Does ID Rest on Metaphysical Claims About Dualism?

_{Barry Arrington

December 15, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

RDFish seems to think so. I summarize his argument as follows:

The ID explanatory filter works as follows:

(a) The explanatory filter first asks whether the phenomenon is contingent. If it is not, then it is probably best explained as the result of a natural regularity.

(b) If the phenomenon is contingent, the filter asks whether it is complex and specified. If it is neither complex nor specified, then chance is the most viable explanation. While there may be false negatives, there can be no reliable design inference.

Therefore, under the explanatory filter design is inferred only after law and chance have been eliminated.

If physicalist monism is true, everything must be reducible to the operation of law and chance.

Therefore, if physicalist monism is true, the residual after the elimination of law and chance is always an empty set.

It follows that the ID explanatory filter sneaks in a base assumption of dualism.

Dualism is a metaphysical proposition that cannot be tested empirically. It follows that ID is based on metaphysical premises that cannot be tested empirically. And because one of its key assumptions cannot be tested empirically, ID cannot be considered a valid scientific hypothesis.

RDFish’s claim is wrong, and I will refute it with a simple thought experiment.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that physicalist monism is true.

Let us suppose that all life on earth dies out.

A million years from now an alien is exploring this barren planet and he finds Mount Rushmore and decides to apply the explanatory filter to it.

The alien concludes that the carving is highly contingent. It cannot be attributed to any law-like natural regularity.

The alien concludes the carving is specified. It is an image of four members of the former inhabitants of this barren planet.

The alien concludes that the carving is highly complex/improbable, i.e., one would not expect the images to be carved by chance processes (e.g., erosion caused by wind and rain).

Therefore, the alien concludes, correctly, that the best explanation for the carving is an intelligent agent carved it.

The alien’s design inference would be correct even if physicalist monism is true, because the plain fact of the matter is that Mount Rushmore was caused by an intelligent agent, i.e., an agent with the capacity to arrange matter for a purpose.

Not so fast, RDFish will probably argue. If physicalist monism is true, then the intelligent agents who carved Mount Rushmore where themselves the result of law/chance and acting according to law/chance. Therefore, the conclusion that Mount Rushmore was not ultimately the result of law/chance would be false.

But RDFish would be wrong. Design exists as a category of causation. To suggest otherwise is absurd and self-defeating. Not only does design exist, designers leave objective markers of design. Therefore, if RDFish is going to stick to his guns and say that design cannot be detected, he is stuck with this syllogism:

If monist physicalism is true, it is impossible objectively to infer design.
But it is possible objectively to infer design.
Therefore, monist physicalism is false.

How can physicalist monism be reconciled with the obvious existence of design as a category of causation? The following reasoning would apply:

Design, meaning the capacity to arrange matter for a purpose, exists as a category of causation.
The capacity to arrange matter for a purpose can be reduced to any force that is able to arrange matter in the present such that it will have an effect in the future.
There are at least two candidates for causal forces that have the capacity to arrange matter for a purpose. (a) intelligent agents who have immaterial mental capacity; (b) an impersonal non-conscious yet-to-be-discovered natural telic force.
The monist rejects the existence of intelligent agents with immaterial mental capacities, because the existence of such agents obviously entails dualism.
Instead, the monist can resort to the natural telic force.
If such a natural telic force exists, the existence of design as a category of causation is no obstacle to accepting the truth of monist physicalism.

This get us to:

If monist physicalism is true and a natural telic force exists, it is nevertheless possible objectively to infer design.
Therefore, design may be inferred under monist physicalism using the explanatory filter.
Therefore, ID does not depend on dualist metaphysical assumptions.

In summary, ID does not depend on dualism. As Dembski has observed, ID is compatible with a natural telic force.

The problem the monist has, of course, is that in order to account for the obvious existence of design, he can no longer say everything in the universe is reducible to law/chance. He has to say everything in the universe is reducible to law/chance/not-yet-discovered natural telic force. ID is OK with allowing such a natural telic force as a candidate for the source of design (and therefore does not depend on dualism). Obviously, however, based on observations of known intelligent agents, ID is also perfectly comfortable with dualism.

Comments

RDFish:
Either you have an objective method for detecting purpose, or all you have is a way to detect CSI.
We have both, however CSI requires planning so by detecting the presence of CSI you have also uncovered intent/ purpose. And yes, we know that is too much for your narrow mind to process. Cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

RDFish: Noted – you have no response to my arguments.
No, your arguments are irrelevant since you’ve given away the store. So there is no need to respond to your ever-more-tedious bad faith. Here is a summary of where we are. RDFish: ID’s core arguments require dualism to be true in order to be coherent. Barry: Nonsense. Thomas Nagel posits a natural telic force that is operative in a monist universe. RDFish: I tend to agree with Nagel. Barry: Then you’ve given away the store. The ID designer in a monist universe could be this impersonal, non-conscious, non-dualist (by definition) natural telic force. RDFish: ID’s core arguments require dualism to be true in order to be coherent. Fish, you have been soundly beaten in this round. Move along.Barry Arrington_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

mike1862:
Mapou It’s all about order versus disorder. One cannot get order out of disorder. You can if ordering principles are guiding the disorder. But… oh wait. Never mind.
Exactly. And now that you mention ordering principles (or spirits, if you like), it logically follows that, with enough ordering principles around, each doing its own special "ordering" thing, Gods and universes eventually emerge. Yahweh claims to have been the first of the Gods. Interesting that he also claims to be a God of order.Mapou_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Thus, when we specify a middle C, we are talking about the version of the tone C that appears in a particular position relative to lower and higher versions of that tone. Music Theory Through Improvisation
I can't wait to see how RDFish manages to improvise his way around that one.Mung_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
If you would like to debate these issues, tell me what you mean by “specifying”, and answer the clarifying questions I ask.
RDFish doesn't know what it means to specify middle C. I'm not making this up. He actually said that. And yet he somehow manages to put forth the pretense that he understands the argument.Mung_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Hi Upright BiPed, If you'd like to debate, then answer the clarifying questions I ask, and ask your own which I will answer. Otherwise you're just wasting time for both of us. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
Do you not know human beings are conscious?
I thought we were supposed to be talking about objective facts.Mung_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Hi mike1962,
A chimp could conceivably do this.
As you see if you've read my posts, I acknowledge that certain other animals - like chimps - have human-like abilities. I also talk about beavers and termite colonies building structures and so on.
Just curious, how do you know anyone besides yourself is conscious? (Assuming you are.) Is there a scientific way to determine this?
Again, as I've been explaining here, humans are similar to each other in so many observable respects that we infer similar conscious experiences as well. Strengthening our inference is the fact that neurological correlates of consciousness have been discovered in all humans, and of course the fact that we each can verbally confirm our inner conscious awareness. Of course the problem of other minds remains in philosophy, but cognitive science is able to study human consciousness by using the neurological and self-reporting evidence. Consciousness in non-human animals is much more difficult of course. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
We are not discussing the element of full consent or the subtleties of mental; health. Those are secondary questions. We are discussing intent and purpose.
That is what distinguishes murder from other forms of homicide.
The purpose of the act was to produce a dead person or at least a seriously injured person.
Only if the perpertrator was able to think rationally at the time, which is what the courts will investigate by examining the suspect.
People don’t stab other people to bring them back to life.
Yes, I agree.
No psychologist is needed to know the killer’s objective,...
Not the case. Many suspects are defended on the basis that the killer was not in a rational frame of mind, and was not aware of what he/she was doing. Psychologists are exactly what they use to figure it out.
...and that objective is clearly indicated by the stab wounds, not by the body and not by our knowledge that humans are the only animals that attack things with knives. The body tells us nothing. It is the holes in the body that tell the tale.
Sorry, what's your point here? Now, please confirm what you said: Aliens require brains, bodies, sense organs, and conscious awareness in order to be intelligent agents and produce CSI. Have you changed your mind about this yet? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Hi Barry Arrington,
Are you still around? I am not going to respond to your tedious blitherings point by point.
Noted - you have no response to my arguments.
I will only say again that you have already given away the store with respect to the point made in the OP.
Not in the least, of course. My argument stands - ID's core arguments require dualism to be true in order to be coherent.
When you admitted even the possibility of the existence of a natural telic force, you admitted that ID is not necessarily committed to dualism, which is the point of the OP. QED.
You're wrong because: Intelligent Design Theory does not argue for "natural telic forces", it argues for "intelligent agents", which is why the word "intelligent" is in the name of the theory. If ID argued for "natural telic forces" the way Nagel does, I would have none of these arguments against ID of course (unless ID claimed that there is already a robust theory of natural telic forces). ID oversteps the bounds of empiricism when it uses the word "intelligent" to explain living things. The word "intelligent" is associated with a host of mental abilities and characteristics that cannot be empirically supported as being involved in the origin of life. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Mapou It’s all about order versus disorder. One cannot get order out of disorder. You can if ordering principles are guiding the disorder. But... oh wait. Never mind.mike1962_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

RD, so you plead that you cannot answer my question because you don't understand the words used in this context, then turn right around and ask me a question using the same words in the same context. You want me to ignore the obvious.Upright BiPed_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

RDFISH: Uh, no – I knew it was murder because there was a body that had been stabbed to death with a knife. Only humans do this, so I knew it was a human. A chimp could conceivably do this. please let’s keep the discussion about scientific claims, not philosophical or religious beliefs. Just curious, how do you know anyone besides yourself is conscious? (Assuming you are.) Is there a scientific way to determine this?mike1962_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

RDFish
1) We find a dead person. 2) We recognize from the body that the person has been killed with a knife. 3) We know that only humans attack things with knives. 4) We conclude a human being killed this person. 5) We know that human beings are conscious things, so we infer the killer was conscious. 6) We may have questions about intent. Perhaps the person was drugged, or mentally ill, or hallucinating for some other reason, and did not really form a conscious intention to kill the victim. That would require examination of a suspect by a psychologist – we couldn’t tell from the stab wounds.
We are not discussing the element of full consent or the subtleties of mental; health. Those are secondary questions. We are discussing intent and purpose. The purpose of the act was to produce a dead person or at least a seriously injured person. People don’t stab other people to bring them back to life. No psychologist is needed to know the killer’s objective, and that objective is clearly indicated by the stab wounds, not by the body and not by our knowledge that humans are the only animals that attack things with knives. The body tells us nothing. It is the holes in the body that tell the tale.StephenB_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

RDFish, Are you still around? I am not going to respond to your tedious blitherings point by point. I will only say again that you have already given away the store with respect to the point made in the OP. When you admitted even the possibility of the existence of a natural telic force, you admitted that ID is not necessarily committed to dualism, which is the point of the OP. QED.Barry Arrington_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
RDF: This was murder with malicious intent SB: How do you know it was murder? RDF: It’s based on our previous knowledge of humans. Humans sometimes commit murder.
Uh, no - I knew it was homicide because there was a body that had been stabbed to death with a knife. Only humans do this, so I knew it was a human. When a human stabs somebody to death, it is a homicide. The court will determine if the homicide was murder based on examination of the suspect.
According to my philosophy, an alien who has no brain, body, sense organs, or conscious awareness cannot produce CSI
Once again, StephenB, please let's keep the discussion about scientific claims, not philosophical or religious beliefs. But apparently you believe - for whatever reason - that aliens require brains, bodies, sense organs, and conscious awareness in order to be intelligent agents and produce CSI. Very interesting indeed!!!!!!!!!!! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

RDF:
Imagine an alien who had no brain, no body, no sense organs like eyes or ears, and no conscious awareness, but could produce CSI including digital codes. Would this alien recognize that Mt. Rushmore was an artifact of an intelligent agent, and how do you know?
Here is my response, which is conditional on my current understanding of your question: According to my philosophy, an alien without a mind or senses will not recognize anything as an artifact, including Mount Rushmore. I know that because it is by the mind and the senses that we recognize things. According to my philosophy, an alien who has no brain, body, sense organs, or conscious awareness cannot produce CSIStephenB_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Following the logic of RDFish: RDF: This was murder with malicious intent SB: How do you know it was murder? RDF: It’s based on our previous knowledge of humans. Humans sometimes commit murder. SB: I know that humans sometimes do that, but how do you know a human did it in this instance? Only the stab wounds themselves can tell determine whether or not it was murder RDF: No. This man is guilty. All we need to know is that humans sometimes commit murder. Same crime science RDF: This was not a murder at all. SB: How do you know that? RDF: Humans sometimes don’t commit murder. SB: But how do you know that it wasn’t murder in this case? There would have to be an absence of stab wounds to know that. RDF: No. This man is innocent. All we need to know is that humans sometimes don’t commit murder.StephenB_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Hi Upright BiPed,
RDF: What if an alien had no brain, no physical body, and no conscious awareness, but it could build semiotic systems, digital codes, and so on. Would you say this alien was “specifying” these systems? UB: I didn’t ask what happens inside an immaterial alien.
If you would like to debate these issues, tell me what you mean by "specifying", and answer the clarifying questions I ask. I try to answer your questions, but you dodge mine, so we can't debate. Imagine an alien that had no brain, no physical body, and no conscious awareness. Imagine it had no way to communicate ideas with other aliens, no ability to explain what it was doing, no beliefs or desires. All it could do was to somehow produce semiotic systems, digital codes, and so on. Would you say this alien was “specifying” these systems? Would you say this alien was "intelligent"? If you don't want to debate these issues, just say so. Otherwise, why not do your best to respond to my requests for clarification, and ask your own which I will respond to? If you did that, we could make progress here. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
The question is not whether human beings act with intent and purpose. Obviously, they do.
Ok, and in my view, "intent and purpose" requires conscious awareness. Do you agree that consciousness is central to the idea of intent and purpose? Or do you think that something can have an intention and do something on purpose - or for a purpose - without any conscious awareness that is what it is doing?
The question is this: In the absence of those stab wounds, how would you detect intent and purpose in this situation?
Sorry, but without the stab wounds, what exactly is "this situation"?
What other possible way could there be to make such a detection than to draw inferences of intent and purpose from the patterns exhibited by the knife wounds? It cannot come from your general knowledge of human beings.
1) We find a dead person. 2) We recognize from the body that the person has been killed with a knife. 3) We know that only humans attack things with knives. 4) We conclude a human being killed this person. 5) We know that human beings are conscious things, so we infer the killer was conscious. 6) We may have questions about intent. Perhaps the person was drugged, or mentally ill, or hallucinating for some other reason, and did not really form a conscious intention to kill the victim. That would require examination of a suspect by a psychologist - we couldn't tell from the stab wounds. Now I've answered your questions; answer mine: Imagine an alien who had no brain, no body, no sense organs like eyes or ears, and no conscious awareness, but could produce CSI including digital codes. Would this alien recognize that Mt. Rushmore was an artifact of an intelligent agent, and how do you know? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

What if an alien had no brain, no physical body, and no conscious awareness, but it could build semiotic systems, digital codes, and so on. Would you say this alien was “specifying” these systems?
I didn't ask what happens inside an immaterial alien.Upright BiPed_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

SB: Your knowledge that human beings form conscious intentions cannot tell you anything about this particular stabbing. And you have still not explained how you know that it was a human being in the first place. RDFish
Do you not know human beings are conscious?
Yep.
Sure you do.
Check.
Do you not know that human beings are the only knife-wielding species on the planet? Of course you do.
You bet. However, you have not addressed the issue. The question is not whether human beings act with intent and purpose. Obviously, they do. The question is this: In the absence of those stab wounds, how would you detect intent and purpose in this situation? What possible way could there be other than to make such a detection than to draw inferences of intent and purpose from the patterns exhibited by the knife wounds?StephenB_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

It's all about order versus disorder. One cannot get order out of disorder. The two are separate but complementary. Both must exist by logical necessity. There is a potentially infinite number of ways that physical properties can be expressed and combined. Order cannot emerge from this space. The only way to search through a potentially infinite space of possibilities is to use a non-stochastic search mechanism. Such a mechanism can only come from a pre-existing non-physical order. So, again, I agree with RDFish that ID implies a non-physical realm. But so what? Anything that can be logically deduced is just as valid as something that can be observed. One must follow the logic wherever it leads. Anything else is no better than book burning and can only be the result of an evil, Big Brother-like desire to manipulate the minds of others. Atheists, materialists and Darwinists are fascists by nature.Mapou_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Hi Upright BiPed,
RD, use your intellect: Our material universe is a place where things must be specified in order to place them under temporal control and organize them into living things.
Sure, OK.
This is undeniable.
I'm not really sure what "specified" means here, but I'm not denying it.
But, no material object specifies any other material object. How does a thing become specified in a material universe? What is required, and at what time is it required?
What do you mean by "specified"? Do you mean when something consciously thinks about something before doing it? What if an alien had no brain, no physical body, and no conscious awareness, but it could build semiotic systems, digital codes, and so on. Would you say this alien was "specifying" these systems? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
Your knowledge that human beings form conscious intentions cannot tell you anything about this particular stabbing. And you have still not explained how you know that it was a human being in the first place.
Do you not know human beings are conscious? Sure you do. Do you not know that human beings are the only knife-wielding species on the planet? Of course you do. Please read my last post to Barry - especially the part about the alien that is unlike human beings or other animals. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

@46 "What you need is a method to detect “purpose” in things where we do not know what produced it" What you need to do is quit arguing for the scientific method as it is not consistent with your faith in unintentionalism for how man and the universe came about. "and we have no reason to think it was similar to a human being or other animal" Reason, thinking and the ability to logically evaluate cannot be grounded on a position where the human reasoning faculties came about by dumb luck. The laws of logic cannot be grounded on your way of looking at the world. The idea of law in nature cannot be grounded on your position. The fact that you think your reasoning faculties can give you a correct interpretation of how the universe came to be is not consistent with your position that human reasoning faculties were unintended. You are presupposing a design worldview in order to argue against design. if you embrace nihilism then we could really believe that you reject design.Jack Jones_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Hi Barry,
You said that the term “intelligent agent” tells you nothing about what was involved in carving Mount Rushmore. And that is gobsmackingly stupid.
Um, Barry, we know that human beings carved Mount Rushmore, OK? When we see artifacts on Earth, we know that human beings made them, and we know all about human beings. So every single time you come up with scenarios about human beings - forensics, archeology, Mt. Rushmore, and so on - you are just showing that we can recognize the tell-tale signs of human activity, not that "intelligent agency" has any specific, empirical meaning. You may wish to include animals as intelligent agents, and point out we can observe tell-tale signs of beavers or termite colonies. You may even wish to imagine scenarios where we find things similar to human (or animal) artifacts on distant planets. None of these scenarios in any way mean that "intelligent agency" is a category of things that can be recognized apart from their similarity to human beings or another animals.
RDFish: But if I tell you it is “intelligent”, there is not one thing you could observe that you could infer about this thing. BA: But you seem to be suggesting that since “the capacity to arrange matter for a purpose” is not a physical attribute that can be observed in the way that size, temperature, and color can be observed then it cannot be objectively detected.
Yes, that is of course correct.
Sheer idiocy; again why do you insist on saying things that are obviously false? What possible purpose does it serve?
Again, you are making a bad abductive inference. The far more likely (and in fact true) explanation here is that we are miscommunicating. For example, you thought I was saying that looking at Mt. Rushmore, we could make no inference about the intelligence or purpose involved in its creation. That would of course be a very stupid thing to say, and so I would never say that. But what I said wasn't that at all of course. What I said was that the reason we know about the abilities and characteristics of the creators of Mt. Rushmore was because we know they were human beings, not because Mt. Rushmore has "CSI" or any other inherent, empirically detectable property.
The capacity to arrange matter for a purpose can be detected by inferring its existence from purposeful arrangements of matter.
AGAIN: I agree with ID folks arguendo that "CSI" is something that can be objectively detected. The original ID arguments here (and the ones Dembski and Meyer use) hold that CSI is what we observe, not "purpose". Dembski argues that CSI is a reliable indicator of intelligence, but he still does not claim that we somehow directly observe "purpose" in arrangements of matter. I have asked you and StephenB perhaps a dozen times now how is "purpose" objectively detected in arrangements of matter", and all you ever do it describe things that are produced by human beings and animals! That doesn't help - we already know about human beings and animals! What you need is a method to detect "purpose" in things where we do not know what produced it, and we have no reason to think it was similar to a human being or other animal!
The capacity to arrange matter for a purpose is specific and empirically accessible. The definition specifies the capacity to arrange matter for a purpose. Such arrangements are empirically accessible.
You just keep repeating this claim, but you refuse to say how such arrangements are identified. How can we decide what arrangements of matter are for a purpose? Is it by finding CSI? Is it because we think that human beings or another life forms were involved?
RDFish: The issue here is, how does one objectively detect “purpose”. I say I know of no general method for detecting purpose. BA: Then you are a liar.
Nope, I'm not lying, I'm actually asking you over and over and over again to tell me the general method for detecting purpose. Since you have not done so, I conclude neither of us know a general method for detecting purpose.
RDFish: The reason we know the space station was designed for a purpose is because we built it, and we humans experience conscious intent. BA: If an alien who knew absolutely nothing about humans observed the space station they would correctly infer that the space station is matter arranged for a purpose.
For the 10,000th time: You are only talking about aliens who are similar to human beings! The aliens would assume that something like them was responsible!!! They would see it was something built to carry life forms into outer space. They would recognize that it was built to house things that were human-sized, not the size of atoms or the size of galaxies. They would see that the occupants breathed oxygen, looked out of windows, and so on. They would conclude that something like the aliens themselves was involved in the creation of this spacestation, and so they would infer that whatever created the spacestation would have mental abilities similar to theirs. Now, imagine a different type of alien that is not similar to a human being. It has no eyes and cannot see light or other EM radiation. It has no physical body at all. It doesn't know what a spacestation is - it doesn't even know that living things must be housed in things to protect them from outer space. In fact, this alien exists outside of space and time entirely. OK? Is this alien able to recognize the space station as an artifact? We have no way of knowing.
RDFish: Is the purpose of the Sun to warm . . . BA: That shtick has grown wearisome. Do not repeat it. SB has refuted it several times.
Imagine how wearisome your shtick is! You just keep making these claims about objective methods for detecting purpose, but you never say how to do it! StephenB actually admitted that he has NOT described an objective method for detecting purpose!!!! Here is what he said: "I said nothing about methods. I said that, in many cases, purpose can be detected in arranged matter—period.". Either you have an objective method for detecting purpose, or all you have is a way to detect CSI. If you had the former you would have described it by now.
We have provided such an objective method. It is called the explanatory filter.
OK! THANK YOU! All this time, you were talking about Dembski's explanatory filter. But there are two problems with this: First, it assumes that whatever cannot be currently explained by scientific means must be the result of immaterial intelligence (the assumption of dualism problem), and second that it fails to actually say what is meant by the conclusion of "intelligent cause" (the empirical definition problem).
Barry: Nagel, who has forgotten more than you will ever know, says the only way to save physicalist monism is to develop a robust theory of natural teleology. RDFish: I tend to agree with Nagel about this. BA: Then you just gave away the store.
If that means I gave away the store, then I never had a store in the first place. You just imagined I did.
RDFish: Nagel wants someone to start developing a theory of natural teleology, but nobody has yet. Until we have a theory, we cannot say we have evidence for it, can we? Therefore, obviously there is no evidence that any such thing exists. BA: There was no evidence for gravity until Newton developed his theory?
There were moving planets in the sky and apples falling from trees, but nobody knew that both sorts of things were caused by the same force. Nobody had the idea that this cause was a force that acted instantaneously across space, or caused an attraction between any two masses on Earth or anywhere else. Nobody had any idea that the strength of this force was related to a specific constant and decreased with the square of the distance between masses. Newton developed a theory with all of these specific claims, and then provided a tremendous amount of evidence that his theory was true. Before Newton, there was no theory of universal gravitation, and therefore there could be no evidence for that theory. Likewise, Nagel (and I) note that complex form and function in biology is almost certainly not due to evolutionary processes, but we have no theory that explains it, so we cannot claim we have evidence for any theory that explains it.
That is what you seem to be saying. Another gobsmacking idiocy that you will doubtless attribute to my misunderstanding instead of your stupidity later.
Obviously.
The evidence for a natural telic force is the teleology all around us.
No, the mystery of complex form and function is what surrounds us. Nobody knows what it means to say "natural telic force"! There is no theory of a "natural telic force"! We can't detect it because we know nothing of it's properties! Imagine a physicist who is studying X-ray jets emanating from black holes. He decides there is an "X-ray ejecting force" that produces these things. His colleagues say, "What is that supposed to mean? How do you know that an 'X-ray ejecting force' exists? How do you characterize this force?" And the physicist says, "Well, I know it exists because... just look at those X-ray jets!!" Needless to say, this physicist would not be well-received, because his solution adds nothing to our understanding.
If monist physicalism is true, such a force must exist; otherwise there is no way to account for the all of that teleology. This is Nagel’s point, which you just said you agree with.
No, neither Nagel nor I believe that anyone knows anything about "telic forces". We both just believe that we do not yet understand biological origins, and believe that people should stop imagining that this problem has already been solved (by evolution). Saying "telic force" explains biology is like saying "X-ray ejecting force" solves the mystery of X-rays emanating from black holes.
If by “there is no evidence for it” you mean that no one has even begun to identify such a force, I agree, which is powerful evidence that monist physicalism is false.
No, but it is conclusive evidence that we don't understand the phenomena. There is no scientific evidence for or against physicalism. Just because we don't understand something doesn't have any implications for metaphysics. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

"No, we accept that humans have intention." ahhh zach falling back on his game playing when he fails in argumentation. You know what I mean by the term unintentionalism and you know that it is not about humans having intent but the origin of the universe and the origin of humans and their reasoning faculties in the first place. What we know is that you play games and here you are doing it again. Like UB pointed out on another thread, how you can persistently do this to try and hold to a position is something that he couldn't do. When you have to play games to hold to a position then you are really having to lie to yourself zach. that you can keep doing it shows just how determined you are to lie to yourself. "We’re talking about scientific evidence of such intent." The pressupositions of science have no grounding on the position that your reasoning apparatus and the universe came about unintentionally. You can't ground them so you play games. You're a failure zach. You're done.Jack Jones_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Jack Jones: That’s the unusual position that you hold. No, we accept that humans have intention. Jack Jones: We are not talking about humans exhibiting intent, we are talking about your faith that the universe and humans and their reasoning faculties came about unintentionally. We're talking about scientific evidence of such intent.Zachriel_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

"That’s an unusual position" That's the unusual position that you hold. "as most everyone agrees that humans exhibit intent." We are not talking about humans exhibiting intent, we are talking about your faith that the universe and humans and their reasoning faculties came about unintentionally. When I say you believe in unintentionalism then we are talking about how you believe the universe and humans came to be, not what humans do once they have arrived. Arguing for the knowability of the universe and discovering lawfulness etc is not consistent with your position.Jack Jones_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply