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

Jack Jones: You know what unintentional means. Intentionalism is a literary term. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/intentionalism We might suppose it means someone who doesn't think intention exists in the universe. That's an unusual position, as most everyone agrees that humans exhibit intent. Upright BiPed: The unspoken reality is that I gave RD a operational definitonn of intelligence based on material facts which he cannot contest, and indeed, chose not to even address it. What is that operational definition? The word "operational" doesn't appear previously on this page. Barry Arrington seems to base his position on "purpose", and claims there it is empirically accessible. Still waiting on that. Upright BiPed: 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. This is undeniable. Simply saying it's undeniable doesn't make it undeniable. The claim doesn't follow by necessity from the premises, so of course it's deniable.Zachriel_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

The unspoken reality is that I gave RD a operational definitonn of intelligence based on material facts which he cannot contest, and indeed, chose not to even address it. RD's arguments against ID in regard to his laundry list of "consciousness", "intentionality", "purpose", etc are emptied by that operational definiton. RD does not concede this fact, simply because he cannot concede it. He's an ideologue. He doesn't merely have an ideology, but instead, he is no longer allowed to question his ideology. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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. This is undeniable. 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? Don't be afraid. Answer the question.Upright BiPed_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

"You may want to define “unintentionalism” You know what unintentional means. Well it applies to how you believe the universe came about and how human reasoning came about. A worldview where everything came to be unintentionally including your cognitive faculties provides no grounds for the presuppositions of science. Even if an Atheist who is adamant that there is no Designer does science then he is still accepting the presuppositions that are consistent with design which are not consistent with his worldview of unintentionalism. If those that reject design embraced nihilism then they would be very consistent with their position, when they chirp for science and talk about laws in nature and talk about reasoning etc then they are not being consistent with their position. And if they moralize about scientists who have been dishonest then they are not being consistent. I am waiting for Design deniers to argue against empiricism and embrace nihilism and show they really embrace the rejection of design.Jack Jones_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

It is very telling that Zachriel and RDFish think their willful ignorance is not only an argument, but a refutation of ID.Virgil Cain_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Jack Jones: On your position of unintentionalism then chirping about empirical tests is not consistent You may want to define "unintentionalism". In any case, Barry Arrington said "The capacity to arrange matter for a purpose is specific and empirically accessible." Your argument may be with him.Zachriel_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

@32 "In other words, there is no empirical test." On your position of unintentionalism then chirping about empirical tests is not consistent, Chirping for empiricism is not consistent with an unintentionalist position. By accepting presuppositions that are consistent with design then you are contradicting your faith with unintentionalism. By being an advocate for empiricism then you have already conceded the debate to design.Jack Jones_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Mung: We can know that the space station was designed for a purpose, but we cannot KNOW (objectively) that the space station was designed for a purpose, even though we know the space station was designed for a purpose. We have objective evidence that the space station was planned and built by humans, a peculiar species of simian inhabiting the third rock from the Sun — and evidence of their purpose. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdjL8WXjlGIZachriel_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

What is the empirical test?
Signs of work or counterflow. Or, as Dr Behe put it: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”Virgil Cain_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

The reason we know the space station was designed for a purpose is because we built it, and we humans experience conscious intent. Unless you can provide an objective method for determining what things are “for a purpose” and what things aren’t, then you need to admit that “purpose” is not an objectively detectable feature of things.
We can know that the space station was designed for a purpose, but we cannot KNOW (objectively) that the space station was designed for a purpose, even though we know the space station was designed for a purpose. Can we argue about sand piles and sand castles instead?Mung_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

RDFish:
That point was never in doubt of course.
Yep. The Upright BiPed thread all over again.Mung_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: What is the empirical test? Jack Jones: The ability to empirically test is consistent with the idea that the reasoning apparatus was designed to comprehend reality ... In other words, there is no empirical test.Zachriel_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Read the OP Fish. Did I say anything about natural language? Did I say anything about the ability to learn new skills? Did I say anything about the ability to experience conscious awareness? No, no and no. And you know I did not. You are now arguing in total bad faith, as you are wont to do when you are backed into a corner.
It's like the Upright BiPed thread all over again, without all the insults from RDFish.Mung_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

@29 "What is the empirical test?" The ability to empirically test is consistent with the idea that the reasoning apparatus was designed to comprehend reality, the idea that the reasoning apparatus came about by dumb chance provides no grounds "Or do you simply mean you have no other explanation, that is, law+chance as per the explanatory filter?" The idea of Law(uniformity of nature" has no grounding from your faith in unintentionalism. To argue against design and stick to unintentionalism then you should not be talking about law (uniformity of nature) which has no grounding on unintentionalism and should not be arguing for empiricism which is inconsistent with your faith, You are cutting off the branch that you sit on.Jack Jones_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: The capacity to arrange matter for a purpose is specific and empirically accessible. What is the empirical test? Or do you simply mean you have no other explanation, that is, law+chance as per the explanatory filter?Zachriel_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Meanwhile, Narcissus observes an almost exact image of a human being, perfect in form and countenance. http://www.johnwilliamwaterhouse.com/assets/images/content/waterhouse/hi/waterhouse64.jpgZachriel_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: 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 specification depends on your background knowledge. For instance, you might not recognize the monumental sculpture of the great conqueror Xotz of Xeon. https://web.archive.org/web/20120229004635/http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/966/45006531.JPGZachriel_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

@18 “Actually, ID isn’t really testable in the way other scientific theories are.” The presuppositions of science are based on a form of ID, the idea that there is order that can be discovered and that the mind of man can comprehend how the universe operates are based on a belief in a theistic designer, it is what motivated scientists such as Kepler to do their scientific investigation. Modern science is born from a theistic worldview which is a design way of looking at the world. To reject design then you should be arguing against the knowability of the world and that there are laws that can be discovered, You are not being consistent with your faith in Unintentionalism. To argue against design while arguing for science is not being consistent. You need to make up your mind. “For example, ID people falsify evolutionary theory by finding biological systems that cannot have arisen by evolutionary mechanisms.” Design and Evolution are not mutually exclusive ideas. The scientific community are divided over a theory of evolution, Whatever you are chirping for then it is whatever speculative hypothesis that you adhere too.Jack Jones_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

And RDFish chokes:
Actually, ID isn’t really testable in the way other scientific theories are.
That is your opinion. And when it comes to science your opinion has always been wrong.
The only way to falsify ID is to prove some other competing explanation is better.
That is also how it is done in archaeology, forensic science and SETI- to name three other scientific venues.
But you can’t falsify ID without reference to other theories, the way you can with scientific theories.
Except evolutionism is NOT a theory. So you lose. Materialism isn't a theory either. Now what?
For example, ID people falsify evolutionary theory by finding biological systems that cannot have arisen by evolutionary mechanisms.
There isn't any evolutionary theory and seeing that they don't have any positive methodology, there really isn't anything to falsify. "That which can be declared without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" Hitchens
But there is not one single thing that could ever be observed that was inconsistent with the abilities of “intelligent agency”.
Newton's four rules of scientific investigation take care of tat bit of nonsense. As I said the problem here is RDFish is completely scientifically illiterate.Virgil Cain_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Hi RDFish:
The evidence for intention and purpose is from our knowledge of human beings, of course. We know that human beings form conscious intentions, of course. We know that it was a human being involved in the stabbing, of course. We therefore infer that the killer had conscious intent to kill the person, of course.
A sleepwalking killer is not conscious. A drugged killer most likely doesn't know what they are doing. The same goes for a hypnotized killer. Whoopsie...Virgil Cain_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

RDFish is clueless, as usual:
1) ID’s core arguments require dualism, rendering ID a philosophical rather than a scientific explanation
If that is true then all concepts of how biology came to be are philosophical. And most likely all origins questions are philosophical. However we know that science takes risks- it is the very nature of science to do so. We can, based on our knowledge, say that dualism exists, if for nothing else for the sake of argument and advancing a concept. And it is very telling that RDFish doesn't grasp tat simple concept.
2) There is no definition for “intelligence” that can be empirically supported in the context of ID
And yet such definitions have been provided. Strange, eh?
The evidence for intention and purpose is from our knowledge of human beings, of course.
So we can determine purpose. Make up your mind. You seem to be very, very confused.Virgil Cain_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

RDFish
The evidence for intention and purpose is from our knowledge of human beings, of course.
That will not do. You have yet to establish that a human being was responsible for the stabbing. Only the 27 wounds could tell you that. Just because humans are known to have intention and purpose doesn't mean that intention and purpose was present in this case.
We know that human beings form conscious intentions, of course.
That will not do. 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.
We know that it was a human being involved in the stabbing, of course.
That will not do. You have no way of knowing that a human being was involved except on the basis of the patterns.
We therefore infer that the killer had conscious intent to kill the person, of course.
That will not do. Your first three steps fail, so your conclusion has no foundation.StephenB_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

Barry: Therefore, the alien concludes, correctly, that the best explanation for Mount Rushmore is an intelligent agent carved it. RDFish: Since the term “intelligent agent” tells you exactly nothing about what was involved . . . Barry: That is gobsmackingly stupid. RDFish: You misunderstand me.
No, I understood you well enough. You said that the term “intelligent agent” tells you nothing about what was involved in carving Mount Rushmore. And that is gobsmackingly stupid.
RDFish: But if I tell you it is “intelligent”, there is not one thing you could observe that you could infer about this thing.
Your argument is so hopelessly confused as to defy response. 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. Sheer idiocy; again why do you insist on saying things that are obviously false? What possible purpose does it serve? The capacity to arrange matter for a purpose can be detected by inferring its existence from purposeful arrangements of matter.
RDFish: I’m saying that ID’s definition of “intelligence” needs to be specific and empirically accessible.
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.
RDFish: The issue here is, how does one objectively detect “purpose”. I say I know of no general method for detecting purpose.
Then you are a liar.
RDFish: The reason we know the space station was designed for a purpose is because we built it, and we humans experience conscious intent.
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.
RDFish: Is the purpose of the Sun to warm . . .
That shtick has grown wearisome. Do not repeat it. SB has refuted it several times.
RDFish: Unless you can provide an objective method for determining what things are “for a purpose” and what things aren’t, then you need to admit that “purpose” is not an objectively detectable feature of things.
We have provided such an objective method. It is called the explanatory filter.
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.
Then you just gave away the store.
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.
There was no evidence for gravity until Newton developed his theory? That is what you seem to be saying. Another gobsmacking idiocy that you will doubtless attribute to my misunderstanding instead of your stupidity later. The evidence for a natural telic force is the teleology all around us. 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. 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.
RDFish: Again, without an objective way to detect “purpose”, this is not useful.
And since we have an objective way to detect purpose, it is useful.
RDFish: Actually, ID isn’t really testable in the way other scientific theories are.
Of course it is. All you have to do to falsify ID is to identify even a single instance where the explanatory filter gives a false positive. Barry Arrington_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT}

Intelligent design does rest on metaphysical claims of dualism. 1 designer 2 design. That is 2, and they are metaphysically different, or otherwise the English language has no meaning. In creationism what is good, loving and beautiful is a matter of opinion relevant to the designer as agency of the decisions. It is obviously social darwinists who oppose validating subjectivity. Who use natural selection theory to inform them about what is good, loving and beautiful as pseudoscientific fact.mohammadnursyamsu_{December 16, 2015
December
12
Dec
16
16
2015
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
Since you say that evidence for intention and purpose cannot be found in that pattern, please tell me where they can be found. If that pattern of arranged matter does not indicate intentions and purpose, what does?’ I say that RD will not answer the question.
The last sentence in your post is as plainly false as everything else you said. Here is my answer: The evidence for intention and purpose is from our knowledge of human beings, of course. We know that human beings form conscious intentions, of course. We know that it was a human being involved in the stabbing, of course. We therefore infer that the killer had conscious intent to kill the person, of course. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

Hi Barry,
The point is that designers leave objective indicia of design. I’m glad you agree.
That point was never in doubt of course. What is in doubt, as always, is what is meant by "designer" in the context of ID.
RDFish: Since the term “intelligent agent” tells you exactly nothing about what was involved . . . BA: Fish, you are obviously an intelligent man.
Thank you.
So it is hard to understand why you make gobsmackingly stupid statements like this. I don’t even have to refute it. It is absurd on its face. Don’t bother saying this again. If you can’t be serious leave the discussion to the grownups.
First, you acknowledge that I'm intelligent. Then you read something that strikes you as being so incredibly stupid, you can't understand how an otherwise intelligent person could utter it. There are two possible explanations for this circumstance: 1) While I am generally intelligent, I somehow believe things that no reasonable person could ever entertain. 2) You misunderstood what I said. Obviously, you chose to believe the first explanation. That was a poor abduction on your part, because the better explanation is that you did not understand what I was trying to say - either because of poor articulation on my part, poor comprehension on your part, or a combination of both. Anyway, what I meant was that nothing you can observe can be inferred from saying something is "intelligent", without further qualification. This illustrates the point: I'm thinking of something, and until I say something about it, you have no information about what it is at all. If, for example, I tell you it is in the top drawer of my desk, you might now infer something that you could observe about its size (not bigger than the drawer), its temperature (not hot enough to burn the desk) and so on. If I tell you it is blue, you could infer something that you could observe about what wavelengths of light it would absorb or reflect. But if I tell you it is "intelligent", there is not one thing you could observe that you could infer about this thing.
RDFish: But any such claim about specific attributes (e.g. the ability to use natural language, or the ability to learn new skills, or the ability to experience conscious awareness) cannot be supported by scientific evidence. BA: Your desperation is showing. You need to attribute to me arguments that I did not make in order to rebut a conclusion I did not reach. Read the OP Fish. Did I say anything about natural language? Did I say anything about the ability to learn new skills? Did I say anything about the ability to experience conscious awareness? No, no and no. And you know I did not. You are now arguing in total bad faith, as you are wont to do when you are backed into a corner. That is cowardly Fish. Stop it. It is unseemly.
What is unseemly is how you jump to mistake misunderstanding for bad faith. It's so annoying that you do that. Why in the world, Barry, would I sit here and try to explain these points to you if I myself did not think they were cogent and correct? Now, of course you didn't mention these mental attributes - that is the point! To understand the point, read the sentence preceding the one you quoted:
RDF: And if ID does wish to hypothesize such a thing (an “intelligent agent” that is not itself a complex life form), it needs to say something about its the attributes – aside from the hypothesized ability to produce CSI of course. Otherwise the hypothesis is vacuous.
I'm saying that ID's definition of "intelligence" needs to be specific and empirically accessible. Unless you say something specific about what you mean, the term "intelligence" doesn't refer to anything that can be objectively measured. These attributes - language use and so on - are specific mental attributes and abilities. As I said, you do not use these attributes in your definition of "intelligence"; rather, you define intelligence in terms of "purpose". I went on to argue that the concept of "purpose" is not amenable to scientific investigation.
RDFish: To me “design” refers to what people do when they think up complex artifacts. BA: Who the hell cares about what your personal definition of design is Fish? We are not talking about your personal definition of design. It is a non-factor in this argument. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
You've missed the point again. I think maybe you get too angry about these issues and read carelessly. Anyway, the point here was not that my opinion was relevant, but rather that my definition of "design" (and of course that of many other people) could be read in your sentences without contradiction, but also without reference to being outside of law/chance.
We are talking about ID. And when you are critiquing ID you don’t get to substitute your personally preferred meaning of words for the meaning used by ID proponents. The ID definition of design is: The capacity to arrange matter for a purpose. That is the sole relevant definition.
I understand that you and StephenB are using this definition, and I'm responding directly to it. You should also understand that many others here - as well as many published ID authors - have given very different definitions for the term. Here I address "purpose":
RDFish: The first problem is that “purpose” is not an objectively detectable attribute. BA: Blithering nonsense. I imagine spittle flying from your lips as you say these words. Get a high-powered telescope Fish. Point it at the sky and look at the space station. Then point it at the sky and look at a meteor.
The issue here is, how does one objectively detect "purpose". I say I know of no general method for detecting purpose. Rather than providing the criteria for detecting "purpose", you insult me and mention a human artifact and a natural object, as though you have somehow answered the question at hand.
Now, consider the following proposition: That the space station was designed for a purpose and the meteor was not is objectively detectable.Go ahead. Deny the proposition and look like an idiot. I assume you won’t. Therefore, the entire fundamental premise of your argument crumbles.
The reason we know the space station was designed for a purpose is because we built it, and we humans experience conscious intent. Is the purpose of the Sun to warm and light the Earth? Is the purpose of the rain to water the crops? Many people would answer these questions "yes". Would you? Why or why not? If the distinction here is "Complex Specified Information", then you need to say so, because that is not part of the typical definition of "purpose". Unless you can provide an objective method for determining what things are "for a purpose" and what things aren't, then you need to admit that "purpose" is not an objectively detectable feature of things.
Barry: There are at least two candidates for causal forces that have the capacity to arrange matter for a purpose . . . (b) an impersonal non-conscious yet-to-be-discovered natural telic force. RDFish: Obviously there is no evidence that any such thing exists. BA: Thomas Nagel disagrees. 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.
I tend to agree with Nagel about this. But my statement is still true of course: 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 what I said was true.
Now, whose word am I going to take on the matter? An anonymous, often trollish Internet hack (talking about you there Fish) or one of the most famous thinkers in the world in the last 40 years? Not looking good for the troll.
Your first error here is to imagine I disagreed with Nagel on this matter, and as it happens I don't. Your second error is called appeal to authority. Your third error is argumentum ad hominem. Otherwise, good thinking!
RDFish: one would have to empirically charcterize this “telic force” – most importantly, what does it do, BA: Uh, Fish, if it exists, it “arranges matter for a purpose.”
Again, without an objective way to detect "purpose", this is not useful.
I agree that if monists physicalists come up with such a theory, for it to be scientific it would have to be testable against empirical evidence – just like ID.
Actually, ID isn't really testable in the way other scientific theories are. The only way to falsify ID is to prove some other competing explanation is better. But you can't falsify ID without reference to other theories, the way you can with scientific theories. For example, ID people falsify evolutionary theory by finding biological systems that cannot have arisen by evolutionary mechanisms. But there is not one single thing that could ever be observed that was inconsistent with the abilities of "intelligent agency". Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

Hi RD,
StephenB suggested that detecting “purpose” was so basic that even a child could do it......
Let's break down the paragraph: Bad faith example #1: You conveniently ignored the conditions that make such detection possible, recognizable patterns of matter arranged for a purpose.
My 9 year old neighbor, Brain, confirmed that he knew the purpose of gravity (to keep us from floating away), rain (to grow flowers), flowers (to makes us happy).
Bad faith example #2: No doubt you chose that example because it has nothing to do with recognizable patterns of arranged matter. Bad faith example #3: You should know that Brian cannot detect purpose unless the patterns of arranged matter are observed. There is no such observable patterns in gravity or raindrops. Bad faith example #4: I have pointed this out more than once, so what does it say about you willingness to debate in good faith that you would repeat the same error over and over again.
The StephenB was unable to say why Brian was wrong; you are also unable to give Brian an objective reason why his detection of purpose was wrong.
Bad faith example #5: You are not telling the truth. I explained that Brian did not detect patterns of purposefully arranged matter.
This is because “purpose” is not something we can detect objectively; we simply think about how something interacts with the rest of the world, and sometimes we say it’s purposeful (when we think a conscious intention was involved) (my emphasis SB).
And why would you think that conscious intentions were involved? I say that those conscious intentions (and sense of purpose) can be found in the arranged matter of 27 stab wounds in the murdered victim's back (assuming there is no other evidence). Since you say that evidence for intention and purpose cannot be found in that pattern, please tell me where it can be found. If that pattern of arranged matter does not indicate intentions and purpose, what does?' I say that RD will not answer the question.StephenB_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

RDFish: If you landed on a planet somewhere and saw some heads of aliens carved into rocks, what would you think? Would you start going off about contingency, or regularity, or complexity, or probability, or chance, or specification? Of course you wouldn’t. You would say, “Wow – look! Some alien life form carved faces into that mountain!”
The point is that designers leave objective indicia of design. I’m glad you agree.
RDFish: Since the term “intelligent agent” tells you exactly nothing about what was involved . . .
Fish, you are obviously an intelligent man. So it is hard to understand why you make gobsmackingly stupid statements like this. I don’t even have to refute it. It is absurd on its face. Don’t bother saying this again. If you can’t be serious leave the discussion to the grownups.
RDFish: The reason we know there was a purpose was because life forms like us have conscious intentions, and we would infer that these aliens likewise had conscious intentions.
As I explained to Mapou, the explanatory filter detects the arrangement of matter for a purpose. It does not detect mentation. Now, I agree with you that the most obvious candidate for the designer is something that shares the capacities of the most prodigious designer of which we have first-hand observations (i.e., humans). And the human capacity to design obviously involves mentation. And therefore it is reasonable to assume that the designer’s does as well. But while that assumption is reasonable, the point of the post is that it is not necessary.
RDFish: We infer that humans were responsible, or if humans could not have been responsible (i.e. on another planet), we infer that something similar was responsible for these artifacts that are similar to human artifacts.
Exactly correct. And what is the key similarity? Intelligence, the capacity to arrange matter for a purpose.
RDFish: You are trying to attack my first argument . . .
Yes, and succeeding to the point of demolishing it.
RDFish: But any such claim about specific attributes (e.g. the ability to use natural language, or the ability to learn new skills, or the ability to experience conscious awareness) cannot be supported by scientific evidence.
Your desperation is showing. You need to attribute to me arguments that I did not make in order to rebut a conclusion I did not reach. Read the OP Fish. Did I say anything about natural language? Did I say anything about the ability to learn new skills? Did I say anything about the ability to experience conscious awareness? No, no and no. And you know I did not. You are now arguing in total bad faith, as you are wont to do when you are backed into a corner. That is cowardly Fish. Stop it. It is unseemly.
RDFish: To me “design” refers to what people do when they think up complex artifacts.
Who the hell cares about what your personal definition of design is Fish? We are not talking about your personal definition of design. It is a non-factor in this argument. Why is that so hard for you to understand? We are talking about ID. And when you are critiquing ID you don’t get to substitute your personally preferred meaning of words for the meaning used by ID proponents. The ID definition of design is: The capacity to arrange matter for a purpose. That is the sole relevant definition. R
DFish: To you – and to ID – “design” refers to the activity of an immaterial mind that operates independently of the complex physical mechanism of the brain.
Fish, you are acting in complete and total bad faith, again. When I use a word in an argument and specify the meaning of the word, you don’t get to say “no Barry, you mean something else completely.” Again, your bad faith pops out as a function of your desperation. You know you cannot defeat the argument of the OP. So you make up a different argument, attribute the different argument to me, and slay that straw man. What is the purpose of this transparent bad faith Fish? You are not fooling anyone. Everyone knows what you are doing. It makes you look dishonest and cowardly. Again, stop it. If you can’t meet the argument I’ve made on its own terms, admit defeat. But don’t lie.
RDFish: The first problem is that “purpose” is not an objectively detectable attribute.
Blithering nonsense. I imagine spittle flying from your lips as you say these words. Get a high-powered telescope Fish. Point it at the sky and look at the space station. Then point it at the sky and look at a meteor. Now, consider the following proposition: That the space station was designed for a purpose and the meteor was not is objectively detectable. Go ahead. Deny the proposition and look like an idiot. I assume you won’t. Therefore, the entire fundamental premise of your argument crumbles.
Barry: There are at least two candidates for causal forces that have the capacity to arrange matter for a purpose . . . (b) an impersonal non-conscious yet-to-be-discovered natural telic force. RDFish: Obviously there is no evidence that any such thing exists.
Thomas Nagel disagrees. 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. Now, whose word am I going to take on the matter? An anonymous, often trollish Internet hack (talking about you there Fish) or one of the most famous thinkers in the world in the last 40 years? Not looking good for the troll.
RDFish: one would have to empirically charcterize this “telic force” – most importantly, what does it do,
Uh, Fish, if it exists, it “arranges matter for a purpose.”
RDFish: If we eventually come up with a scientific theory that explains origin of life, it won’t matter if it refers to something describable with classical physics, exotic quantum physics, or some sort of physics we haven’t imagined yet. It will – because it is scientific – just have to be objectively testable against empirical evidence.
I agree that if monists physicalists come up with such a theory, for it to be scientific it would have to be testable against empirical evidence – just like ID.
RDFish: I am never in bad faith here
Liar. You are frequently, demonstrably in bad faith. Indeed, your antics that I exposed above are a classic example.Barry Arrington_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
I am never in bad faith here (although if I’m treated badly I will respond in kind, tit-for-tat).
So that explains your behavior in the recent Upright BiPed thread. He treated you so badly that you responded with insults, tit for tat. That's your story?Mung_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

Hi Barry,
...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.
Thank you for fairly representing my argument.
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.
If you landed on a planet somewhere and saw some heads of aliens carved into rocks, what would you think? Would you start going off about contingency, or regularity, or complexity, or probability, or chance, or specification? Of course you wouldn't. You would say, "Wow - look! Some alien life form carved faces into that mountain!" Since humans make similar artifacts, you would recognize them as sculptures. Nobody would think to compute levels of CSI, look for irreducible complexity, or compute probabilities of erosion producing the pattern.
Therefore, the alien concludes, correctly, that the best explanation for the carving is an intelligent agent carved it.
Since the term "intelligent agent" tells you exactly nothing about what was involved, the best answer would be "alien life form".
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.
The reason we know there was a purpose was because life forms like us have conscious intentions, and we would infer that these aliens likewise had conscious intentions.
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.
No, this has nothing to do with monism or dualism or any metaphysics. Instead, this has to do with our inferences when faced with artifacts that are similar to human artifacts. We infer that humans were responsible, or if humans could not have been responsible (i.e. on another planet), we infer that something similar was responsible for these artifacts that are similar to human artifacts. You've gone off track trying to attack my arguments, Barry. I made two arguments in the previous thread: 1) ID's core arguments require dualism, rendering ID a philosophical rather than a scientific explanation 2) There is no definition for "intelligence" that can be empirically supported in the context of ID You are trying to attack my first argument, but your response is actually directed at the second argument. Let's look at my second argument, then, which you attempt to refute with your Mt. Rushmore example. The fact that we can recognize complex, specified patterns does not allow us to infer the existence of entities that are not themselves complex physical organisms, since that is all we know of that can produce such artifacts. And if ID does wish to hypothesize such a thing (an "intelligent agent" that is not itself a complex life form), it needs to say something about its the attributes - aside from the hypothesized ability to produce CSI of course. Otherwise the hypothesis is vacuous. But any such claim about specific attributes (e.g. the ability to use natural language, or the ability to learn new skills, or the ability to experience conscious awareness) cannot be supported by scientific evidence. This is a fatal problem for ID, but it has nothing to do with metaphysical ontology. Now, let's look at my first argument - the one you are trying to refute here. It's also fatal for ID, and this one does involved metaphysics.
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.
We always agree on such statements; it's the meanings of the words that we disagree about, and make our arguments so frustrating. To me "design" refers to what people do when they think up complex artifacts. We don't understand how people's mental abilities operate, but by studying the brain and doing experiments on people we are learning a great deal about it. Humans, as well as other animals, leave tell-tale traces of things they build - what you call "markers of design" - that derive from both their physical and mental abilities. To you - and to ID - "design" refers to the activity of an immaterial mind that operates independently of the complex physical mechanism of the brain. In fact, it operates in a way that transcends (or even violates) physical cause. In ID parlance, the mental in mind/body dualism is called "intelligence" or "design", and the physical is called "law + chance" or "blind, natural processes". When ID says that "law + chance" is unable to produce the CSI we observe in ID, it is making a statement that only makes sense if dualism is true.
If monist physicalism is true, it is impossible objectively to infer design.
Nope. Instead: If monist physicalism is true, it is impossible to scientifically infer "design" if "design" means "transcends or violates physical cause".
But it is possible objectively to infer design.
Not when "design" is defined as "the compliment of law + chance". It is not possible to show that something besides "law + chance" exists, even in human intelligence. If you don't want to use that definition, then you avoid the dualism problem for ID. But then you run smack dab into the other problem, which is that now you don't have a specific definition for "intelligence". I've encountered literally dozens of different definitions for "intelligence" in the context of ID, but lately you (and StephenB) have settled on this one: Design, meaning the capacity to arrange matter for a purpose, exists as a category of causation. Lets look at this definition, then. The first problem is that "purpose" is not an objectively detectable attribute. StephenB suggested that detecting "purpose" was so basic that even a child could do it. My 9 year old neighbor, Brain, confirmed that he knew the purpose of gravity (to keep us from floating away), rain (to grow flowers), flowers (to makes us happy). StephenB was unable to say why Brian was wrong; you are also unable to give Brian an objective reason why his detection of purpose was wrong. This is because "purpose" is not something we can detect objectively; we simply think about how something interacts with the rest of the world, and sometimes we say it's purposeful (when we think a conscious intention was involved).
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;
This again entails dualism; there is no scientific way to determine if any such thing exists.
(b) an impersonal non-conscious yet-to-be-discovered natural telic force.
Obviously there is no evidence that any such thing exists.
The monist rejects the existence of intelligent agents with immaterial mental capacities, because the existence of such agents obviously entails dualism.
Right - so this is not a scientific hypothesis.
Instead, the monist can resort to the natural telic force.
This isn't a scientific hypothesis either. In order for this to be a scientific hypothesis, one would have to empirically charcterize this "telic force" - most importantly, what does it do, and what can't it do?. Otherwise, we have no idea what we're proposing and no way to discover if it exists.
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.
Scientists don't really talk about "law/chance" when they work - they just look for explanations that can be supported by objective, empirical evidence. They've discovered experimentally discovered phenomena that violate various deeply-held concepts of physicalism (e.g. locality and realism). If we eventually come up with a scientific theory that explains origin of life, it won't matter if it refers to something describable with classical physics, exotic quantum physics, or some sort of physics we haven't imagined yet. It will - because it is scientific - just have to be objectively testable against empirical evidence. As of now, no such theory exists.
And also thank you to RDFish. You are a maddening pain in the ass and I often suspect you of bad faith. On the other hand, you make us think and that is valuable.
I am never in bad faith here (although if I'm treated badly I will respond in kind, tit-for-tat). Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Thank you to SB, UB, KF, and JJ. And also thank you to RDFish. You are a maddening pain in the ass and I often suspect you of bad faith. On the other hand, you make us think and that is valuable.Barry Arrington_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply