of symbols? Yes.
Excellent! Thanks for the references to Charles Sanders Peirce and Howard Pattee. I'll need to look them up. While I believe that these observations all relate to the nature of information and provide clues to the source and operation of information in a system subject to entropy, my far more simplistic view simply rests on the historically demonstrated pragmatism of an ID approach with regard to scientific progress. The ghosts in the machine, if you will.
This is all gorilla dust; you throw it up in the air during battle in an attempt to confuse your opponent. It’s all mushy and gushy and meaningless drivel. All hat and no saddle.
Haha! I've noticed that JVL, among others, has always evaded ID's challenge of pragmatic success, preferring instead the vacuous safety of ideological conformity. I've always heard the expression as "All hat and no cattle," but your version is probably more accurate in this case. -QQuerius_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

. I almost forgot this:
UB: If I push JVL hard enough, it will come down to the personal beliefs of researchers invalidate history and experimental results JVL: No, that is strictly your opinion because you think your interpretation is correct. That is the point. You are so sure you are correct that it must be that anyone who disagrees with you must have some bias, some ideological reason for it.
Am I sure that John Von Neumann predicted a system of symbols and constraints as the fundamental requirement of autonomous open-ended self-replication? Yes JVL, I am certain of it. I am certain that he predicted construction, copying, and control as the three primary functions, and that a copy of a quiescent description would be placed inside the offspring to allow continuous replication over time. Yes, I am certain of that too. You know who else is certain of it, luminaries like Sydney Brenner and thousands upon thousands of other people from across the biological sciences. It’s actually not a secret at all. It’s not even the slightest bit controversial JVL, since it is part of the written historical record. Am I certain that Francis Crick predicted that a set of complex proteins would be found operating in the gene system, and that it would be the direct role of these proteins to establish how to interpret the encoded sequences derived from DNA? Yup JVL, I am certain of that too. You can read about it yourself in textbooks all across the planet. You can even do as I did and read the original paper itself, it’s called “ON DEGENERATE TEMPLATES AND THE ADAPTER HYPOTHESIS” (caps in the original). It was published in the Medical Research Council Unit for the Study of Molecular Structure of Biological Systems, at Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge England in 1955. It has “F.H.C. Crick” right on the front page with his signature at the top. This is no secret either JVL. Am I certain that Charles Sanders Peirce wrote a general theory of signs, where anything serving as a sign would be part of a larger three-way relationship between the sign, its referent, and an interpretant to establish a context-dependent relationship between the symbol and referent? Yes I am certain of that as well, it is widely known and appreciated. I am just as certain that there is no measurement of any “stands for” property in any atomic matter whatsoever. I’ve seen a Periodic Table, and I am certain of this. Charles Peirce’s conclusions make perfect sense of that fact; if the physical properties of matter don’t inherently specify anything at all, then there must be something else that establishes the necessary relationship. I am also just as certain that the work of Paul Zamecnik and Mahlon Hoagland et al, represented the initial understandings of tRNA, aaRS, and the process of activation, establishing the genetic code (as it was predicted) from encoded memory. If you read their papers in the mid 1950s (55-58) you will be utterly astonished by these two labcoat sleuths and their coworkers. I have no doubts about these things either JVL. Do you? Do you think any biosemioticians have doubts about any of these things – any of these things I’ve talked about; any of these things that are actually relevant to my argument? What in the world makes you think they would?
this is the basic flaw in your whole argument: anyone who disagrees with me must be doing so for an ideological reason. They can’t possible be correct. Or even unbiased.
This is all gorilla dust; you throw it up in the air during battle in an attempt to confuse your opponent. It’s all mushy and gushy and meaningless drivel. All hat and no saddle. If you actually had an example of a critical error I was making, you would lay it out. But you don’t, and you can’t. This is your “basic flaw”. The factual basis of my argument is both simple and uncontroversial. Worst of all, it is significantly well-documented for anyone to see.
When you can have a real conversation about your interpretation of semiotic research when you don’t react to anything that contradictions you as being wrong then let us know.
Famous last words rarely turn out all that well. After catching yours for the past three odd years, I can say that yours are typically worse than others. Certainly more transparent.Upright BiPed_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

JVL, You have to forgive me, most likely my wild fantasies don't line up with reality, but still, I have to ask: could it be that you cannot find anything wrong with UB's actual argument, but that you desperately do not want an irreducible system of symbols and constraints as a prerequisite for evolution, because such cannot be explained by materialism?Origenes_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

. So still no attempt by JVL to substanbtiate his claim of misinterpretation on my part? No surprise there. The reason JVL will not give any details about the things he believes I have distorted (or have an incorrect interpretation of) is because he already knows the full argument (we spent weeks going through the details) and he knows he's already agreed to the correctness of those details. This is not hard stuff. Was there once a person named Charles S Peirce in the 1860's who wrote that anything acting as a sign would necessarily be part of a larger triadic system of sign, referent, and interpretant? Yes. Was there a person named Alan Turing who wrote in 1933 a famous paper about computation that could become programable by changing the interpretations within the system? Yes. Was there a person named John Von Neumann who in 1948 used Turing’s programable ideas to predict that a symbol system would be the critical requirement for autonomous self-replication? Yes. Was there a person named Francis Crick in 1953 who after discovering the structure of DNA, predicted that a set of proteins would be found working in the system, and that it would be the core role of these proteins to establish the interpretation of the gene code? Yes. Was there a pair of researchers in 1956-58 named Paul Zamecnik and Mahlon Hoagland who not only confirmed Crick's prediction but also Von Neumann’s prediction that the gene code would be established from encoded memory? Yes. Was there a physicist named Howard Pattee who wrote for five decades (from purely a physics perspective) that the gene system was indeed a system of symbols? Yes. Over and over and over again. This is what troubles JVL. He wants desperately to position my argument as some “clearly” improper interpretation of the science, but he simply can’t do it. There is nothing that my argument is based on that is even controversial. All the key points of my argument are a matter of documented history. That’s a real bummer for JVL. So I keep asking JVL to name what key detail in my argument represents an incorrect interpretation of these many documented historical events, and he refuses to do so because he can’t. So three years ago, after going through every key part of the argument – every uncontroversial event, date, and experimental result along the way -- I asked him to simply acknowledge that the argument is valid. I did not ask him to “believe” in ID, but only to acknowledge that the actual details of the argument (which he just went through in complete understanding) was indeed valid. He could not do it. And here we are. Now completely incapable of finding fault with the actual content of the argument, JVL is desperate to make it all about something else. He is desperate to make it dependent on the “biosemiotics community”. It’s called bs, and it's all he has left. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JVL in #65,
Clearly you have interpreted the semiotics research in a way that those in the community do not share. That is clear.
If that were true then you would be able to idenfity it. But its not true, and you can't. My argument is not dependent on research from the “semiotics community” in any appreciable way, and you already know this to be true. My argument is based on the documented history of discovery that I laid out for you. If you think I’ve misinterpreted any of that history, or any of the experimental results associated with that history, then name it. Next.
Clearly Dr Pattee disagrees with you on your interpretation. As I have shown.
You Have? Where? Show me. Show me, JVL For once, bust off and show me. Make it stick. Be specific. Show me, JVL. You can’t, and you won't.Upright BiPed_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

JVL, Alan Fox
I agree with Alan Fox: what is Upright BiPed‘s actual argument? Can you lay it out for us quoting specific bits of semiotic research in support. Go on.
My attempt would be riddled with mistakes. So, I can fully understand why you would both prefer that I lay out the argument, instead of Upright Biped doing it himself. Meanwhile, you may want to read UB sets it out step by step.Origenes_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Origenes: I would prefer it if you address UB’s actual argument. I agree with Alan Fox: what is Upright BiPed's actual argument? Can you lay it out for us quoting specific bits of semiotic research in support. Go on.JVL_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Origenes:
I would prefer it if you address UB’s actual argument.
Which is?Alan Fox_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

JVL @64 I would prefer it if you address UB’s actual argument. It is no secret that naturalism is the dominant worldview in the realm of academics, so we may very be dealing with bias. And let’s not talk about conspiracy theories, it is not like this has not happened before. As we all know, the discovery that the universe had a beginning was received with general and stubborn resistance, obviously due to its potential theological implications.Origenes_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Is this where you are going to finally tell me what I’ve “distorted” in my “interpretation”? Can’t wait to hear it. Clearly you have interpreted the semiotics research in a way that those in the community do not share. That is clear. Clearly Dr Pattee disagrees with you on your interpretation. As I have shown. Also, clearly, you have chosen to take my statement about such things as me suggesting that the personal beliefs of the researchers blinds them to the true implications of their work. Which is something I never said or implied. YOU choose to interpret everything I say in your own biased way. You don't play fair. You don't even try to have a sensible conversation. It's really clear and obvious that you refuse to accept anything other than complete agreement with you views. Anything else is denial. Again, your interpretation of the semiotic research is not shared by any of the individuals actually working in the field. At the very least that should give you pause for thought. When confronted with this fact you continue to try and bluster your way through trying to show the research does support your views. But you never, ever concede that you might be wrong; that lots of people who have more time and effort and expertise in the pertinent field clearly disagree with you. I'm guessing that your response will be: yeah, whatever. In other words you will not have a substantial and meaningful response. You will just say: you're still wrong. Because . . . because . . . you are convinced you cannot be wrong. You don't think you have to do anything more because you are very, very sure you are right. That's not science. You are not a scientist. Or a researcher. You publish nothing. You don't do research. You don't present your ideas to groups of your peers to find out what they think. You are not interested in what is actually true. You are really only interested in getting your version of 'the truth' accepted. Otherwise you'd be happy to test your ideas in the common market/forum of the field. But you don't. Because you're not interested.JVL_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Origenes: Nothing you say addresses the actual argument, JVL. I'm happy if everyone in the semiotics research community seems to agree that their work does not support ID. Not a single one of them says it does. They know the field well, they've worked in it for decades, they've published peer-reviewed papers, their work has been scrutinised and looked over by others in their field many, many times. That sounds pretty good to me. What Upright BiPed has not done is to bring his interpretation up to the people who work in the field. "He" has not even attempted to see if his view is in alignment with the people who actually look into to such things professionally. And why is that? If you were so sure of your view why wouldn't you at least ask the community what they think? Has Upright BiPed done that? Has 'he' even tried? It can't all just be some conspiracy theory. If you or someone else has a valid and solid interpretation of research then why not bring it to those in the field?JVL_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Chuckdarwin @62 To be frank, I am not aware of any such data. I copied that line from PM1's argument in post #22, which I slightly altered. Perhaps PM1 can provide you with an answer.Origenes_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Origenes/23 What data support the premise that “[n]eural connections are purely syntactical?” ( I am assuming that you are referring to biological neural networks.)chuckdarwin_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

. ”No, that is strictly your opinion because you think your interpretation is correct.” Is this where you are going to finally tell me what I’ve “distorted” in my “interpretation”? Can’t wait to hear it. I’m going to be driving for the next bit, but I’ll respond to your next evasion when I arrive at my destination.Upright BiPed_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

JVL @58
... this is the basic flaw in your whole argument
Nothing you say addresses the actual argument, JVL.Origenes_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

PM1@ 47
Searle’s argument does not show that understanding cannot be derived from syntactical manipulations. Rather, his argument assumes that understanding cannot be derived from syntactical manipulations.
According to Searle, his argument shows that understanding does not arise from syntactical activity. I agree that it is an illustration, but ‘he assumes it’ is a stretch, what would the argument be about? - - - -
Put otherwise, it was always hopeless to identify the mind with the brain only.
We agree on this.
What we needed was a theory that rejected both the Cartesian ghost in the machine and a reductionism of mind to brain — something like this, in fact.
Perhaps, your position should first attempt to explain the origin of biological information. That presents to be a formidable stumbling block, considering that finding even one single new protein fold Gauger, Axe) proves to be a sheer impossibility if the search is blind.Origenes_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: If I push JVL hard enough, it will come down to the personal beliefs of researchers invalidate history and experimental results No, that is strictly your opinion because you think your interpretation is correct. That is the point. You are so sure you are correct that it must be that anyone who disagrees with you must have some bias, some ideological reason for it. this is the basic flaw in your whole argument: anyone who disagrees with me must be doing so for an ideological reason. They can't possible be correct. Or even unbiased. When you can have a real conversation about your interpretation of semiotic research when you don't react to anything that contradictions you as being wrong then let us know.JVL_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

. So, we are right back where I said we were. If I push JVL hard enough, it will come down to the personal beliefs of researchers invalidate history and experimental results, and if I push Alan hard enough (after wading through his sneering facade) it will come down to "RNA!", while he has no clue how a dynamic RNA gets you to a description in encoded memory. Two peas in a pod.Upright BiPed_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

.
UB: So … What have I distorted JVL? JVL: What I said. If you can’t figure it out then what’s the point?
So you can name nothing whatsoever that I've distorted, eh, JVL? Who could have seen that coming?Upright BiPed_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Why don’t you publish your version of what semiotics says? Why haven’t you don’t that? If you’re right then you should be submitting it to one of the journals in the field. Have you don’t that? Why not?
This is a very fair point, UB. If your idea is irrefutable, it deserves a wider audience. Have you ever tried to put your thoughts into some sort of order.Alan Fox_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Maybe UB could author an OP here.Alan Fox_{February 28, 2023
February
02
Feb
28
28
2023
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply