Fred Reed on Wade’s Troublesome (Darwinian racism) Inheritance

Joe: And yet ID doesn’t say anything about the divine. That's right. "ID" won't let a Divine Foot in the door. Daniel King

It makes me very happy that RDFish is not an investigator and has no say about science. Joe

Daniel King spews:

No, RDFish, ID isn’t properly religious, it’s idolatrous in its conflation of human design with divine creation.

And yet ID doesn't say anything about the divine. Daniel must be an ignorant jerk. Joe

So CLAVDIVS conflates what some IDists say for what ID says. Unbelievable.

How about *you* define science and show how it doesn’t involve explaining phenomena in terms of regularities.

So again CLAV spews nonsense, gets called on it and tries to turn the onus onto me. OK CLAV:

The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.” “A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.” Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology. Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, “Science is the search for the truth.” “But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein & Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be. As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence and the existence of whatever is being investigated, via our never-ending quest for knowledge.

Ooops, nothing about "regularities in any of that.

It’s been generally agreed on this thread that its impossible to demonstrate whether or not the mind arises from law/chance

That means that materialism and evolutionism are untestable and therefor unscientific. Talk about an own goal. Joe

Hi Timmy,

But consider: if I reject cognitive closure in material matters (as I tend to do), then the fact that our investigations into the mind, or the fundamental cause of CSI, have been unfruitful (in stark contrast to our other investigations) would seem to suggest that the mind is immaterial. Because otherwise we would be able to explain it, or at least have some inkling that of the road forward.

But modern physics is so divorced from our intuitive understanding of the so-called "material" world that terms like "material" and "immaterial" don't really make sense any more. Is a quantum waveform "material"? Subatomic particles are not little pieces of matter; they can act like a wave or a particle but they are neither of those. Are they "material"? Is quantum entanglement a "material" process? We have some mathematical constructs that we call "dark" matter and energy in order to try and account for cosmological observations, but nobody has any clue what those things are supposed to be. Are they "material"? We had no inkling of these issues before the 20th century, despite millennia of smart thinkers pondering these questions. So it doesn't follow that we ought to have understood all "material" processes by now, and anything we don't yet understand must be "immaterial". Likewise the distinction between the "natural" and the "supernatural". In the end, there is only a distinction between things we currently know about and things we don't know about.

Because in reality, all thought and consciousness and high level decision-making is outsourced to the Remote Controller.

How can this view be reconciled with the evidence? If all conscious thought and high-level decision-making takes place outside the brain, why do specific changes to the brain result in specific changes in conscious thought and decision-making? Imagine I didn't know what a radio was, and heard human voices on it. I discovered that if I messed around with the circuits and components the radio might stop working, or get louder or softer, or get distorted, but there was nothing in the radio that seemed to be involved in the content of the radio show. I couldn't change the circuits and make a comedy into a drama. So that would indicate that the content of the radio show comes from outside the radio. But that's not the case with the brain. There is nothing - not consciousness, not decision-making, not personality, not thinking - that cannot be altered by changes to the brain. Anything that alters different parts of the brain - drugs, injury, disease, or artificial stimulation/inhibition - can have all sorts of effects. They can make a nice person mean, or a mean person nice. They can change an atheist into a theist, or a risk-avoider into a gambler, or vice-versa; they can confer or destroy musical and artistic abilities, and so on. We cannot just go in and choose to make these changes (yet), but all of these sorts of changes have been well documented as a result of changes to the brain. This indicates that brains are involved in every aspect of mentality, and not just as a receiver. And it is clear that memories are stored in the brain, and it appears that thought and memory are intimately linked (memory really is a creative process rather than a simple retrieval). And there's this: In the radio analogy, which part is supposed to map to our conscious awareness? Is the radio transmission supposed to correspond to our conscious thought, and the radio corresponds to the brain? That doesn't work, because if I turn off the radio, the radio station is still transmitting, but if I turn off the brain (with some anesthetic, say), I lose consciousness.

At any rate the real question is what is meant by “critically involved”. In the case of the android, the radio receiver and CPU are absolutely critical. The android cannot think without them. (You might be able dispense some or most of the hard drive, like a person whose brain stops recording memories.) But here, “critically involved” just means ”interface”. The android’s “brain” isn’t involved with any of that. So how do you define “critically involved”?

First, as my questions reveal, I think the transmission hypothesis is extremely problematic (yes, all theories of mind are problematic). But even if it were true, we would have no reason to believe that anything could ever act in the world without the physical mechanism (android, brain) we invariably observe. In our analogy, the brain is as "critically involved" in outputting designs as the radio is "critically involved" in outputting music.

And that is why we attempt to distinguish between aspects of mentality that are clearly derived from the human body (e.g., most emotions) and aspects of mentality that have apparently no relationship (or no logical relationship) to the body (consciousness, reason, choice, etc.).

This just doesn't have any relationship to the findings of neuroscience. Read any popular accounts of what we've learned about brain function - try V.S. Ramachandran or Antonio Damasio or Oliver Sachs. Reason, choice, consciousness, temperment, personality... it all is intimately linked with the brain.

Anger manifests physiologically, so a disembodied mind surely wouldn’t experience anger the way we do.

Damasio in particular explains how the distinction between emotions and thoughts is anything but clear; how our emotions (and our peripheral nervous system, especially the enteric nervous system, that mediate our "gut reactions") are integral to our thought processes.

But the mind might still disagree to the point of concluding that further debate is pointless. On the other hand, maybe God designed our experience of anger to be an analogue of his experience. (Whatever that might mean.)

I have no objection to speculations about people and God. I do object when these sorts of ruminations are mistaken for scientific reasoning.

But I just don’t see how “conscious belief” or “intention” is intimately linked to the human brain, or why we should think it might be. Both of those things are precisely the sort of magic that we invoke the mind (rather than the brain) to explain! And it seems very reasonable to say that they are integral to the creation of CSI.

You've stated what I consider to be the opposite of the truth on both counts. First, the idea that conscious beliefs and intentions are not as dependent upon neural function as anger or perception is just contrary to everything we've learned about neuroscience. Not that we understand how any of these things are actually manifested in the brain, just that neural processes are necessary for these mental/emotional events to take place. Second, it is very unclear whether consciousness itself - the most mysterious aspect of mentality - is causal at all. Some theorists (e.g. Daniel Wegner, http://danwegner.net/) conclude that consciousness is actually perceptual rather than the driver of our bodies; Benjamin Libet was a believer in free will but now only in a limited sense given the results of his own experiments.

So I think we have every bit of justification in claiming that a non-human immaterial mind would have those sorts of characteristics. Lust? Not so much.

In summary: 1) A fully immaterial mind capable of design is unlikely even under dualism - it takes additional assumptions to think no mechanism is required at all 2) Even if an immaterial mind existed, it would be a vastly different sort of thing than a human mind, and I disagree that attributing human-like mentality is warranted.

Now, to be less tedious, I agree that it is impossible to imagine how our minds could think without being attached to some kind of processor/memory unit, since our descriptions of “what thought is” are entangled with the two. But we can ameliorate this problem by recalling that the “general mind” is almost always thought to not just be immaterial, but also atemporal (spirit, soul, whatever)–especially the general mind responsible for life.

Let me be clear here. I am vested in no particular position in philosophy of mind; if I had to label myself I'd say either "neutral monist" or "mysterian". My point of debate is not to defend physicalism, nor is it to say that all knowledge derives from the empirical sciences. My only issue with ID is that it blithley presents clearly philosophical arguments as science. I consider these sorts of claims (general minds, souls that exist outside of time) to be well outside of science. After all, don't you consider untestable claims about multiverses or abiogenesis to be outside of science?

I agree, and this example is very illustrative of what I mean by science. As we hear tediously from Darwinists, science is in a constant state of evolution. When people with limited knowledge draw an analogy between the sun and a candle, why is it impossible to call that science? Insofar as smart, educated people investigated the obvious superficial similarities between the two, what else would you call that, but science? And the same goes for ID.

But ID is much worse than the solar oxidation theory. There, it was understood what chemical oxidation was, and the very same process was hypothesized to be ocurring on the Sun. ID tries to say that it offers a "known cause" for OOL - namely intelligence, but as we've seen what is being hypothesized is something very much outside of our uniform experience: an immaterial mind that exists outside of time. And equally important is the fact that when ID offers "intelligence" as an explanation for the origin of life, the origin of the universe, the values of the physical constants, the relative size of the sun and the moon, and so on, it's clear that there are no limits on what "intelligence" is thought to be able to do. There is nothing (logically possible) that one can think of that cannot be brought about by "intelligence". (Evolutionary just-so stories are just like this too). So no, I don't think ID's hypothesis is scientific.

Yes, but a great many Darwinian demagogues use Darwinism as a weapon against everyone who dissents on origins, and a great many specifically argue that design was not produced by anything remotely like a mind (as I said), and indeed that “design” is illusory and CSI is not real. They would definitely object to your agnostic position, as well.

Yes all that is true. I'm not popular in either camp. My dog likes me, though.

It may well be that we haven’t any arguments, scientific or not, that ”shed light” on origins, but it is clear that Darwinism obfuscates the matter. Once you’ve conceded that design is indeed real, once you take for granted the use of teleological and engineering language when describing the mechanics of life, then yes: the conclusion of ID is not much more than a tautology. But a tautology is infinitely preferable to and infinitely more scientific than a falsehood.

Depending on what you mean by "design is real", I wouldn't argue you're wrong here. I will say that it's completely unscientific for Dawkins et al to say things like "evolution is purposeless" and other such nonsense. And it's false to say that evolution accounts for biological complexity. But seriously: When you say "design is real", I honestly do not know what you mean! Do you mean "it really is CSI"? Or "it really was produced by a conscious mind"? Or "it really was produced by something other than law + chance"? Some combination of these things?

It’s only in the context of the claim that “macroevolution is just as certain as gravity” that we come in and counterclaim that ID (or YEC for that matter) is more scientific than Darwinism.

To the extent this is true (I suspect it is for you but not all that many others here) then I'm sympathetic to that. But even then I'd call it a toss-up for which overstates the strength of their case more egregiously. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RD As you spit your disdain at ID, it remains clear that your assault fails at step one. The living cell cannot be organized without two sets of physical objects bridging the natural discontinuity between amino acids and the dimensional arrangements within codons. The system must preserve this discontinuity in order to function, thus making the product of the system independent of inexorable law. Additionally, the details of the construction of the system must be simultaneously encoded in the very information that the system makes possible. It's a rather steep entry. The only other universally-verifiable instances of such systems are found in the use of language and mathematics. As we have discussed before, your nauseating assault on ID proponents does nothing whatsoever to alter these observations. Upright BiPed

Timmy @ 250

CLAVDIVS: Science is about explaining phenomena in terms of regularities. ID cannot proffer “intelligence” as an explanation because we have not the slightest notion how intelligence works nor whether it is based on any scientifically measurable regularities. TIMMY: Then you’re just saying that we can’t investigate origins with science. Right?

No, that's not what I said at all. We can investigate the origin of biological complexity with science when we can find regularities that explain things. For example, we know life has existed on Earth for at least 3.4 billion years because of our understanding of microbiology and geochronology.

TIMMY: As long as you understand that the only reason ID needs to talk about “science” is in reaction to the (false) scientific pretensions of atheistic Darwinists, then we are fine.

You have every right to criticise atheistic scientific claims. But you don't have the right to falsely represent ID as science if indeed it's not. Two wrongs don't make a right.

TIMMY: I happen to think that ID is well within the bounds of soft science, since, as it investigates material structures, it is clearly more than mere philosophy. If you want to disagree on definitions, fine–as long as you apply the definition equally. For example you wouldn’t say that archeology is “science”, would you?

Of course I would say achaeology is science, because it is based upon regularities in human behaviour. In my view what delineates science is not what is being investigated, but the nature of the explanations that are given, which should be based upon measurable regularities. There is nothing I can see preventing ID proponents from proposing such explanations; it's just that they haven't yet. CLAVDIVS

CLAVDIVS @ 244:

I’m complaining that the ID argument assumes that brainless minds are possible, without empirical warrant, and claims that’s scientific. It’s not: Science is about explaining phenomena in terms of regularities. ID cannot proffer “intelligence” as an explanation because we have not the slightest notion how intelligence works nor whether it is based on any scientifically measurable regularities.

Then you’re just saying that we can’t investigate origins with science. Right? As long as you understand that the only reason ID needs to talk about “science” is in reaction to the (false) scientific pretensions of atheistic Darwinists, then we are fine. Anyway I think it’s okay to use the term “science” to apply to a wide range of investigations. When you are dealing with strict regularities, a lot of people call that hard science. Anything else is soft science. And as you move further and further away, the softer it gets. I happen to think that ID is well within the bounds of soft science, since, as it investigates material structures, it is clearly more than mere philosophy. If you want to disagree on definitions, fine--as long as you apply the definition equally. For example you wouldn’t say that archeology is “science”, would you? Timmy

RDFish @ 237:

Human mental abilities are amazing but obviously not unbounded. [...] cognitive closure...

What I said, which I suspect you agree with, is that humans can produce unbounded CSI, not that humans have unbounded mental abilities, and this was simply meant to draw a distinction between animals and humans. As far as cognitive closure goes, I generally accept the theological arguments that invoke it, even though I am not quite sure what it means to say that we can’t “understand” something. But there’s a big difference between saying that God (for example) who we believe transcends matter, space and time is outside the bounds of our understanding...and saying that the mechanics of matter, space and time are beyond our understanding. I don’t see any reason why I should accept that, given the substantial progress of science. But consider: if I reject cognitive closure in material matters (as I tend to do), then the fact that our investigations into the mind, or the fundamental cause of CSI, have been unfruitful (in stark contrast to our other investigations) would seem to suggest that the mind is immaterial. Because otherwise we would be able to explain it, or at least have some inkling that of the road forward. On the other hand, if I accept cognitive closure in material matters, then we arrive at a functionally indistinguishable position, where we simply blur the distinction between material and supernatural. If, for example, we fundamentally cannot understand some quantum phenomena, then those phenomena are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from magic. And, importantly, it is meaningless to suggest such a phenomena is governed by scientific “law”. Because when we talk about science and laws, we are talking about rules that we can and do understand. Not about phenomena that we, in principle, cannot understand.

Many people think that brains utilize exotic quantum physical properties that we do not yet understand (see for example Roger Penrose). This is one thing I mean when I say we can’t rule out all law + chance for mental processes.

Do you mean mental processes (i.e., of the mind) or brain processes? It may very well be the case that brain mechanics (which we don’t understand anyway) utilize exotic whatever properties that we don’t yet understand. But that is not at all the same thing as saying that the mind (i.e., including the ability to produce human-scale CSI) can be reduced to law + chance…especially if its “mechanics” are cognitively closed.

I do NOT say that the brain creates the mind. What I’m saying is that brains are clearly necessary for human thought, even if they are not sufficient. Maybe some extra-dimensional realm of Platonic logic is tapped into by quantum gravitational effects in the microtubules of our neurons, as Penrose/Hamerhoff believe. I don’t know what they are talking about, really, but my point is that for all we know, consciousness is something that our brains tap into rather than generate. But even the most die-hard Cartesian dualist admits that brains are critically involved in thought, even if they are just half of the story.

So what are we supposed to be disagreeing about? While I’m open to other views in principle, the bold is pretty much my position in a nutshell. Our brain is analogous to the CPU + hard drive + radio receiver in a highly sophisticated remote-controlled android. At any rate the real question is what is meant by “critically involved”. In the case of the android, the radio receiver and CPU are absolutely critical. The android cannot think without them. (You might be able dispense some or most of the hard drive, like a person whose brain stops recording memories.) But here, “critically involved” just means ”interface”. Because in reality, all thought and consciousness and high level decision-making is outsourced to the Remote Controller. The android’s “brain” isn’t involved with any of that. So how do you define “critically involved”?

So while it’s possible that a human-like mind could exist without a human-like brain at all, it certainly is not consistent with our repeated and uniform experience, and can’t simply be accepted as a scientific result without evidence.

And this is precisely why you need a more precise definition of “critically involved”. If the brain is just an interface for the mind, with some (remarkable) processing/memory functions and limited programming for low-level decisions (autonomic functions, instinct), then the brain isn’t really “involved” in creating the mind at all and the objection to brainless minds is removed. As far as I can tell this is pretty much consistent with our repeated/uniform experience. On the other hand, it is also consistent with our experience to say that the brain affects the mind. As a very general example, we know that some people are much dumber than average, others much smarter, and we are quickly accumulating data on how genes correlate to IQ. So it’s fairly clear that the brain has a big influence on what your mind is able to do. I don’t have a problem saying that brains are directly involved in the particular mental experience that humans experience. For that matter, all our sensory organs also directly shape that experience. Indeed, we can imagine an android with a high-end processor/hard drive/receiver vs. one with lower-end equipment. We can also imagine that one android has only audio sensors, and that another android has a sensor which measures magnetic fields. All these androids have significantly different conscious experiences, but are fundamentally linked by what we can only describe as a “general” mind that is ultimately independent of their particular physical limitations.

But my point here is that we cannot then extrapolate to include all of the other aspects of mentality that we know from human experience and say that those things are likely part of whatever mind (producer of CSI) was responsible for CSI in biology. Whatever sort of mind/CSI-producer preceded biological systems was likely very, very different from a human mind (which is intimately linked, somehow, to human brains), and we have no justification to claim that conscious beliefs, desires, and intentions accompanied the production of biological CSI as it would in a human.

Well of course, since human mentality is entangled with the brain and the body. And that is why we attempt to distinguish between aspects of mentality that are clearly derived from the human body (e.g., most emotions) and aspects of mentality that have apparently no relationship (or no logical relationship) to the body (consciousness, reason, choice, etc.). Anger manifests physiologically, so a disembodied mind surely wouldn’t experience anger the way we do. But the mind might still disagree to the point of concluding that further debate is pointless. On the other hand, maybe God designed our experience of anger to be an analogue of his experience. (Whatever that might mean.) But I just don’t see how “conscious belief” or “intention” is intimately linked to the human brain, or why we should think it might be. Both of those things are precisely the sort of magic that we invoke the mind (rather than the brain) to explain! And it seems very reasonable to say that they are integral to the creation of CSI. So I think we have every bit of justification in claiming that a non-human immaterial mind would have those sorts of characteristics. Lust? Not so much.

It seems clear at the outset that anything that can generate a plan (or design) needs to store and process information, and as far as we know, complex physical mechanism is required to do that. We can’t even imagine how information could be stored and processed without physical state machines of some sort. Again – not sufficient for thought, but quite evidently necessary.

Not to be tedious, but I have to protest. We are not in any kind of position to say that this is “clear at the outset”, because we can build machines that store/process information, but these machines do not generate plans/designs/CSI except as per their front-loaded programming. As I have been saying, we have no idea why anything should be able to generate plans/designs/CSI. Claiming that the memory/processor mechanism is “not sufficient for thought” directly undermines the statement that it is “evidently necessary”. How is that evident? If we are genuinely declaring thought to be “mysterious”, it’s not evident. Now, to be less tedious, I agree that it is impossible to imagine how our minds could think without being attached to some kind of processor/memory unit, since our descriptions of “what thought is” are entangled with the two. But we can ameliorate this problem by recalling that the “general mind” is almost always thought to not just be immaterial, but also atemporal (spirit, soul, whatever)--especially the general mind responsible for life. And while it is fairly obvious that a mind limited by the constraints of time and space would need a memory/processor unit, it is a lot less obvious than an un-limited general mind would need one, because memory and processing are temporal things.

There are a number of instances in science when unifications like this have been made. Energy was found to be the same thing as matter. The weak nuclear force was found to be the same thing as the electro-magnetic force. And so on. Other times, things that appeared to be the same thing were found to be different. The process providing light and heat from the Sun was thought to be the same thing as the process providing light and heat from a candle, until it was discovered that it was a very different process (the Sun would have burned out long ago were it not). So is whatever creates CSI in us humans the same thing as that which produced the CSI in biology? Nobody knows, nor does anyone have any idea how to go about figuring it out.

I agree, and this example is very illustrative of what I mean by science. As we hear tediously from Darwinists, science is in a constant state of evolution. When people with limited knowledge draw an analogy between the sun and a candle, why is it impossible to call that science? Insofar as smart, educated people investigated the obvious superficial similarities between the two, what else would you call that, but science? And the same goes for ID.

That’s not the Darwinian claim; the Darwinian claim is that random variation and selection accounts for the CSI we observe. Neither of us believe that, period.

Yes, but a great many Darwinian demagogues use Darwinism as a weapon against everyone who dissents on origins, and a great many specifically argue that design was not produced by anything remotely like a mind (as I said), and indeed that “design” is illusory and CSI is not real. They would definitely object to your agnostic position, as well. You cannot react to ID (or modern YEC for that matter) without considering the circumstances in which it emerged; namely, as a reaction to the specifically atheistic excesses of Darwinism.

ID doesn’t claim that, it just claims that it is (a lot) more scientific than Darwinism.

That’s not true either. There just aren’t any scientific results that shed light on the matter.

It may well be that we haven’t any arguments, scientific or not, that ”shed light” on origins, but it is clear that Darwinism obfuscates the matter. Once you’ve conceded that design is indeed real, once you take for granted the use of teleological and engineering language when describing the mechanics of life, then yes: the conclusion of ID is not much more than a tautology. But a tautology is infinitely preferable to and infinitely more scientific than a falsehood. Again, consider the context: ID is reacting against people who are embarrassed to use engineering analogies, who don’t believe that design is real, who object to existence of CSI, who believe that Darwinism is as “certain as gravity”. And most of what ID people do is 1) argue the case that design is real and 2) argue from the evidence that Darwinism is wrong. I’m sure that if Darwinism did not exist, or if it existed only as crackpot fringe, or if it existed as merely one questionable possibility among many, ID people would be a lot tamer in their language. For example, just to repeat myself, basically everyone thinks that origins “science” is at best soft science. It’s only in the context of the claim that “macroevolution is just as certain as gravity” that we come in and counterclaim that ID (or YEC for that matter) is more scientific than Darwinism. So given the academic landscape, surely you cannot be surprised that people get polemic.

Again, thanks for the sincere responses. I enjoy this sort of discussion so much more than trading insults!!

Well, it’s hard to get out of the polemic mindset. Timmy

No, RDFish, ID isn't properly religious, it's idolatrous in its conflation of human design with divine creation. Daniel King

Hi All, Well, it looks like this one is winding down. Here's where we leave it: As Denyse herself pointed out, the term "intelligence" is so ill-defined that unless one provides a specific meaning for the context in which it's being used, the term doesn't mean anything at all. That means that ID theory, which fails to make clear what the technical meaning of their sole explanatory is supposed to be, actually means nothing at all. But when pressed, ID folks come up with all sorts of ideas about what "intelligence" is supposed to mean in their theory. Here are some of them, and why they all make ID theory either a) unscientific or b) empirically unsupportable. 1) VJTorley (@181) suggested that intelligence means "the ability to select appropriate means for attaining particular goals, and to give reasons for your selection." That is a clear definition, but how could ID ever hope to show that whatever caused the origin of life would be able to explain its reasons? There is no way, so ID using this definition can't be considered to have any evidence behind it whatsoever. 2) Stephen Meyer often defines "intelligence" as "conscious rational deliberation". That's also a perfectly meaningful definition, but like VJTorley's definition, there is no way we can test to see if the cause of living systems experienced conscious awareness. Since it appears that well-functioning brains are required in order to experience consciousness (any number of things that can happen to our brain can make our consciousness go away), it appears a priori that something without a brain would not experience consciousness at all. 3) Bill Dembski (at times) and StephenB here want to define intelligence as that which is "beyond any combination of law and chance" or "is neither random nor determined" or "able to make free choices from among possibilities". Anyone familiar with philosophy will recognize these definitions as libertarian free will. Of course most philosophers and scientists have concluded that this sort of contra-causal volition does not exist, and even philosophers who do believe in it agree that there is no way to demonstrate the truth of this metaphysical conjecture empirically. StephenB argues that our failure to explain various phenomena somehow means contra-causality is real, but this argument fails immediately: It is nothing but a "free-will-of-the-gaps" argument. 4) Another definition that has been offered here (by Timmy, from the dictionary) is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". Under this definition, ID would have to demonstrate that the cause of life is able to acquire new knowledge. But since there is no way to present this hypothetical being with a novel problem or to test its learning ability, ID is unable to demonstrate that this definition can be empirically supported either. In fact, an omniscient being (likely the candidate most ID folks have in mind) would be logically incapable of learning anything new, and so under this definition of "intelligence" God would not even qualify as "intelligent"! 5) StephenB has also suggested that "able to produce novelty" be considered a viable definition for ID, but fails to realize that the meterological processes that create snowflakes, each being novel, would meet that criterion. 6) Another definition of "intelligence" that is often put forth by fans of ID is "that which is able to produce CSI". The problem with this definition is simply that it turns ID into a vacuous tautology: According to ID, the cause of the CSI we observe in biology is that which can produce CSI! What is generally unspoken in these discussions is what ID folks actually think they are talking about when they refer to an "intelligent agent". Of course they are talking about something with a conscious mind like their own, with perceptions and sensations and conscious beliefs, desires, intentions, and emotions. So this thing is supposed to be able to think, feel, and build things like human beings do, without the benefit of being a complex physical organism. It's supposed brainy without a having brain, to have a heart without having a heart, to be handy without having hands, and so on. Well, anyone can hypothesize whatever they'd like to of course, but we have no experience of anything like this in our uniform and repeated experience. This thinking - and ID in general - is strictly religious, and has nothing at all to do with science. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Joe @ 245

CLAVDIVS: I’m complaining that the ID argument assumes that brainless minds are possible, JOE: There isn’t any such ID argument.

Sure there is, on this very thread: - Timmy @ 233: "brains can exist without minds" - StephenB @ 240: "minds operating independently of the brain"

CLAVDIVS: Science is about explaining phenomena in terms of regularities. JOE: Reference please. Methinks you made that up.

How about *you* define science and show how it doesn't involve explaining phenomena in terms of regularities.

CLAVDIVS: ID cannot proffer “intelligence” as an explanation because we have not the slightest notion how intelligence works nor whether it is based on any scientifically measurable regularities. JOE: And more bluster.

If so, then it's bluster from the ID side of the discussion; please try to keep up or you'll keep on kicking own goals: - Timmy @ 233: "Do you have the slightest notion how the brain creates/effects/whatever human consciousness/intelligence, or how it creates CSI? No."

JOE: And BTW, if someone can demonstrate that the brain/ mind can arise by necessity and chance, ID would be falsified.

LOL! Another own goal! It's been generally agreed on this thread that its impossible to demonstrate whether or not the mind arises from law/chance - so by your standards it's impossible to falsify ID, which makes it an unscientific notion ... which is what I've been saying all along. CLAVDIVS

CLAVDIVS:

I’m complaining that the ID argument assumes that brainless minds are possible,

There isn't any such ID argument.

It’s not: Science is about explaining phenomena in terms of regularities.

Reference please. Methinks you made that up.

ID cannot proffer “intelligence” as an explanation because we have not the slightest notion how intelligence works nor whether it is based on any scientifically measurable regularities.

And more bluster.

In other words, the profound mystery of the origin of biological complexity is not scientifically explained by saying it is caused by another profound mystery, namely, intelligence.

Unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution is a profound mystery. As I said our existence cannot be explained, scientifically. And BTW, if someone can demonstrate that the brain/ mind can arise by necessity and chance, ID would be falsified. RDFish's ignorant rantings against ID won't do it- only evidence matters. Joe

Timmy @ 233

CLAVDIVS: In our vast experience we have never encountered anything that can create CSI other than a human (or animal) with a mind and a brain. You want to treat the mind as separable from the brain in order to reach your conclusion that a mind can exist without a human (or animal) brain. TIMMY: Do you have the slightest notion how the brain creates/effects/whatever human consciousness/intelligence, or how it creates CSI? No. You are not even absolutely claiming that it does, you are open to alternatives. ... Given that, how can you possibly complain about a distinction between the brain and the mind?

Yes, I'm open to alternatives. I'm complaining that the ID argument assumes that brainless minds are possible, without empirical warrant, and claims that's scientific. It's not: Science is about explaining phenomena in terms of regularities. ID cannot proffer "intelligence" as an explanation because we have not the slightest notion how intelligence works nor whether it is based on any scientifically measurable regularities. In other words, the profound mystery of the origin of biological complexity is not scientifically explained by saying it is caused by another profound mystery, namely, intelligence. CLAVDIVS

Hi StephenB,

There is a more recent study by Dr. Jeffrey Long, entitled “Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near Death Experiences. From what I have read, the new study covers that ground.

We've been down this path a number of times. After we tussle over definitions (let's say "mind" now means "conscious beliefs, desires, and intentions") I point out that in order for ID to be a viable theory, it must be true that minds are independent of brains. You first deny that ID is actually dependent upon this claim, then you concede but insist the truth of this mind/body dualism is obvious, then you claim that there is scientific evidence of dualism, and then I say rather than debate the strength of the evidence for minds operating outside of bodies, let's just agree that the truth of ID is fully independent on the claim that minds operate independently of brains... and then you revert back to your original claim that ID is completely independent of any issues regarding the independence of minds on brains. Is that what's going to happen here again? Without debating the strength of the evidence for minds operating outside of bodies, can we agree that if it turns out that minds are in fact completely dependent upon brains, ID is no longer a viable theory (since "intelligence" would be just a proper subset of law + chance)?

Intelligent Design studies only the effects of intelligence...

Assuming your conclusion. ID studies biological systems and assumes they are the effects of intelligence.

You may think that more tools “should” be available, or that ID should make some effort to penetrate the mind of the designer, but that would simply be an exercise in fantasy.

No, again, what I've suggested is that Intelligent Design Theory ought to study intelligent design. Doesn't that make sense to you? ID should research how human beings produce CSI, and find the necessary and sufficient conditions for that. Perhaps research whether people can design things when their brains are not functioning. Then ID might be able to make an actual scientific case regarding how CSI in biology got started. But ID doesn't do any of that research - it just makes metaphysical assumptions that minds are contra-causal and independent of brains. You are so steeped in these assumptions that it seems implausible that perhaps minds are critically dependent upon brains. But unless there is evidence to the contrary, what appears to our uniform experience is that nothing can design anything without a well-functioning brain.

So even if we could perform the impossible and get inside the mind of the one who creates, we could still not solve the riddle because each individual thinks, feels, and perceives differently.

Uh, this is rather poetic, but you can't mean it literally. If the process resulting in CSI is completely different in each instance, there is no way of telling what was responsible for the designs we observe in living things.

There is simply no way to know “how” Mozart wrote his musical pieces or how Michaelangelo sculpted is angel.

I would fully agree that nobody knows this currently. Which means ID doesn't really know what it is referring to when it says "intelligence" is responsible for flagella.

If it was a creative, purposeful, artistic act, as appears to be the case, ...

Ok, let's stop there. I know that you know I am only interested in debating ID Theory as science. I'm not interested in hearing you wax lyrical about the creative act.

We know (yes know) that it cannot be the produce of a physical law because physical laws do not have the power to create something that is original in a fundamental way....Obviously, such an act is out of range for a physical law.

Ok, actually let's stop here entirely. You have reverted back to arguing by divine fiat: "We know (yes know)..." and "Obviously..." are not arguments, and it's perfectly clear that you have no arguments to support ID's reliance on metaphysical assumptions. You are not interested in supporting ID by evidence. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDF:

There is one well-publicized study called AWARE that I have been following with interest that would help verify that conscious thought can proceed even absent brain function.

There is a more recent study by Dr. Jeffrey Long, entitled "Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near Death Experiences.

this study (AWARE) has yet to provide evidence that NDE experiences gave any indication of thought or perception occurring without brain function.

From what I have read, the new study covers that ground.

But as far as I can tell, Intelligent Design theorists conduct no research at all into anything related to intelligence or design (use any particular meaning of those terms). Instead, they write books about why Darwinism is false.

Intelligent Design studies only the effects of intelligence because that is the only thing that can be studied with the current tools available. You may think that more tools "should" be available, or that ID should make some effort to penetrate the mind of the designer, but that would simply be an exercise in fantasy. For my part, I have probably read a hundred books and articles on the subject of design and creativity either in the context of business or aesthetics. I have also been a part of a design team. The one thing I have learned is that there is no science for "how" someone designs anything. A true designer throws all the "hows" out the window in an act of creative destruction. Whether in business or in the arts, or some other genre, creativity is, by its very nature, an act that has never been previously attempted or achieved. It may be a response to a new problem that never existed or it may be a new way of expressing one's artistic sensibilities. The person who tries to replicate it is simply drawing with trace paper and is not really creating or designing anything. So even if we could perform the impossible and get inside the mind of the one who creates, we could still not solve the riddle because each individual thinks, feels, and perceives differently. The creative act is a one time thing. Yes, there are books that promise to help one stimulate the imagination, but in the final analysis, the act of conceiving something original is unique to the individual. Equally important, there is no way of knowing what inspires the artist to work the way he does or to even begin such an undertaking. These things are mysteries and are not approachable by science. It would be an even greater follow to try to penetrate the mind that designed the universe. There is simply no way to know "how" Mozart wrote his musical pieces or how Michaelangelo sculpted is angel. The very word "how" indicates a mechanical, step by step process that does not lend itself to the creative act. This is all the more true with respect to the artist that designed the universe. If it was a creative, purposeful, artistic act, as appears to be the case, the best we can do is recognize the fact that it is the work of an artist. It would be folly to ask "how" the artist did it. We know (yes know) that it cannot be the produce of a physical law because physical laws do not have the power to create something that is original in a fundamental way. That power is reserved for intelligent agents who can can choose from among multiple alternatives and settle on the one that seems to be the most pleasing. Obviously, such an act is out of range for a physical law. StephenB

Hi StephenB,

RDF: I can only guess you refer to ghosts, poltergeists, microencephalitics who think without a fully-formed brain, patients whose brains have ceased to function but can still think, cases of demonic possession, and so on. (emphasis added) SB: No, that is not what I am referring to. We have evidence for minds operating independently of the brain via near-death experiences.

Yes, that is what I was referring to in the bolded phrase above.

The indications are that these experiences as not the product of the brain’s activity, especially when occurring out of the body or under general anesthesia.

This is exactly what I was referring to when I said the evidence is very sketchy, and in order to be considered as scientific evidence, there need to be studies that provide reliable, replicable evidence. After all, we have a huge amount of evidence that a brain injury, brain disease, a dose of anesthetic, too much alcohol, or even a knock on the head can incapacitate our brain and make us lose consciousness - and along with it the ability to design things. That would indicate that a well-functioning brain is required for thought. Any claim to the contrary really does require some well-done study that would control for more usual explanations for these things. In particular, it's well known that patients can generate a set of memories while they are recuperating from brain trauma and misremember when the events took place. There is one well-publicized study called AWARE that I have been following with interest that would help verify that conscious thought can proceed even absent brain function. This study intends to control for the possibility that reported memories do not actually reflect conscious experience during periods without brain activity. As far as I can tell from the AWARE site and other reviews, after six years, this study has yet to provide evidence that NDE experiences gave any indication of thought or perception occurring without brain function. The AWARE website said there there is a peer-reviewed paper going through the publication process currently - I look forward to reading those results.

There is no reason for ID to become an entirely different kind of research program.

But as far as I can tell, Intelligent Design theorists conduct no research at all into anything related to intelligence or design (use any particular meaning of those terms). Instead, they write books about why Darwinism is false. I agree Darwinism is false, and like many others would like to know what might account for our observations. Since ID does no research in that area, I continue to look elsewhere (James Shapiro, for example).

Those, who for ideological reasons, refuse to accept the scientific evidence for design will, for the same reason, refuse to accept the scientific evidence for a mind.

You keep claiming there is scientific evidence for immaterial (independent of the brain) mind, and for the claim that a conscious mind (or a contra-causal mind?) was responsible for the design of biological organisms. But the only evidence is that which eliminates Darwinian theory, which is in no way evidence for your particular hypotheses. You can complain about persecution and ideological bias, but until someone bothers to actually do some work and attempt to study how minds might have preceded organisms, ID will have nothing to say regarding how life began. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish

I can only guess you refer to ghosts, poltergeists, microencephalitics who think without a fully-formed brain, patients whose brains have ceased to function but can still think, cases of demonic possession, and so on.

No, that is not what I am referring to. We have evidence for minds operating independently of the brain via near-death experiences. The indications are that these experiences as not the product of the brain's activity, especially when occurring out of the body or under general anesthesia.

If ID is a serious scientific program (which I do not believe) then it would investigate these phenomena and demonstrate that something without a brain can still solve novel problems and generate plans and designs for complex mechanisms.

There is no reason for ID to become an entirely different kind of research program. Those, who for ideological reasons, refuse to accept the scientific evidence for design will, for the same reason, refuse to accept the scientific evidence for a mind. StephenB

Hi StephenB,

RDF: So just as our experience indicates that all complex functional mechanisms arise only by means of thought, our experience indicates that all thought depends critically on complex functional mechanisms. SB: Why is this supposed to matter? What you have described is neither an irony nor a bi-conditional relationship.

It matters because my position is that there is no known cause that can account for the origin of biological organisms. One could say that the complex mechanisms we observe arose without any involvement of conscious mind, but that would contradict our experience that complex mechanisms never appear without the action of a conscious mind. One could say that a conscious mind was responsible for the first complex organisms, but that would contradict our experience that conscious thought never appears without the action of complex brains.

[b] according to our experience, thought DOES NOT arise only by means of complex functional mechanisms.

To what do you refer here? What experience do we have of thought apart from complex brains? I can only guess you refer to ghosts, poltergeists, microencephalitics who think without a fully-formed brain, patients whose brains have ceased to function but can still think, cases of demonic possession, and so on. If that is what you are talking about, here is my position on that: The evidence for such things is very sketchy, and efforts to provide replicable scientifically sound evidence for them have yet to succeed. If ID is a serious scientific program (which I do not believe) then it would investigate these phenomena and demonstrate that something without a brain can still solve novel problems and generate plans and designs for complex mechanisms. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish:

So just as our experience indicates that all complex functional mechanisms arise only by means of thought, our experience indicates that all thought depends critically on complex functional mechanisms.

Why is this supposed to matter? What you have described is neither an irony nor a bi-conditional relationship. [a] according to our experience, functional mechanisms DO arise only by means of thought. [b] according to our experience, thought DOES NOT arise only by means of complex functional mechanisms. There is, therefore, no reason shuffle words around in order to make it appear as there is some kind of reciprocity going in. StephenB

Hi Timmy,

RDF: Actually, human beings produce CSI. And I have no idea what you mean by “unbounded” here. TIMMY: Meant to contrast with the limited ability of some animals to produce CSI.

Human mental abilities are amazing but obviously not unbounded. This is important because one of the responses to the Big Mysterious Questions (origin of life, origin of the universe) is that our minds are not actually capable of understanding what underlies these things - it would be like a mouse trying to understand calculus. That notion is called cognitive closure, and I think there may be something to it. (It's true, after all, that many writers in Abrahamic religions stress that God is completely unknowable - it could be that this is true in a very complete sense).

I was simply saying that the brain is subject to the laws of chemistry and physics.

Many people think that brains utilize exotic quantum physical properties that we do not yet understand (see for example Roger Penrose). This is one thing I mean when I say we can't rule out all law + chance for mental processes.

Saying that brains are “clearly necessary”, how is that evidence there isn’t something else? How is that evidence that the brain creates the mind (which is what I think you are saying)?

I do NOT say that the brain creates the mind. What I'm saying is that brains are clearly necessary for human thought, even if they are not sufficient. Maybe some extra-dimensional realm of Platonic logic is tapped into by quantum gravitational effects in the microtubules of our neurons, as Penrose/Hamerhoff believe. I don't know what they are talking about, really, but my point is that for all we know, consciousness is something that our brains tap into rather than generate. But even the most die-hard Cartesian dualist admits that brains are critically involved in thought, even if they are just half of the story. So while it's possible that a human-like mind could exist without a human-like brain at all, it certainly is not consistent with our repeated and uniform experience, and can't simply be accepted as a scientific result without evidence.

You asked for an operational definition, you wanted to know how we can detect a mind. I know how to detect CSI. I don’t know how to detect “conscious intent” or “sentience”, except by way of CSI.

OK, fair enough. That's a perfectly fine operational definition of a mind. But my point here is that we cannot then extrapolate to include all of the other aspects of mentality that we know from human experience and say that those things are likely part of whatever mind (producer of CSI) was responsible for CSI in biology. Whatever sort of mind/CSI-producer preceded biological systems was likely very, very different from a human mind (which is intimately linked, somehow, to human brains), and we have no justification to claim that conscious beliefs, desires, and intentions accompanied the production of biological CSI as it would in a human.

We have no reason to think that the brain is the origin of CSI, we have no reason to think that “anything” should be the origin of CSI. Nevertheless we produce CSI anyway…by magic, as far as we can tell.

Right, except for the part about needing a well-functioning brain. It seems clear at the outset that anything that can generate a plan (or design) needs to store and process information, and as far as we know, complex physical mechanism is required to do that. We can't even imagine how information could be stored and processed without physical state machines of some sort. Again - not sufficient for thought, but quite evidently necessary. So just as our experience indicates that all complex functional mechanisms arise only by means of thought, our experience indicates that all thought depends critically on complex functional mechanisms. How it got started is deeply mysterious, and not at all withing our scientific understanding yet - and perhaps it never will be.

So it is a viable theory to say: You know that thing humans have that is the original cause of the CSI that humans produce? Whatever that thing is (let’s call it a mind), it is the only explanation for CSI we have ever heard of. And since we haven’t the slightest clue how CSI could be created in general, it is fair to say that whatever created life consisted, at least, of a mind.

There are a number of instances in science when unifications like this have been made. Energy was found to be the same thing as matter. The weak nuclear force was found to be the same thing as the electro-magnetic force. And so on. Other times, things that appeared to be the same thing were found to be different. The process providing light and heat from the Sun was thought to be the same thing as the process providing light and heat from a candle, until it was discovered that it was a very different process (the Sun would have burned out long ago were it not). So is whatever creates CSI in us humans the same thing as that which produced the CSI in biology? Nobody knows, nor does anyone have any idea how to go about figuring it out.

Your tautology should be like this: “The CSI was produced by something that is somehow analogous to how humans produce CSI.”

Saying "somehow analogous" is not saying anything until you say what things are the same and what things are not. Is chemical oxidation (fire) analogous to nuclear fusion in the Sun? In some ways yes (they both produce light and heat) but in some ways no (the mechanism is very different). When you say that the cause of life was analogous to human thought, we naturally assume that means that the cause of life had conscious beliefs, desires, and intentions. But there is no way to know if that is true or not, and some reason to doubt it a priori (because of the fact that human brains are involved in our cognition). You may point out that other reasons to believe in a human-like mind of a Life Designer come from religious thought, and I wouldn't challenge that. But I would insist that it is not scientific.

This allows us to contradict the clearly less-reasonable Darwinian-style explanation, which amount to, “The CSI was produced by something that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that humans have.”

That's not the Darwinian claim; the Darwinian claim is that random variation and selection accounts for the CSI we observe. Neither of us believe that, period.

Since we don’t know how CSI is created, we have no idea if anything (e.g., the brain) is “required”, in general, to produce CSI.

Right. We do know, however, that a well-functioning brain is required for humans to produce CSI, and it is also evidently true that some complex physical state machine is required to store and process information at all. Perhaps there is something without any physical state machinery that can store and process information, and produce CSI. But there is simply no scientific evidence of any such thing.

All you’re saying is that “scientific investigation” into the origins of life is currently impossible.

Well, investigation isn't impossible of course. But we don't have any viable theories at the moment.

Except that Darwinists do like to claim that their theories are just as scientific as physics.

Perhaps, but they would be wrong.

ID doesn’t claim that, it just claims that it is (a lot) more scientific than Darwinism.

That's not true either. There just aren't any scientific results that shed light on the matter. I know that is very difficult for most people; for some reason it doesn't bother me. I live my life very well, and I marvel at what we know, and I marvel also at what we do not know! Again, thanks for the sincere responses. I enjoy this sort of discussion so much more than trading insults!! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish, Sorry for all the rude stuff I said earlier. Timmy

Hi Timmy, Thanks for your thoughtful and cogent replies - I'll have time to respond later today. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish @ 217:

Actually, human beings produce CSI. And I have no idea what you mean by “unbounded” here.

Meant to contrast with the limited ability of some animals to produce CSI.

You denied this earlier, but apparently you now agree that nobody knows how brains work.

When you say "we know what the brain is" (i.e., a lump of flesh composed of a very particular organization of molecules), you are saying what I was saying before. I never said we know the specific details of macro-level brain mechanics. I was simply saying that the brain is subject to the laws of chemistry and physics. Don't flip out, okay?

Brains are clearly necessary, but not sufficient, to produce CSI-rich human artifacts.

How is that a response to my statement? Do you know if CSI is produced by the brain, or by something else? That this "something else" apparently interacts with the brain is irrelevant. Saying that brains are “clearly necessary”, how is that evidence there isn't something else? How is that evidence that the brain creates the mind (which is what I think you are saying)?

So you’re definition of mind is merely “that which produces CSI”? Is that your final answer? Nothing about conscious intent? Nothing about sentience?

You asked for an operational definition, you wanted to know how we can detect a mind. I know how to detect CSI. I don't know how to detect "conscious intent" or "sentience", except by way of CSI.

All known things that produce CSI are complex living organisms.

Yes…?

We have no reason to think anything besides complex living organisms can produce CSI. Clearly, complex living organisms were not responsible for the original biological CSI. So that leaves us without a viable theory.

We would be left without a "viable theory" if we had a reason to think that complex living human organisms (with brains) should be able to produce CSI! But we have no reason to think they should be able to, because we have no idea how CSI is produced. We have no reason to think that the brain is the origin of CSI, we have no reason to think that “anything” should be the origin of CSI. Nevertheless we produce CSI anyway…by magic, as far as we can tell. So it is a viable theory to say: You know that thing humans have that is the original cause of the CSI that humans produce? Whatever that thing is (let's call it a mind), it is the only explanation for CSI we have ever heard of. And since we haven't the slightest clue how CSI could be created in general, it is fair to say that whatever created life consisted, at least, of a mind. I don't know why you keep calling this tautological, because no matter how much you strip away from the fuzzy definition of "mind" (e.g., consciousness, choices, whatever.) it ultimately remains that humans are the only thing we know of with minds. Your tautology should be like this: "The CSI was produced by something that is somehow analogous to how humans produce CSI." Do we know that CSI can’t be produced by any other means? No, but again: we have no reason to think that anything (let alone brains) should be able to produce CSI. All we have to go on is that humans, apparently by magic, produce CSI. This allows us to contradict the clearly less-reasonable Darwinian-style explanation, which amount to, "The CSI was produced by something that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that humans have."

We know that we use our brains (and other parts of our bodies) to create CSI-rich artifacts. How we do it is mysterious. We also know that we are consciously aware of our plans and actions, but we don’t know if that is required to produce CSI.

Since we don’t know how CSI is created, we have no idea if anything (e.g., the brain) is “required”, in general, to produce CSI.

We can hypothesize whatever we’d like, but in order to have a scientific explanation our hypothesis must be (1) clearly defined and (2) supportable with evidence. ID meets neither of these criteria.

All you’re saying is that “scientific investigation” into the origins of life is currently impossible. Nobody denies that origins science is a lot less scientific than physics; origins scientists do the best they can with what they have to work with. Except that Darwinists do like to claim that their theories are just as scientific as physics. ID doesn’t claim that, it just claims that it is (a lot) more scientific than Darwinism.

What you seem to mean here by “generalized mind” is a conscious, sentient mind in something without a body. That hypothesis is meaningful, but (1) unlikely, given our experience-based knowledge of human minds, and (2) without any evidence.

If you don’t think the ability to produce CSI implies sentience, fine. That would mean humans’ ability to produce CSI has nothing to do with their sentience. Fine. It remains: whatever humans have that allows them to produce CSI, the generalized mind consists of at least that. Timmy

CLAVDIVS @ 219, RDFisH @ 220:

Do I take it that you concede that nobody knows whether the brain/mind transcends law & chance?

I'm conceding that for the purpose of this argument.

In our vast experience we have never encountered anything that can create CSI other than a human (or animal) with a mind and a brain. You want to treat the mind as separable from the brain in order to reach your conclusion that a mind can exist without a human (or animal) brain.

Do you have the slightest notion how the brain creates/effects/whatever human consciousness/intelligence, or how it creates CSI? No. You are not even absolutely claiming that it does, you are open to alternatives. Given that, how can you possibly complain about a distinction between the brain and the mind? If you are willing to concede a distinction, how can you possibly object to the possibility that brains can exist without minds or that minds can exist without brains? The most you can say is that the brain is necessary for humans to have minds, but that is not actually the same thing as saying that the brain creates the mind. For example, imagine a highly sophisticated android that is remote-controlled and is able to write scholarly papers, engineer machines, etc. An observer could point to several of its subsystems as necessary for the android to produce CSI (effect a mind): the radio receiver, the CPU, the hard drive, etc. Take away any of these and the android, operationally, has no mind. But the android's mind still exists even if you destroy the receiver, back inside the human who was controlling it. You’ve just removed the ability of the mind to interface with the meat. Are you totally rejecting the possibility that this happens with humans? Because if it is possible, it puts a major damper on the importance of the “brain is involved/necessary” line.

However, the vast weight of empirical evidence is against the idea of brainless minds.

But the vast weight of empirical evidence does show that brains can exist without minds, which substantiates the distinction. As far as your claim goes, I have no idea what you mean, could you elaborate?

CLAVDIVS @ 228: I was talking about CSI, and the fact that the only empirically verified source of CSI involves brains.

Since you have no idea how or in what sense the brain (or any part of the human body) is involved, it doesn’t make any sense to reference any part of the human body as relevant to the question of how humans create CSI. By this logic the human liver could be said to be “involved” in the creation of CSI. Sure, humans can still create CSI if you remove their liver. So? We never said how the liver is involved, just like we never said how the brain is involved. And it’s an empirically verified fact that humans have livers, just as much as humans have brains. Timmy

CLAVDIVS:

No. How about *you* give your definition of intelligence, law and chance, and show how none of these meet the criteria.

Then your claim is unsupported and therefor meaningless. Joe

CLAVDIVS- Say we accept Intelligent Design and the premise the "intelligence" came from a physical brain. Then say after thousands of years of success under that paradigm we find out, through rigorous research, that the designer(s) didn't have a physical brain after all, but this universe and living organisms were designed regardless of that fact. Do we then have to scrap ID in favor of materialism? Joe

CLAVDIVS:

Yes it does — ID claims the designer is “intelligent”. Just what that means exactly is what this thread has been about.

And I have answered that- comment 14

In any case, so what? I was talking about CSI, and the fact that the only empirically verified source of CSI involves brains.

It also tells us that mother nature was not up to the task.

Therefore, unless ID says the designer has a brain, it is empirically unsupported and unscientific.

And saying mother nature didit is empirically unsupported and unscientific. So perhaps we don't exist, scientifically. Joe

Mung @ 222 Nobody is saying ID proponents deny causality. The discussion has been about whether ID arguments involve causes beyond law/chance (e.g. dualistic or "contra-causal" free will) either as an assumption, or as a conclusion. CLAVDIVS

Joe @ 226

CLAVDIVS: In our vast experience we have never encountered anything that can create CSI other than a human (or animal) with a mind and a brain. JOE: So what? ID doesn’t say anything about the designer.

Yes it does -- ID claims the designer is "intelligent". Just what that means exactly is what this thread has been about. In any case, so what? I was talking about CSI, and the fact that the only empirically verified source of CSI involves brains. Therefore, unless ID says the designer has a brain, it is empirically unsupported and unscientific. CLAVDIVS

Joe @ 225

CLAVDIVS: Quantum phenomena Quantum computational processes Emergent phenomena Gestalts “China brains” Impersonal telic processes JOE: That’s a joke, right? That last one definitely requires intelligence. Please tell us how the others are not law and chance and do not require intelligence.

No. How about *you* give your definition of intelligence, law and chance, and show how none of these meet the criteria. CLAVDIVS

CLAVDIVS:

In our vast experience we have never encountered anything that can create CSI other than a human (or animal) with a mind and a brain.

So what? ID doesn't say anything about the designer. Joe

CLAVDIVS:

Quantum phenomena Quantum computational processes Emergent phenomena Gestalts “China brains” Impersonal telic processes

That's a joke, right? That last one definitely requires intelligence. Please tell us how the others are not law and chance and do not require intelligence. Joe

Hi Stephen,

RDF: Just like it is stupid for you to imagine that just because you can’t figure out how biological CSI came to exist, it means that contra-causality exists. SB: No, it is stupid for you to ignore the evidence that contra-causality exists. It is stupid for you to think that physical laws can explain a written paragraph.

Ok, this is pretty clear at least. In your view, whatever we cannot currently explain is evidence that contra-causal mental powers were involved.

Based on what we do know, an intelligent agent is a better candidate for the existence of information than a physical law.

You've just contradicted everything you've said about not assuming that intelligence transcends physical law, but rather you simply answer the EF questions on a case-by-case basis and see where the evidence leads. Yup, that was all complete BS. You just assumed that "intelligent agent" was different from "physical law", without citing your "evidence".

You refute your whole philosophy of not knowing that free will agency exists every time you accuse someone of lying, even when your accusation is, itself a lie. Do those whom you so accuse have the free will not to lie?

Seriously? You think lying is somehow incompatible with determinism? Have you ever actually thought about the philosophy of free will in your life? Determinism is not incompatible with any aspect of human behavior - if it was, the debate would have been settled long ago.

You also look silly when you claim that you are always polite,...

I'm only polite until you insult and attack me, which is usually the second post. But that too would be equally compatible with determinism, of course. But arguing about free will is tiresome. I am satisfied to have you demonstrate that your entire theory rests upon your belief that human thought transcends physical cause. Thanks for that.

RDF: Archeologists distinguish human artifacts, not artifacts from “intelligent agency” in the abstract. SB: That statement makes absolutely no sense. An “artifact” is, by definition, a human artifact.

YES!!! DUH!!! That is what archeologists study... artifacts! Objects made by human beings! There is nothing about abstract classes of imaginary "intelligent agents" aside from human beings!

How do you think they detect the difference between a naturally formed rock and an ancient hunter’s spear? I will be entertained by your attempt at an answer.

Human beings make spears!!!! We know about human beings!!! Archeology studies human beings!!! It has nothing to do with imaginary sorts of non-human "intelligent agents"!!! What is wrong with you???

RDF: Good, so you admit that ID claims to demonstrate that contra-causality exists. SB: No, ID makes no metaphysical claims. However, I am claiming that ID makes contra-causality more plausible.

So now you again deny that ID concludes that contra-causal minds exist. In that case, ID never reaches the third node of the EF, never "detects design", and concludes nothing at all, ever. Just admit it - be honest for once! When ID concludes that life was designed by a contra-causal mind, that does in fact directly entail that at least one contra-causal mind has, at some point, existed.

RDF: When people say (I’ve seen Dembski say this, and Timmy in this thread) that “intelligence” can be defined as “that which produces CSI”, it renders all of ID to be TAUTOLOGICAL: The CSI in biological systems was caused by that which produces CSI. SB: So, when you hang out with CLAVDIVS, you subscribe to the idea that ID is a tautology, assuming its conclusion.

Right - only when ID defines "intelligence" as "that which produces CSI", as I say right there.

But when you address me, you admit, after having had the record set straight multiple times, that ID concludes contra-causality without assuming it to be true, which would not be a tautology.

You are not definining "intelligence" as "that which produces CSI". Rather, you are defining intelligence as "contra-causality". It's just one embarassing mistake after another for you, I'm afraid. Let's see if we can wind this up. I will be happy for you to admit that 1) Dembski, Meyer, You, Timmy, and vjtorley all had radically different definitions of "intelligence" 2) There is no single common thread running through these definitions - not even contra-causality, as you claimed 3) ID claims to be able to prove the existence of contra-causal minds by analyzing evidence Agreed? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

I'm assuming that RDfish believes that his objection is "intelligible." RD's objection self-destructs if determinism is true. If determinism is true, then RD doesn't actually have an objection, but RD does have an objection, so determinism is not true. He shoots himself in the foot with his objection. You can formulate an argument as follows: 1) If determinism is true, then RD DOES NOT have an intelligible objection 2) RD DOES have an intelligible objection 3) Therefore, determinism is NOT true Let's consider his objection: "First, because most (but of course not all) of the ID folks I talk to (including StephenB here) define it that way. Dembski too has admitted that his view that “intelligence” means “the ability to choose between options” does in fact refer to libertarian free will, and also admits that his construal of ID requries an expanded ontology (dualism of some sort). When Dembski talks about “choice”, he is not speaking of determined actions, such as a river choosing a path to the sea (which he would not consider intelligent). Second, simply by definition, if X is offered as an explanation of Y, and X is said to operate outside of physical law, then X is in fact acting contra-causally. If you have some issue with the term “contra-causal”, we can instead refer directly to “actions that are neither random nor determined”. The claim that any event is neither random nor determined is a metaphysical speculation, not amenable to scientific test." We can conclude (according to his own words which bury him) that we can't actually know that RD has an objection. Notice that he claims that we can't claim that any event is neither random nor determined. This would include his objection. His objection fails. He actually doesn't have an objection. Moving on.... Phil2232

RDFish, Can you possibly be more obtuse? And non-responsive to critique. vjt I have yet to come across a proponent of intelligent design that denies causality. In fact, in my experience, they attribute some things to intelligent causation. Such as your numerous posts in this thread. Mung

RDFish

Just like it is stupid for you to imagine that just because you can’t figure out how biological CSI came to exist, it means that contra-causality exists.

No, it is stupid for you to ignore the evidence that contra-causality exists. It is stupid for you to think that physical laws can explain a written paragraph.

All I’m saying is that you can’t rule out that there are aspects of nature we don’t understand. To deny that is the epitome of arrogant ignorance.

Irrelevant. We don't understand 1% of 1% about anything. That doesn't mean that we cannot reason on the basis of what we do know. Based on what we do know, an intelligent agent is a better candidate for the existence of information than a physical law. Your only response is to say that we may not make that calculation because we don't know everything there is to know about physical laws. That too, is stupid.

You are blatantly lying about what archeologists by pretending they investigate “intelligent agency” in the abstract rather than what they actually investigate, which is invariably the action of human beings.

You refute your whole philosophy of not knowing that free will agency exists every time you accuse someone of lying, even when your accusation is, itself a lie. Do those whom you so accuse have the free will not to lie? You also look silly when you claim that you are always polite, a false claim that nevertheless indicates that you have the freedom of will to not be polite and that those whom you believe are impolite are, in fact, violating their power of free will.

Archeologists distinguish human artifacts, not artifacts from “intelligent agency” in the abstract.

That statement makes absolutely no sense. An "artifact" is, by definition, a human artifact. In spite of your protests to the contrary (and accusations of lying), archeologists do, among other things, make the distinction between the laws of nature and the power of intelligent agency. How do you think they detect the difference between a naturally formed rock and an ancient hunter's spear? I will be entertained by your attempt at an answer.

Good, so you admit that ID claims to demonstrate that contra-causality exists.

No, ID makes no metaphysical claims. However, I am claiming that ID makes contra-causality more plausible. SB: Obviously, what you just described is not a tautology, but I trust that you will not, because of your no concession policy, make a retraction).

What are you talking about? Never mind – you have no idea.

Of course I have an idea. Here is your exchange with CLAVDIVS CLAVDIVS

When people say (I’ve seen Dembski say this, and Timmy in this thread) that “intelligence” can be defined as “that which produces CSI”, it renders all of ID to be TAUTOLOGICAL: The CSI in biological systems was caused by that which produces CSI.

What am I missing? RDF

Not a thing!

So, when you hang out with CLAVDIVS, you subscribe to the idea that ID is a tautology, assuming its conclusion. But when you address me, you admit, after having had the record set straight multiple times, that ID concludes contra-causality without assuming it to be true, which would not be a tautology.

Aha! Now we are getting to the crux of your position. ID scientifically demonstrates that contra-causality is true, but “the academy” persecutes these poor brave souls. Is that it?

Anyone who cares knows that the academy persecutes ID proponents. Those are the facts. I realize that facts mean nothing to you, but that is another story. StephenB

Very well said, CLAVDIVS@219. RDFish

Timmy @ 216

CLAVDIVS: Such things [quantum phenomena, emergent phenomena, etc] indeed might be in the brain. But they might not. Nobody knows. So one cannot just assume the brain/mind transcends law & chance and call it a scientific argument, when it is really a metaphysical speculation. TIMMY: We don’t need to assume that humans can create CSI, it’s a fact that they do.

Timmy, I was responding to JWTruthInLove @ 209 on the question of whether the brain/mind transcends law & chance. Your comments about CSI appear completely unrelated to that. Do I take it that you concede that nobody knows whether the brain/mind transcends law & chance?

TIMMY: We have no idea if the brain produces CSI; indeed many brains don’t. We have no idea if the brain produces consciousness or the capability for intelligence, et cetera; many brains don’t. The thing humans have that effects consciousness, intelligence, and the ability to create CSI: we can call that thing a mind. In our vast experience, we have never encountered anything else that can create CSI or that we even seriously suspect might be able to. And yet CSI exists that humans did not create. So we can reasonably infer the existence of some other mind.

In our vast experience we have never encountered anything that can create CSI other than a human (or animal) with a mind and a brain. You want to treat the mind as separable from the brain in order to reach your conclusion that a mind can exist without a human (or animal) brain. That's fine as a metaphysical speculation. However, the vast weight of empirical evidence is against the idea of brainless minds. In the teeth of such evidence, your inference doesn't really count as a scientific idea. CLAVDIVS

Hi StephenB,

RDF: How did the magician make the elephant disappear? There are only two options: natural law or magic. You can’t explain how he did it with natural law… therefore it must be magic! SB: Only an intelligent agent can “make an elephant disappear” or seem to disappear.

You completely missed this simple point. Please try again - it is the crux of your problem, and after ignoring this for a long time, now you misread the point very badly. The point is not that magicians are human. The point is that it is stupid for someone to think that just because they can't figure out how a trick works, that means that magic exists. Just like it is stupid for you to imagine that just because you can't figure out how biological CSI came to exist, it means that contra-causality exists.

It is your contention that a scientist may not choose one explanation over another unless he knows everything there is to know about both options.

You've completely lost it, this is nonsense. All I'm saying is that you can't rule out that there are aspects of nature we don't understand. To deny that is the epitome of arrogant ignorance.

RDF: Instead, archeologists attribute what they find to something real: human beings. SB: Irrelevant and trivial.

You are blatantly lying about what archeologists by pretending they investigate "intelligent agency" in the abstract rather than what they actually investigate, which is invariably the action of human beings.

The point is that they make a design inference every time they distinguish the human artifacts at Pompei (intelligent cause) from the volcano that buried them (natural cause). They can make that distinction only because the signs of intelligence are different from the signs of nature’s laws, which is precisely the same argument that ID makes.

Archeologists distinguish human artifacts, not artifacts from "intelligent agency" in the abstract. The former is something we understand a great deal about; the latter is meaningless unless given a specific definition, and the defintion you've chosed (contra-causality) is unknown to exist anywhere, any time. No archeologist has ever published a finding about anything except human beings. No matter how many times I tell you this, you never learn.

RDF: But what ID does assume at the outset is that it is possible, somehow, to demonstrate that something can not be explained by law + chance. And when ID does actually conclude that something cannot be explained by law + chance, then ID is saying that it has shown, by following the evidence, that contra-causality exists and best explains the phenomenon in question. SB: Close enough — FINALLY1

Good, so you admit that ID claims to demonstrate that contra-causality exists.

(Obviously, what you just described is not a tautology, but I trust that you will not, because of your no concession policy, make a retraction).

What are you talking about? Never mind - you have no idea.

RDF: In other words, in your view, ID is providing empirical evidence that settles the millenia-old philsophical debate regarding contra-causal free will. You think that ID infers that contra-causality exists by looking at evidence. SB: Yet another strawman argument.

Hilarious. You just agreed that this is what you are doing, and then a sentence later call it a strawman.

I wouldn’t use the word “settled,” but ID certainly provides evidence that makes free will more plausible than determinism.

Unless ID claims to infer contra-causality, then ID obviously says nothing at all. Now you deny that it ever infers contra-causality???

There is no doubt about it. It is precisely for that reason that the academy persecutes ID scientists and makes every effort to discredit them. They simply don’t want to face the evidence. Apparently, that is your problem as well.

Aha! Now we are getting to the crux of your position. ID scientifically demonstrates that contra-causality is true, but "the academy" persecutes these poor brave souls. Is that it? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi Timmy,

since you cannot or will not explain how the brain produces csi...

Nobody knows how brains work. And actually, brains do not produce CSI by themselves... human beings produce CSI. But clearly brains are necessary to the process.

... yet are happy to accept it as a scientific explanation for csi, your objection to using the “mind” as a scientific explanation disappears…because there is no other known source of csi

Human beings produce CSI. We all know what human beings are, and we can watch each other produce CSI-rich artifacts. Brains are necessary (but not sufficient) for humans to produce CSI-rich artifacts. We all know what brains are. When you say "mind", however, you might mean any number of different things, so you have to clarify what you mean.

work thru it: - human brains produce unbounded csi

Actually, human beings produce CSI. And I have no idea what you mean by "unbounded" here.

- most animal brains dont produce csi - some animal brains produce a little csi

Not sure if I agree with this, but let's not quibble.

- no one has any idea how human brains produce csi

Right. You denied this earlier, but apparently you now agree that nobody knows how brains work.

- no one has any idea if csi is produced by the brain or something else

Brains are clearly necessary, but not sufficient, to produce CSI-rich human artifacts.

- we call the thing that humans have, which produces csi, a mind

So you're definition of mind is merely "that which produces CSI"? Is that your final answer? Nothing about conscious intent? Nothing about sentience?

- no csi is produced by any other known process

All known things that produce CSI are complex living organisms.

- since we dont understand the mind anyway we cannot assume that only humans have minds

If by "mind" you mean "ability to produce CSI", then obviously and by definition some non-human "mind" existed at some point to produce biological CSI. If, however, by "mind" you are referring to something that experiences conscious thought with conscious beliefs, desires and intentions, then as far as we know, only human beings (and perhaps a few other animals) have minds, and there is no evidence that anything else does.

- so…id proposes that all csi is produced by a mind

If you define mind as "that which produces CSI", then this is a tautology. If you define mind as "conscious awareness", then this is an unsupportable metaphysical assumption. Perhaps you mean something else?

- so not sure what you are objecting to

I object to people pretending that ID theory has some meaningful, scientific, empirically grounded explanation for OOL and so on while at the same time refusing to provide a specific description of what they are talking about.

which is why the best explanation starts with the only known source of csi (humans) and, extrapolating from the fact that we dont have any idea how humans produce csi anyway, posits a generalized immaterial mind

So ID posits that something immaterial somehow produced the CSI we observe in organisms. There are two things wrong with this: 1) Without further qualification regarding what a mind is, this explanation says precisely nothing except "something that produces CSI", which makes ID a vacuous tautology: The CSI was produced by something that produces CSI. 2) If further qualification is provided (such as "has conscious awareness" or "can explain its choices") then ID has a hypothesis that is, based on our experience, unlikely to be true, and in any event impossible to test.

why is this the best? 1 because it appropriates principles and concepts associated with how we suspect the only known source of csi (humans) actually produce csi…not because it actually “explains” where csi comes from or absolutely answers all of our questions

We know that we use our brains (and other parts of our bodies) to create CSI-rich artifacts. How we do it is mysterious. We also know that we are consciously aware of our plans and actions, but we don't know if that is required to produce CSI.

and 2, because whereas any other proposed explanation for csi not only fails to explain the origin of csi, but it also fails to provide any reason why we should think it can produce csi in the first place…

We have no reason to think anything besides complex living organisms can produce CSI. Clearly, complex living organisms were not responsible for the original biological CSI. So that leaves us without a viable theory.

e.g. the fact that we dont understand x doesnt mean x should be considered a possible explanation for csi

We can hypothesize whatever we'd like, but in order to have a scientific explanation our hypothesis must be (1) clearly defined and (2) supportable with evidence. ID meets neither of these criteria.

vs. a generalized mind

What you seem to mean here by "generalized mind" is a conscious, sentient mind in something without a body. That hypothesis is meaningful, but (1) unlikely, given our experience-based knowledge of human minds, and (2) without any evidence. Your other definition for "mind" seems to be "that which produces CSI". If so, that renders ID to be a vacuous tautology: The CSI we observe in biology was created by that which can create CSI. Do you have another definition for "mind" that would (1) be objectively identifiable and (2) allow for empirical support? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

CLAVDIVS @ 214:

Such things indeed might be in the brain. But they might not. Nobody knows. So one cannot just assume the brain/mind transcends law & chance and call it a scientific argument, when it is really a metaphysical speculation.

We don't need to assume that humans can create CSI, it's a fact that they do. We have no idea if the brain produces CSI; indeed many brains don't. We have no idea if the brain produces consciousness or the capability for intelligence, et cetera; many brains don't. The thing humans have that effects consciousness, intelligence, and the ability to create CSI: we can call that thing a mind. In our vast experience, we have never encountered anything else that can create CSI or that we even seriously suspect might be able to. And yet CSI exists that humans did not create. So we can reasonably infer the existence of some other mind. Timmy

SB: Who are you to say that ID cannot reasonably rule out law/chance if it is warranted by the evidence? By what authority do you make such a bold insinuation. RDFish ...

we can rule out things that we understand.

You mean we can rule out only those things that YOU think we understand even if WE think we know enough about it to make a reasoned inference based on evidence. I get it. You are the arbiter of all science. It is your contention that a scientist may not choose one explanation over another unless he knows everything there is to know about both options. Tell me then, since this is your standard for ruling out options, which subject you think we understand completely and about which there is nothing left to be known. With my blessing, scientists have ruled out geocentrism. Nevertheless, did you know there are some arguments in its favor that they cannot answer?

How did the magician make the elephant disappear? There are only two options: natural law or magic. You can’t explain how he did it with natural law… therefore it must be magic!

LOL: Only an intelligent agent can "make an elephant disappear" or seem to disappear. Natural law is not all that good at waving a handkerchief and directing the audience's attention away from the mechanism that makes the trick work. Nice try, though. Well, no, not really.

Instead, archeologists attribute what they find to something real: human beings.

Irrelevant and trivial. The point is that they make a design inference every time they distinguish the human artifacts at Pompei (intelligent cause) from the volcano that buried them (natural cause). They can make that distinction only because the signs of intelligence are different from the signs of nature's laws, which is precisely the same argument that ID makes.

But what ID does assume at the outset is that it is possible, somehow, to demonstrate that something can not be explained by law + chance. And when ID does actually conclude that something cannot be explained by law + chance, then ID is saying that it has shown, by following the evidence, that contra-causality exists and best explains the phenomenon in question.

Close enough --- FINALLY1 (Obviously, what you just described is not a tautology, but I trust that you will not, because of your no concession policy, make a retraction).

In other words, in your view, ID is providing empirical evidence that settles the millenia-old philsophical debate regarding contra-causal free will. You think that ID infers that contra-causality exists by looking at evidence.

Yet another strawman argument. I wouldn't use the word "settled," but ID certainly provides evidence that makes free will more plausible than determinism. There is no doubt about it. It is precisely for that reason that the academy persecutes ID scientists and makes every effort to discredit them. They simply don't want to face the evidence. Apparently, that is your problem as well. StephenB

JWTruthInLove @ 209

CLAVDIVS: Beats me. It’s ID’s argument that intelligent design transcends law/chance, not mine. CLAVDIVS: Quantum phenomena ... Emergent phenomena JWTIL: The things above might actually be present in the brain. That would make the brain transcend chance and law. Btw.: Aren’t qauantum phenomena “laws”?

Such things indeed might be in the brain. But they might not. Nobody knows. So one cannot just assume the brain/mind transcends law & chance and call it a scientific argument, when it is really a metaphysical speculation. Regarding quantum phenomena -- the interpretation problem and instantaneous action at a distance, for example, do not appear very lawlike to me. C. CLAVDIVS

rdfish 211:

Here are some general categories of things that could account for biological complexity (starting with those CLAVDIVS mentioned): [...] Again: We don’t understand any of these things, nor how any of these might result in what we observe. There is no evidence for any of them. So the correct answer to the deepest mysteries (the origin of life, the origin of the universe, the values of the physical constants, and so on) is this: WE DO NOT KNOW.

which is why the best explanation starts with the only known source of csi (humans) and, extrapolating from the fact that we dont have any idea how humans produce csi anyway, posits a generalized immaterial mind why is this the best? 1 because it appropriates principles and concepts associated with how we suspect the only known source of csi (humans) actually produce csi...not because it actually "explains" where csi comes from or absolutely answers all of our questions and 2, because whereas any other proposed explanation for csi not only fails to explain the origin of csi, but it also fails to provide any reason why we should think it can produce csi in the first place...e.g. the fact that we dont understand x doesnt mean x should be considered a possible explanation for csi vs. a generalized mind should be considered a possible explanation because humans have minds and produce csi if thats tautological then why all the fuss Timmy

rdfish 183: since you cannot or will not explain how the brain produces csi yet are happy to accept it as a scientific explanation for csi, your objection to using the "mind" as a scientific explanation disappears...because there is no other known source of csi work thru it: - human brains produce unbounded csi - most animal brains dont produce csi - some animal brains produce a little csi - no one has any idea how human brains produce csi - no one has any idea if csi is produced by the brain or something else - we call the thing that humans have, which produces csi, a mind - no csi is produced by any other known process - since we dont understand the mind anyway we cannot assume that only humans have minds - so...id proposes that all csi is produced by a mind - typically the mind is understood to have a variety of properties besides the ability to create csi, but that is the most important one for this purpose - so not sure what you are objecting to Timmy

JWTruthInLoveJune, The distinction between "law+chance" and "intelligence" is specious. We do not understand everything there is to know about law (because there is a great deal about nature that is still very mysterious). We do not understand everything there is to know about chance (we do not know if there are truly and fully undetermined events, although modern physics seems to suggest there are). And we do not understand everything there is to know about mental abilities (in particular, we don't know if our thoughts obey the same causal laws as everything else). Here are some general categories of things that could account for biological complexity (starting with those CLAVDIVS mentioned): Quantum phenomena Quantum computational processes Emergent phenomena Gestalts “China brains” Impersonal telic processes Retro causality Circular causality Self-organizational principles Immaterial conscious mind Multiverse probabilities and finally, my personal hunch: Cognitive closure (the idea that our minds are not capable of understanding the deepest mysteries, just as a mouse cannot understand calculus). Again: We don't understand any of these things, nor how any of these might result in what we observe. There is no evidence for any of them. So the correct answer to the deepest mysteries (the origin of life, the origin of the universe, the values of the physical constants, and so on) is this: WE DO NOT KNOW. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi Stephen,

Who are you to say that ID cannot reasonably rule out law/chance if it is warranted by the evidence? By what authority do you make such a bold insinuation.

Ha! It is actually the IDist who is boldly insinuating that they know everything! How else can someone believe they can rule out the possibility that some unknown combination of law + chance could be responsible for some phenomena! You studiously avoid my illustration of your folly, because you cannot rebut it. But I shall repeat it for your convenience and embarrassment: How did the magician make the elephant disappear? There are only two options: natural law or magic. You can’t explain how he did it with natural law… therefore it must be magic! That is the very same form of argument you make in ID. It is a ridiculous argument. How did the flagellum come to exist? There are only two options: natural law (+chance) or contra-causality. You can’t explain how it happened with natural law + chance… therefore it must be contra-causality!

Who are you to say that the archeologist cannot rule out wind, air, and erosion...

Do you think this is what I mean? For that 1000th time, we can rule out things that we already understand!!! It is that we can't rule things we do not understand!!! I've told you a million times that I rule out random mutation and natural selection as a cause for biological complexity. But (because I am not an arrogant fool), I do not make the mistake of thinking I can rule out any explanation based on law + chance.

...and conclude that an intelligent agent constructed...

And because you have never read an archeology book, but rather have wasted your time reading ID tracts, you don't realize that no archeologist ever attributes anything to "intelligent agency" in the abstract, because in the abstract, this means nothing. Instead, archeologists attribute what they find to something real: human beings.

You have said that no one, including yourself, knows what ID means by intelligence because no definition has been forthcoming.

No canonical or official definition - that is correct.

You have also said that ID assumes, without evidence, intelligence as contra-causality, indicating that you know what ID means by intelligence after all.

You choose to ignore what I say, so I will repeat it for your convenience and embarassment: Just as you say, ID does not assume at the outset that any particular phenomenon – flagella, DNA, physical constants, etc – is the result of neither law nor chance. But what ID does assume at the outset is that it is possible, somehow, to demonstrate that something can not be explained by law + chance. And when ID does actually conclude that something cannot be explained by law + chance, then ID is saying that it has shown, by following the evidence, that contra-causality exists and best explains the phenomenon in question. In other words, in your view, ID is providing empirical evidence that settles the millenia-old philsophical debate regarding contra-causal free will. You think that ID infers that contra-causality exists by looking at evidence.

RDF: Of course I don’t assume that contra-causality cannot exist. What I’m pointing out is that it is impossible to demonstrate that it does. SB: You are not pointing something out. You are simply making a claim without warrant. Just because something hasn’t been demonstrated to your satisfaction doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been demonstrated.

So you actually concede that in your view, the explanatory filter and ID's "research" has actually empirically demonstrated that contra-causality exists? Don't hedge, don't dodge... just tell the truth. You believe that ID has scientifically settled the ancient question of contra-causal free will, right? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

@CLAVDIVS:

Beats me. It’s ID’s argument that intelligent design transcends law/chance, not mine.

Quantum phenomena ... Emergent phenomena

The things above might actually be present in the brain. That would make the brain transcend chance and law. Btw.: Aren't qauantum phenomena "laws"? JWTruthInLove

Joe @ 204

CLAVDIVS: The conclusion doesn’t follow … there may be many things with the property “beyond law/chance” besides intelligence. JOE: Please name these many things. Thank you.

Hi Joe Quantum phenomena Quantum computational processes Emergent phenomena Gestalts "China brains" Impersonal telic processes That's all I can think of off the top of my head. And, as I said, there may be many things with the property "beyond law/chance" -- including things we don't know about yet. CLAVDIVS

JWTruthInLove @ 203

Let’s say I claim, that the Mount Rushmore Memorial was created by intelligent agents. How does my claim require any of the human designers to transcend law and chance??

Hi JWTruthInLove Beats me. It's ID's argument that intelligent design transcends law/chance, not mine. CLAVDIVS

StephenB @ 201

CLAVDIVS: But if you define intelligence as “beyond law/chance” then the ID argument would become a tautology. STEPHENB: No, it is a tautology only if you assume that intelligence exists apart from law/chance and if you assume that intelligence apart from law/chance caused the artifact that is being studied. To define your terms is not to assume that your terms represent the truth.

Sorry, StephenB, that doesn't clear things up at all. The problem here is not with any assumptions about what is true. The problem here is a purely logical one about defining the term "intelligence" to mean "beyond law/chance", because when you substitute the definition for the term into the ID argument, you get a tautology: - ID concludes biological complexity is not due to law/chance, and thus is due to intelligence. - Intelligence is defined as "beyond law/chance" - Therefore, ID concludes biological complexity is not due to law/chance, and thus is due to something beyond law/chance (?) I presume this is not what is intended by the ID argument. So, please show me where I've got things wrong. Cheers CLAVDIVS

Archaeology and forensic science are tautologies? Intelligent agencies are the only known cause of counterflow. Artifacts exhibit counterflow. Crimes exhibit counterflow. The counterflow of artifacts is caused by that which can produce counterflow. The counterflow of the crime scene was caused by that which can produce counterflow. See RDFish- if everyone was a childish ass like yourself we could think that we actually refuted two valuable scientific venues with our ignorance. Joe

CLAVDIVS:

The conclusion doesn’t follow … there may be many things with the property “beyond law/chance” besides intelligence

Please name these many things. Thank you. Joe

@ RDFish || CLAVDIVS Let's say I claim, that the Mount Rushmore Memorial was created by intelligent agents. How does my claim require any of the human designers to transcend law and chance?? JWTruthInLove

RDF:

You keep making the same mistake.

No, you keep making the same mistake.

No, my position is that ID assumes the metaphysical conjecture that it is ever possible to rule out law + chance.

Who are you to say that ID cannot reasonably rule out law/chance if it is warranted by the evidence? By what authority do you make such a bold insinuation. Who are you to say that the archeologist cannot rule out wind, air, and erosion and conclude that an intelligent agent constructed a spear or wrote something on the inside wall of a cave? Who are you to say that any scientist cannot rule out law/chance if there is a good reason for it?

This is a lie, I’ve never said that of course. I’ve said a hundred times that if you wish to use “contra-causality” as the definition of “intelligence”, that’s perfectly meaningful… but it undermines ID as science.

No, the lie is yours. Each time I refute you, you change your story. You have said that no one, including yourself, knows what ID means by intelligence because no definition has been forthcoming. You have also said that ID assumes, without evidence, intelligence as contra-causality, indicating that you know what ID means by intelligence after all. You just don't want to own up to your own incoherence--and it is profound.

Of course I don’t assume that contra-causality cannot exist. What I’m pointing out is that it is impossible to demonstrate that it does.

You are not pointing something out. You are simply making a claim without warrant. Just because something hasn't been demonstrated to your satisfaction doesn't mean that it hasn't been demonstrated. Anyone can fold his arms and square his jaw in the teeth of overwhelming evidence and say, "I'm not convinced." Its the cheapest tactic in the world. It requires no intellectual exertion whatsoever. StephenB

CLAVDIV

But if you define intelligence as “beyond law/chance” then the ID argument would become a tautology.

No, it is a tautology only if you assume that intelligence exists apart from law/chance and if you assume that intelligence apart from law/chance caused the artifact that is being studied. To define your terms is not to assume that your terms represent the truth. StephenB

But if you define intelligence as “beyond law/chance” then the ID argument would become a tautology.> No, it is a tautology only if you assume that intelligence exists apart from law/chance and if you assume that intelligence apart from law/chance caused the artifact that is being studied. To define your terms is not to assume that your terms represent the truth.

StephenB

Hi CLAVDIVS,

But if you define intelligence as “beyond law/chance” then the ID argument would become a tautology: Biological complexity is not caused by law/chance, therefore it is caused by something beyond law/chance. Obviously this is not what is meant.

That renders the conclusion of the EF as a tautology, yes. The problem I've been focussing on here is that it can't be demonstrated that anything is beyond law+chance; it can only be said that we currently know of no explanation. In other words, nothing can actually pass the first two nodes. ID claims to show that various features do pass these nodes, and that is a non-tautological claim, but you're right, the third node adds no information with that definition for intelligence. When people say (I've seen Dembski say this, and Timmy in this thread) that "intelligence" can be defined as "that which produces CSI", it renders all of ID to be tautological: The CSI in biological systems was caused by that which produces CSI.

What am I missing?

Not a thing! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish ... What's your take on my queries above @ 196? CLAVDIVS

Hi StephenB, You keep making the same mistake. In your view, ID looks at the evidence and arrives at the conclusion that life could not have originated by law, and it could not have originated by chance, and so it is best explained by intelligence, which is neither law nor chance. Then you think I mistakenly claim that ID assumes, at the outset, that intelligence transcends law + chance. You keep trying to tell me that this is not the case; that rather than an a priori commitment to contra-causality, ID actually comes to that conclusion simply by looking at the evidence. But that isn't what I'm saying. You keep ignoring, missing, or misunderstanding what I'm saying, so I'll be as clear as I can possibly be. Just as you say, ID does not assume at the outset that any particular phenomenon - flagella, DNA, physical constants, etc - is the result of neither law nor chance. But what ID does assume at the outset is that it is possible, somehow, to demonstrate that something can not be explained by law + chance. And when ID does actually conclude that something cannot be explained by law + chance, then ID is saying that it has shown, by following the evidence, that contra-causality exists and best explains the phenomenon in question. In other words, in your view, ID is providing empirical evidence that settles the millenia-old philsophical debate regarding contra-causal free will. You think that ID infers that contra-causality exists by looking at evidence. Here is your reasoning: How did life come to exist? There are only two options: law+chance or contra-causality. You can't explain how life came to exist by law+chance... therefore it must be contra-causality. Apparently this is still difficult for you to understand, but it is exactly the problem you ignored regarding the magic trick. Your reasoning is exactly the same as one who says this: How did the magician make the elephant disappear? There are only two options: natural law or magic. You can't explain how he did it with natural law... therefore it must be magic! Get it? Yes, really, your reasoning is precisely that ridiculous.

The varying definitions are contextual and relative to the paradigm being used, as has been explained to you many times.

But some of the definitions contradict each other, and others obviously render ID to be untestable. Just look at vjtorley's definition - that intelligence is something that can explain its choices. How is it that ID claims to show the Designer explains His choices?

RDF: Intelligence means nothing until you provide a definition. SB: It is your position that ID assumes, as a metaphysical conjecture, the fact that intelligence exists in the form of contra-causality.

No, my position is that ID assumes the metaphysical conjecture that it is ever possible to rule out law + chance.

Now you say that you don’t even know what intelligence as contra causality means.

This is a lie, I've never said that of course. I've said a hundred times that if you wish to use "contra-causality" as the definition of "intelligence", that's perfectly meaningful... but it undermines ID as science. I've also said 100 times that "intelligence" is meaningless unless a specific definition is provided.

You assume that intelligent agency cannot be a true cause set apart from law/chance and should not, therefore, be posited at all.

Of course I don't assume that contra-causality cannot exist. What I'm pointing out is that it is impossible to demonstrate that it does. Maybe contra-causality exists, but just because we can't explain OOL etc. that doesn't mean that contra-causality is responsible. Maybe magic really exists. But just because we can't explain the trick doesn't mean it really is magic. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

StephenB

CLAVDIVS: ID argues that biological complexity is beyond law/chance. How do you get from “beyond law/chance” to “intelligent design” i.e. something that has IQ, can make choices, is conscious or whatever. It seems to me the only way to conclude that a cause that is “beyond law/chance” is in fact intelligence is to assume that intelligence itself is beyond law/chance. Is that not correct? STEPHENB: There is a difference between [a] defining intelligence as something the exists beyond law/chance in order to test that proposition against the evidence (ID’s approach) and [b] assuming as fact that such intelligence exist even before the evidence speaks, (RDF’s false characterization of ID’s approach).

But if you define intelligence as "beyond law/chance" then the ID argument would become a tautology: Biological complexity is not caused by law/chance, therefore it is caused by something beyond law/chance. Obviously this is not what is meant. To put it another way, the ID argument that I'm not following seems to be: 1. Biological complexity is caused by something with the property "beyond law/chance" 2. Intelligence (IQ, consciousness, ability to choose etc.) is something with the property "beyond law/chance" 3. Therefore biological complexity is caused by intelligence. There are two problems here in my understanding: - The 2nd premise - intelligence has the property "beyond law/chance - is just assumed - The conclusion doesn't follow ... there may be many things with the property "beyond law/chance" besides intelligence What am I missing? Thanks CLAVDIVS

CLAVDIV:

It seems to me the only way to conclude that a cause that is “beyond law/chance” is in fact intelligence is to assume that intelligence itself is beyond law/chance. Is that not correct?

There is a difference between [a] defining intelligence as something the exists beyond law/chance in order to test that proposition against the evidence (ID's approach) and [b] assuming as fact that such intelligence exist even before the evidence speaks, (RDF's false characterization of ID's approach). StephenB

StephenB

You are confused. ID is positing something other than law/chance. (PLease include that word in your working vocabulary). Even in its conclusion, ID doesn’t declare that intelligence exists apart from law/chance, it reasons that this is the best explanation among the candidates.

Well I sure am confused. ID argues that biological complexity is beyond law/chance. How do you get from "beyond law/chance" to "intelligent design" i.e. something that has IQ, can make choices, is conscious or whatever. It seems to me the only way to conclude that a cause that is "beyond law/chance" is in fact intelligence is to assume that intelligence itself is beyond law/chance. Is that not correct? CLAVDIVS

RDFish

When ID concludes that something other than law + chance must be responsible for life, it is assuming that there is something other than law + chance (rather than some other law + chance explanation that we do not yet understand).

No it isn't. You are confused. ID is positing something other than law/chance. (PLease include that word in your working vocabulary). Even in its conclusion, ID doesn't declare that intelligence exists apart from law/chance, it reasons that this is the best explanation among the candidates.

That is a metaphysical conjecture rather than a scientific conclusion.

Your confusion persists for the reasons stated. SB: Similarly, RDFish says that he doesn’t know what intelligence means in that context except to say that he does know what it means when he accuses ID of assuming it without evidence.

This is pathetic.

It is an accurate account of your position.

Intelligence means nothing until you provide a definition.

It is your position that ID assumes, as a metaphysical conjecture, the fact that intelligence exists in the form of contra-causality. Now you say that you don't even know what intelligence as contra causality means. You are a marvel, and I don't mean that as a compliment.

Here are some of the definitions that have been tried:

The varying definitions are contextual and relative to the paradigm being used, as has been explained to you many times. SB; The process of eliminating competing explanations is not presumed to be final. In the first step, for example, it is a simply matter of saying, “I can’t find any evidence of law-like regularity, so let’s move on.

You’ve already introduced your metaphysics. If you weren’t committed to your libertarianism, you would have instead said “I can’t find any evidence for any explanation. Let’s keep looking.”

No, not if three possible causes have been put on the table to be investigated. The only person assuming something here is you. You assume that intelligent agency cannot be a true cause set apart from law/chance and should not, therefore, be posited at all. Indeed, the intensity of your partisanship is so great that you misrepresent the process and characterize the act of positing as the act presuming something to be true.

HA! You can’t explain what you (or anyone else) means, so you simply declare that it is “readily understood”! That’s a good one!

Intelligence in that context is readily understood by you and everyone else as contra causality, which you declare has been presupposed from the very start, even as you claim that you don't know what it means. RDFish

(Did you notice that vjtorley disagrees with you regarding contra-causlity? And that Dembski disagrees with himself?)

I notice that, as usual, you are misrepresenting what someone said in order to make your pitiful case seem cogent. I hope VJTorley returns to explain to you that he believes that intelligence is a cause set apart from law/chance. Good grief. Will you ever stop trying to deceive your poor readers. StephenB

your = you're Vishnu

RDFish What does it matter. You'll find out when your dead one way or another. Vishnu

Oh, I forgot my favorite definition of "intelligence" of the day, from vjtorley:

Intelligence is the ability to select appropriate means for attaining particular goals, and to give reasons for your selection.

I LOVE that one! Where is the evidence that the Designer of Life is able to give reasons for His selections? I'd love to hear why He made so many different kinds of beetles! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi StephenB,

RDFish says that ID “assumes,” without evidence, the truth of contra causality while, at the same time, not knowing what it means with its assumption.

When ID concludes that something other than law + chance must be responsible for life, it is assuming that there is something other than law + chance (rather than some other law + chance explanation that we do not yet understand). That is a metaphysical conjecture rather than a scientific conclusion.

Similarly, RDFish says that he doesn’t know what intelligence means in that context except to say that he does know what it means when he accuses ID of assuming it without evidence.

This is pathetic. Intelligence means nothing until you provide a definition. You and others in this thread have now provided a number of different definitions. Too bad that each and every one of them fails to enable you to prove the conclusion you seek. Here are some of the definitions that have been tried: Conscious thought That which can choose among options The activity of human brains That which produces CSI Contra-causality Something that can learn (acquire new knowledge) IQ Again, not one of these holds up as a viable definition for an explanation that can be empirically supported as the cause of living things, etc.

The process of eliminating competing explanations is not presumed to be final. In the first step, for example, it is a simply matter of saying, “I can’t find any evidence of law-like regularity, so let’s move on.

You've already introduced your metaphysics. If you weren't committed to your libertarianism, you would have instead said "I can't find any evidence for any explanation. Let's keep looking."

The existence of an intelligent agent (or intelligent agency in general) is not assumed, but its meaning is readily understood.

HA! You can't explain what you (or anyone else) means, so you simply declare that it is "readily understood"! That's a good one! It's clear from all the comical dancing and hand-waving here that the meaning is constantly misunderstood, or rather that no clear meaning is really ever given at all. (Did you notice that vjtorley disagrees with you regarding contra-causlity? And that Dembski disagrees with himself?) Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDF

I understand this dodge – you’ve tried it many times now. If ID never actually concludes that something is explained by something apart from law + chance, then they have not actually based any conclusion on metaphysical speculation. Right.

Wrong. You don't understand and it is not a dodge. ID does conclude something. When ID makes an inference (conclusion) to the best explanation, it does just that. Among the three explanations posited, (none of which are assumed to be true) it finds the third explanation the most plausible. The process of eliminating competing explanations is not presumed to be final. In the first step, for example, it is a simply matter of saying, "I can't find any evidence of law-like regularity, so let's move on. Perhaps I am missing something, and I am taking that possibility into account." The existence of an intelligent agent (or intelligent agency in general) is not assumed, but its meaning is readily understood. StephenB

RDFish

One would think that somebody who believes in ID would be able to say what that single term means. Sadly, if you ask five people what that term is supposed to mean, you will get seven contradictory answers. What a mess!

This is really very funny. RDFish says that ID "assumes," without evidence, the truth of contra causality while, at the same time, not knowing what it means with its assumption. Similarly, RDFish says that he doesn't know what intelligence means in that context except to say that he does know what it means when he accuses ID of assuming it without evidence. Now that's what I call a real mess. StephenB

Hi StephenB, I understand this dodge - you've tried it many times now. If ID never actually concludes that something is explained by something apart from law + chance, then they have not actually based any conclusion on metaphysical speculation. Right. However, ID actually does make those conclusions, so your dodge fails: ID concludes that flagella, the physical constants, and lots of other things are due to something besides law + chance, even though there really is no way to know this. It is pure metaphysical speculation to say that just because we have no current explanation for something, it must be contra-causality. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

I am going to explain this issue in a way that even RDFish can understand it Let’s take it from the top [a] There are three known ways of explaining how an object came to be: Law, Chance, and Agency. (To know an explanation is not to assume that the explanation is true. RDFish does not understand this, presumably because he doesn’t want to) ([b] ID posits these three explanations. To posit something is not to assume that it is true. [c] The scientist then determines which of the three seems most plausible based on the evidence. It’s as simple as that. There is no assumption about the truth of “contra causality.” StephenB

Hi vjtorley! Thanks for your input!

How do you get from the premise: 1. ID proposes that design is independent of law+chance to the conclusion: 2. ID assumes contra-causality? To say that some events are independent of law and chance implies nothing about contra-causality. To say that some events are independent of law and chance implies nothing about the truth of falsity of determinism, either.

First, because most (but of course not all) of the ID folks I talk to (including StephenB here) define it that way. Dembski too has admitted that his view that "intelligence" means "the ability to choose between options" does in fact refer to libertarian free will, and also admits that his construal of ID requries an expanded ontology (dualism of some sort). When Dembski talks about "choice", he is not speaking of determined actions, such as a river choosing a path to the sea (which he would not consider intelligent). Second, simply by definition, if X is offered as an explanation of Y, and X is said to operate outside of physical law, then X is in fact acting contra-causally. If you have some issue with the term "contra-causal", we can instead refer directly to "actions that are neither random nor determined". The claim that any event is neither random nor determined is a metaphysical speculation, not amenable to scientific test.

By the way, since you’re asking for definitions, perhaps you can give me an operational definition of a cause? And while you’re about it, how about a definition of determinism, too?

If you really don't understand what these terms mean in this context, I will educate you. But it seems to me that this is simply a dodge. The term "intelligence" is notoriously difficult to define, as anyone who has any knowledge of philosophy of mind or cogntive science knows very well. The discussion here was in fact started by Denyse O'Leary, who said in the OP:

Denyse: The problem is, no one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence.” Until there is a scientific theory of intelligence (it will not be Darwinian, for sure), we actually do not really know what we are talking about.

So you can play the hyper-skepticism card if you really want to (what is the definition of "is", as poor Mr. Clinton asked), but it will just make it apparent that you (like President Clinton) have no counter-argument.

RDF: And since there are no operationalized definitions provided for “mind” or “intelligence” by ID, we can all see that ID is not a scientific theory. VJT: How about this? Intelligence is the ability to select appropriate means for attaining particular goals, and to give reasons for your selection.

Is that your final answer? That's great, I love it! Now all you need to do is to demonstrate that the Designer of Life is capable of giving reasons for His selections! If you can't (hint: you can't) then obviously there are no evidential grounds for claiming that biological CSI is explained by something intelligent.

I think you need to get your facts straight.

I think you need to get both your facts and your definitions straight. Forget about whether Dembski wants to use his EF or not... what he said was this:

It [the EF] suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not.

StephenB had been arguing exactly the opposite, as this very thread shows in detail. And you seem to be diametrically opposed to StephenB on this issue as well. Intelligent Design Theory offers one single explanatory construct to explain everything from flagella to the relative size of the sun and the moon to the values of the physical constants to the creation of the universe. That sole concept is "intelligence". One would think that somebody who believes in ID would be able to say what that single term means. Sadly, if you ask five people what that term is supposed to mean, you will get seven contradictory answers. What a mess! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi Timmy!

could you bold the section that explains how human brains can produce csi, if not then how is your definition absolute, thanks

You asked for a definition of a human brain, which I supplied. There is no ambiguity about what a human brain is. I've already explained to you that nobody knows how human brains work (I trust you now believe me).

RDF: Now you’ve made ID into a completely vacuous tautology. TIMMY: except for the fact that humans produce csi

Yes, humans produce CSI, but humans did not design life on Earth. Read this carefully: Once you define "intelligence" as "that which produces CSI", ID becomes a vacuous tautology: ID claims that the best explanation for the origin of complex specified information in biological systems is “the ability to produce complex specified information”. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish, You claim that Dembski dispensed with the explanatory filter. Please see the following: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/faq/#wddspef and scroll down to #30. What did Dembski subsequently say about his remark?

In an off-hand comment in a thread on this blog I remarked that I was dispensing with the Explanatory Filter in favor of just going with straight-up specified complexity. On further reflection, I think the Explanatory Filter ranks among the most brilliant inventions of all time (right up there with sliced bread). I’m herewith reinstating it — it will appear, without reservation or hesitation, in all my future work on design detection. [….] I came up with the EF on observing example after example in which people were trying to sift among necessity, chance, and design to come up with the right explanation. The EF is what philosophers of science call a “rational reconstruction” — it takes pre-theoretic ordinary reasoning and attempts to give it logical precision. But what gets you to the design node in the EF is SC (specified complexity). So working with the EF or SC end up being interchangeable. In THE DESIGN OF LIFE (published 2007), I simply go with SC. In UNDERSTANDING INTELLIGENT DESIGN (published 2008), I go back to the EF. I was thinking of just sticking with SC in the future, but with critics crowing about the demise of the EF, I’ll make sure it stays in circulation.

Please also see here: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/reinstating-the-explanatory-filter/ I think you need to get your facts straight. vjtorley

Hi RDFish, You write:

ID does propose that design is independent of law+chance, but it does nothing to provide any evidence that this is the case. Contra-causal (or libertarian) free will may exist, or it may not, but that is a question that has been debated for millenia and there is still no way to determine the answer... I think here is the point you are missing: Libertarianism posits that human thought is neither determined by antecedent physical cause nor is it random. That is why it is sometimes referred to as “contra-causal” free will. In other words, libertarianism posits that thought transcends law + chance. Anyone who describes intelligence as the complement of law + chance is thus defining intelligence as libertarian free will. Dembski's definition of intelligence is typically (but not always) that intelligence is the ability to choose among options. His explanatory filter defines intelligence as the complement of chance and law... Again, he [Dembski] has defined intelligence in terms of the core tenet of metaphysical libertarianism, contra-causality. His entire notion of teleology hinges on the assumption that some things (such as human thought) make choices that are not determined by law + chance... The remaining problem for ID is that this definition states that intelligence is contra-causal (meaning that somehow thought transcends law + chance), and that is a metaphysical conjecture for which there is no evidence. Most philosophers and scientists reject contra-causality.

I'm sorry, but you're not making sense. How do you get from the premise: 1. ID proposes that design is independent of law+chance to the conclusion: 2. ID assumes contra-causality? To say that some events are independent of law and chance implies nothing about contra-causality. To say that some events are independent of law and chance implies nothing about the truth of falsity of determinism, either. By the way, since you're asking for definitions, perhaps you can give me an operational definition of a cause? And while you're about it, how about a definition of determinism, too? You also write:

And since there are no operationalized definitions provided for “mind” or “intelligence” by ID, we can all see that ID is not a scientific theory.

How about this? Intelligence is the ability to select appropriate means for attaining particular goals, and to give reasons for your selection. vjtorley

Fine, we can play that game.

could you bold the section that explains how human brains can produce csi, if not then how is your definition absolute, thanks

Now you’ve made ID into a completely vacuous tautology.

except for the fact that humans produce csi Timmy

Hi Timmy!

what is your absolute definition of the human brain

That's your defense here? I point out that ID fails to provide a definition for "intelligence" - a notoriously ambiguous term, as Denyse pointed out in the OP of this thead - and all you've got is to start questioning the meaning of every word in the dictionary? Fine, we can play that game.

The human brain is the portion of the vertebrate central nervous system enclosed in the human skull and continuous with the spinal cord through the foramen magnum that is composed of neurons and supporting and nutritive structures (as glia) and that integrates sensory information from inside and outside the body in controlling autonomic function (as heartbeat and respiration), in coordinating and directing correlated motor responses, and in the process of learning

There are no issues identifying the human brain, there are no contradicting meanings, no issues with unseen and unobservable qualities or substances, and so on.

a definition, helpful in this context: the ability to produce functionally complex specific information

Great! That certainly is clear. That's about the tenth different definition we've seen so far, but if that's the one you'd like to use in the context of ID, that's perfect! We now have a clear definition for the term "intelligence" in the context of ID, which ID offers to explain the origin of the complex specified information we observe in both human artifacts and biological systems. Whew! That took a long time, but thank you for providing that definition! Let's see what ID theory looks like once we adopt your definition, substituting your definition for the term "intelligence": ID claims that the best explanation for the origin of complex specified information in biological systems is "the ability to produce complex specified information". OOOOoooops. Now you've made ID into a completely vacuous tautology. Whatever produces CSI obviously and by definition has the ability to produce CSI! We can explain everything we see this way! Lightning is caused by that which causes lightning! Planets are caused by that which produces planets! Gee, science is pretty easy when you do it the ID way! Hahahahahaha... Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

If you intend to offer “humans” as a categorical, scientific explanation for various observable phenomena, then obviously the answer is yes [we need to have an absolute definition of what a human is].

what is your absolute definition of the human brain

What exactly do you mean by “mind”?

what is your absolute definition of the human brain

In other words, give me the operational definition of a mind

a definition, helpful in this context: the ability to produce functionally complex specific information Timmy

Prediction: You will never answer any of my questions, because you don’t understand anything. That is from an ass who ignored everything that refutes its spewage. RDFish is a pathetic little imp. Honing our arguments is one thing. Wasting time on an obvious Poe troll is another. Now you are just wasting time. Joe

RDFish is an ignorant troll on an agenda to quote-mine and spew its nonsense. RDFish needs to heed its own advice and give up on science. And UD needs to give up on trying to educate the willfully ignoraant. Joe

Mung,

Please see the posts by kairosfocus.

Funny! His posts actually make yours look cogent. RDFish

You’ve already agreed that humans (i.e., human brains) are a categorical, scientific explanation for various observable phenomena. You’ve also proclaimed that our understanding of the human brain is minimal at best.

Human beings are obviously definable and identifiable, and of course are the explanation for human artifacts. Duh. And nobody knows how brains work - you've finally caught on to that one.

So your objection to a mind-based explanation doesn’t work.

What exactly do you mean by "mind"? How do I test whether something has a "mind" or not? I have something in my room here... just tell me exactly how I can determine if it has a mind or not. (In other words, give me the operational definition of a mind). Prediction: You will never answer any of my questions, because you don't understand anything. RDFish

RDFish writes:

Do we need to have an absolute definition of what a mind is?

If you intend to offer “mind” as a categorical, scientific explanation for various observable phenomena, then obviously the answer is yes.

You've already agreed that humans (i.e., human brains) are a categorical, scientific explanation for various observable phenomena. You've also proclaimed that our understanding of the human brain is minimal at best. So your objection to a mind-based explanation doesn't work. Laugh your way into an actual objection. Timmy

RDFish:

As I just explained, the EF asks people to rule out law + chance, and the assumption that one can rule out law + chance is the assumption of contra-causality.

So much for intelligent causation! RDFish, your position is self-refuting. Please see the posts by kairosfocus. Mung

Hi StephenB,

I find no reason to write long posts at this point when the facts in evidence are on the table. The explanatory filter contains no hidden assumptions about contra causality, and the step by step process is made very clear. It is all question oriented.

You dodge my points because you have no answers. The questions that the EF asks are based on assumptions, namely that law, chance, and intelligence are mutually exclusive, and that it is possible to determine that no possible combination of law + chance - whether these laws are known or unknown - could ever account for the phenomena in question. So, the entire design of the EF is based on the assumption of contra-causality.

RDFish says that the assumptions are right there in that very same step by step process. I know for a fact that they are not there because I have read them word for word. The alleged assumptions are neither stated or implied in those questions.

As I just explained, the EF asks people to rule out law + chance, and the assumption that one can rule out law + chance is the assumption of contra-causality.

RDF claims that they are, indeed, there, but when I ask him to locate them, he simply repeats his claim that they are there. That’s where we are. That’s where we have always been. My challenge persists. Show me where. Provide the citation.

OMG, this is hilarious!!!! It does not get better than this!!! Read and cringe! To respond to your challenge, I dutifully went looking for some official recounting of the EF, and look at what I found:

(1) I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahaha. My stomach hurts. I can't take it. Can you guess who wrote these words? Tick, tock, tick, tock... OK, I'll tell you. It was none other than Bill Dembski himself, on none other than this very site. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/some-thanks-for-professor-olofsson/#comment-299021 DO YOU GET IT, STEPHEN? Back in 2008, Dembski himself made the argument that I have been making to you: One cannot assume that intelligent design transcends law + chance!!!! This is just too funny. So after all your posturing and assuring us that contra-causality is the official meaning for the word "intelligence" in ID theory, we find that the guy who wrote the book completely disagrees with you! I've never encountered a more confused bunch of clowns in my life.

This exchange deserves to be repeated: RDF: If contra-causality does not exist, then the whole point of the Explanatory Filter is to draw an inference to something that does not exist. SB: Now, after all this time, I finally understand your difficulty. You think that because design must exist in order for it to be detected, and indeed it must, it must follow, therefore, that the scientist must assume it exists in order to detect it. No. You are confusing the facts of existence (metaphysics) with the means by which we apprehend them (epistemology).

No, your problem is that you don't see how failing to provide a definition for the word "intelligence" results in all of you ID fans running around and contradicting each other! None of you agree on what the term is supposed mean. Nobody agrees on what ID means. There is no "theory" of ID, Stephen. My advice: Stick to religion, give up on science, be kind and happy, and forget about proving God. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

This exchange deserves to be repeated: RDF: If contra-causality does not exist, then the whole point of the Explanatory Filter is to draw an inference to something that does not exist. SB: Now, after all this time, I finally understand your difficulty. You think that because design must exist in order for it to be detected, and indeed it must, it must follow, therefore, that the scientist must assume it exists in order to detect it. No. You are confusing the facts of existence (metaphysics) with the means by which we apprehend them (epistemology). StephenB

I find no reason to write long posts at this point when the facts in evidence are on the table. The explanatory filter contains no hidden assumptions about contra causality, and the step by step process is made very clear. It is all question oriented. RDFish says that the assumptions are right there in that very same step by step process. I know for a fact that they are not there because I have read them word for word. The alleged assumptions are neither stated or implied in those questions. RDF claims that they are, indeed, there, but when I ask him to locate them, he simply repeats his claim that they are there. That’s where we are. That’s where we have always been. My challenge persists. Show me where. Provide the citation. StephenB

All, Putting aside the fact that Timmy is both petulant and dim, if anyone has mistaken his nonsense for an argument it's probably worth setting that straight:

it is obvious that none of these mental “processes” can be reduced to chance and necessity

Here the argument is that Timmy's position is "obvious", which again is the argument of a child.

Indeed the thinking can be applied to any set of causes and effects. Rubber tracks on a road? An effect caused by a skidding car. Leaves on a forest floor? An effect caused by biology and the changing seasons.

Here, Timmy inadvertently undermines his own position. He is correct that we reason abductively to explain our observations: Termite mound? An effect caused by a termite colony, which we can infer from our experience of termites. Egyptian pyramid? An effect caused by human beings, which we can infer from our experience of human beings. Flagellum? Since evolutionary theory fails, nobody has any experience of anything that could have been responsible for the design of flagella.

Similarly, ID theory simply says, “material structures with these particular characteristics can only be effected by a mind”.

And comically, Timmy fails to define "mind", which makes this statement impossible to evaluate against the evidence. At least Stephen (along with Dembski and Meyer) realizes this problem and provides a specific definition; Timmy still uses the word without saying what it means in the context of ID.

Do we need to have an absolute definition of what a mind is?

If you intend to offer "mind" as a categorical, scientific explanation for various observable phenomena, then obviously the answer is yes.

Of course not, any more than we need an absolute definition of what a solar system is...

Is there any theory that offers "solar system" as a categorical explanation of observable phenomena? No, of course not.

...and what general relativity is

Wrong. General relativity is indeed offered as an explanation for many observable phenomena. It is also defined in exquisite detail, which allows us to test it to see if it is correct.

We also don’t need to have an absolute definition of what a deer is to recognize that deer tracks are only effected by deer.

Wrong. We can define "deer" to any level of detail desired, including the genetically-determined shape of its hooves which leave characteristic imprints.

This is because science works at an operational level.

And since there are no operationalized definitions provided for "mind" or "intelligence" by ID, we can all see that ID is not a scientific theory.

Similarly, the fact that some material structures can only be caused by minds is completely indifferent to whether or not minds are fully determined. So ID theory is true whether we have free will, or whether we don’t.

Here Timmy directly contradicts both Dembski and Stephen. Timmy doesn't realize that without claiming contra-causality, it is not possible to pretend to have a methodology for classifying "intelligent agency" in the abstract.

Just like physics is true whether we have free will, or whether we don’t.

This happens to be true! No scientific theory rests on the truth of metaphysical speculations regarding free will.

RDFish’s attempt to isolate ID from the rest of science (indeed, from the rest of reason) and declare that ID theory uniquely hinges on free will is a fallacy.

The version of ID that rests on contra-causality (e.g. that of StephenB here and Dembski) is not scientific because contra-causality is a metaphysical speculation that cannot be scientifically shown to exist. The version of ID that claims life on Earth was created by extra-terrestrial life-as-we-know-it is scientific, but there is no evidence that alien life has ever existed. The version of ID that offers conscious thought (e.g. that of Stephen Meyer) as an explanation is meaningful, but there is no evidence that conscious thought exists outside of complex physical organisms, a great deal of evidence that consciousness requires an operating brain, and no evidence that consciousness is actually causal rather than perceptual. The version of ID that fails to specify what it means by "intelligence" (Timmy's version) is meaningless. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Stephen, et al.: Putting aside RDFish’s asinine obfuscation, I think it’s worth clarifying in what sense ID theory relies on or implies that determinism is false. In the first place, it is not necessary to reference ID theory to show that determinism is false. We need only consider the mind’s ability for reflective consciousness, for creative philosophy and reason, for design: it is obvious that none of these mental “processes” can be reduced to chance and necessity. The other side has nothing more than infinite promissory determinism to offer in response. In the second place, the main opposition to ID comes from atheists, who are determinists for the same reason that they are atheists: because they reject, a priori, the existence of the supernatural (let alone a creator). Determinism, Darwinism (and dishonesty): these things all go together. In the third place, ID is fundamentally about determining and classifying causes for material structures: specifically, whether a mind can be inferred as the cause of some structures. This is no different from classifying the laws of physics: on the one hand we have thermodynamics, on the other hand we have electromagnetism, on another hand we have statics/dynamics, et cetera: different causes for different phenomena. Indeed the thinking can be applied to any set of causes and effects. Rubber tracks on a road? An effect caused by a skidding car. Leaves on a forest floor? An effect caused by biology and the changing seasons. Similarly, ID theory simply says, “material structures with these particular characteristics can only be effected by a mind”. Do we need to have an absolute definition of what a mind is? Of course not, any more than we need an absolute definition of what a solar system is and what general relativity is to notice that certain celestial objects move and others don’t. We also don’t need to have an absolute definition of what a deer is to recognize that deer tracks are only effected by deer. This is because science works at an operational level. Similarly, the fact that some material structures can only be caused by minds is completely indifferent to whether or not minds are fully determined. So ID theory is true whether we have free will, or whether we don’t. Just like physics is true whether we have free will, or whether we don’t. It certainly is the case that, without free will, there wouldn’t be anyone to study, discover, and reflect upon the laws of physics...and that’s the point. RDFish’s attempt to isolate ID from the rest of science (indeed, from the rest of reason) and declare that ID theory uniquely hinges on free will is a fallacy. If the case is going to be made that ID theory rests on free will being real and determinism being false, then by extension all science and philosophy rests on free will being real and determinism being false. I happen to agree with that. Timmy

kf, thanks for reminding me of that site. Mung

RDFIsh:

All we can ever do is confirm that we cannot explain something presently, using the laws we currently understand; we cannot rule out that any explanation can ever be found consisting of law + chance.

So? Mung

There seem to be two mutually exclusive arguments being made here. 1) Stephen B: "Law, by definition, cannot change its behavior and create novelty. Therefore, something that transcends law/chance must exist in order to create novelty." 2) KF, regarding coin flip patterns that can "not be observed once on the gamut of the observed solar system, even were the solar system dedicated to doing nothing but tossing coins for its lifespan." So something you define as "law and chance" creates something new, something so original that it likely has never appeared, nor ever will, in the lifetime of the universe. Applied to biology, an imperfect replicator (DNA polymerase, a physical thing, and enzyme) makes errors. These errors occur naturally, randomly, at a predictable rate without outside influence. Whola, a novel variant. REC

Debate: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/otherwise.html kairosfocus

PPPS: Where, if in the end that choice reduces to blind chance and/or mechanical necessity perhaps working through computational elements in the brain etc, that in itself undermines the choice. That is, evolutionary materialism is self refuting and subtler forms tend to reduce to it. kairosfocus

PPS: In typing each and every character just above, my fingers moved under neural control of muscles, driven by brain and CNS, but behind that was the conscious choice to compose the text, letter by letter using glyphs for written English. So, intelligence and volition are at the root of the physical causal chain. kairosfocus

RDF: Your dismissive remarks above, on illusionists, are out of order. You know or should full well know, that even that post above is inexplicable on blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, and that blind computation is GIGO limited so is in the end unable to account for reason, knowing and choosing based on the right or duty to the right. That's before you get to the idea of the requisite "brain ware" being written by cumulative blind chance and mechanical necessity on the gamut of our cosmos, when the equivalent of 143 ASCII characters of FSCO/I is beyond the blind search capacity of our observed cosmos. We all -- including you -- know intelligence, indeed conscious contemplative intelligence, is real because we experience it. You know or should know and be willing to acknowledge so foundational a reality. That you strain every nerve to be dismissive to the point of sneering, speaks volumes, and not in your favour. Again. KF kairosfocus

PS: Where also, the case of symbol strings is WLOG as complex entities may be coded [cf. AutoCAD etc). 500 - 1,000 bits of complexity denotes a threshold where we may comfortably infer design. And yes, design implies intelligent designer. Where such are possible as they are ACTUAL. No elaborate a prioris are needed on the ontological nature of intelligence and mind, once we have actual cases. Indeed, on identifying characteristic and credibly reliable signs of design, we may then contemplate from evident cases, what we must be willing to accept about candidate designers. For cell based life, an advanced molecular nanotech lab would be a candidate. But, for a material cosmos that shows extreme, multi-dimensional fine tuning for life, we are looking at an extra-cosmic intelligence of sufficient power to design and effect a cosmos. This puts on the table issues uncomfortable for materialists, but the notions of pulling a cosmos out of non-being (not even a rabbit out of a hat), or speculative quasi-infinite multiverses are fraught with difficulties that should give us pause. kairosfocus

Pardon: Belabouring the patent. What best explains the posts above as instances of coded text exhibiting FSCO/I? Blind chance and or mechanical necessity? No, but design, yes as we routinely experience and observe. Where we know that necessity does not account for contingency under similar starting points, and chance does not credibly search large config spaces beyond the search capacity of solar system or cosmos, reliably hitting on islands of function dependent on complex, specific configuration. But if one is determined not to concede the empirical reality of design by intelligence, then objections will be always found. It is the forced, selectively hyperskeptical nature of the objections that is the give-away sign. KF kairosfocus

Hi Stephen,

Does law explain it? [No assumptions that there is any such thing as a law. One observes regularity and attributes it to his definition of law]

All we can ever do is confirm that we cannot explain something presently, using the laws we currently understand; we cannot rule out that any explanation can ever be found consisting of law + chance.

He waits for the evidence to speak through his method and then he asks himself if the evidence is consistent with his understanding (definition) of these terms.

You are trying to say that if one gets past the first two nodes of the EF, then one has used this methodology to demonstrate contra-causality. But you legitimately can't get past the first two nodes, EVER. You can never say that something cannot be explained by any law + chance. You can only admit that you are not able to explain something, period.

Search out the word “novelty” and contrast it with the meaning of “law.”

Obviously novelty is produced by natural law all the time: Every snowflake is novel. So no, Stephen, claiming that humans produce "novelty" does not begin to support the conjecture of contra-causality. You might now attempt to distinguish CSI from novelty, but you will be simply be back to where you started, simply claiming that CSI can only come from contra-causality without providing any reason to believe it. So the "novelty" thing is a red herring.

Well, of course ID claims that intelligence exists after having concluded that it is, indeed, the best explanation for this or that design.

Here is what you've just argued: 1) ID does not assume contra-causality 2) If we can't explain something, ID assumes that it can't be explained by law + chance 3) After eliminating law + chance, ID concludes that contra-casuality exists So yes, Stephen, in step (2) ID does in fact assume contra-causality exists. Otherwise, step (2) would be this: 2) If we can't explain something, then we can't explain it.

RDF: If contra-causality does not exist, then the whole point of the Explanatory Filter is to draw an inference to something that does not exist. SB: Now, after all this time, I finally understand your difficulty. You think that because design must exist in order for it to be detected, and indeed it must, it must follow, therefore, that the scientist must assume it exists in order to detect it. No. You are confusing the facts of existence (metaphysics) with the means by which we apprehend them (epistemology).

No, Stephen, but I do give you points for imagination and perseverance. The problem is that you think the evidence leads ID to contra-causality. But that's only because you've assumed it at the outset. If you didn't believe in contra-causality, you would never have made the mistake of thinking that just because we can't explain something, that means that there are no aspects of nature that might ever account for it, so it must be contra-causality. If you look at some good magicians on Youtube, you'll see serious comments from people who say things like "I don't know - there really is no physical way that elephant could have disappeared like that. I think it must have really been magic". I also suspect these people would be sympathetic to ID - it really is the same sort of reasoning. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish

Honestly, Stephen, do you not see that if you define “intelligence” as contra-causality, and then you offer “intelligence” as an explanation for life, you actually are making the claim that contra-causality exists? Of course you see that. Right?

With other kinds of investigations, that could easily be the case. A scientist could say, for example, "I know that Plato conceived of three possible causes, Art, Law, and chance. I agree that these three kinds of causes exist and I hope to prove it." He might even have those concepts (definitions) in the back of his mind. But a methodology is different. The explanatory filter, for example, doesn't begin with any assumptions at all, except for the principle of causation. It begins by asking questions. Does law explain it? [No assumptions that there is any such thing as a law. One observes regularity and attributes it to his definition of law] Followed by Does chance explain it? (No assumptions if there is any such thing as chance. One observes randomness etc and attributes it to his definition of chance) Followed by Does design explain it? (No assumption that there is any such thing as design. (One rules out law and chance and attributes the cause to what he has defined as intelligence.) Now, the scientist himself may well assume that all of these things are true and that they exist, but he does not intrude those assumptions in his method. He waits for the evidence to speak through his method and then he asks himself if the evidence is consistent with his understanding (definition) of these terms. The design inference is a process of answering questions. There is neither a definition nor an assumption inherent in that process. There is, however, a definition of intelligence to explain what is meant by an intelligent cause if one should be detected as present and real.

I don’t see how creativity demonstrates contra-causality, and neither does anyone else.

The reason you don't understand it is because you have not even acknowledged the argument that justifies it. Rather than repeat it for the fourth time. I will let you go back and find it. Search out the word "novelty" and contrast it with the meaning of "law."

But if you went on to explain that the hole in the wall was caused by a unicorn, you would in fact be claiming that a horse with a horn does indeed exist. Likewise, when you claim that contra-causality was responsible for something (as the Explanatory Filter does), you are in fact claiming that contra-causality exists.

Well, of course ID claims that intelligence exists after having concluded that it is, indeed, the best explanation for this or that design. First, recall that the filter does not ask "is there design in nature" or "is there chance in nature"? etc. It asks, Can law explain this artifact...etc. It deals with individuals and inferences, not groups and assumptions. It concludes that design exists in nature because [this] artifact was designed. It goes from specific to general, not, as you seem to believe, from general to specific.

That’s intelligent design, Stephen, where “intelligent” means “contra causal”.

Yes, intelligence in ID means intelligence set apart from law/chance. But ID doesn't assume that intelligence is set apart from law chance. The question is, at what point in the process does this conviction (belief) take hold? The answer---at the end.

So you’ve just said it yourself: The whole point of the explanatory filter is draw an inference to contra-causality.

Precisely. Thank you.

If contra-causality does not exist, then the whole point of the Explanatory Filter is to draw an inference to something that does not exist.

Now, after all this time, I finally understand your difficulty. You think that because design must exist in order for it to be detected, and indeed it must, it must follow, therefore, that the scientist must assume it exists in order to detect it. No. You are confusing the facts of existence (metaphysics) with the means by which we apprehend them (epistemology). Cheers! StephenB

RDFish:

You haven’t even touched my argument, Stephen.

You haven't even touched your argument. You avoid it like it has the plague So what should others make of it? Mung

RDFish:

You haven’t even touched my argument, Stephen.

So? Mung

Hi StephenB,

On one hand you insist that intelligence transcends law/chance (that is to say, that intelligence is contra-causal), and that ID is based on that assumption (because that is the definition of “intelligence” that it employs). OK. I’ll play. Show me where I said that ID is based on an assumption that intelligence is contra causal.

Read it again: On one hand you insist that intelligence transcends law/chance (that is to say, that intelligence is contra-causal), and that ID is based on that assumption (because that is the definition of “intelligence” that it employs). Honestly, Stephen, do you not see that if you define "intelligence" as contra-causality, and then you offer "intelligence" as an explanation for life, you actually are making the claim that contra-causality exists? Of course you see that. Right?

I said that it [contra-causality] has been empirically demonstrated by the fact of creativity.

I don't see how creativity demonstrates contra-causality, and neither does anyone else.

A definition is not the same thing as an assumption. I define a unicorn as a horse with horns. That doesn’t mean that I assume that unicorns exist.

But if you went on to explain that the hole in the wall was caused by a unicorn, you would in fact be claiming that a horse with a horn does indeed exist. Likewise, when you claim that contra-causality was responsible for something (as the Explanatory Filter does), you are in fact claiming that contra-causality exists.

The whole point of the explanatory filter is to draw an inference to design...

That's intelligent design, Stephen, where "intelligent" means "contra causal". So you've just said it yourself: The whole point of the explanatory filter is draw an inference to contra-causality. If contra-causality does not exist, then the whole point of the Explanatory Filter is to draw an inference to something that does not exist.

Do you not think that every anti-ID partisan would hesitate to call attention to the fact that Dembski was assuming his conclusion if that was the case.

He's not exactly assuming his conclusion. His conclusion is that one thing or another is "intelligently designed". What he is assuming is that what we call intelligence is accomplished by means outside of law + chance; in other words he is assuming that contra-causality exists. You haven't even touched my argument, Stephen. Once you decided that "intelligence" in the context of ID means "contra-causality", you gave up any pretense that ID could be empirically supported. I know that you know that is true, but you just don't want to admit it. But you really should just admit it. It is so obviously what you believe, you should simply have the courage of your convictions and say that you don't care if your beliefs can be empirically supported or not - you are going to hold them anyway. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

It's not called The Explanatory Filter for nothing. But methinks that will be lost on RDFishy. Mung

Do you think that anti-ID partisans would hesitate to call attention to the fact that Dembski was assuming his conclusion if that was the case? StephenB

RDF

Anyway no, I didn’t coin that term – you just don’t recognize it because you obviously haven’t read very much about philosophy (and what you do read is obviously from Theopedia :-)) You may simply Google the term to see that I am, as always, correct, and that you are, as always, confused.

LOL: I didn't say that you "coined" the word, nor is there anything abstruse about it. So, your attempt at an adhominem argument is misplaced. I said that it was your pet erm for ID's definition of itself. I was alluding to your proclivity to reframe the definitions and statements of those who have already expressed themselves very well in order to misrepresent what they said by substituting your version of what they said for what they really said. Here's the latest example:

On one hand you insist that intelligence transcends law/chance (that is to say, that intelligence is contra-causal), and that ID is based on that assumption (because that is the definition of “intelligence” that it employs).

OK. I'll play. Show me where I said that ID is based on an assumption that intelligence is contra causal.

Please cite the paper for this empirical demonstration, and make sure you let the rest of the scientific and philosophical world know that this problem has at long last been solved!

Where did I say a paper had been written on it? I said that it has been empirically demonstrated by the fact of creativity. Don't you ever read what someone writes without reframing it into something unrecognizable. SB: Your task, therefore, is to show your work. Choose one of those methodologies and demonstrate at which point the assumption that human thought transcends physical causality is injected. Remember, every ID scientist shows all his steps.

Gladly: Dembski employs the Explanatory Filter, which requires one to reject both chance and law before settling on “intelligence”, which in this methodology is defined as something that is neither chance nor law.

Are you cuckoo! A definition is not the same thing as an assumption. I define a unicorn as a horse with horns. That doesn't mean that I assume that unicorns exist. The whole point of the explanatory filter is to draw an inference to design based on the evidence--not to assume design even before the evidence speaks. Do you not think that every anti-ID partisan would hesitate to call attention to the fact that Dembski was assuming his conclusion if that was the case. You are even more clueless than they are, and that is saying something. StephenB

RDFish:

Dembski employs the Explanatory Filter, which requires one to reject both chance and law before settling on “intelligence”, which in this methodology is defined as something that is neither chance nor law.

Does it require one to reject law/chance as explanations, or as causes? Chance is not a cause of anything. So Intelligence is not contra-causal. And here's something to ponder as well. Is law a cause of anything? Mung

Hi StephenB,

Intelligence as set apart from law/chance has been empirically demonstrated by the fact of creative expression.

Please cite the paper for this empirical demonstration, and make sure you let the rest of the scientific and philosophical world know that this problem has at long last been solved! But of course no such demonstration exists, and it is beyond silly to suggest that it has. Contra-causality is nothing but a metaphysical speculation, impossible to demonstrate empirically, and it is quite telling that you don't realize this: You must live in a very cloistered echo-chamber to imagine that anyone believes the matter has been settled in favor of contra-causality.

And of course, we have refuted your claim that no one knows what ID intelligence means.

Of course you have not: You have simply provided one particular definition for the term, which as I've said since the very start is all you need to do to provide meaning. Unfortunately for you, the definition you've picked means that ID clearly rests on the unprovable metaphysical notion of contra-causality. Again: Good News: Now that you've picked one particular definition for "intelligence" in ID theory, your version of ID theory is not meaningless. Bad News: Your version of ID theory rests on a completely speculative metaphysical notion that cannot be empirically demonstrated, which means your version of ID has nothing at all to do with science.

Obviously, you know what it means and even developed your own pet name for it (contra-causaality).

HAHAHAhahaha! You are very funny! Most people call it "libertarianism", but since you decided to use a religious definition of that term, I told you we'd use the term "contra-causal" to be clear what we were talking about. Apparently your memory, or reading comprehension, isn't quite up to par. Anyway no, I didn't coin that term - you just don't recognize it because you obviously haven't read very much about philosophy (and what you do read is obviously from Theopedia :-)) You may simply Google the term to see that I am, as always, correct, and that you are, as always, confused.

Creativity and novelty exist. Law, by definition, cannot change its behavior and create novelty. Therefore, something that transcends law/chance must exist in order to create novelty. The best candidate for that something is intelligence set apart from law/chance. You have no answer to that argument, so you sneer. A sneer is not a counter argument.

I sneer at your combination of arrogance and breathtaking naivete, thinking that you can empirically confirm contra-causal free will. It instantly marks you as a dilettante of most laughable kind.

As I have demonstrated, ID doesn’t impose metaphysical assumptions of that sort and Timmy is correct to emphasize the point. ID makes no assumptions about “contra causality.”

Oh good grief - you have just flip-flopped in the most ridiculous way possible! On one hand you insist that intelligence transcends law/chance (that is to say, that intelligence is contra-causal), and that ID is based on that assumption (because that is the definition of "intelligence" that it employs). In the next paragraph you insist that ID makes no assumption regarding the transcending of law/chance (that is to say, intelligence may not be contra-causal). Do you also believe 2+2=5? I really wish I could find someone who would discuss these points like a reasonable adult. Timmy turned out to be more confused (and even more angry) than you are, which is obviously saying a great deal, since you just directly contradicted yourself in the space of two short paragraphs.

Your thesis is easily tested. Simply inspect the methodology being used. In case you didn’t know, each ID scientist provides a step-by-step account by which he proceeds from his initial observation of data to the point where he makes an inference to design. Or, as they say in the classroom, they “show their work.”

Uh, what thesis is this testing? The thesis that if you use "that which transcends law+chance" as the definition for intelligence for ID, then ID is fully based on the notion of contra-causal free will, and it is merely a rehash of ancient metaphysical arguments that have nothing to do with science? That is my thesis, and I don't see how you are "testing" it.

Your task, therefore, is to show your work. Choose one of those methodologies and demonstrate at which point the assumption that human thought transcends physical causality is injected. Remember, every ID scientist shows all his steps.

Gladly: Dembski employs the Explanatory Filter, which requires one to reject both chance and law before settling on "intelligence", which in this methodology is defined as something that is neither chance nor law.

Of course, you cannot do it.

Of course, I just did.

RDF: So you’ve got one ID supporter saying “intelligence” is conscious thought; another saying consciousness doesn’t matter, rather it’s contra-causality; another saying ID is perfectly compatible with determinism…. it really is quite a mess, you know. SB: Inasmuch as the concept of context is too much for you to comprehend, I will leave you to your confusion.

Hahaha. Translation: You have no rebuttal to this expose of the sorry state of affairs amongst you confused adherents to this incoherent philosophical mess you call "ID". Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

"Law, by definition, cannot change its behavior and create novelty. Therefore, something that transcends law/chance must exist in order to create novelty." You've either invented a new definition for "novelty" (which I would define as the property of being new or original). ID arguments would state that law and chance (say a sufficient number of coin flips) generate a sequence most likely never seen before in the universe, or ever again. Applied to biology, an imperfect replicator makes errors. These errors occur naturally, randomly, at a predictable rate without outside influence. Whola, a novel variant. My other comment is that something has been empirically observed as a cause in one context doesn't make it applicable to all. That a earthquake can scatter objects doesn't make it the exclusive cause of the messiness of my daughter's room. Rodger

Hi RDFish

You’ve decided that “intelligence” in ID theory actually means “contra-causality”, perhaps because you realize that no other definition (conscious awareness, ability to learn, brainpower, and so on) can possibly be empirically supported in ID. Your last stand here is to insist that contra-causality is a scientifically defensible view.

Intelligence as set apart from law/chance has been empirically demonstrated by the fact of creative expression. And of course, we have refuted your claim that no one knows what ID intelligence means. Obviously, you know what it means and even developed your own pet name for it (contra-causaality).

But obviously nobody has any clue as to how we might scientifically demonstrate that contra-causality exists. All you do is wave your hands and say “Gee, it’s just GOT to exist, else how could we be so dang creative?” I think you know that isn’t an argument.

Creativity and novelty exist. Law, by definition, cannot change its behavior and create novelty. Therefore, something that transcends law/chance must exist in order to create novelty. The best candidate for that something is intelligence set apart from law/chance. You have no answer to that argument, so you sneer. A sneer is not a counter argument.

in order to sound scientific, ID has swept these purely metaphysical assumptions under the rug, and even the fanatical ID supporters like Timmy get fooled!

As I have demonstrated, ID doesn’t impose metaphysical assumptions of that sort and Timmy is correct to emphasize the point. ID makes no assumptions about "contra causality." Your thesis is easily tested. Simply inspect the methodology being used. In case you didn't know, each ID scientist provides a step-by-step account by which he proceeds from his initial observation of data to the point where he makes an inference to design. Or, as they say in the classroom, they "show their work." Your task, therefore, is to show your work. Choose one of those methodologies and demonstrate at which point the assumption that human thought transcends physical causality is injected. Remember, every ID scientist shows all his steps Of course, you cannot do it. Nor can you deny that all the steps have been articulated. You are simply blowing smoke.

So you’ve got one ID supporter saying “intelligence” is conscious thought; another saying consciousness doesn’t matter, rather it’s contra-causality; another saying ID is perfectly compatible with determinism…. it really is quite a mess, you know.

Inasmuch as the concept of context is too much for you to comprehend, I will leave you to your confusion.

That’s really all I had to discuss with you here. Thank you for your clarity in conceding that ID Theory rests squarely on the untestable metaphysical speculation that human thought transcends physical causality.

Just add that gross misrepresentation to your list of documented falsehoods. Cheers! StephenB

RDFish,

Well, I tried politeness, but I guess you’re just not ready for a grown-up discussion.

Really? My tone hasn't changed. Why are you getting heated, RDFish--having trouble ignoring empirical arguments? Stop ignoring it, save your blood pressure. Lol.

Reciting the laws of physics and chemistry is not an explanation of Mount Rushmore, Timmy. You don’t seem to realize I was parroting your failed argument about bullet wounds.

Asinine claims are not arguments, RDFish. Prove that the laws of physics and chemistry do not explain Mount Rushmore. Lol.

Ok, so now you’ve told us that “intelligence” also means “brainpower” – which would indicate that anything intelligent must have a powerful brain. Is that your position – that anything intelligent needs a lot of brainpower?

LOL! Grasping at straws, are we? Exercise some of your brainpower, RDFish. "Brainpower" is a synonym for "intelligence", and "intelligence" means "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." Therefore, "brainpower" means "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." Your desperation is making me blush.

Apparently you also think intelligence is defined by IQ, which would mean that anything intelligent would be capable of taking an IQ test.

No, intelligence is not “defined” by IQ, but I would accept, as a scientific matter, that “anything intelligent would be capable of taking an IQ test.”

How do you propose we test to see if the designer of life is capable of acquiring new knowledge, learning new things, and solving novel problems? Ooops, it’s completely impossible, because we have no way of observing the Designer of Life to see if it can learn new things.

Why do you think this makes ID a sham? If you bother trying to explain why, instead of boring us with your asinine claims, it will become clear that has no bearing on ID.

According to Dembski, mental cause must transcend physical cause + chance. This commitment to what Dembski calls an “expanded ontology” (contra-causal dualism) is necessary for ID to distinguish intelligent causes from all others, and it is the basis of Dembski’s famed “explanatory filter”, which explicitly casts “intelligent cause” as the complement of law + chance. So what Dembski means by “intelligence” is utterly at odds with whatever you might mean, since you’ve just said that in your view “intelligence” may well operate completely within the bounds of law + chance.

Sigh. If you bothered to consider the empirical argument, which has been explained to you ad nauseum, you would see that it arrives at a result operationally (that is, scientifically, but not philosophically) indistinguishable from Dembski’s, but by different means. If you understood or even bothered to address it, you would realize that Dembski and Meyer, et al. obviously accept it as valid, because of course is it is the ultimate basis for all ID inquiry.

What we know exists are human minds, not some abstract category of things called “intelligent minds” that come in all sorts of material and non-material varieties. But human minds weren’t responsible for designing human brains, were they now? How did human brains come to exist? You make up a hypothesis about something that can think like a person but doesn’t have a brain… and you want everyone to believe it without a shred of evidence.

You've been provided with the evidence over and over and over again, RDFish. You just keep going in circles pretending you never heard. The cell satisfies the requirements of a designed artifact, just like braille satisifes that requirement. If there was no human mind around to design the cell, then the cell constitutes evidence of some other intelligent mind. You can't turn around and claim that there is no evidence of "some other intelligent mind", when it has just been presented. Well, I mean, you can...but then you can't complain when people declare you to be asinine.

It’s instructive to note that poor Timmy here doesn’t even understand that – he insists that ID is perfectly compatible with hard determinism! Why? Because in order to sound scientific, ID has swept these purely metaphysical assumptions under the rug, and even the fanatical ID supporters like Timmy get fooled!

I know it’s hard for you to understand the difference between an assumption and a deduction and the difference between philosophy and operational empiricism. Given that it is the basis of your argument, that is. You should stop projecting your confusion on us, though. For whatever good it will do: the empirical case for ID makes no assumptions that are incompatible with hard determinism. However, because ID theory is scientifically (empirically) true and because its philosophical implications contradict hard determinism, hard determinism is therefore refuted. I know I’m wasting my time with you, but it’s good for the exercise... Timmy

Hi StephenB, You've decided that "intelligence" in ID theory actually means "contra-causality", perhaps because you realize that no other definition (conscious awareness, ability to learn, brainpower, and so on) can possibly be empirically supported in ID. Your last stand here is to insist that contra-causality is a scientifically defensible view. But obviously nobody has any clue as to how we might scientifically demonstrate that contra-causality exists. All you do is wave your hands and say "Gee, it's just GOT to exist, else how could we be so dang creative?" I think you know that isn't an argument. You have admitted that if contra-causality is false then ID is false. It's instructive to note that poor Timmy here doesn't even understand that - he insists that ID is perfectly compatible with hard determinism! Why? Because in order to sound scientific, ID has swept these purely metaphysical assumptions under the rug, and even the fanatical ID supporters like Timmy get fooled! So you've got one ID supporter saying "intelligence" is conscious thought; another saying consciousness doesn't matter, rather it's contra-causality; another saying ID is perfectly compatible with determinism.... it really is quite a mess, you know. That's really all I had to discuss with you here. Thank you for your clarity in conceding that ID Theory rests squarely on the untestable metaphysical speculation that human thought transcends physical causality. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi Timmy,

So we cannot even expect you to concede the validity of established scientific laws without literally copying and pasting from a textbook?

Reciting the laws of physics and chemistry is not an explanation of Mount Rushmore, Timmy.

Your asininity bores me.

Your tantrums and insults reveal you to be a scared little bully. If your faith was stronger you wouldn't lash out so desperately at those who challenge it. Well, I tried politeness, but I guess you're just not ready for a grown-up discussion.

Also, you really shouldn’t write your posts in this stream-of-consciousness style. Because near the end of your diatribe you declare...

You don't seem to realize I was parroting your failed argument about bullet wounds. Sorry, I'll try not to exceed your comprehension level going forward.

Excuse me while I google “intelligence definition” for you:

Brilliant!

1. the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

Very good! You have now provided a specific property of anything we call "intelligent"! It only took about ten posts to get here, but look... you've done it! Good boy!

synonyms: intellectual capacity, mental capacity, intellect, mind, brain(s), IQ, brainpower, judgement, reasoning, understanding, comprehension

Ok, so now you've told us that "intelligence" also means "brainpower" - which would indicate that anything intelligent must have a powerful brain. Is that your position - that anything intelligent needs a lot of brainpower? Apparently you also think intelligence is defined by IQ, which would mean that anything intelligent would be capable of taking an IQ test. Which one - perhaps Stanford Binet? Could you possibly be more clueless picking these as your definition? Good grief. You also say that "intelligence" means: The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Sure - when we study animals, we distinguish animals with complex behaviors that are rigidly stereotyped and unlearned from those capable of acquiring new knowledge, and call the latter "intelligent". And of course we often test human beings' ability to acquire knowledge (learn), for example by giving them a passage to read and then asking them questions afterward. How do you propose we test to see if the designer of life is capable of acquiring new knowledge, learning new things, and solving novel problems? Ooops, it's completely impossible, because we have no way of observing the Designer of Life to see if it can learn new things. So you see, Timmy, once you actually attempt to say what you mean by "intelligence", you're whole pathetic sham of a "scientific theory of ID" disintegrates.

What other definition does your boorishly suspicious “intelligent mind” (you do have one, right?) imagine we hold? That’s rhetorical, don’t bother answering.

Ah, just more childish insults from a boy who is scared that he's wrong. Anyway, so that is your scientific definition of the thing you believe accounts for life on Earth. Something with a powerful brain and that scored well on an IQ test and is able to learn new things although nobody can say how we might know that it can learn. It's funny, most of you ID folks think this thing is "God", but can God learn? I mean, how can you acquire knowledge if you already know everything? By the definition of 'intelligent' that you provided, it would appear that God is not intelligent at all! That sounds pretty sacreligious to me.

RDF: According to you, even if intelligent entities act fully in accord with natural law + chance, Intelligent Design Theory remains valid. Is that correct? TIMMY: “yes”

Now you have directly contradicted the position of StephenB here, as well as William Dembski. Are you aware that your conception of "intelligent design" directly conflicts with that of William Dembski? And you thought these things were so obvious and perfectly clear? What a stupid mess. According to Dembski, mental cause must transcend physical cause + chance. This commitment to what Dembski calls an "expanded ontology" (contra-causal dualism) is necessary for ID to distinguish intelligent causes from all others, and it is the basis of Dembski's famed "explanatory filter", which explicitly casts "intelligent cause" as the complement of law + chance. So what Dembski means by "intelligence" is utterly at odds with whatever you might mean, since you've just said that in your view "intelligence" may well operate completely within the bounds of law + chance. I know you didn't see that coming, and I know you've just got that feeling that you really are out of your depth here. You will now redouble your efforts to insult me, call me names, pretend I've said things I haven't, and generally lash out as best you can. But it won't help, Timmy. Your thinking on these topics is simple-minded and unsophisticated. Imagining that a dictionary definition will suffice as a scientific theory, not seeing that ID would be completely undermined by determinism (did you not even notice that even StephenB has admitted this on this very page?)... you really just don't know what you're talking about.

ID theorists have gone on to investigate and develop quantitative methods for distinguishing between material organizations of those categories. See “specified complexity”, the explanatory filter, “functionally complex, specified information”, et cetera.

The explanatory filter is what operationally defines "intelligence" as the complement of law + chance, which you deny as being even relevant to Intelligent Design Theory. You are so confused it's actually hard to believe. Do your parents know you post on this site?

Now, it’s reasonable to say that the definition of “intelligent mind” is only a fuzzy, operational definition,...

It is the exact opposite of an operational definition, Timmy. Apparently you have absolutely no idea what an operational definition is. Look it up - if you're capable of understanding what it means you will be embarassed yet again.

... because no one is quite sure what the mind is. For some reason, you seem to think this renders ID theory illegitimate.

Of course it does. Any theory that doesn't know what it is proposing as an explanation is a very, very stupid theory.

But this is silly and indefensible, because no one doubts that “intelligent minds” (whatever they are) are as real as DNA and have real effects, such as category 2 artifacts.

You are deeply confused. What we know exists are human minds, not some abstract category of things called "intelligent minds" that come in all sorts of material and non-material varieties. But human minds weren't responsible for designing human brains, were they now? How did human brains come to exist? You make up a hypothesis about something that can think like a person but doesn't have a brain... and you want everyone to believe it without a shred of evidence. That only works in church, Timmy. I know you're feeling a bit heated right now, so make yourself feel better and call me some more nasty names, and declare that you have been utterly victorious in our debate. Hahahahahaaaaa haha We've concluded our discussion, Timmy. You really just aren't up to it, sorry. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish

No, Stephen, what I claimed was meaningless was not “contra-causality”. Rather, what I claimed was meaningless was “intelligence” –

No, RD, what you claimed was that ID's definition of intelligence, which is intelligence as a cause set apart from law/chance (that which you now call "contra-causality"), is meaningless. Indeed, you insisted that ID has no definition of intelligence. Subsequently, I explained that ID does have a definition of intelligence and everyone knows what this conception means, at which time you misrepresented my comment and falsely claimed that I had said that everyone believes this conception to be true. I further explained that this general definition of intelligence is the same for all ID proponents and scientists, but that the individual paradigmatic definitions differ mildly insofar as they reflect individual methods and approaches for detection. This is all very clear and easy to understand. You sought to make it difficult to understand by introducing irrelevant terms such as libertarianism and contra causality because clear arguments are the enemy of anti-ID partisans. StephenB

RDFish @ 139:

Moreover, your answer is nothing but a declaration of your belief, without a shred of reasoning or evidence behind it. You can say “clearly” and “obviously” and “indisputably” all you’d like, but that doesn’t amount to an argument. [...] Again, what interactions of what physical laws resulted in Mount Everest? You refused to answer this question of mine, as you do all of my questions. If you attempted to respond to what I write, you might just discover that you don’t actually know what you are talking about.

So we cannot even expect you to concede the validity of established scientific laws without literally copying and pasting from a textbook? Your asininity bores me. Also, you really shouldn't write your posts in this stream-of-consciousness style. Because near the end of your diatribe you declare:

And no one would dispute that thunderclouds are fully determined by the laws of physics.

What, you don't demand that I explain the physical laws that result in thunderbolts? I have an idea: instead of writing paragraphs near the top of your post that are rendered idiotic by paragraphs later on, why not spend a few minutes proofreading for the sake of coherency?

Again, you merely declare your belief without argument and without clarifying your terms. What do you mean by “intelligent” in that sentence, Timmy? This really is going nowhere. [...] Intelligence in the context of ID theory means ___________________________. Just fill in the blank!

Excuse me while I google “intelligence definition” for you: 1. the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. "an eminent man of great intelligence" synonyms: intellectual capacity, mental capacity, intellect, mind, brain(s), IQ, brainpower, judgement, reasoning, understanding, comprehension What other definition does your boorishly suspicious “intelligent mind” (you do have one, right?) imagine we hold? That’s rhetorical, don’t bother answering.

According to you, even if intelligent entities act fully in accord with natural law + chance, Intelligent Design Theory remains valid. Is that correct?

What do you mean by “according to you”, RDFish? What do you mean by “intelligence”? What do you mean by “Intelligent Design Theory”? You merely declare your questions without clarifying your terms. This is really going nowhere. End sarcasm. (In case you are still confused: the answer is, "yes".)

Of course, the mind remains irreducible to the laws of physics or chemistry, in stark contrast to essentially all other phenomena.

I must ask if you are conflating irreducibility and causal closure here.

Lol. No, I am saying precisely this:

Now you say that the mind is irreducible to law + chance, which I would agree with given our current knowledge (except there are any number of other phenomena which cannot in practice actually be reduced to physics and chemistry)

Which you have already said previously, several times. Dial down your suspicion.

This makes the distinction between the effects of physics/chemistry (beaches) and the effects of minds (sandcastles) even more necessary.

What you have failed to do, of course, is to characterize this difference. That is the entire crux of my argument, Timmy. You declare that there is a difference, and that it is obvious and indisputable, but you won’t say what the difference is.

I did characterize the difference, in 138, in paragraphs 2 & 3 and 4 & 5. Here it is again, simplified even more: 1. There is a combination of initial conditions and laws of physics that will produce the organization of matter known as [insert natural phenomenon] without an “intelligent mind” as any part of the process. 2. There is a combination of initial conditions and laws of physics that will produce the organization of matter known as [insert human artifact], but only if an “intelligent mind” is part of the process, or if the [artifact] itself is one of the initial conditions. Again, more colloquially: 1. Many organizations of matter can be effected without an “intelligent mind” anywhere in the process. 2. Many organizations of matter can be effected only if an “intelligent mind” is part of the process. This hypothesis is the basis of ID theory. ID theorists have gone on to investigate and develop quantitative methods for distinguishing between material organizations of those categories. See “specified complexity”, the explanatory filter, “functionally complex, specified information”, et cetera. Now, it's reasonable to say that the definition of "intelligent mind" is only a fuzzy, operational definition, because no one is quite sure what the mind is. For some reason, you seem to think this renders ID theory illegitimate. But this is silly and indefensible, because no one doubts that "intelligent minds" (whatever they are) are as real as DNA and have real effects, such as category 2 artifacts.

Nothing but a thundercloud (or a human electrical engineer) produces a lightning bolt… so what? The bolt allows us to unfailingly deduce the existence of a thundercloud. And no one would dispute that thunderclouds are fully determined by the laws of physics. (At least they agree with that now; up until Ben Franklin, religious folks figured lightning bolts were divinely aimed). So what?

So, we can deduce a thundercloud from the lightning bolt, just like we can deduce a gun from the bullet wound. Similarly, we deduce an intelligent mind from an inscription in braille. Come on, RDFish, this is getting boring. How much longer until you’ve figured out that the argument is over and you lost? Make it quick, please... Timmy

Hi Box,

Is the view, that all human behavior is completely determined by natural law + chance, “fully compatible” with any intellectual undertaking?

Yes, of course it is.

If our thoughts are fully determined by blind forces how are we to ascertain the truth?

How are we to ascertain the truth if our thoughts are not fully determined? By reasoning about the available evidence - the same as if our thoughts are fully determined.

If blind forces are in the driving seat, and not “mental” capacities like logic and wisdom, how can we ever produce reliable knowledge – or any knowledge at all?

No, I would say that's a non-sequitur: It is not that determinism would mean logic and wisdom are non-existent or illusory; rather, it would mean that these attributes are determined. There is simply nothing contradictory about a wise, logical mind that also happens to depend fully on a brain that operates according to natural law. Whether that is actually the case or not, nobody knows. And even more to the point, nobody knows the entirety of what we refer to as "natural law".

BTW we may not know what “intelligence” is, but we also don’t know what “energy” or “matter” is.

No, that's not right either. Our physical theories (relativity and quantum theory) define these terms very precisely. The fact that beyond our understanding there lurk mysterious metaphysics do not preclude science from providing specific, objective, testable definitions for these terms. Every physicist in the world agrees on how to detect and measure energy, what it will do in various circumstances, and so on - even if we can't answer ultimate questions about the nature of reality.

This not-knowing didn’t stop scientific research, which seems to be RDF’s proposal, but started it instead.

Nonsense. My proposal is to avoid equivocations in one's theories. Newton wasn't afraid to say what he meant by "gravity", nor was Einstein. ID claims to explain a huge range of phenomena by invoking this single concept - intelligence - but fails to say what that word is supposed to mean. If I ask five different ID proponents what the term is supposed to mean, I may get seven completely different meanings. In the end, what ID folks actually intuitively mean by "intelligence", of course, is "a human-like mind". But unless one says what attributes are like a human and what are not, it's impossible to know what this is supposed to mean. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi Timmy,

The answers you’ve given are indefensible evasions.

If you ever get around to answering any questions yourself, I'm sure I won't like your answers any better than you like mine. I won't, however, accuse you of "evasion". Refusing to answer my questions? Now that's evasive.

IS THERE any combination of initial conditions and laws of physics that will produce the organization of matter known as a thunderstorm given that an “intelligent mind” is not one of the initial conditions? Clearly, obviously, indisputably, yes. Thunderstorms (like all other “nautral” phenomena such as rivers, mountains, snowflakes, and stars) emerge from the interaction of a variety of physical laws, without the intervention of an “intelligent mind”.

First, you have answered your own question, not mine. Moreover, your answer is nothing but a declaration of your belief, without a shred of reasoning or evidence behind it. You can say "clearly" and "obviously" and "indisputably" all you'd like, but that doesn't amount to an argument. Again, what interactions of what physical laws resulted in Mount Everest? You refused to answer this question of mine, as you do all of my questions. If you attempted to respond to what I write, you might just discover that you don't actually know what you are talking about.

IS THERE any combination of initial conditions and laws of physics that will produce the organization of matter known as a braille-inscripted plaque unless an “intelligent mind” (or the plaque itself) is one of the initial conditions? Clearly, obviously, indisputably, no. Braille inscriptions, like all other human artifacts, emerge only from the mechanics of an intelligent mind.

Again, you merely declare your belief without argument and without clarifying your terms. What do you mean by "intelligent" in that sentence, Timmy? This really is going nowhere.

Since you need this spelled out: even if a determinist defines, apriori, everything to be ultimately determined by law + chance, neither answer changes.

In that case, I believe you have answered my first question in the affirmative. To reaffirm my understanding: According to you, even if intelligent entities act fully in accord with natural law + chance, Intelligent Design Theory remains valid. Is that correct?

...ID is perfectly compatible with hard determinism…in precisely the same way that the scientific method and all other pursuits of reason and knowledge are perfectly compatible with hard determinism.

Ok, this is clear then. According to you, ID remains unchanged even under the assumption of hard determinism. Great, thanks for that answer!

Of course, the mind remains irreducible to the laws of physics or chemistry, in stark contrast to essentially all other phenomena.

I must ask if you are conflating irreducibility and causal closure here. The first question - the one I have been asking you - deals with causal closure, meaning whether or not ID requires that mental causes transcend physical law + chance. You appear to have answered in the negative, saying that ID is compatible with hard determinism. Now you say that the mind is irreducible to law + chance, which I would agree with given our current knowledge (except there are any number of other phenomena which cannot in practice actually be reduced to physics and chemistry). Still, I take it that even though you believe that mind is irreducible to law + chance, and even though you believe in contra-causal free will, you insist that Intelligent Design Theory is completely compatible with the idea that contra-causality does not exist. Right?

This makes the distinction between the effects of physics/chemistry (beaches) and the effects of minds (sandcastles) even more necessary.

What you have failed to do, of course, is to characterize this difference. That is the entire crux of my argument, Timmy. You declare that there is a difference, and that it is obvious and indisputable, but you won't say what the difference is. Go ahead, just try it: Intelligence in the context of ID theory means ___________________________. Just fill in the blank!

Another example will cut off your obvious avenue of escape: IS THERE any combination of initial conditions and laws of physics that will produce the organization of matter known as a bullet wound unless a firearm (or the bullet wound itself) is one of the initial conditions? Ignoring the possibility that an intelligent mind could fake a bullet wound without a gun (since of course minds can “explain anything”), the answer is: clearly, obviously, indisputably no. A bullet wound allows us to unfailingly deduce the existence of a firearm. And yet, no one here would dispute that firearms are fully determined by the laws of physics.

Huh? Nothing but a thundercloud (or a human electrical engineer) produces a lightning bolt... so what? The bolt allows us to unfailingly deduce the existence of a thundercloud. And no one would dispute that thunderclouds are fully determined by the laws of physics. (At least they agree with that now; up until Ben Franklin, religious folks figured lightning bolts were divinely aimed). So what? You don't seem to realize that our failure to understand how brains work and how we think does not actually imply that anything but physical law + chance is involved. If the problem was that easy, the mind/body debate would not have lasted thousands of years without resolution.

Like bullet wound, like braille, like DNA. Intelligent minds can be deduced as a necessary condition for functionally complex, specified information…whether they are fully determined or not.

What do you mean when you say "intelligent minds" here? Don't you realize that you've gone on for many long posts now, and steadfastly refused to simply say what you mean by that term? It's hilarious, really. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish, The answers you've given are indefensible evasions. You are just hurting yourself, since the answer to your question is derived from honest answers to my questions. So let's try again. IS THERE any combination of initial conditions and laws of physics that will produce the organization of matter known as a thunderstorm given that an “intelligent mind” is not one of the initial conditions? Clearly, obviously, indisputably, yes. Thunderstorms (like all other "nautral" phenomena such as rivers, mountains, snowflakes, and stars) emerge from the interaction of a variety of physical laws, without the intervention of an "intelligent mind". IS THERE any combination of initial conditions and laws of physics that will produce the organization of matter known as a braille-inscripted plaque unless an “intelligent mind” (or the plaque itself) is one of the initial conditions? Clearly, obviously, indisputably, no. Braille inscriptions, like all other human artifacts, emerge only from the mechanics of an intelligent mind. Since you need this spelled out: even if a determinist defines, apriori, everything to be ultimately determined by law + chance, neither answer changes. Braille is still an effect of the mind. Since ID is the distinction between those two answers (that is, the inference of an intelligent mind), ID is perfectly compatible with hard determinism...in precisely the same way that the scientific method and all other pursuits of reason and knowledge are perfectly compatible with hard determinism. Of course, the mind remains irreducible to the laws of physics or chemistry, in stark contrast to essentially all other phenomena. This makes the distinction between the effects of physics/chemistry (beaches) and the effects of minds (sandcastles) even more necessary. Another example will cut off your obvious avenue of escape: IS THERE any combination of initial conditions and laws of physics that will produce the organization of matter known as a bullet wound unless a firearm (or the bullet wound itself) is one of the initial conditions? Ignoring the possibility that an intelligent mind could fake a bullet wound without a gun (since of course minds can "explain anything"), the answer is: clearly, obviously, indisputably no. A bullet wound allows us to unfailingly deduce the existence of a firearm. And yet, no one here would dispute that firearms are fully determined by the laws of physics. Like bullet wound, like braille, like DNA. Intelligent minds can be deduced as a necessary condition for functionally complex, specified information...whether they are fully determined or not. Timmy

RDF #125: In that case, do you believe Intelligent Design Theory is fully compatible with the view that all human behavior is completely determined by natural law + chance (...)?

Is the view, that all human behavior is completely determined by natural law + chance, "fully compatible" with any intellectual undertaking? If our thoughts are fully determined by blind forces how are we to ascertain the truth? If blind forces are in the driving seat, and not "mental" capacities like logic and wisdom, how can we ever produce reliable knowledge - or any knowledge at all? BTW we may not know what "intelligence" is, but we also don't know what "energy" or "matter" is. This not-knowing didn't stop scientific research, which seems to be RDF's proposal, but started it instead. Box

RDFish:

So at this point, I believe we agree that the term “intelligence” in ID theory actually does refer to contra-causality...

Great. Yet another definition of intelligence to add to the long list of definitions of intelligence, a word with so many meanings that it is meaningless. Why bother? RDFish:

It is very nice for my position to be validated here at UD.

Your position that you do not know what you are talking about when you talk about intelligence? Mung

Hi StephenB,

RDF: From your last posts, it appears that you both agree on the following: ID theory cannot be true unless contra-causal free will exists. SB: ID theory cannot be true unless some agent, personal or impersonal, can perform a creative act that requires a new or novel rearrangement of molecules. Physical laws alone, which are, by definition, deterministic and uncreative, can only what they do and nothing else—they cannot change their behavior and produce novelty. If they could change their behavior, they would not be what they are. Creativity and novelty exists, therefore neither physicalism or determinism can be true.

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying, I think you are saying these two things: 1) Contra-causality exists 2) ID could not be true unless (1) was true Is that right?

RDF: Moreover, it appears that you both understand that contra-causal free will is thought not to exist by many philosophers and scientists, although you believe these philosophers and scientists are deluded, stupid, malicious, dishonest, and so on. SB: [some editorializing about libertines in academia]

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying, I think you are saying this: 1) university academics are immoral libertines with self-serving philosophies 2) many of these academics believe that contra-causality does not exist

Obviously, ID’s conception of imtelligence is not compatible with determinism and obviously you know that to be the case. We have certainly come a long way from your false claim that no one knows what ID means by that term. Obviously, its meaning is crystal clear to you, as it is to everyone else.

No, Stephen, what I claimed was meaningless was not "contra-causality". Rather, what I claimed was meaningless was "intelligence" - unless some particular definition was provided. You have declared that the canonical, standard, core definition of "intelligence" in ID theory is contra-causality, and you have defended the use of other definitions (by Dembski or Meyer) by saying they were employing different paradigms to investigate different aspects of ID. So at this point, I believe we agree that the term "intelligence" in ID theory actually does refer to contra-causality, and therefore if contra-causality was false, ID would be false. Is that correct? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi Timmy,

You answered the question? Oh really?

Yes, I've answered all of your questions directly, Timmy. It is you who has failed to answer mine.

So is a braille plaque necessary according to the laws of physics, or not?

I have answered this question: The answer, in my view, is clearly "we do not know". How could we possibly know if this is true or not? How does one determine if something is necessary or not? Given quantum uncertainty, it could be said that nothing whatsoever is necessary. And this is all besides the open question of whether human thought is contra-causal.

The honest answer you could have given is, “No laws of physics or chemistry that we know of–or even dream of–necessitates the existence of GPS satellites, et cetera.”

Again, no laws of physics or chemistry demonstrates that anything is necessary. What laws of physics or chemistry necessitates the existence of Mount Everest? What is your point here?

What I’m looking for is a defense of your claim that they can be ruled out as an explanation. Or are you abandoning that claim?

I've already told you several times now why I do not believe that evolutionary theory accounts for biological complexity or OOL. I find my reasons to be quite sufficient to justify my position. If you think my reasons are insufficient, then perhaps you can share better reasons for rejecting evolutionary theory. Now, for the third time, please answer these two questions so I can understand what you believe: Do you believe Intelligent Design Theory is fully compatible with the view that all human behavior is completely determined by natural law + chance (even though of course you find this view deluded, stupid, etc)? And that something can be fully determined by natural law (plus chance), while still being “lawfully unnecessary”? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Joe, irony is allowed. Even intellectual dishonesty is allowed. As long as it's done politely. Mung

RDFish, You answered the question? Oh really? So is a braille plaque necessary according to the laws of physics, or not? If so, name the law(s). I repeat: IS THERE any combination of initial conditions and laws of physics that will produce the organization of matter known as a thunderstorm given that an "intelligent mind" is not one of the initial conditions? IS THERE any combination of initial conditions and laws of physics that will produce the organization of matter known as a braille-inscripted plaque unless an "intelligent mind" (or the plaque itself) is one of the initial conditions?

In my view, since we do not understand how brains work nor how we think, nobody can answer this question.

Sigh. The honest answer you could have given is, "No laws of physics or chemistry that we know of--or even dream of--necessitates the existence of GPS satellites, et cetera."

In my view, there is no evidence that known evolutionary mechanisms can produce the types of complex form and function we observe in biological systems

What I'm looking for is a defense of your claim that they can be ruled out as an explanation. Or are you abandoning that claim? Timmy

RDF:

In that case, do you believe Intelligent Design Theory is fully compatible with the view that all human behavior is completely determined by natural law + chance (even though of course you find this view deluded, stupid, etc)? And that something can be fully determined by natural law (plus chance), while still being “lawfully unnecessary”?

Obviously, ID's conception of imtelligence is not compatible with determinism and obviously you know that to be the case. We have certainly come a long way from your false claim that no one knows what ID means by that term. Obviously, its meaning is crystal clear to you, as it is to everyone else. This is point where you sidestep my refutation and try to misrepresent what I said by writing that "StephenB thinks that "everyone believes" it (intelligence is a causal power set apart from law chance) as opposed to "everyone knows what it means," which is what I said. How shameless can one be? Apparently, there is no limit. StephenB

..[.proceed from] that person's mind StephenB

...that should be person's mind. StephenB

Hi RDF, You write,

From your last posts, it appears that you both agree on the following: ID theory cannot be true unless contra-causal free will exists.

ID theory cannot be true unless some agent, personal or impersonal, can perform a creative act that requires a new or novel rearrangement of molecules. Physical laws alone, which are, by definition, deterministic and uncreative, can only what they do and nothing else—they cannot change their behavior and produce novelty. If they could change their behavior, they would not be what they are. Creativity and novelty exists, therefore neither physicalism or determinism can be true.

Moreover, it appears that you both understand that contra-causal free will is thought not to exist by many philosophers and scientists, although you believe these philosophers and scientists are deluded, stupid, malicious, dishonest, and so on.

Philosophers and scientists, like everyone else, tend to embrace a philosophy of life that corresponds to or rationalizes the way they live. A corrupt university system has trained them to believe that truth is relative and morality can be tailored to fit each individual. Accordingly, an immoral or libertine life style promotes skepticism as much as skepticism promotes immorality or a libertine life style. If a man does not conform his behavior to a philosophy of life, he will find a philosophy of life that conforms to his behavior.

Just to be clear, I am using “contra-causal free will” to mean that human minds (and perhaps other minds as well) are immaterial things [things? entities? processes? substances? properties? whatever...] that can causally act on the world, and these actions are not the result of antecedent physical causes. And per Dembski, other sorts of processes (“impersonal telic processes”) may also have this characteristic of being able to initiate actions that are not caused by law plus chance. Do I understand both of you correctly?

Yes, except for one reservation. The immaterial thinking mind and the person who has been invested with that power is not altogether without an antecedent cause since something had to give it that power and cause it to come into existence. On the other hand, the decisions that proceed for the from that persons’ mind are caused by the person and not the antecedent cause that bestowed that power. StephenB

Hi Timmy,

Enlighten us: according to the determinists you defend,...

Sorry, but I have never defended determinism (I do not happen to believe in determinism myself). Where did you get that idea?

...what laws of physics/chemistry necessitate the existence of sandcastles, skyscrapers, and GPS satellites?

In my view, since we do not understand how brains work nor how we think, nobody can answer this question.

Since stars, lightning bolts, and rivers (etc.) are “necessary” according to the laws of physics, surely it follows that all material organizations, such as a tree or a braille plaque, are also “necessary” according to the laws of physics. Right?

I would say that it is not clear that stars (for example) are necessary, rather than being contingent upon certain initial conditions or upon other properties of nature that we do not yet understand. The same of course holds for trees and braille plaques.

And do tell us, if it’s not too much trouble, what your basis is for rejecting the various varieties of Darwinism as non-viable.

In my view, there is no evidence that known evolutionary mechanisms can produce the types of complex form and function we observe in biological systems, even given the entire age of the universe and many billions of habitable planets. Attempts to demonstrate otherwise (e.g. with evolutionary simulation software) have not succeeded. Now I've answered your questions, but you've evaded mine. I repeat: In that case, do you believe Intelligent Design Theory is fully compatible with the view that all human behavior is completely determined by natural law + chance (even though of course you find this view deluded, stupid, etc)? And that something can be fully determined by natural law (plus chance), while still being “lawfully unnecessary”? Cheersm, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish, Enlighten us: according to the determinists you defend, what laws of physics/chemistry necessitate the existence of sandcastles, skyscrapers, and GPS satellites? Since stars, lightning bolts, and rivers (etc.) are "necessary" according to the laws of physics, surely it follows that all material organizations, such as a tree or a braille plaque, are also "necessary" according to the laws of physics. Right? And do tell us, if it's not too much trouble, what your basis is for rejecting the various varieties of Darwinism as non-viable. Timmy

Hi Timmy, In that case, do you believe Intelligent Design Theory is fully compatible with the view that all human behavior is completely determined by natural law + chance (even though of course you find this view deluded, stupid, etc)? And that something can be fully determined by natural law (plus chance), while still being "lawfully unnecessary"? Cheers, RDFish RDFish

From your last posts, it appears that you both agree on the following: ID theory cannot be true unless contra-causal free will exists.

Clearly you did not read my post, because that is exactly the opposite of what I said. ID theory is true regardless of whether "free will" exists or not. All the confusion and ill will you generated by trying to shoehorn philosophy into this discussion--did that not clue you in to the fact that the philosophy of free will is totally independent of ID theory? ID theory is concerned with empirical evidence: material organizations that are both "lawfully unnecessary" and outside the bounds of "chance". Your line of argument cannot even get off the ground without putting the cart before the horse.

Moreover, it appears that you both understand that contra-causal free will is thought not to exist by many philosophers and scientists, although you believe these philosophers and scientists are deluded, stupid, malicious, dishonest, and so on.

Just like Darwinism is thought to be true according to most philosophers and scientists, and we also happen to think they are deluded, dishonest, malicious, etc. I won't even bother asking you again what it is about Darwinism that you object to: as I said, you've lost and you know it.

Do I understand both of you correctly?

Whatever floats your boat. Timmy

Hi Stephen and Timmy, From your last posts, it appears that you both agree on the following: ID theory cannot be true unless contra-causal free will exists. Moreover, it appears that you both understand that contra-causal free will is thought not to exist by many philosophers and scientists, although you believe these philosophers and scientists are deluded, stupid, malicious, dishonest, and so on. Just to be clear, I am using "contra-causal free will" to mean that human minds (and perhaps other minds as well) are immaterial things [things? entities? processes? substances? properties? whatever...] that can causally act on the world, and these actions are not the result of antecedent physical causes. And per Dembski, other sorts of processes ("impersonal telic processes") may also have this characteristic of being able to initiate actions that are not caused by law plus chance. Do I understand both of you correctly? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish writes @ 119:

The remaining problem for ID is that this definition states that intelligence is contra-causal (meaning that somehow thought transcends law + chance), and that is a metaphysical conjecture for which there is no evidence.

Actually, it is an empirical observation backed up by almost unlimited evidence. This has continually been a point of confusion for you. The only reason we are even able to talk about "natural laws" (necessity) is because of uniform empirical observations about how matter behaves. And yet, these same empirical observations reveal billions of man-made artifacts such as books, machines, computers, buildings, et cetera that represent unnecessary organizations of matter which also happen to be wildly outside the bounds of "chance" organization. The cause of these artifacts is intelligent design. This is why we do not take determinism or its friends very seriously. This is why, when you talk about majority views in philosophy, nobody seems to care. This is not about philosophy, it is about empirical evidence. Yes, we know that free-will denialism simply defines every cause to be a subset of law + chance. (That you take this seriously = lol.) But this is totally irrelevant, because we have unlimited empirical evidence of artifacts that do not conform to any known law. So the honest denialist must concede different kinds of laws, indeed a whole class of laws relating to what we perceive as "intelligence" that are totally distinct from the "natural" laws known to physics and chemistry. And that is why you get no respect. Because you have stubbornly refused to recognize that "intelligent design" is still a category distinct from "natural law" and "chance" even under full determinism, even if design is ultimately a subcategory of "law" in general. Thus your whole position disintegrates. Of course there are determinists who do their darndest to confuse the distinction, out of malice. Don't be one of them. Timmy

RDF:

When Meyer makes the point that ID is the best available explanation, his rationale includes the claim that “intelligence” (i.e. contra-causality) is a “known cause” of complex mechanism. But using “contra-causality” as the definition of “intelligence”, Meyer’s rationale is not true, because it is not known that human thought is contra-causal.

I don’t think that this is a raw assumption. It is based on an empirical observation of the phenomenon of creativity, which is one of the hallmarks of design. Creativity really exists and cannot be explained by law/chance. A physical/chemical law can only do what it does and cannot change its behavior so as to do something new or novel. Creativity is novelty. Physical laws are anti-novelty. Perhaps you may want to respond and say that that Mozart’s molecules could have produced his symphonies by law/chance interaction of molecules, and that creativity, as novelty, doesn’t exist. However, I would disagree and say that the fact of creativity, as novelty, is settled science and I am happy to argue on that basis. StephenB

RDFish,

Thanks for the chat, Timmy.

So you figured out where this is going, finally?

If you would like to argue that Darwinism is a viable theory, that would be a different topic, and I have no interest in participating.

Nice dodge. If you ever come up with a valid reason (instead of just tediously restating your opinion over and over and over) to reject Darwinian-style explanations for the OOL, you will discover (as perhaps it just occurred to you) that these explanations can be ruled out, permanently, because they are rejected on the basis of "limiting" laws. You will similarly discover that all "materialistic" explanations are ruled out for the same reasons, since the objections to "Darwinian" explanations apply to all "materialistic" explanations. This leaves us with two facts: 1) Life is real, and demands an explanation. 2) Design can "explain everything", as per one of your earlier evasions. So we are left with design as the only possible explanation. And if life was designed, what was it designed by? A mind, by process of elimination. One might dare to use the term "deduction." You've put up a lot of baseless fuss about that term, now it's time to put up or shut up. If you don't think a mind can be deduced, that means there is some other possible explanation, and if there is some other possible explanation, then that means you must reject precisely the same scientific limits that you would use to reject Darwinian-style explanations. So, why refuse to give any reason for rejecting Darwin, RDFish? It's obvious. Game. Set. Match. Timmy

Hi Stephen,

RDF: It is contra-causality that is at issue here. There is no way to determine if contra-causal free will exists, yet ID authors simply assume it without support SB: There is more at issue that that. You have said that Dembski defined it in terms of libertarian free will. He doesn’t.

When I first said it I emphasized that I meant contra-causal mind. That is also the definition you'll find in Wiki, the dictionary, and so on. If you would like to use the definition you found in Theopedia that adds additional connotations regarding human nature, moral responsibility, and God, that has nothing to do with the point I'm making. If you can't remember that when I speak of libertarian free will in this context I am speaking about contra-causality, then I am happy to use the latter term instead.

No, what was at issue was your original claim that ID’s definition of intelligence is meaningless because it hasn’t been articulated.

Actually that was Denyse's claim, but I heartily agree.

Now, after having been called on it, you admit that it is not meaningless at all.

On the contrary: There is no way of telling what a theory might mean when it offers "intelligence" as an explanation unless a specific definition is provided.

It has been articulated and it means apart from law/chance.

Ok, that is a specific definition. It says nothing about conscious intent, sentience, purpose, problem solving, language use, or any other mental attribute, but if that is the definition of "intelligence" you believe should be used by ID, I'm fine with that. The remaining problem for ID is that this definition states that intelligence is contra-causal (meaning that somehow thought transcends law + chance), and that is a metaphysical conjecture for which there is no evidence. Most philosophers and scientists reject contra-causality. This doesn't mean it is necessarily false, of course, but it certainly means that it is by no means common sense or settled science. Any theory that is based on the assumption of contra-causality needs to first provide evidence that such a thing exists in the first place, and ID does not even acknowledge the need to address the issue. I will be unable to respond further until tomorrow evening. To move the discussion along, I will make a guess as to what your response may be to my point regarding the definition for "intelligence" you've settled on for ID (contra-casuality): You might say that the evidence for contra-causality is ID itself: If contra-causality did not exist, then we could not explain the phenomena ID purports to explain. Perhaps you'll opt for another argument, but if this is in fact your position, I would like to point out it is fallacious: 1) If contra-causality existed, then it could account for biological complexity 2) Biological complexity exists 3) Therefore, contra-causality exists Clearly this commits the error of affirming the consequent. In order to actually support ID, one would have to provide at minimum that any contra-causality existed, even in human thought. Another counter-argument that you may offer is that ID does not deduce the truth of contra-causality, but rather it merely finds that it is the best explanation available. When Meyer makes the point that ID is the best available explanation, his rationale includes the claim that "intelligence" (i.e. contra-causality) is a "known cause" of complex mechanism. But using "contra-causality" as the definition of "intelligence", Meyer's rationale is not true, because it is not known that human thought is contra-causal. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi Timmy,

RDF: For example, I believe we should rule out that Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms can account for the complex biological systems we observe. TIM: Why? And just what do you suppose you mean by “complex biological system”? Ecosystems are complex. Mountains are complex. Almost all material structures that emerge naturally are complex, just by virtue of the fact that they are composed of many atoms. Chance and necessity account for complexity all the time. Define your terms better.

If you would like to argue that Darwinism is a viable theory, that would be a different topic, and I have no interest in participating.

Similarly, you cannot rule out that, some day, we will discover how to build reactionless drives in violation of Newton’s Third Law and then achieve a velocity > c. Future discoveries are totally open ended, no?

No. I've already explained that limitive laws (I listed examples) provide good reason to rule out certain phenomena or explanations. You don't seem receptive to this point. Thanks for the chat, Timmy. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish 113:

For example, I believe we should rule out that Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms can account for the complex biological systems we observe.

Why? And just what do you suppose you mean by "complex biological system"? Ecosystems are complex. Mountains are complex. Almost all material structures that emerge naturally are complex, just by virtue of the fact that they are composed of many atoms. Chance and necessity account for complexity all the time. Define your terms better.

I said we could not rule out that an explanation based on what you’re calling “material causes” could be found some day.

Similarly, you cannot rule out that, some day, we will discover how to build reactionless drives in violation of Newton's Third Law and then achieve a velocity > c. Future discoveries are totally open ended, no? Some day we might discover that the second law of thermodynamics is actually false and therefore the universe could be infinitely old. Some day we might discover that hydrogen really has 3.14159 electrons. Et cetera.

I’m honestly trying to.

Well, keep at it. Timmy

RDFish:

Grow up, Stephen, and debate like an adult, can you?

LoL! Talk about being self-unaware. The irony is hilarious... Joe

RDF (which stands for Recklessly Distributed Falsehoods)

It is contra-causality that is at issue here. There is no way to determine if contra-causal free will exists, yet ID authors simply assume it without support

There is more at issue that that. You have said that Dembski defined it in terms of libertarian free will. He doesn't. SB: Libertarian free will, however, is reserved exclusively for personal, human, conscious beings making free moral choices.

Those associations are made in moral philosophy, but we were not discussing moral theory;

Which is exactly why you should stop dragging the vocabulary of that moral theory into the discussion in order to mislead people. Libertarianism is not in play with Dembski. Personalism is not in play with Dembski.

.the context here was whether thought transcends law + chance. The meaning I was intending was nothing beyond the claim that thought transcends law + chance.

No, what was at issue was your original claim that ID’s definition of intelligence is meaningless because it hasn’t been articulated. Now, after having been called on it, you admit that it is not meaningless at all. It has been articulated and it means apart from law/chance. You just don’t think the definition (when you are not busy injecting libertarianism into it and attributing it to Debmski), which is as clear as a bell, can be justified. That is a totally different argument. I'll deal with that after you agree that it is not meaningless, which was your claim going into this discussion. I know how you like to move the goalposts, but I don't abide by those kinds of distractions.

It is this meaning that is required by ID theory, and it is this meaning that cannot be empirically tested or verified, and it is this meaning that most philosophers deny.

No. The issue is that ID's definition of intelligence is not meaningless, contrary to your original claim. Can't you even remember your own falsehoods?

Libertarian free will means (according to an online definition) “that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.”

That’s right. OUR choices as humans or conscious agents. In other words, personalism--not an impersonal telic process, which Dembski allows for. If he allows for an impersonal telic process by which choices are made, which he does, he cannot be defining intelligence as libertarianism, which is personalism.

And it means from other online definitions

I know what libertarianism means, thank you very much. The issue is that libertarianism is not synonymous with contra-causality, which is the way Dembaki defines intelligence. SB: An impersonal telic process, a possibility Dembski allows for, is not, by definition, a personal, human, conscious being and has no human nature to be constrained. Thus, Dembski has not defined intelligence as libertarian free will.

Again, he has defined intelligence in terms of the core tenet of metaphysical libertarianism, contra-causality.

. Libertariaism is not synonymous with contra-cauality. Try to grasp this point of logic. Libertarianism requires contra-causality; contra-causality does not require libertarianism. They are not identical.

His entire notion of teleology hinges on the assumption that some things (such as human thought) make choices that are not determined by law + chance

That doesn’t mean that libertarianism is in play, at least not with Dembski. Perhaps you are thinking of Meyer. Or, perhaps you are making things up again. Who can know?

Most philosophers and most scientists believe this is not the case, but in any event it clearly isn’t settled science or common knowledge.

Irrelevant to your original objection. The point is that Dembski’s definition of intelligence has been articulated, it is not meaningless, and it is not libertarianism. Now, please acknowledge these lies as lies and apologize for them:

You were very (incredibly) wrong to think that everyone believes that intelligence is the complement of law + chance.

Despite your insistence that EVERYONE believes that intelligence transcends law+chance, most philosophers deny this.

You really are making no sense: You said EVERYONE believes that intelligence is the complement of law+chance.

My point here is that ID presents one particular position regarding philosophy of mind, viz. libertarian dualism, and pretends that this particular metaphysics is settled science (as StephenB said, that everyone, EVERYONE, believes it).

StephenB

Hi Stephen,

Just because libertarian free will and ID have something in common (contra-causality), that single common element does not mean that they are identical or equal. To describe intelligence as the complement to law/chance is NOT to define intelligence as libertarian free will.

It is contra-causality that is at issue here. There is no way to determine if contra-causal free will exists, yet ID authors simply assume it without support.

Libertarian free will, however, is reserved exclusively for personal, human, conscious beings making free moral choices.

Those associations are made in moral philosophy, but we were not discussing moral theory; the context here was whether thought transcends law + chance. The meaning I was intending was nothing beyond the claim that thought transcends law + chance. It is this meaning that is required by ID theory, and it is this meaning that cannot be empirically tested or verified, and it is this meaning that most philosophers deny.

Libertarian free will means (according to an online definition) “that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.”

And it means from other online definitions:

WIKI: Libertarianism is one of the main philosophical positions related to the problems of free will and determinism, which are part of the larger domain of metaphysics.[1] In particular, libertarianism, which is an incompatibilist position,[2][3] argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe and that agents have free will, and that, therefore, determinism is false.[4] MERRIAM WEBSTER: An advocate of the doctrine of free will

... and so on. Again, the central issue here is contra-causality, not "human nature" or God.

An impersonal telic process, a possibility Dembski allows for, is not, by definition, a personal, human, conscious being and has no human nature to be constrained. Thus, Dembski has not defined intelligence as libertarian free will.

Again, he has defined intelligence in terms of the core tenet of metaphysical libertarianism, contra-causality. His entire notion of teleology hinges on the assumption that some things (such as human thought) make choices that are not determined by law + chance. Most philosophers and most scientists believe this is not the case, but in any event it clearly isn't settled science or common knowledge.

RDF just made it up. Now can we deal with the other four lies, which are far more blatant and serious, since they persisted in the face of multiple corrections.

Grow up, Stephen, and debate like an adult, can you? Cheers, RDFish RDFish

Hi Timmy,

RDF: Nobody has any explanation of the origin of life that we can demonstrate to be true by means of scientific evidence. The answer is, to date, simply unknown. TIM: Therefore, you believe that no explanation for the OOL and/or its evolution can be demonstrated to be false. All the various “Darwinian” theories are equally possible, all the various theories of abiogenesis are equally possible, all the varieties of special creation are equally possible.

I can't imagine what you are thinking here. Of course not all theories are equally possible - why would you say that? And why would you say that no explanation can be demonstrated to be false? Of course there are theories that we can demonstrate to be false. I repeat: I believe that we currently have no theory that successfully accounts for OOL or complex biological systems.

After all, since our knowledge of physics is incomplete, no explanation can be ruled out.

Uh, no, this doesn't follow either. I said we could not rule out that an explanation based on what you're calling "material causes" could be found some day. That doesn't at all mean that we can't rule out any explanations now. For example, I believe we should rule out that Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms can account for the complex biological systems we observe.

Right?

Well no, you were wrong on both counts. Read what I say and not what you wish I was saying and this will be a lot easier.

Work with me here.

I'm honestly trying to. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

SB: “Show me where Dembski defines intelligence as libertarian free will. Dembski allows for an impersonal, even immanent design principle in nature, which would not entail free will. You are just making things up again.” RDF

I think here is the point you are missing: Libertarianism posits that human thought is neither determined by antecedent physical cause nor is it random.

Translation: I cannot cite anything from Dembski that would justify my claim, so I am about to go into the RDF shuffle.

That is why it is sometimes referred to as “contra-causal” free will. In other words, libertarianism posits that thought transcends law + chance. Anyone who describes intelligence as the complement of law + chance is thus defining intelligence as libertarian free will.

Here the bobbing and weaving starts and the first attempt at a deception rears its ugly head. Just because libertarian free will and ID have something in common (contra-causality), that single common element does not mean that they are identical or equal. To describe intelligence as the complement to law/chance is NOT to define intelligence as libertarian free will.

Dembski’s definition of intelligence is typically (but not always) that intelligence is the ability to choose among options. His explanatory filter defines intelligence as the complement of chance and law.

This is, indeed, Dembski’s true definition of intelligence. Alas, RDF intrudes on this definition with his own add on (libertarianism) and then attributes the add on to Dembski. In fact, Dembski does NOT equate the power to choose with libertarian free will. In his judgment, the capacity to choose between options could, in principle, reside either in an impersonal telic process or a personal conscious being. Libertarian free will, however, is reserved exclusively for personal, human, conscious beings making free moral choices. In other words, libertarian free will is a stronger claim that mere contra causality because it entails a personal chooser, and Dembski makes it a point not to go that far. Libertarian free will means (according to an online definition) "that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God." An impersonal telic process, a possibility Dembski allows for, is not, by definition, a personal, human, conscious being and has no human nature to be constrained. Thus, Dembski has not defined intelligence as libertarian free will. RDF just made it up. Now can we deal with the other four lies, which are far more blatant and serious, since they persisted in the face of multiple corrections. StephenB

RDFish,

Nobody has any explanation of the origin of life that we can demonstrate to be true by means of scientific evidence. The answer is, to date, simply unknown.

Therefore, you believe that no explanation for the OOL and/or its evolution can be demonstrated to be false. All the various "Darwinian" theories are equally possible, all the various theories of abiogenesis are equally possible, all the varieties of special creation are equally possible. After all, since our knowledge of physics is incomplete, no explanation can be ruled out. Right? Work with me here. Timmy

In for a penny in for a pound! RDFish:

As anyone who reads this thread can see, I have tried to hard to remain polite and earnest in the face of very uncivil responses from you and others.

Many of us here have at one time or another had our fill of "polite" yet intellectually dishonest persons. Mung

Well, I may be a fish out of water here, but ...

1) The term “intelligence” can mean so many different things that unless one specifies what one is referring to, the term has no meaning at all.

Um, no. That's just silly. And illogical. The conclusion does not follow from the premise, How many meanings must a word have before it becomes meaningless? And your "argument" is self-refuting. A term with many meanings can hardly be said to be a word without meaning! Mung

Hi Stephen,

Show me where Dembski defines intelligence as libertarian free will. Dembski allows for an impersonal, even immanent design principle in nature, which would not entail free will. You are just making things up again.

I think here is the point you are missing: Libertarianism posits that human thought is neither determined by antecedent physical cause nor is it random. That is why it is sometimes referred to as "contra-causal" free will. In other words, libertarianism posits that thought transcends law + chance. Anyone who describes intelligence as the complement of law + chance is thus defining intelligence as libertarian free will. Dembski's definition of intelligence is typically (but not always) that intelligence is the ability to choose among options. His explanatory filter defines intelligence as the complement of chance and law. Do you deny that ID requires a libertarian construal of thought? In other words, do you think that ID is equally compatible with a view of mental function that holds that complex designs are the product of physical cause (law + chance) in our brains?

Unrepentant dishonesty makes civil dialogue impossible.

As anyone who reads this thread can see, I have tried to hard to remain polite and earnest in the face of very uncivil respones from you and others. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi Timmy,

RDF: Nobody has any good explanation of the origin of life. TIM: It’s like squeezing blood from a stone, but we’ve finally made some progress!

Progress? I suppose so - if you mean you've finally actually read something I've written.

So, explain yourself.

What I mean is this: Nobody has any explanation of the origin of life that we can demonstrate to be true by means of scientific evidence. The answer is, to date, simply unknown.

Most scientists (and we all know how you love majorities)...

Why do you say I "love" majorities? My point about majorities regarding libertarianism was merely to counter the notion that EVERYONE believes that intelligence is the complement of law + chance.

... endorse the neo-Darwinian explanation as perfectly “good”.

I am not a Darwinist, and even so, there is no such thing as a neo-Darwinian explanation for the origin of life. Darwinism only purports to explain the origin of biological systems once semi-conservative reproduction of living organisms had already originated. Theories regarding the origin of life are called theories of abiogenesis.

Apparently you disagree. What possible reason could you have?

Yes, I do not believe that Darwinian evolution successfully accounts for biological complexity because it is impossible that the complex form and function we observe could arise in the time available by any known evolutionary mechanism. And I do not believe that any current theory of abiogenesis has come close to explaining how self-replicating entities came to exist in the first place.

RDF: So which is it? Do you dare actually debate me, or will you continue this transparent and cowardly retreat? TIM: Such projection.

Apparently you think I am afraid to debate you? That's pretty funny. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish

That you would rather accuse me of “lies” rather than talk about the meaning of the word “intelligence”, or the reliance of ID on libertarianism, or any other substantive issue?

Again, I notice (as does everyone else) that you don't even dispute my report that you lied repeatedly after multiple corrections. Would you care to return to the many scenes of the crimes? How about this lie?

You were very (incredibly) wrong to think that everyone believes that intelligence is the complement of law + chance.

Or this one

Despite your insistence that EVERYONE believes that intelligence transcends law+chance, most philosophers deny this.

Or this one

You really are making no sense: You said EVERYONE believes that intelligence is the complement of law+chance.

Or this one

My point here is that ID presents one particular position regarding philosophy of mind, viz. libertarian dualism, and pretends that this particular metaphysics is settled science (as StephenB said, that everyone, EVERYONE, believes it).

Or this one

u, Another particular definition that Dembski is partial to (and you, at times) is that “intelligence” is our libertarian free will (that is to say, something that transcends law + chance).

Show me where Dembski defines intelligence as libertarian free will. Dembski allows for an impersonal, even immanent design principle in nature, which would not entail free will. You are just making things up again. Unrepentant dishonesty makes civil dialogue impossible. StephenB

RDFish,

Nobody has any good explanation of the origin of life.

It's like squeezing blood from a stone, but we've finally made some progress! So, explain yourself. Most scientists (and we all know how you love majorities) endorse the neo-Darwinian explanation as perfectly "good". Apparently you disagree. What possible reason could you have?

So which is it? Do you dare actually debate me, or will you continue this transparent and cowardly retreat?

Such projection. Timmy

Hi Stephen,

Let me know when you want to discuss your lies. When we get that problem out of the way, we can enter into a civil dialogue, assuming that you can be rehabilitated. Meanwhile, you have disqualified yourself from any such interaction.

Do you think that your evasion of the issues under discussion is somehow unnoticed? That you would rather accuse me of "lies" rather than talk about the meaning of the word "intelligence", or the reliance of ID on libertarianism, or any other substantive issue? It is infrequent that you do not misrepresent each and every point that I make. Sometimes I believe you just fail to understand what I've said (either because I haven't been clear or because you've misread it) and other times you have no good rebuttal to what I've said so you build a strawman instead. Yet I do not stamp my feet and wag my finger and call you a "liar" and refuse to resume the debate, because if I did that it would make me look as stupid as you do now. So which is it? Do you dare actually debate me, or will you continue this transparent and cowardly retreat? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi Timmy, Apparently you had no response to the following points: 1) The lack of limitive laws that would allow science to rule out "material" explanations of thought the way it rules out perpetual motion. 2) The fact that leading ID authors (Stephen Meyer in particular) claim that conscious thought was involved in the creation of life, despite your questioning my justification for saying so. 3) The fact that the complement of law + chance is tantamount to libertarianism, which is a controversial philosophical position, and not a scientific result. Moving on...

TIMMY: …and that many organizations of matter (e.g. life) cannot be explained without reference to design. RDFish: Obviously there is nothing that cannot be explained by reference to “design”, which is why people have historically invoked this catch-all explanation for anything that cannot be explained any other way. TIMMY: Prove that life can be explained without an intelligent mind as the ultimate cause.

Nobody has any good explanation of the origin of life.

Failing that (duh), prove that each of the many and various objections to the no-”intelligent mind” explanation for life can be reasonably ignored.

This is confused. There is no explanation called a "no-intelligent-mind" explantion, of course. There are all sorts of attempts to explain OOL, from known biochemical mechanisms to as-yet-undiscovered self-organizational principles to as-yet-undiscovered alien beings to as-yet-undiscovered immaterial beings... all of these are merely conjectural, and none have empirical support.

You’ll fail that too, of course.

I don't consider this a failing of mine, actually - I am not an OOL researcher :-) It's just one of the questions that we have not (yet) been able to provide an answer to, that's all.

I’m sure you can figure out the implications, for example towards these ridiculous statements of yours:

Calling a statement "ridiculous" is not an argument, Timmy. You actually have to make a counter-argument. Can you at least try? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

SB: I would prefer to discuss your habit of lying and your reasons for doing it. REFish

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahAHAHAHAHAhahaha ha ha aha.

LOL. You don't even dispute the point, which of course you can't. Let me know when you want to discuss your lies. When we get that problem out of the way, we can enter into a civil dialogue, assuming that you can be rehabilitated. Meanwhile, you have disqualified yourself from any such interaction. StephenB

RDFish, Really? Lol. At this point the question is how embarrasing a lie are you willing to tell. Let's find out! Because you boxed yourself in a corner with this ill-conceived dodge:

Me: …and that many organizations of matter (e.g. life) cannot be explained without reference to design.

RDFish: Obviously there is nothing that cannot be explained by reference to “design”, which is why people have historically invoked this catch-all explanation for anything that cannot be explained any other way.

Prove that life can be explained without an intelligent mind as the ultimate cause. Failing that (duh), prove that each of the many and various objections to the no-"intelligent mind" explanation for life can be reasonably ignored. You'll fail that too, of course. I'm sure you can figure out the implications, for example towards these ridiculous statements of yours:

No, it doesn’t [make perfect sense to say, “material causes can’t account for…”], for the reasons I just gave.

ID does propose that design is independent of law+chance, but it does nothing to provide any evidence that this is the case.

Game. Set. Match. Timmy

) The term “intelligence” can mean so many different things that unless one specifies what one is referring to, the term has no meaning at all.

Nonsense. The word "intelligence" has several meanings and educated people can usually figure out which apply given the context.

The term “intelligence” is central to ID theory, since it represents the sole explanatory concept of the theory. It thus behooves ID theorists to specify just what they mean when using this term.

We have. YOU just choose to be willfully ignorant. So RDFish is just a cry-baby who chooses to obfuscate rather than learn. Joe

Hi Andre,

” A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—”catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.”

Ok, here's yet another definition of "intelligence". If ID were to standardize on this particular definition, then all that would be required would be to marshall the evidence that whatever accounts for biological systems did in fact match this particular definition. How, for example, might ID demonstrate the cause of life could read a book? Or that it had a broad and deep capability for comprehending its surroundings? Or that it could "catch on" or "make sense of things"? It could be, for example, that the cause of life could do nothing except produce the complex form and function we observe in biology - rather like a savant - and possess none of these other skills. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi Stephen,

RDF: I predict that you have no responses to any of these points, and that you will try to avoid the debate by complaining about my mendacious, evil, and sinful nature SB: I would prefer to discuss your habit of lying and your reasons for doing it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahAHAHAHAHAhahaha ha ha aha. Here are the points, fatal to the whole ID project, that you have no response to. If you were honest you'd admit it. Instead, you flail and panic and accuse me of being a liar (!) because I have pointed out the flaws in your cherished beliefs. So sad! 1) The term “intelligence” can mean so many different things that unless one specifies what one is referring to, the term has no meaning at all. 2) The term “intelligence” is central to ID theory, since it represents the sole explanatory concept of the theory. It thus behooves ID theorists to specify just what they mean when using this term. 3) However, no standard definition of “intelligence” is given for ID. Thus, without further qualification, the central claims of ID (that “intelligence” is the cause of life, etc) are meaningless. 4) There are any number of specific, meaningful definitions that one might provide for the term “intelligence”. If ID adopted any one of these definitions then ID would no longer be meaningless. However, once ID does adopt any particular definition for “intelligence”, it becomes apparent that there is no evidence that something matching that particular definition actually created life. 5) One particular definition that Meyer is partial to (and you, at times) is that “intelligence” refers to conscious thought. This is certainly a meaningful claim, but we have no evidence that anything besides a living organism could be conscious, and for some reason ID does not engage in any research that could support this claim. 6) Another particular definition that Dembski is partial to (and you, at times) is that “intelligence” is our libertarian free will (that is to say, something that transcends law + chance). This is also a meaningful claim, but we have no evidence that anything, including human beings, operate outside of law + chance. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi RDFish:

Here are some points I’ve made to which I believe you’ve not responded. Can you say which of these points you take issue with, and why?

I would prefer to discuss your habit of lying and your reasons for doing it. Cheers! StephenB

RDFish.... I might help you and I do so gladly, because you typed up the tripe above contradicting yourself in the process. Here is the definition of Intelligence " A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do." Can you do all those? Yes sir you have intelligence but let me make it easier for you..... What is the difference between intelligence and non-intelligence in a nutshell? NON-Intelligence can only encode, intelligence can both encode and decode. I find it absolutely astounding that you are unable to define, categorize or even understand what intelligence is unless of course you are being obtuse on purpose and that my friend is not a very good sign of your integrity as a person. But then again in a world where survival is all there is I guess you don't need integrity do you? Andre

Hi Stephen, Here are some points I've made to which I believe you've not responded. Can you say which of these points you take issue with, and why? I predict that you have no responses to any of these points, and that you will try to avoid the debate by complaining about my mendacious, evil, and sinful nature :-) 1) The term “intelligence” can mean so many different things that unless one specifies what one is referring to, the term has no meaning at all. 2) The term “intelligence” is central to ID theory, since it represents the sole explanatory concept of the theory. It thus behooves ID theorists to specify just what they mean when using this term. 3) However, no standard definition of “intelligence” is given for ID. Thus, without further qualification, the central claims of ID (that “intelligence” is the cause of life, etc) are meaningless. 4) There are any number of specific, meaningful definitions that one might provide for the term “intelligence”. If ID adopted any one of these definitions then ID would no longer be meaningless. However, once ID does adopt any particular definition for “intelligence”, it becomes apparent that there is no evidence that something matching that particular definition actually created life. 5) One particular definition that Meyer is partial to (and you, at times) is that “intelligence” refers to conscious thought. This is certainly a meaningful claim, but we have no evidence that anything besides a living organism could be conscious, and for some reason ID does not engage in any research that could support this claim. 6) Another particular definition that Dembski is partial to (and you, at times) is that “intelligence” is our libertarian free will (that is to say, something that transcends law + chance). This is also a meaningful claim, but we have no evidence that anything, including human beings, operate outside of law + chance. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi RD,

No response to any of this?

Actually, I have already responded to all your points and refuted them. At this point, I would like to discuss your propensity for lying. If you can tell me why you do it, I might find a way to help you break the habit. Cheers! StephenB

Hi CLAVDIVS,

Libertarianism is clearly a minority position.

Thank you so much for those interesting statistics! So much for the notion, so popular here, that EVERYBODY believes design transcends law + chance. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi Timmy,

If I said, “Material causes can account for perpetual motion machines of the second kind,” you would have no problem with that? If I said, “Material causes can account for reactionless propulsion,” you would have no problem with that? If I said, “Material causes can account for the resurrection of Christ,” you would have no problem with that?

I'm afraid your analogies are all backwards. In the examples you give, you present some phenomenon that is thought to be impossible (perpetual motion, reactionless propulsion, human resurrection) and ask if material causes could account for them. However, in the example we were discussing, we start with something that manifestly does exist (human thought and consciousness) but do not understand.

Implicit in the positive laws science has discovered is that many “events” can be ruled impossible by material causes, or impossible period. It is not even slightly necessary to have a perfect understanding of material causes.

Yes, some of the most important laws of science are limitive laws (such as the exclusion principle, the uncertainty principle, and the various conservation laws). We have discovered no limitive law in the area of consciousness or mental function, however. (Some have tried to use Godel's theorem as a limitive law regarding mentality, but this effort hasn't gained much traction in either philosophy or science).

So, it makes perfect sense to say, “material causes can’t account for…”

No, it doesn't, for the reasons I just gave. Perhaps thought and consciousness arises from quantum gravitation the way Roger Penrose imagines, for example.

RDF: Rather, what I think is this: ID proposes that a conscious mind was involved in the creation of life. TIMMY: What possible justification do you have for thinking that?

Because leading ID authors say it (e.g. Stephen Meyer). ID is of course a very big tent, meaning that people with all sorts of contradictory views declare that they are all supporters of the same "theory", ID.

As has been repeated ad nauseum, ID proposes that “design” is category independent to “chance + necessity”,

ID does propose that design is independent of law+chance, but it does nothing to provide any evidence that this is the case. Contra-causal (or libertarian) free will may exist, or it may not, but that is a question that has been debated for millenia and there is still no way to determine the answer. I realize you are heavily invested in believing in libertarianism, and your opinion is that anyone who doesn't is insane, LOL. The fact remains that nobody knows if it is true.

...and that many organizations of matter (e.g. life) cannot be explained without reference to design.

Obviously there is nothing that cannot be explained by reference to "design", which is why people have historically invoked this catch-all explanation for anything that cannot be explained any other way. Certainly IF there was an entity that existed prior to living systems that could think and plan and arrange matter according to its plans THEN we would have a well-supported explanation for life. But that is a big IF, and just assuming that it is true can't be considered a scientific result.

We D E D U C E from this the existence of an immaterial mind. DEDUCE, not propose. INFER, not assume.

No, you assume it as an hypothesis. As I just explained, IF this immaterial mind existed THEN we could explain our observations... but that is only the first step in a scientific investigation. Once we propose an hypothesis that would, if true, account for our observations, we then go about collecting evidence that our hypothesis is in fact true. There is no evidence that ID's hypothesis is true, however, and some reason to believe it could not be true (i.e. that mental functions needed to design seem to require properly functioning brains).

Pay attention: IF IT IS TRUE that design is a separate category and that life cannot be explained without design, THEN IT FOLLOWS INDISUPUTABLY that an immaterial mind exists.

Neither of your premises can be shown to be true. As I've argued above, "design" is only a "separate category" if you believe in libertarianism, which in fact remains nothing but metaphysical speculation. And also as I've argued above, there is no limitive result that would give us good reason to say that no explanation for life can ever be found without invoking a supernatural mind.

RDF: Anyway, we certainly know a lot about the biochemical systems involved in brain operation, and we understand a great deal about the operation of individual brain cells TIMMY: In other words, what I said.

On the contrary: You were under the impression that we understood how brains work, but I pointed out that was not the case. Saying we understand how brains work because we've learned how neurons work is like saying we understand how the internet operates because we know what a transistor is. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi Stephen, 1) The term “intelligence” can mean so many different things that unless one specifies what one is referring to, the term has no meaning at all. 2) The term “intelligence” is central to ID theory, since it represents the sole explanatory concept of the theory. It thus behooves ID theorists to specify just what they mean when using this term. 3) However, no standard definition of “intelligence” is given for ID. Thus, without further qualification, the central claims of ID (that “intelligence” is the cause of life, etc) are meaningless. 4) There are any number of specific, meaningful definitions that one might provide for the term “intelligence”. If ID adopted any one of these definitions then ID would no longer be meaningless. However, once ID does adopt any particular definition for “intelligence”, it becomes apparent that there is no evidence that something matching that particular definition actually created life. 5) One particular definition that Meyer is partial to (and you, at times) is that “intelligence” refers to conscious thought. This is certainly a meaningful claim, but we have no evidence that anything besides a living organism could be conscious, and for some reason ID does not engage in any research that could support this claim. 6) Another particular definition that Dembski is partial to (and you, at times) is that “intelligence” is our libertarian free will (that is to say, something that transcends law + chance). This is also a meaningful claim, but we have no evidence that anything, including human beings, operate outside of law + chance. No response to any of this? You really are getting worse at this as time goes on. In this short time you've racked up all these embarassing errors, and you can't even pretend to respond to any of my points. Oh well. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

FWIW: Here are the results of a survey of over 3500 professional philosophers: Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%. Mind: physicalism 56.5%; non-physicalism 27.1%; other 16.4%. Note compatibilism entails the truth of determinism i.e. every event, including agent choice, is determined by causes such that it could not have turned out any other way. Conversely libertarianism entails the non-truth of determinism. Libertarianism is clearly a minority position. Cheers CLAVDIVS

PS: Where also, the various dodgem proposals will either reduce to raw evo mat, or else be a way to cloud things enough not to see that the contempkative intelligent mind is utterly distinct from the blind GIGO limited computational processes carried out on modified rocks. Cf here the classic bug in early pentiums. PPS: And yes there has been a proliferation of complicated branding from Celeron to i-whatnot and Xeons etc. They are all Pentiums, or 586 family. kairosfocus

Hi RD:

While you seem to think that everybody agrees that intelligence is outside of law + chance, you are mistaken in this regard; libertarianism is actually an unpopular position in modern philosophy.

Inasmuch as I have corrected this blatantly dishonest misrepresentation at least five times, and inasmuch as you have willfully ignored my patient correctives, and inasmuch as you continue to repeat the same lie without even a semblance of a scruple, I will just have to assume that you feel desperate and cannot help yourself. Cheers! StephenB

RDF, I find it observable that (a) I am consciously aware and contemplative but (b) rocks are not . . . inclusive of (c) special semiconductor rocks arranged by intelligent designers to execute algorithms, such as ye olde 6809E or ye latest greatest Pentium quad core whatz it 3+ gHzer? I therefore find a phenomenon that is observable and has consequences in the material world . . . such as the text of this post . . . and which simply does not and cannot fit the matter-energy-space-time, blind chance and mechanical necessity frame so often imposed in our day. I therefore find it significant not to try to reduce the one to the other. Especially as a greatly exceeds the blindv search capacity of the whole observed cosmos ROUTINELY -- again, as with the FSCO/I in this post. Further to this, that entity a is intelligent on reasonable senses of that term. Finally, I find that the evolutionary materialist view, never mind the lab coats, is inherently, inescapably self referentially incoherent, as did Haldane. KF kairosfocus

RDFish,

So more accurately, I’d say that the evidence for some explanatory cause must be observable in our uniform and repeated experience, be it “material” or not.

You say tomato.

It doesn’t make sense to say “material causes can’t account for…”, because that assumes we understand everything about “material causes”

If I said, "Material causes can account for perpetual motion machines of the second kind," you would have no problem with that? If I said, "Material causes can account for reactionless propulsion," you would have no problem with that? If I said, "Material causes can account for the resurrection of Christ," you would have no problem with that? Implicit in the positive laws science has discovered is that many "events" can be ruled impossible by material causes, or impossible period. It is not even slightly necessary to have a perfect understanding of material causes. So, it makes perfect sense to say, "material causes can't account for..." and the rest of your evasive manuever disintegrates.

Rather, what I think is this: ID proposes that a conscious mind was involved in the creation of life.

What possible justification do you have for thinking that? As has been repeated ad nauseum, ID proposes that "design" is category independent to "chance + necessity", and that many organizations of matter (e.g. life) cannot be explained without reference to design. (There are a few other things, but that may be the chief one.) We D E D U C E from this the existence of an immaterial mind. DEDUCE, not propose. INFER, not assume. Pay attention: IF IT IS TRUE that design is a separate category and that life cannot be explained without design, THEN IT FOLLOWS INDISUPUTABLY that an immaterial mind exists. If you want to dispute something, dispute what is actually being claimed, not the inexorable conclusion.

Actually you’re being asinine for saying things like this while I’m trying to have an interesting debate in good faith.

Good faith, sure. You can start by conceding what ID actually is.

Anyway, we certainly know a lot about the biochemical systems involved in brain operation, and we understand a great deal about the operation of individual brain cells

In other words, what I said. Timmy

Hi StephenB,

This is irrelevant to your claim, which is that these philosophers do not know the meaning of what they are rejecting.

No, Stephen. Let's try to listen to each other, shall we? My points are not complicated: 1) The term "intelligence" can mean so many different things that unless one specifies what one is referring to, the term has no meaning at all. 2) The term "intelligence" is central to ID theory, since it represents the sole explanatory concept of the theory. It thus behooves ID theorists to specify just what they mean when using this term. 3) However, no standard definition of "intelligence" is given for ID. Thus, without further qualification, the central claims of ID (that "intelligence" is the cause of life, etc) are meaningless. 4) There are any number of specific, meaningful definitions that one might provide for the term "intelligence". If ID adopted any one of these definitions then ID would no longer be meaningless. However, once ID does adopt any particular definition for "intelligence", it becomes apparent that there is no evidence that something matching that particular definition actually created life. 5) One particular definition that Meyer is partial to (and you, at times) is that "intelligence" refers to conscious thought. This is certainly a meaningful claim, but we have no evidence that anything besides a living organism could be conscious, and for some reason ID does not engage in any research that could support this claim. 6) Another particular definition that Dembski is partial to (and you, at times) is that "intelligence" is our libertarian free will (that is to say, something that transcends law + chance). This is also a meaningful claim, but we have no evidence that anything, including human beings, operate outside of law + chance. 7) While you seem to think that everybody agrees that intelligence is outside of law + chance, you are mistaken in this regard; libertarianism is actually an unpopular position in modern philosophy. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi Timmy,

RDFish: All we observe is the material universe, so only material causes can be considered.

I don't think the label "material" is helpful, because our most basic understanding of the material world (quantum physics) has revealed that matter is not fundamentally "material". Is a quantum waveform "material"? Are any of the fields described by physics "material"? Is quantum entanglement "material"? I wouldn't say so, but we have abundant evidence that these things exist as they are described by modern physics. So more accurately, I'd say that the evidence for some explanatory cause must be observable in our uniform and repeated experience, be it "material" or not.

UD: Material causes can’t account for the design in life, and intelligent design is the only other option.

It doesn't make sense to say "material causes can't account for...", because that assumes we understand everything about "material causes", which is quite obviously not the case. There are aspects of physical reality that are deeply mysterious (e.g. the apparently non-locality and non-realism in quantum physics) and consciousness itself is deeply mysterious. What is true is that we have no explanations for many things (what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for conscious awareness, how/if conscious thought is causal, how complex form and function in biology arose, and so on).

RDFish: GOTCHA! Intelligence requires a brain, the Designer didn’t have a brain and therefore is not a material cause, and therefore can’t be considered.

No, that was not my reasoning - again, I don't think the concept of "materialism" is helpful here. Rather, what I think is this: ID proposes that a conscious mind was involved in the creation of life. As far as we know, however, a brain in good working order is required for conscious thought. This doesn't mean it's impossible for conscious thought to occur absent a brain, but we'd certainly need some evidence that it can before we consider ID's hypothesis to be a scientifically supported result. I don't understand, then, why ID does not join the research that has gone on to substantiate the idea that thought can occur outside the brain. Paranormal psychologists have studied ghosts, out-of-body experiences, and so on - I don't think the evidence is very good, but if more research was done it's possible that such things could be convincingly documented. There was, for example, a recent attempt to verify NDE out-of-body perceptions in hospital operating rooms, but as far as I know those results are thus far negative.

UD: Lol.

LOL is not an argument.

We can simply take for granted that a (supernatural) mind may store and process information.

That's fine, but it obviously isn't science.

We know how animals’ brains work, and that’s because animals behave just as you would expect from something run by nothing more than an advanced computer.

No, neither of these statements are true at all. You don't seem to be familiar with neuroscience. Anyway, we certainly know a lot about the biochemical systems involved in brain operation, and we understand a great deal about the operation of individual brain cells, but nobody understands how ensembles of neurons operate together to accomplish perception, planning, problem solving, and so on - even in very simple organisms.

Similarly, we know how human brains work.

Nope, sorry, nobody understands this. I'd suggest you read an introductory text in cognitive science, or even glance at few references on the net - you'll discover that we don't even fully understand most of the rudimentary aspects of memory and perception, much less higher brain functions.

And it is patently clear that nothing inside the human brain is capable of inventing calculus out of thin air, let alone capable of free will.

This is very confused. First, since we don't know how people do things like invent calculus, and neither do we understand how brains work, nobody is in any position to say any of this is "patently clear" - including that something besides brain function is involved. Many people believe that brain function depends on quantum physical phenomena in ways we don't understand at all, for example.

But rather than admit this, you bore us by declaring that the brain is a mystery. No, the mystery is how the mind interacts with the brain. The brain is an open book.

To say the brain is understood is an incredibly ignorant position. Where is it explained what happens in the brain when we pick a chess move, or recognize a face, or solve a math problem? Moreover, there are very serious problems regarding mind/body interactionism or transmission theory. What functions are supposed to occur in the immaterial mind and which in the brain? Why do specific changes in the brain result in specific changes to our mental perceptions and abilities? When the brain stops functioning properly under anesthesia or injury, why do we lose consciousness? When the brain stops functioning permanently after death, why do you believe consciousness would return? And so on, and so on.

RDFish: I don’t see how determinism is relevant to this discussion. Timmy: Yes you do

No, I don't - none of the topics we've discussed hinges on the truth of (some flavor of) determinism.

you’re just being asinine and stalling for time.

Actually you're being asinine for saying things like this while I'm trying to have an interesting debate in good faith. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Joe: Indeed bias is not phil, and the core vision of phil is comparative difficulties across worldview options, which opens minds. As opposed to ideological power agendas. Oops, there goes that pesky term, minds . . . y'know, that funny little faculty that makes us dream and be different from a nice, comfy blind rock. Horror of horrors, contemplation refuses to reduce to computation. Shock, horror, awe! KF kairosfocus

Tim, thanks. (It's a draft for a course unit in systematic theology, meant to be a show-tell.) I hear your point, and you may want to see here and here, on how I respond to the intellectual and moral breakdown of evolutionary materialism. KF kairosfocus

RDFish

Most philosophers reject that there is anything except for physical process, so no matter what you might mean (it changes moment to moment) by “intelligence”, if you declare that it transcends the physical, you are taking a minority position.

This is irrelevant to your claim, which is that these philosophers do not know the meaning of what they are rejecting.

You said EVERYONE believes that intelligence is the complement of law+chance.

I have corrected you several times on this matter. I said that everyone knows what it means to say that intelligence is the complement of law/chance. It is not, therefore, a meaningless concept, as you keep claiming. I did NOT say that everyone BELIEVES that intelligence is the complement of law/chance. I am past the point of giving you the benefit of the doubt on this willful misrepresentation. Please do not do it again or I will start calling things by their right name.

Again, IF you define “intelligence” as “agency set apart from law+chance”, then of course “secularists” (by your meaning) will understand that you are positing something they do not believe exists.

Yes, which means that the concept of intelligence as agency set apart from law/chance is not meaningless, as you claim. One cannot reject an idea that is not understood. This is exactly the way ID (Meyer, Dembski, and everyone else) conceives of intelligence. The only varying factor is the element of consciousnsess, which is irrelevant to Dembski's specific paradigm and essential for Meyer's specific paradigm.

Anyway, it is really your insistence that one theory (“Intelligent Design Theory”) can have any number of different meanings to different people, and needn’t actually be defined at all, that is most problematic.

Intelligence has one general meaning (agency set apart from law/chance), which applies to all ID proponents, and more than one specific meaning with respect to which aspect of intelligence is being studied through any individual paradigm (as in [a] "a selection between alternatives or [b]"a conscious choosing between alternatives." ID must be open to both impersonalism an personalism. Demski studies the former aspect; Meyer studies the latter. Specifically, the definition of impersonal intelligence cannot be identical to the definition of impersonal intelligence. Generally, the definition of intelligence as agency set apart from law/chance is identical to both paradigms. Perhaps the point is too subtle for you to comprehend. StephenB

KF: Good link. Although Christians need to stop casting pearls before swine. No objection to Christianity deserves to be considered unless it is made by one who acknowledges that the existence of some supermaterial, creating Mind is inescapably deduced by science. Timmy

Kairosfocus- Personal bias is not philosophy and philosophy is not science- Heck you know that as well as I do. And you also understand that RDFish is totally out to lunch Joe

PS: Cf recent OP here. kairosfocus

Tim, too many today are logic challenged, indeed. The cosmos exhibits massive fine tuning, and is evidently contingent. It points beyond itself to intelligence, and to intelligence not of matter as we observe it. Our own experience as conscious minded creatures points to the sharp distinction between the computational and the contemplative. (Cf discussion here on.) This, too is locked out or treated as a big problem no-one has a solution to so why sweat it. The key thing to me is to look at Smith's 2 tier controller cybernetic model -- cf the linked -- and then to add Bartlett's reminder of oracles and computers, and how hey transform computational systems. A higher order oracle that transforms the lower order computing device is an interesting perspective indeed. KF kairosfocus

Joe: a great many philosophers today are some species or other of naturalist. Most are too sophisticated to be outright blatant materialists. Problem is, the various nuances usually break down under challenge. Many who dabble in brains, minds, intelligence and so forth are influenced, and the resulting cloud of errors under a fog bank would be amusing if it were not so sad. Here, we have RDF using intelligence to dispute its factual reality by playing definitionitis games. And, the notion that one can lock intelligence down to brains begs big questions on the roots of reality. But then, silly games and laughing those who raise a different view off the stage have been going on since the stoics and epicureans in Athens dismissed Paul as a spermologos then tried to entertain themselves intellectually at his expense. Ever since his opening remark on how the monument to ignorance on the root of reality, God, exposes the fatal foundational crack, speculative schemes that fail to reckon adequately with the root of reality have been irretrievably bankrupt. KF kairosfocus

RDFish,

Of course it could be that other things besides complex organisms with complex information storage/processing mechanisms similar to human brains might exist and have mental abilities similar to ours. If there were, then it would support the hypothesis that such a thing might have been involved in the creation of biological systems. Until we can observe such a thing, however, it remains a hypothesis without evidence.

And we're back to the ever-so-tedious question begging. Yes, RDFish, I understand that you are being very careful to dance around the following argument as much as possible, but you carrying water for those who make it outright. So let's cut the BS. RDFish: All we observe is the material universe, so only material causes can be considered. UD: Material causes can't account for the design in life, and intelligent design is the only other option. RDFish: GOTCHA! Intelligence requires a brain, the Designer didn't have a brain and therefore is not a material cause, and therefore can't be considered. UD: Lol. Until you decide to admit that there are no material causes up to the task of designing life, and therefore intelligent design is the only option on the table, and therefore that minds can exist without brains, and therefore that materialism and determinism are wrong, you are just wasting everyone's time.

Moreover, we can’t even guess how something that did not have a complex organ to store and process information might be able to think at all.

Lol. Actually, what we really can't even guess is how a material brain could invent novel designs (or have free will, obviously). We can simply take for granted that a (supernatural) mind may store and process information.

Or perhaps you are talking about the argument from design. We’ll just have to disagree about that: It is clear to me that positing a “brain-lacking intelligent mind” remains just a hypothesis lacking scientific evidence.

Get back to us once you figure out the difference between a hypothesis and a deduction.

Hahahaha, that’s pretty funny. What we can say empirically is that nobody knows how brains work, and nobody knows how we think, but it’s pretty clear that we can’t think without our brains.

Nobody knows how brains work? Lol. The only reason you can make such a ridiculous, self-serving assertion is because you attribute the workings of the immaterial mind to the brain. We know how animals' brains work, and that's because animals behave just as you would expect from something run by nothing more than an advanced computer. Nothing magical going on. Similarly, we know how human brains work. And it is patently clear that nothing inside the human brain is capable of inventing calculus out of thin air, let alone capable of free will. But rather than admit this, you bore us by declaring that the brain is a mystery. No, the mystery is how the mind interacts with the brain. The brain is an open book.

We agree that whatever designed life couldn’t have had a brain. We disagree that this constitutes evidence for something brainless with human-like mentality (including conscious experience). Again, calling opposing philosophical views “mad” is not a good argument.

You can't argue with mad people, for example, people who concede that life was designed--and even that whatever designed it couldn't have had a brain--but refuse to admit the obvious and inescapable conclusion that design in life therefore constitutes evidence of a brainless mind.

We disagree. I am not a physicalist myself, but I do understand the issues well enough to know that there are very sophisticated and reasonable arguments for all sorts of different solutions to the mind/body problem. You seem unaware of this.

Yet you can't understand the only issue that matters: none of your precious alternative solutions can stand except on a material-causes-only explanation for life's design. And there are no reasonable arguments for that.

I don’t see how determinism is relevant to this discussion.

Yes you do, you're just being asinine and stalling for time. Timmy

Why doesn't anyone else make RDFish reference his BS?

Most philosophers reject that there is anything except for physical processes...

No reference provided, ever. And we know RDF's word is no good. Also philosophers aren't scientists and scientists can't even provided any evidence for that BS claim. Look RDFish is obviously a willfully ignorant ass troll who couldn't support his claims in an open forum in which it has to respond to all its critics. Joe

Hi Timmy,

RDF: It does, however, make it obvious that whatever goes on when we think, it has a great deal to do with the brain. TIMMY: When humans think.

No, other animals also use their brains to think.

It has nothing to do with intelligence in general or conciousness in general or minds in general.

Humans and other animals are the only things we know of with mental abilities, so everything we know about thinking comes from organisms that critically require brain function in order to learn, solve problems, design things, and so on. We have no observations in our repeated and uniform experience of anything that can perform these functions without a brain. Moreover, we can't even guess how something that did not have a complex organ to store and process information might be able to think at all. Of course it could be that other things besides complex organisms with complex information storage/processing mechanisms similar to human brains might exist and have mental abilities similar to ours. If there were, then it would support the hypothesis that such a thing might have been involved in the creation of biological systems. Until we can observe such a thing, however, it remains a hypothesis without evidence.

It is not true by definition, since we have excellent reasons to believe that a brain-lacking intelligent mind (or minds) exists.

What reasons are you referring to? Ghosts and poltergeists? NDEs? Or perhaps you are talking about the argument from design. We'll just have to disagree about that: It is clear to me that positing a "brain-lacking intelligent mind" remains just a hypothesis lacking scientific evidence.

Humans are the only empirically known entities with intelligence or minds, and the two happen to be entangled with our brains.

That's like saying our ability to see just happens to be "entangled" with our eyes.

Yet lots of animals have brains substantively like ours, yet lack our intelligence.

But they are able to do all sorts of things we often call "intelligent" - learn, solve novel problems, communicate, and so on. They do these things by using their brains.

The most you can say, empirically, is that human brains are magical.

Hahahaha, that's pretty funny. What we can say empirically is that nobody knows how brains work, and nobody knows how we think, but it's pretty clear that we can't think without our brains.

All design in life amounts to evidence of a brain-independent intelligent mind, because science says design is real (philosophy where it disagrees, is madness) and whatever ultimately designed life couldn’t have had a brain.

We agree that whatever designed life couldn't have had a brain. We disagree that this constitutes evidence for something brainless with human-like mentality (including conscious experience). Again, calling opposing philosophical views "mad" is not a good argument.

RDF: My point here is that ID presents one particular position regarding philosophy of mind, viz. libertarian dualism and pretends that this particular metaphysics is settled science TIMMY: Because it is.

We disagree. I am not a physicalist myself, but I do understand the issues well enough to know that there are very sophisticated and reasonable arguments for all sorts of different solutions to the mind/body problem. You seem unaware of this.

At the end of the day, the determinists and reductionists only have their indefensible opinions.

You are lumping a lot of "isms" together that are actually orthogonal: They are largely independent questions in metaphysics and epistemology.

It’s not an argument, it’s a statement of fact,...

Declaring something is a fact is not a good argument either.

...backed up by arguments that I do not need to waste my time making.

People who spend a lot of time saying they don't have time to explain their arguments seem suspiciously like people who can't actually explain their arguments.

Considering the way the world is, determinism is insane.

I don't see how determinism is relevant to this discussion. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi StephenB,

If most philosophers think that agency is nothing but a physical process, and if they reject intelligence as a complement to that physical process, then they obviously know what is meant by that definition of intelligence when they reject it.

Most philosophers reject that there is anything except for physical process, so no matter what you might mean (it changes moment to moment) by "intelligence", if you declare that it transcends the physical, you are taking a minority position. There's certainly nothing wrong with minority positions, of course - it's only when you mistake them for settled science that you look ridiculous.

It is not my contention that most philosophers believe that agency transcends physical law. My contention is that they know what agency means in that context and reject it on those terms. Thus, your claim that they don’t know what intelligence means in that context is false.

You really are making no sense: You said EVERYONE believes that intelligence is the complement of law+chance. I pointed out that you were mistaken. IF you define "intelligence" as "that which transcends law+chance", then most philosophers will be bound to say "In that case, we do not believe in what you are calling 'intelligence'". If however you say that "intelligence" is conscious thought, then, well, everyone does believe that exists (although most neuroscientists believe consciousness is perceptual rather than causal).

[a] ID = agency set apart from law, chance.

In that case, ID is the same as libertarianism. (Again, Dembski does admit this).

[b] Secularism = agency subsumed into law/chance.

I find that a very ideosyncratic definition for the word "secularism", which usually means "separate from religion". But if that is how you'd like to define the term, that's fine with me.

Secularists reject [a] and they understand what they are rejecting.

Again, IF you define "intelligence" as "agency set apart from law+chance", then of course "secularists" (by your meaning) will understand that you are positing something they do not believe exists. Anyway, it is really your insistence that one theory ("Intelligent Design Theory") can have any number of different meanings to different people, and needn't actually be defined at all, that is most problematic. It seems pretty clear that if you leave ID's sole explanatory construct undefined (or having arbitrarily many distinct definitions), then ID isn't a theory at all. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

SB: "Everyone, including Darwinists, knows what it means to posit intelligence as a counterpoise to law/chance. Everyone." RDFish

My point here is that ID presents one particular position regarding philosophy of mind, viz. libertarian dualism, and pretends that this particular metaphysics is settled science (as StephenB said, that everyone, EVERYONE, believes it).

Notice how RDFish misrepresents what I said (Everyone knows what intelligence set apart from law/chance means) and transforms it into (Everyone believes that intelligence is set apart from law/chance). Read my quote and then read what he makes of it. Unbelievable! I have only one question. Is this gross misrepresentation a function of dishonesty or sloppy thinking. I really want to know. StephenB

It does, however, make it obvious that whatever goes on when we think, it has a great deal to do with the brain.

When humans think. It has nothing to do with intelligence in general or conciousness in general or minds in general.

In contrast, saying “intelligence has a great deal to do with the brain” is not simply true by definition; it is a fact that has been established by empirical observation.

It is not true by definition, since we have excellent reasons to believe that a brain-lacking intelligent mind (or minds) exists. In fact that is precisely the point. Saying it's been established "empiricially" is at best a truism and at worst wrong. Humans are the only empirically known entities with intelligence or minds, and the two happen to be entangled with our brains. Yet lots of animals have brains substantively like ours, yet lack our intelligence. The most you can say, empirically, is that human brains are magical.

I would say there is precious little evidence that this is true

That is because you are busy not paying attention to ID. All design in life amounts to evidence of a brain-independent intelligent mind, because science says design is real (philosophy where it disagrees, is madness) and whatever ultimately designed life couldn't have had a brain.

My point here is that ID presents one particular position regarding philosophy of mind, viz. libertarian dualism

Well duh.

and pretends that this particular metaphysics is settled science

Because it is. The other side has no arguments that carry water. They might cling to their "design = illusion" nonsense out of sheer stubbornness, they might represent the vast majority of tenured academics, but it remains that our side has won every intellectual and scientific battle that matters. At the end of the day, the determinists and reductionists only have their indefensible opinions. We have facts, logic, and truth. Now, it may well be that this is not settled philosophy, but science trumps philosophy every time.

There are dozens of different theories and sub-theories regarding the mind-body problem, and not one of them has clear empirical support.

Yes, and some of them are clearly, obviously, wrong.

I don’t think that implying that any philosophical position with which you disagree is insane is a very good argument.

It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact, backed up by arguments that I do not need to waste my time making. Considering the way the world is, determinism is insane. Timmy

SB: Most philosophers, even atheists, recognize that the rational options available are agency, law, or chance.

No, most philosophers argue that “agency” is a label given to entities which are themselves nothing but physical processes. They hold that nothing exists but physical processes, and that even human thought acts according to physical law.

I'm really at a loss as to why you don't understand that your argument doesn't work. If most philosophers think that agency is nothing but a physical process, and if they reject intelligence as a complement to that physical process, then they obviously know what is meant by that definition of intelligence when they reject it.

As it happens, I do not concur with this position, but it is the most common among academics.

Yes, your proclivity to say what you don't think and your reluctance to say what you do think has always been duly noted.

Your insistence that most philosophers believe that agency transcends physical law is very telling about you – honestly I think you operate in a very cloistered environment.

Again, you are not even following the argument. It is not my contention that most philosophers believe that agency transcends physical law. My contention is that they know what agency means in that context and reject it on those terms. Thus, your claim that they don't know what intelligence means in that context is false.

You appear to be utterly naive about what scholars in philosophy think (save for those few who already agree with you).

And the strawman returns yet again. I am well aware that academia is flooded with secularist/materialist partisans and that they are in the majority. Indeed, I have experienced it and been forced to work around it in order to survive. None of this means that these same partisans don't know what intelligence means as a complement to law/chance. They do know what it means and they reject it on the basis of that meaning. [a] ID = agency set apart from law, chance. [b] Secularism = agency subsumed into law/chance. Secularists reject [a] and they understand what they are rejecting.

Not only do you fail to understand that most philosophers disagree with your libertarian/dualistic metaphysics, you actually beleive that “everyone” agrees with it.

You have yet to grasp the argument. What is it about the difference between understanding what a concept means and accepting that concept as true that you do not understand? I mean, really, there comes a time when you must stop conflating these two issues and face the poverty of your claim. StephenB

Hi Timmy,

RDF: I would say that yes, intelligence has a great deal to do with the brain, quite obviously. TIMMY: Oh really? How is that obvious?

It is obvious because there are constant, reliable, detailed, localized correlations between brain activity and specific mental functions. That does not mean that brain activity is the same thing as mental function, nor does it mean that brain activity causes mental function. It does, however, make it obvious that whatever goes on when we think, it has a great deal to do with the brain.

What’s actually obvious is the counterclaim: intelligence is an attribute of the mind.

I don't believe that what you've said is a counterclaim at all - both things are true. In fact, I think that saying "intelligence is an attribute of the mind" is true merely by definition, because what we refer to as "mind" is in fact our capacity for and experience of thought (or intelligence). In contrast, saying "intelligence has a great deal to do with the brain" is not simply true by definition; it is a fact that has been established by empirical observation.

And minds can exist independently of brains.

I would say there is precious little evidence that this is true (I suppose there is some evidence for ghosts and poltergeists, and some people interpret NDE reports this way). But there is a mountain of evidence that when the brain stops functioning properly (due to illness, injury, anesthesia, and so on) mental function can be dramatically altered or cease altogether. When someone "loses consciousness", it doesn't mean that their consciousness is still active but somehow unattached to their brain; rather it means that their conscious experience ceases (as far as we can tell).

What are you trying to prove?

My point here is that ID presents one particular position regarding philosophy of mind, viz. libertarian dualism, and pretends that this particular metaphysics is settled science (as StephenB said, that everyone, EVERYONE, believes it). That simply isn't true at all. There are dozens of different theories and sub-theories regarding the mind-body problem, and not one of them has clear empirical support.

The point, as usual, is that dualism is the only sane philosophical position.

I don't think that implying that any philosophical position with which you disagree is insane is a very good argument. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish @ 58

I would say that yes, intelligence has a great deal to do with the brain, quite obviously.

Oh really? How is that obvious? What's actually obvious is the counterclaim: intelligence is an attribute of the mind. And minds can exist independently of brains. Why do you continue this scharade, RDFish? Everyone knows that when we speak of "intelligence" as a cause, that is mere short hand for "an intelligent mind". You know it, your precious philosophers know it. What are you trying to prove?

Not only do you fail to understand that most philosophers disagree with your libertarian/dualistic metaphysics

The point, as usual, is that dualism is the only sane philosophical position. Philosphers can get away with spouting rubbish for the same reason that theologians can and evolutionary biologists can, but engineers can't. Timmy

RDF:

If you disagree, simply tell us what the definition of “intelligence” is that gives meaning to the sentence “ID holds that biological systems are best explained by intelligence“.

OK- intelligence, as it applies to ID: The ability to deal with new or trying situations and the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment Joe

Hi StephenB, Excellent, you've decided to actually engage the argument!

RDF: I said they reject libertarianism, the idea that intelligence transcends law+chance. SB: Most philosophers, even atheists, recognize that the rational options available are agency, law, or chance.

No, most philosophers argue that "agency" is a label given to entities which are themselves nothing but physical processes. They hold that nothing exists but physical processes, and that even human thought acts according to physical law. As it happens, I do not concur with this position, but it is the most common among academics. Your insistence that most philosophers believe that agency transcends physical law is very telling about you - honestly I think you operate in a very cloistered environment. I read what people say here just because I already know what I think and I like to understand what others think. You appear to be utterly naive about what scholars in philosophy think (save for those few who already agree with you). Not only do you fail to understand that most philosophers disagree with your libertarian/dualistic metaphysics, you actually beleive that "everyone" agrees with it.

Libertarianism, consciousness, personalism or impersonalism are added considerations that the researcher can either take into account or leave alone, depending on his line of argument.

No, these are the only sorts of things that can give the term "intelligence" any meaning. Once you refuse to take a stand on these characteristics, the labels "intelligence" or "agency" are completely meaningless. If you disagree, simply tell us what the definition of "intelligence" is that gives meaning to the sentence "ID holds that biological systems are best explained by intelligence". Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Robb

I’ll try to make my point more clearly. You claim in #7 that intelligence, by definition, entails conscious choice. Correct?

For me it does, yes. I prefer to argue on that basis. So it is with Meyer. Both of us are interested in that aspect of intelligence that makes the connection between the designer's intention and the finished product. That is the direction I hope for with respect to the "ID movement." For that reason, and for philosophical reasons, I define intelligence in terms of conscious agency.

But Dembski claims that, as “its proponents understand the term”, the definition of intelligent design makes no such commitment. Correct?

Yes. As I understand it, ID, as a research project, cannot presume to define intelligence for each individual scientist since each ID paradigm different. I think that intelligence should be defined by the individual scientist in terms of his own paradigm---not by the ID community. I do think that the ID community ought to have a unified statement of general purpose, and so they do. I understand Dembski to be saying that one cannot, in principle, rule out an impersonal, unconscious design principle in nature as the cause of design. I agree that there should be no such rule. One cannot insist on behalf of the ID community and all of its proponents that intelligence = conscious agency, even if I (or Meyer) happen to define it that way. For my part, it is perfectly fine for any ID proponent to either withhold or make a commitment on that question. From a scientific perspective, I think it is legitimate for one researcher to define define intelligence in terms of a natural teleological principle and another to define it in terms of a conscious agent, as long as both agree that teleology is in play at some level and that law/chance has been transcended. From a philosophical perspective, I think the idea of an impersonal design principle makes no sense. But the ID community (including Dembski) is not bound by my or anyone else's philosophical preferences. On the contrary, I think that Meyer can teach us things about design that Dembski cannot and vice versa, precisely because each has bracketed out one element in order to focus on another. StephenB

StephenB:

Well, not quite. I think you mean to say that Dembski has denied that intelligence necessarily entails consciousness.

I'll try to make my point more clearly. You claim in #7 that intelligence, by definition, entails conscious choice. Correct? But Dembski claims that, as "its proponents understand the term", the definition of intelligent design makes no such commitment. Correct? R0bb

"compliment" should be "complement" StephenB

RDFish

I said they reject libertarianism, the idea that intelligence transcends law+chance.

Most philosophers, even atheists, recognize that the rational options available are agency, law, or chance. Very few would say that they don't know what the compliment to law/chance is or what it means. Libertarianism, consciousness, personalism or impersonalism are added considerations that the researcher can either take into account or leave alone, depending on his line of argument. None of those elements are essential for understanding the meaning of agency as a compliment to law/chance. StephenB

RDFish:

1) Defining “intelligence” as the complement of chance + law is equivalent to positing libertarian free will.

Cuz he sez so.

...I will let the fair reader decide who made a fool of whom here.

I am sure they have. Joe

RDFish (again ignoring context):

I would say that yes, intelligence has a great deal to do with the brain, quite obviously.

Human intelligence does, yes.

Which leaves ID in the difficult position of explaining how the most complex mechanism that we have ever observed – the brain – could have been designed by something with… a brain

LoL! ID doesn't posit a human as the designer of living organisms. I call Poe - RDFish has to be trying to be a complete ass Joe

Hi Jerry,

In the introduction of the Teaching Company course on intelligence, they remark the concept of human intelligence is sometimes controversial, but two things are surely true. First, no matter how “intelligence” is defined, you know someone who is not as intelligent as you are. Second, intelligence has something to do with the brain.

Very astute observations, of course. I would say that yes, intelligence has a great deal to do with the brain, quite obviously. Which leaves ID in the difficult position of explaining how the most complex mechanism that we have ever observed - the brain - could have been designed by something with... a brain :-) Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi StephenB, Just as I predicted, you have not responded to a single thing I've said. Here are some of the arguments to which you have no response: 1) Defining "intelligence" as the complement of chance + law is equivalent to positing libertarian free will. 2) Despite your insistence that EVERYONE believes that intelligence transcends law+chance, most philosophers deny this. 3) Any theory in which different people defines the sole explanatory construct in completely different ways is not a theory at all. Is "intelligence" the complement of chance+law? Is it the ability to produce CSI? Is it the ability to experience conscious intent? Is it the ability to learn? Is it the ability to solve novel problems? Is it the ability to use grammatical language to express ideas? Is it all of these things? Some combination of them? Which ones? (hint: none of these definitions will actually work in the context of ID, which of course is why all ID proponents refuse to provide a standard technical definition of intelligence in the context of ID!!!) Yes, instead of replying to any one of these fatal problems for ID, you plug your ears and say this:

Your contradiction stands. You said that no one, including philosophers, know what the word “intelligence” means.

What a joke. There is no contradiction here, as anyone can see. Nobody, including philosophers, can possibly know what any particular term means until a definition is provided. That was Denyse's point. Then you compound your failures with this:

Yet you also indicated that “most philosophers” reject the very same idea that they are alleged not to understand.

Stop lying! I said they reject libertarianism, the idea that intelligence transcends law+chance.

You can’t talk your way out of it.

AHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahaha If you have nothing else to say I will let you have the last word - you can just repeat your pathetic attempts to defend yourself, pretend I'm saying things that I never said, and I will let the fair reader decide who made a fool of whom here. If you dare to attempt to engage any of my arguments, however, I will courteously and summarily demonstrate why you are wrong. Cheers! RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

R0bb- ID doesn't say anything about the intelligence involved. And all we can really say is that it is capable of doing what mother nature could not or would not do. Joe

In the introduction of the Teaching Company course on intelligence, they remark

the concept of human intelligence is sometimes controversial, but two things are surely true. First, no matter how “intelligence” is defined, you know someone who is not as intelligent as you are. Second, intelligence has something to do with the brain.

So we can conclude the obvious, that some of the commenters on UD are probably more/less intelligent than others. Then there is that famous dictum by Dale Carnegie that no matter who you meet, they are better than you at something. jerry

Robb:

And yet Dembski has denied several times that intelligence entails consciousness.

Well, not quite. I think you mean to say that Dembski has denied that intelligence necessarily entails consciousness.

So when ID argues for an intelligent cause, is it or is it not saying that conscious choice was involved?

"ID," as such, doesn't argue either way. Meyer uses conciousness as a construct and defines his terms accordingly. Dembski does not, preferring to make the more "minimalist" claim. I disagree with Dembski. I think consciousness should be presupposed. In any case, "ID's" arguments and paradigms are specific and individually based. Only the mission is general and it is expressed in generalized terms. StephenB

There is definitely a theory of intelligence. Whether anyone likes it or not, lots of people are engaged in it. But like "life", "science", "evolution", "information". "species", "selection", "junk DNA", it is hard to pin down one exact definition. The Teaching Company has a course on it by one of the world's experts on the subject: The Intelligent Brain http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1642 And there other courses that discuss intelligence. Passions: Philosophy and the Intelligence of Emotions http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=4123 Customs of the World: Using Cultural Intelligence to Adapt, Wherever You Are http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=3092 jerry

Sorry RD, you are busted. Your contradiction stands. You said that no one, including philosophers, know what the word “intelligence” means. Yet you also indicated that "most philosophers" reject the very same idea that they are alleged not to understand. You can't talk your way out of it. StephenB

StephenB:

To say that the cause of X is intelligence is to say that it was produced by a conscious choice for the sake of some end and was not produced by unconscious forces for no reason at all. Everyone inside and outside the ID camp understands the point.

And yet Dembski has denied several times that intelligence entails consciousness. See, for example, this excerpt from his recent book, which StephenB interprets as follows:

ID does not argue for a transcendent agent, a personal agent, a conscious agent, or any agent at all, but it is open to any of these prospects.

So when ID argues for an intelligent cause, is it or is it not saying that conscious choice was involved? R0bb

RDFish:

And yet again: Nobody knows what “intelligence” means until they provide a definition.

Andf ID has a definition of "intelligence" and it is from the dictionary. IOW it is a well accepted definition of "intelligence".

You never have any actual rebuttal to any of my points,

You have never had any valid points. And you ignore all refutations of the diatribe you post. RDFish is a legend is its own little mind. Joe

Hi StephenB,

You are saying that if only ID would do something unreasonable you could demonstrate that it is not a viable theory.

Hahahahaha - this is your FIFTH (count 'em - five!) strawman mistake in this short thread! I NEVER SAID that this is the ONLY way I can show ID is not viable - just another way of course. You are the one who is obsessed with this minor point, for a very obvious reason: You never have any actual rebuttal to any of my points, so you pretend I've made some error and refuse to talk about anything else. Instead of desperately clinging to this, why don't you attempt to respond to anything I've said? (The answer is obvious).

What I said was that most philosophers reject the idea that intelligence transcends law+chance (that is to say, most philosophers reject libertarian free will).

Yes, and of course you've failed to respond to this correction. What about it, SB? What about the fact that one of your definitions of intelligence (the complement of law+chance) is tantamount to libertarianism (just as Dembski admits)? What about the fact that hardly any professional philosophers defend libertarianism any more, despite the fact that you said:

SB: It could not be more clear. Everyone, including Darwinists, knows what it means to posit intelligence as a counterpoise to law/chance. Everyone. RDF: In other words, most philosophers reject the notion that intelligence is a “counterpoise” to (i.e. is outside of, or transcends) law + chance. SB: I don’t suppose you would care to support that rather extravagant claim with a wee bit of evidence, would you?

What about it? Oh well - I know you'll never respond to any of these mistakes you make, it's just not how you roll.

You said that no one, including philosophers, know what the word “intelligence” means.

And yet again: Nobody knows what "intelligence" means until they provide a definition. This is a painfully obvious point that even Denyse O'Leary manages to understand. Your only response is that definitions don't matter - anybody can make up any definition at all and use it whenever they want. This is a breathtakingly inane position on your part.

Are you suicidal?

Now you're just being weird. Cheers! RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Folks, at this stage this is a grand red herring strawman caricature exercise on RDF's part. The truth is, we know from experience what intelligence is, and that it routinely does things -- creates designs -- that simply cannot credibly be done by blind chance and mechanical necessity. If RDF wishes to assert tot he contrary, let him come forth with a blind chance and necessity process that in our observation produces FSCO/I beyond 500 or 1000 bits of complexity. For instance, a random text generation process that gives rise to texts in English, or even in Java Code that works. It is true that we do not know the ultimate nature of intelligence in details or how to syntehsise one, especially an intelligence that is conscious, insightful, creative and volitional, not merely programmed and/or driven by some random process. Say, one that can play Go with reasonable competence, given the search space challenge. And, RDF actually full well knows this. So, he is doing little more than playing rhetorical games trying to make his interlocutors look foolish. I have long since concluded that he is not here for any serious reason, so let's just correct for record. And, back on the OP, let's note News' clip:

How did we get where we are? Through natural selection, says Wade. It is indisputable that selection can alter a species or subspecies. The unnatural selection which we call selective breeding produces animals of different sizes, shapes, and temperaments. Why would we think that human animals are different?

First, selective breeding is an intelligent design process and actually tends to create varieties that are less effective in real-world environments. Think, fancy goldfish here. Second, This is an exercise in question-begging. Evolutionary Materialism and other forms of generalised Darwinism are positing a change driver that has simply not passed the vera causa test: show mechanisms that generate body plan level changes, beyond the FSCO/I threshold of 500 - 1,000 bits. Intelligence, identified form examples, is routinely capable of novel FSCO/I in our demonstration. Next, we happen to be conscious, minded, knowing, reasoning creatures that depend on contemplation not merely GIGO limited computation. We are seeing here a big unbacked IOU on how to get tot hat. Which is the problem, to begin with. Going in circles, locking in a suggested means that has no credible ability to get to FSCO/I, while ideologically locking out what has the demonstrated capacity. It's all a rhetorical game, in the end, backed up by question-begging materialist ideology dressed up in a lab coat. KF kairosfocus

RDFish:

I told you ID should provide a singular definition

No one cares what RDFish sez.

What I said was that most philosophers reject the idea that intelligence transcends law+chance (that is to say, most philosophers reject libertarian free will).

I doubt that but even if true, so what? Philosophers are not scientists.

Try and understand this, because you clearly don’t: Philosophers reject the distinction between intelligence and law+chance.

Del Ratszch is a philosopher who does not reject such a distinction. Joe

RDFish

I’ve explained this three times. Pay attention. I told you ID should provide a singular definition even though it is not reasonable because if ID attempted to do that it would become apparent that ID is not a viable theory, and it is my aim to demonstrate that ID is not a viable theory. Get it?

You would be far better off if I wasn't paying attention. That statement is totally irrational. You are saying that if only ID would do something unreasonable you could demonstrate that it is not a viable theory. Why not just admit your folly and move on. Otherwise, you will keep digging a deeper hole.

What I said was that most philosophers reject the idea that intelligence transcends law+chance (that is to say, most philosophers reject libertarian free will).

You said that no one, including philosophers, know what the word "intelligence" means. How could philosophers reject the idea that intelligence transcends law/chance if they don't know what intelligence means? Do you not understand that you are getting killed in this exchange? Are you suicidal? StephenB

Hi StephenB,

Libertarianism has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion.

You're wrong in two ways: 1) Libertarianism is that which transcends law+chance; when you declare that intelligence is distinct from law+chance then you are in fact positing that intelligence requires libertarian free will. Dembski actually acknowledges this - at least he's honest about his metaphysical commitments. 2) You were very (incredibly) wrong to think that everyone believes that intelligence is the complement of law + chance.

Meanwhile, you have contradicted yourself in two important ways:

Uh no, I have contradicted you.

Self contradictory assertion #1–

I've explained this three times. Pay attention. I told you ID should provide a singular definition even though it is not reasonable because if ID attempted to do that it would become apparent that ID is not a viable theory, and it is my aim to demonstrate that ID is not a viable theory. Get it?

[a] The term “intelligence” is incomprehensible. No one, including “most philosophers,” know what it means.

You are wrong yet again: I didn't say that term was incomprehensible. I said the term is meaningless until it is defined. Denyse said that nobody knows what it means.

[b] Most philosophers reject “intelligence” as an alternative explanation to law/chance.

Good grief, you are wrong yet again: I never said most philosophers reject "intelligence" as an alternative explanation to law/chance! I know you are, as usual, desperate to score a point - any point - here, but you're not going to do it by putting words in my mouth like this. What I said was that most philosophers reject the idea that intelligence transcends law+chance (that is to say, most philosophers reject libertarian free will). Try and understand this, because you clearly don't: Philosophers reject the distinction between intelligence and law+chance You better do better than this, SB - the peanut gallery is going apoplectic! Cheers! RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

You’re all getting pretty hysterical trying to shut down my very simple observation.

Your observation that is equal parts trite, dishonest, childish, and wrong? Denyse is simply wrong about "intelligence" having no scientific meaning, even in the limited context of comparing cognitive ability between and amongst groups of people. It has a lot of meaning. Then you take her limited error and run with it. Your claim, that design cannot infer intelligence because "no one knows what intelligence is" is so embarrassingly dishonest that "lol" is the only real response. Your further comments on the philosophy of consciousness only reveal more laughably ridiculous and embarrassingly laughable bad faith. 1) "Most philosophers"? Because UD is beholden to the norms of establishment academics? 2) Determinism coincides strongly with atheism and Darwinism, obviously--and you are surprised to find people on UD who dissent from that rubbish? 3) There are very strong reasons to reject determinism and embrace the reality of an independent mind, but of course you ignore these out of hand. 4) Denyse, your supposed champion, wrote a book called The Spiritual Brain. Could that be a clue that you have no idea what she is talking about? 5) Your precious determinists would never dream to pretend (as you do) that they don't understand what we are mean by "intelligence" or "design" or "consciousness". Well, some of them are as dishonest as you. But not all. 5) Lol. Timmy

"no one [know(s)] what it means." StephenB

RDFish:

StephenB, since you actually seem to think libertarianism is the reigning position in modern philosophy, you may want to see how VJTorley is trying to explain why it isn’t completely dead: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com.....aggerated/

Libertarianism has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion. But thank you for playing. Meanwhile, you have contradicted yourself in two important ways: Self contradictory assertion #1-- [a] It is not rational for anyone to provide a singular definition for the word "intelligence." [b] Nevertheless, ID scientists should should provide a singular definition for the word "intelligence." Self contradictory assertion #2-- [a] The term "intelligence" is incomprehensible. No one, including "most philosophers," know what it means. [b] Most philosophers reject "intelligence" as an alternative explanation to law/chance.

The problem is, no one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence.” Until there is a scientific theory of intelligence… we actually do not really know what we are talking about.

Does that include "most" philosophers who, according to you, reject it? Or, is it the case that, as you say, they reject intelligence as an explanation without even knowing what it means? StephenB

The problem is, no one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence.” Until there is a scientific theory of intelligence (it will not be Darwinian, for sure), we actually do not really know what we are talking about.

Was News quoting someone here, or perhaps paraphrasing? In context, who does "we" refer to? Mung

Context is always irrelevant to cowards, and so it is with RDFish. RDFish, if quote-mining is the best that you can do then why even bother? Joe

You're all getting pretty hysterical trying to shut down my very simple observation. But "LOLs" and insults and redirection do not amount to arguments. StephenB, since you actually seem to think libertarianism is the reigning position in modern philosophy, you may want to see how VJTorley is trying to explain why it isn't completely dead: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/free-will-why-reports-of-its-death-are-greatly-exaggerated/ Perhaps you should get out more :-) Anyway, it's not my fault that ID is based upon a concept that has no scientific meaning. I think Denyse here, astute scientific journalist and ID supporter, has said it best:

The problem is, no one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence.” Until there is a scientific theory of intelligence... we actually do not really know what we are talking about.

Q.E.D. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Of course, that's not to say that choice can actual be a cause of anything. Ah, where's the link to that free will post by Charles/Chuck. :) Mung

intelligence (n.) late 14c., "faculty of understanding," from Old French intelligence (12c.), from Latin intelligentia, intellegentia "understanding, power of discerning; art, skill, taste," from intelligentem (nominative intelligens) "discerning," present participle of intelligere "to understand, comprehend," from inter- "between" (see inter-) + legere "choose, pick out, read" (see lecture (n.)).

Not knowing what intelligence is seems to be a modern phenomenon, probably related to a lack of discernment. =P Mung

Defn, at Wiki, a start. Note on ostensive defn. kairosfocus

RDFish:

In other words, most philosophers reject the notion that intelligence is a “counterpoise” to (i.e. is outside of, or transcends) law + chance.

I don't suppose you would care to support that rather extravagant claim with a wee bit of evidence, would you? In any case, we are not discussing which arguments or definitions people accept or reject, but whether or not the meaning of those arguments and definitions can be readily understood. So, your comment is both irrelevant and incoherent. In effect, you are saying that most philosophers reject intelligence as an alternative explanation to law chance even though they don't know what intelligence means!!! Your list of self-refuting arguments is accumulating at a rather alarming rate. Why not take a break and give yourself a chance to think things through. StephenB

Off with their thumbs! Mung

What's the definition of 'definition'? ;-) How wet is the water? Anyway, some discussions here may never end because they really are not about the apparent subject(s) that are explicitly referred in the comments, but about opposite irreconcilable worldview positions. They can't agree on essentials. Hence such discussions eventually digress from the original subject(s) being discussed and end up in nasty ad hominem arguments that lead nowhere. Squandered time. But to some outside observers it might be fun to take a break from work and watch gladiators fight. Then, every once in a while thumb up or down, as it was done in the ancient coliseum Romano, for plain entertainment. Dionisio

Why is RDFish such an ignorant little cry-baby? That must be why it chooses to remain anonymous so it can act like a cry-baby with impunity. RDFish:

Unless ID says which definition it’s using, the term is without meaning.

Then it is a good thing that ID says which definitions it is using. Your ignorance may mean something on non-ID forums but here we can easily expose it. And RDFish, please stop lying about what Denyse wrote. People can actually read what she wrote and we can easily spot your lies. Joe

RDFish:

In other words, most philosophers reject the notion that intelligence is a “counterpoise” to (i.e. is outside of, or transcends) law + chance.

And yet those philosophers would still know exactly what we are talking about, just as you do.

and ID ought not claim the cause of life transcended law + chance because there is no evidence that anything transcends law + chance.

Lol. That's the whole basis of ID, because we have almost unlimited evidence. And that's not even counting each person's individual conscious experience, which transcends laws + chance.

I have no doubt she’d join you in backtracking, but there’s really no doubt that in an unguarded moment Denyse has admitted the truth

Lol, there is quite a lot of doubt, actually. Just as there is quite a lot of doubt that your shenanigans reflect a conscious effort for honesty. Timmy

It is not a matter of what exact words they use, of course.

It is you who are obsessing over the words, laboring mightily to find a giant gap between two similar, though not identical, definitions, and claiming not to know what the definitions mean except to say that you do know what they mean by claiming that their meanings are in conflict. StephenB

RDFish

Neither Dembski’s nor Meyer’s definitions are operational.

They are operational according to my definition, which means that I would not be inclined to accept your definition of operational as authoritative. Either way, it's not important. What matters is that Dembski's definition of intelligence is appropriate for his paradigm and Meyer's definition is appropriate for his paradigm. There is no reason to expect that they would be identical. Indeed, you continue to contradict yourself by saying that [a] ID should use one singular definition of intelligence even though [b] it would be irrational for anyone to propose a singular definition of intelligence when there are so many aspects to it and so many ways to approach it. StephenB

Hi StephenB:

Everyone, including Darwinists, knows what it means to posit intelligence as a counterpoise to law/chance. Everyone.

Again, Denyse and I beg to disagree. Most philosophers of mind would instantly reject this statement, as it presents a very controversial and unpopular metaphysical claim as a universally accepted matter of fact. As VJTorley recently explained here in this very forum, libertarian free will is anything but a well-accepted position among scholars. In other words, most philosophers reject the notion that intelligence is a "counterpoise" to (i.e. is outside of, or transcends) law + chance. So no, it is simply and fully false that "everyone knows" intelligence is anything other than law + chance. So while your first definition of "intelligence" referred to consciousness, this one refers to the complement of law + chance. You have just given two completely different definitions, and neither of them are well suited to ID. (ID ought not claim the cause of life was conscious because there is no evidence that this is the case, and ID ought not claim the cause of life transcended law + chance because there is no evidence that anything transcends law + chance).

Denyse doesn’t deny it in the context of intelligence as a cause. She questions it in the context of intelligence as an effect to be measured. So do I.

Denyse said that nobody knows what "intelligence" means, and I'm afraid you can't rehabilitate her statement. I have no doubt she'd join you in backtracking, but there's really no doubt that in an unguarded moment Denyse has admitted the truth: Nobody has any idea what "intelligence" is.

Is intelligence (as an effect) the capacity to understand difficult concepts, or is it the capacity to simplify equations, do math, or solve problems? Who knows?

The answers to your questions are not questions of fact; the answers cannot be discovered. Rather, they are nothing but matters of arbitrary definition. If you would like to define intelligence as the capacity to do math, then that is your choice. It is neither true nor false - it is simply the way you wish to define the term. Until you define the term, it doesn't mean anything at all.

Returning to intelligence as a cause, Dembski’s minimalist emphasis on the choice between alternatives and Meyer’s emphasis on conscious choices with an end in mind are understood by all as a contrast to a purposeless, mindless process that doesn’t know where it is going.

Can something without conscious awareness "know where it is going"? There is no evidence that whatever caused life, etc. was conscious, or that it "knew where it was going".

For a number of reasons, consciousness is relevant to Meyer’s anti-chance paradigm, but it is not relevant to Dembski’s anti-chance paradigm.

You are now trying to say that ID is not really about some particular explanation for life, etc., but rather it is simply "anti-chance". A theory that offers "anti-chance" as an explanation is not a theory at all, of course. That's like saying "anti-alchemy" constitutes a theory of physical chemistry. Dembski and Meyer offer two different definitions of ID's explanatory construct. Einstein and Newton both explained apples falling to Earth by invoking "gravity", but they had different definitions of that word. The two explanations are completely at odds with each other. The same holds for Dembski and Meyer.

You claim that the term “intelligence,” as ID uses it, is meaningless.

Denyse said so too. Again: Everyone agrees that there are numerous ways that people define this word. Unless ID says which definition it's using, the term is without meaning. If anyone can choose whatever meaning they want, then ID everyone has a different theory. Once you choose a particular definition for "intelligence", ID can endeavor to provide evidence that the cause so defined in fact existed at the beginning of life and was responsible for complex biological systems.

Your answer simply sustains the contradiction: RDF: There is indeed no sense at all trying to explain phenomena such as the creation of life or the universe by appeal to “intelligence” without further qualification, because the term refers to nothing at all in the abstract. SB: (It is not rational to attempt a singular definition of intelligence)

Correct.

RDF: My exhortation for ID to actually attempt to put forth a canonical definition is simply meant to illustrate ID’s central problem: Once ID does actually say what they mean, it becomes clear that there is no evidence that it exists. SB: (ID should attempt a singular definition of intelligence)

Again: I would like ID to attempt a singular definition so that it will become even more clear that ID is a failed enterprise. Intelligence is not a thing, it is just a label we apply to various things. Just like "athleticism": "Athleticism" refers to various primarily physical abilities, and "intelligence" refers to various primarily mental abilities, but neither of these words refer to a thing or a cause of some sort.

But Dembski and Meyer both provide their operational definitions relevant to each one’s “analysis at hand,” (as you put it) and you complain that their definitions are not identical in every way.

Neither Dembski's nor Meyer's definitions are operational. (What test do you perform to decide if something experiences conscious awareness if you can't even observe the thing in question? And Dembski's most usual definition is tantamount to a description of libertarian free will; there is likewise no way to empirically establish that).

In any case, you didn’t really answer my question. Is it the discipline or the analysis at hand that decides the definition of intelligence. You indicated that it was both. I have stated that it is only the analysis at hand that makes the determination.

I don't actually understand your point. Again, people decide their definitions based on what they want to talk about. I don't think a discipline decides anything - a philosopher or a biologist or a psychologist may use the same - or different - definitions. What is your point here?

If it was only the analysis at hand, which I argue, then Dembski’s analysis, which is different from Meyer’s analysis, would not be expected to match Meyer’s definition in intelligence word for word.

It is not a matter of what exact words they use, of course. Different definitions of intelligence are as different as Newton's gravity (a force) vs. Einstein's gravity (spacetime geometry). Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

And we are penetrating ever deeper into what is smallest, into the cell and into the primordial units of life; here, too, we discover a Reason that astounds us, such that we must say with Saint Bonaventure: "Whoever does not see here is blind. Whoever does not hear here is deaf. And whoever does not begin to adore here and to praise the creating Intelligence is dumb" - Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)

Mung

Hi RD:

I don’t understand your point.

It could not be more clear. Everyone, including Darwinists, knows what it means to posit intelligence as a counterpoise to law/chance. Everyone.

Are you saying that while ID proponents such as Denyse deny that anyone knows what the term refers to, and while other ID proponents disagree about the meaning of the term (such as Meyer vs. Dembski, or Dembski vs. Dembski at some other time), Darwinists somehow have provided ID a scientific description of what intelligence is?

Denyse doesn't deny it in the context of intelligence as a cause. She questions it in the context of intelligence as an effect to be measured. So do I. Is intelligence (as an effect) the capacity to understand difficult concepts, or is it the capacity to simplify equations, do math, or solve problems? Who knows? Returning to intelligence as a cause, Dembski's minimalist emphasis on the choice between alternatives and Meyer's emphasis on conscious choices with an end in mind are understood by all as a contrast to a purposeless, mindless process that doesn't know where it is going. The differing emphasis is based solely on the paradigms being used and creates no conflict, as I have explained many times. For a number of reasons, consciousness is relevant to Meyer's anti-chance paradigm, but it is not relevant to Dembski's anti-chance paradigm. The first paradigm contains more information in order to study function as a product of consciousness and the second paradigm consciously leaves that information out in order to study function in the absence of consciousness. (Its called "bracketing."). ID scientists study the same problem from different perspectives, which provides a deeper understanding of the bigger picture. You are asking them to all come at it from the same perspective. If they did that, only one of them would be needed.

It ("I am not a Darwinst") is relevant to your bringing up what Darwinists think the term “intelligence” refers to. I don’t care what Darwinists think, either about evolution or about intelligence.

You continue to miss the point. You claim that the term "intelligence," as ID uses it, is meaningless. If ID's arch enemies understand its meaning, and argue against it on that basis, then its meaning is clear to them. No one besides yourself (including Denyse) takes the position that the meaning of intelligence as a cause is not clear. That should tell you something.

I’m talking about what the term “intelligence” is supposed to mean in ID theory, and how Denyse here confirms that it doesn’t mean anything at all.

Apparently, Denyse has moved on to bigger and better things, so it might be more prudent to address the issue directly with those who are available and are familiar with the context of the article she was alluding to, which had nothing at all to do with ID theory. Your attempt to link them is unworkable. Also, you have not yet addressed this contradiction:

“Intelligence” is not a unary thing, and so there is no sense in trying to come up with a single definition! ID surely ought to prominently present a clear, canonical, technical definition for its sole explanatory concept, but it doesn’t.

Your answer simply sustains the contradiction:

There is indeed no sense at all trying to explain phenomena such as the creation of life or the universe by appeal to “intelligence” without further qualification, because the term refers to nothing at all in the abstract.

(It is not rational to attempt a singular definition of intelligence)

My exhortation for ID to actually attempt to put forth a canonical definition is simply meant to illustrate ID’s central problem: Once ID does actually say what they mean, it becomes clear that there is no evidence that it exists.

(ID should attempt a singular definition of intelligence)

Again, when scientists use the term, they provide a clear operational definition of the term which is appropriate to what they are trying to show.

But Dembski and Meyer both provide their operational definitions relevant to each one's "analysis at hand," (as you put it) and you complain that their definitions are not identical in every way. Further, you indicate that both the discipline itself and the analysis at hand shape the definition.. So, again, I must ask. Is the determination made by the discipline, the analysis at hand, or both. I have indicated that it is based solely on the analysis at hand and have explained that Meyer's analysis is different from Dembski's, which means that there is no reason to think that their operational definitions would be identical. Yet you insist that they should be. Why? In any case, you didn't really answer my question. Is it the discipline or the analysis at hand that decides the definition of intelligence. You indicated that it was both. I have stated that it is only the analysis at hand that makes the determination. You have indicated that it is both the discipline and the analysis at hand that makes the determination. If it was only the analysis at hand, which I argue, then Dembski's analysis, which is different from Meyer's analysis, would not be expected to match Meyer's definition in intelligence word for word.

For example, they (ID) may define “intelligence” as “that which IQ tests measure” if they are studying correlations between intelligence and wealth. Or they may define it as “the ability to learn from reinforced trials” if they are studying the effect of magnetic fields on the intelligence of sea slugs. And so on.

This is the very same principle that I am asking you to honor and acknowledge. Context is everything. Its all about bracketing. This is what ID scientists do. It's the analysis at hand that determines the definitions that are being used. Individual scientists choose their problem or research questions, define their terms in that context, and carry on with the analysis. However, they can also be part of a larger research program about intelligence in general (as a counterpoise to law/chance). Thus, terms can be understood from a big picture perspective (Intelligence as a cause in general) or in the context of an individual paradigm (intelligence as the act of making a selection between or among alternatives or intelligence as a conscious choice for the sake of some end, or something else. StephenB

Alien Intelligence: A New Scientific Model That Defines Alien Intelligence Recognizing Extraterrestrial Intelligence Communication with Alien Intelligence Oh, and of course: SETI Institute Search for extraterrestrial intelligence Mung

Or Irish rogue, if it comes to that. But that's not really relevant to this foray into epistemology and its purlieus. Axel

Don't be fooled by any sweet-talking Irish brogue it adopts or anything like that. Axel

Your #19 mung, with the last clause amended: 'Intelligence: They don’t know what it is, but .... they don't like using it, as they find it a painful activity; and worse... unrewarding. Either because of their fear of the light of truth, or because they can't locate it, anyway. Your #20: 'How will we know when machines become intelligent?' Because they will use special software, to make their clangy, metallic-sounding voices (I learned that's how they will speak from sci-fi films) sound kind of warmly human? A kind filter. So take an immediate step back and ponder for a while should this occur. Axel

An operational definition defines something (e.g. a variable, term, or object) in terms of the specific process or set of validation tests used to determine its presence and quantity. That is, one defines something in terms of the operations that count as measuring it.

Yet ID isn't trying to count or measure intelligence or create a test to validate the presence of intelligence. Mung

Santa Fe Institute: The evolution of complexity and intelligence on earth How will we know when machines become intelligent? Artificial intelligence Machine Intelligence Research Institute Mung

Intelligence: They don't know what it is but they know it evolved! Evolution of human intelligence The Mentality of Crows: Convergent Evolution of Intelligence in Corvids and Apes The evolution of intelligence More than once! Mung

Lol @ RDFish

But ID presents one singular explanation: intelligence. Not one other thing is ever mentioned by way of explanation – just intelligence, and that’s it.

Lol.

Well, that is your particular definition of intelligence. Other people use other definitions.

Genius! A word can be used to mean different things? Staggering.

(Please, Joe, spare us the archeology and forensics lecture, since those disciplines deal not with “intelligence” in the abstract but rather “human beings”).

Lol, so much for "not knowing" what we're talking about. Game, set, match.

For example, if ID adopted the definition you gave above, it would have to provide some reason to think that anything with the ability to produce complex mechanisms must experience conscious awareness like humans do. There is no scientific evidence that this is the case.

Uh, lol? We have no materialistic reason to think that anything (let alone humans) should experience conscious awareness like humans do, and we never will. And yet, here we are. The obvious deduction (obvious to all serious people) is that intelligence is a feature of certain consciousnesses, and that consciousness is fundamentally supernatural and supermaterial. Timmy

Joe (attn RDF et al): Let's start with a parallel case, life. There is no universally accepted one size fits all precising definition, but on an adequate set of cases we erect the science of biology. That should head off "definitionitis" rhetoric. In fact, ostensive definition by key cases is conceptually first, and it is based on such that we test the reliability of a precising statement. At minimum, we can highlight a phenomenon of intelligence and then use it as an explanation as the biologists do with life. All this has been pointed out to you RDF, but you seem to find your rhetorical hobby-horses too convenient. Now, above I cited a definition for purposes of showing that the one cited above by was it SB, is not idiosyncratic or arbitrary as RDF tried to improperly suggest. It captures a common enough sense. In that sense, termites would not be intelligent but would be programmed by that which was intelligent. That is the issue of instincts coming up again. Next, here is a definition used in UD's glossary, deliberately taken from a known hostile source but adequate for the sense of intelligence used in teh design inference, i.s. as opposed to blind non-foresighted chance and necessity:

Intelligence – Wikipedia aptly and succinctly defines: “capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.”

If something can do that, it would be intelligent. DNA has code -- language, check. That code expresses step by step sequences to solve problems and achieve goals -- plans and solving problems, check. Ability to plan depends on reasoning and abstract thinking about future contingencies, check. The source of DNA is intelligent. Where also the blind search capacity of the atomic resources of our solar system or the observed cosmos are utterly overwhelmed by the complex functional specificity of DNA. So, that which is only capable of blind chance and mechanical necessity is not intelligent in the sense relative to dna being designed. Of course, on background RDF is trying to put up alleged artificial intelligence, but the problem there is that rocks have no dreams and computation limited by GIGO is not equal to contemplation. To see the difference look at how the task set by Go swamps computers, but is well within the reach of intelligent humans. (Chess, it turns out is within the reach of brute force computation programmed by intelligent programmers. Of course the program itself is also beyond the blind search computational resources of the cosmos.) Maybe Jonathan Bartlett's recent framing would help us, seen through the lens of the Smith model. Think of the brain-body loop as a cybernetic, computational loop. However, there is a second tier, an oracle that can sense, contemplate and respond to but also can direct and invent or create, is insightful. The real seat of intelligence is not in the cybernetic loop but in that higher order tier. The mind, in short, of whatever "stuff" composed or potentially composed. Can it be built in software? Or, are we simply substituting canned algorithms and data structures formed by the intelligent and imagining that such is reified into a genuine mind? Which is the challenge posed by Searle's Chinese Room. It is not genuinely understanding, but because of a clever enough algorithm, computation can mimic some intelligent behaviour. But take it out of the parameters of the algorithm and demand insight and creativity beyond the search resources of the cosmos, and all crumbles. Which brings the issue of the threshold for FSCO/I to the fore, the limit imposed by what blind computation can do with a blind search. If something is beyond that and it is working, there is an oracle there coming from something not constrained by the search resources of the cosmos. And in PCs with routinely millions of files in them these days, that something is obviously coming from intelligent oracles. Minds, or even souls, to use an old fashioned word the materialists get the vapours over. Time for abort, retry or fail, materialists. And Joe, I hope I am clear enough. KF kairosfocus

RDFish:

Once you say what “intelligence” means in ID theory, it becomes clear that you can’t substantiate the claim.

Then it is strange that we have said what "intelligence" means wrt ID and we have substantiated that claim. What now you little cry-baby? Joe

RDFish logic: Do we have a scientific theory on bowel movements? No. Then no one knows what a bowel movement is Do we have a scientific theory of archaeology? No. Oops then archaeology is bunk. Do we have a scientific theory of eating? No, then no one is eating. Do we have a scientific theory on the origin of humans? No, therefor there aren't any humans. Well at least we can count RDFish out humanity. Is there a scientific theory on cars? Then no one knows what a car is. I could go on and on... Joe

kairosfocus, Your definition in 10 is just confusing. Termites are intelligent designers yet I doubt they have the ability you highlighted- try the following- intelligence: 1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) As Del Ratzsch puts it- the ability to create counterflow Joe

RDFish:

The only reasonable way to interpret this is that we have no scientific theory of intelligence, and that there is therefore no scientific meaning for the term.

Why is that, cuz a scientifically illiterate arse sez so? RDFish:

Some day somebody might come up with an actual scientific definition for “intelligence” in the context of ID

What a dotk. So there are scientific dictionaries and dictionaries for other people? Or is RDFish just an arse?

Until then, just as Denyse says, nobody has any idea what it means when ID says the cause of the flagellum was “intelligence”.

Except Denyse doesn't say that. You just made that up because you have serious issues.

You’ve forgotten that I believe ID is a very confused endeavor.

Sed the very confused endeavor. Joe

Hi StephenB,

I already refuted that claim with the point that Darwinists do, in fact, know what it means.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that while ID proponents such as Denyse deny that anyone knows what the term refers to, and while other ID proponents disagree about the meaning of the term (such as Meyer vs. Dembski, or Dembski vs. Dembski at some other time), Darwinists somehow have provided ID a scientific description of what intelligence is?

RDF: I’m not a Darwinist. SB: Irrelevant to the point.

It is relevant to your bringing up what Darwinists think the term "intelligence" refers to. I don't care what Darwinists think, either about evolution or about intelligence. I'm talking about what the term "intelligence" is supposed to mean in ID theory, and how Denyse here confirms that it doesn't mean anything at all.

SB @7: ID presents its own definition of intelligence as a cause for design. RDF @9: ID does NOT present its own definition of “intelligence” as a cause for design. SB: Again, irrelevant.

I directly contradicted your claim that ID presents its own definition of intelligence, and you say that is irrelevant? Clearly it couldn't possibly be more relevant - it is the very issue we are discussing.

ID is not a singular argument.

But ID presents one singular explanation: intelligence. Not one other thing is ever mentioned by way of explanation - just intelligence, and that's it.

Each ID scientist defines intelligence in terms of his own individual paradigm and his own strategy for arguing, which is all that is necessary.

If each ID scientists believes that "intelligence" means something completely different, why do they use the same word? And what is it that these different versions of ID have in common? On the other hand, if every ID scientist is talking about the same thing when they refer to "intelligence", what exactly does it mean? Denyse said that it doesn't mean anything, and I agree with her.

RDF: On the contrary! “Intelligence” is not a unary thing, and so there is no sense in trying to come up with a single definition! RDF: ID surely ought to prominently present a clear, canonical, technical definition for its sole explanatory concept, but it doesn’t. SB: You are saying that there is “no sense in trying to come up with a single definition of intelligence,” and yet you also think that “ID” ought to provide a single definition of intelligence? This argument is not easy to process. It seems that you ought to affirm one of those statements and negate the other one.

You've forgotten that I believe ID is a very confused endeavor. There is indeed no sense at all trying to explain phenomena such as the creation of life or the universe by appeal to "intelligence" without further qualification, because the term refers to nothing at all in the abstract. My exhortation for ID to actually attempt to put forth a canonical definition is simply meant to illustrate ID's central problem: Once ID does actually say what they mean, it becomes clear that there is no evidence that it exists. For example, if ID adopted the definition you gave above, it would have to provide some reason to think that anything with the ability to produce complex mechanisms must experience conscious awareness like humans do. There is no scientific evidence that this is the case. The same is true for any other specific meaning you might assign to the term "intelligence": Once you say what "intelligence" means in ID theory, it becomes clear that you can't substantiate the claim.

So, which is it? Is intelligence defined by the discipline or is it defined by the analysis at hand?

Again, when scientists use the term, they provide a clear operational definition of the term which is appropriate to what they are trying to show. For example, they may define "intelligence" as "that which IQ tests measure" if they are studying correlations between intelligence and wealth. Or they may define it as "the ability to learn from reinforced trials" if they are studying the effect of magnetic fields on the intelligence of sea slugs. And so on. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi RDFish

No one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence”!

I already refuted that claim with the point that Darwinists do, in fact, know what it means. It is was a meaningless counterpoise to law/chance, they would say so and continue on as sleek as ever. They don't say that because they do, in fact, know what intelligence means (as a cause) and they set out to show why this cause is not needed to produce biodiversity. The one thing they do not say is, "intelligence is not needed, but I don't know what it means."

I’m not a Darwinist.

Irrelevant to the point.

ID does NOT present its own definition of “intelligence” as a cause for design.

Again, irrelevant. ID is not a singular argument. Each ID scientist defines intelligence in terms of his own individual paradigm and his own strategy for arguing, which is all that is necessary.

On the contrary! “Intelligence” is not a unary thing, and so there is no sense in trying to come up with a single definition!

ID surely ought to prominently present a clear, canonical, technical definition for its sole explanatory concept, but it doesn’t.

Let me try to understand. You are saying that there is "no sense in trying to come up with a single definition of intelligence," and yet you also think that "ID" ought to provide a single definition of intelligence? This argument is not easy to process. It seems that you ought to affirm one of those statements and negate the other one.

Scientific disciplines always provide scientific (operationalized) definitions for the term “intelligence” that are appropriate for the analysis at hand. ID fails to do this

So, which is it? Is intelligence defined by the discipline or is it defined by the analysis at hand? I gather that you understand that the two standards are not one in the same. If intelligence is defined by the the first standard (the discipline) how does anthropology's definitions of intelligence differ from those of sociology or social psychology? If it is defined by the second standard (the analysis at hand), why does that same standard not also apply to ID and its varying approaches to the design argument? Cheers! StephenB

RDF: We seem to be right back at the redefinition game here. Let's go to a classic dictionary:

intelligence (?n?t?l?d??ns) n 1. (Psychology) the capacity for understanding; ability to perceive and comprehend meaning 2. good mental capacity: a person of intelligence. 3. news; information 4. (Military) military information about enemies, spies, etc 5. (Military) a group or department that gathers or deals with such information 6. (often capital) an intelligent being, esp one that is not embodied 7. (Military) (modifier) of or relating to intelligence: an intelligence network. [C14: from Latin intellegentia, from intellegere to discern, comprehend, literally: choose between, from inter- + legere to choose] in?telli?gential adj Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

I think we can see that SB has clearly not been idiosyncratic. The root problem is this: a rock has no dreams (even if it has been reworked as a Si chip), and computation is not equal to contemplation. Not least, in light of the GIGO principle. KF kairosfocus

Hi StephenB,

To say that the cause of X is intelligence is to say that it was produced by a conscious choice for the sake of some end and was not produced by unconscious forces for no reason at all.

Well, that is your particular definition of intelligence. Other people use other definitions. Many (if not most) definitions, for example, make no reference to consciousness at all; instead they focus on functions such as learning, memory, and problem solving. See what we mean (Denyse and I)? No one knows exactly what we mean by "intelligence"!

Everyone inside and outside the ID camp understands the point.

The point I just made refutes this: Everyone inside ID disagrees about what "intelligence" means, and so does everyone outside ID. The big difference is that nobody outside of ID ever invokes "intelligence" as the explanation for anything. (Please, Joe, spare us the archeology and forensics lecture, since those disciplines deal not with "intelligence" in the abstract but rather "human beings").

You will never hear a Darwinst say that he doesn’t know what ID’s argument means. He is too busy trying to shuffle the evidence in the other direction. If the meaning wasn’t clear, he would seize the point.

I'm not a Darwinist.

I doubt very much that Denyse would question the meaningfulness of the term “intelligence” or “intelligent agent,” as a cause for the bacterial flagellum.

And yet she really just did, by saying that nobody knows what "intelligence" means.

Clearly, Steven Meyer, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jay Richards (or any other ID proponent that I know of) would not question it. As far as I know, the only person who claims not to know what it means is you.

And Denyse. (And of course lots of other ID critics - and even a couple of ID sympathizers - who have agreed with me over the years).

It is never wise to dismiss context in any evaluation of this kind. Denyse was discussing, among other things, the difference in intelligence between races from an evolutionary perspective. She was not referring to intelligence as a cause for design. In keeping with that point, one would not expect a cosmologist and a physicist to present identical definitions for the word “energy.” It would only be unscientific if each discipline failed to present its own definition, just as ID presents its own definition of intelligence as a cause for design.

First of all, ID does NOT present its own definition of "intelligence" as a cause for design. That is the whole point. ID surely ought to prominently present a clear, canonical, technical definition for its sole explanatory concept, but it doesn't. You'll find Meyer saying one thing, Dembski saying another, and others never bothering to provide any definition at all! Second, you would never hear a physicist say "Until there is a scientific theory of energy, we actually do not really know what we are talking about." So no, it isn't merely that scientists use different definitions in different contexts. Denyse is correct - neither ID proponents nor anyone else has a scientific theory of what intelligence is.

There is simply no reason for an ID proponent to present the same definition of intelligence as that which might be provided by a cognitive psychologist, a physical anthropologist, or a military tactician, even if there are similarities in the concepts involved.

In fact, there is a very good reason ID cannot possibly use those definitions, of course. For example, if ID used a definition such as "that which is measured by an IQ test", then it would become obvious that ID can never provide any evidence that the cause of biological systems was "intelligent".

Or is it your position that representatives from these and other disciplines should get together and standardize their definition of intelligence in order to say anything meaningful from a scientific perspective?

On the contrary! "Intelligence" is not a unary thing, and so there is no sense in trying to come up with a single definition! Scientific disciplines always provide scientific (operationalized) definitions for the term "intelligence" that are appropriate for the analysis at hand. ID fails to do this. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

God by way of the bible did comment on human intelligence. Solomon the ise said Wisdom is first, then understanding, then knowledge. Thats the atomic structure of smarts. IQ tests don't score these things but only score these things at a point in a childs life and this only from their demographics. tHat is its beyond their easy free will. Just like our languages. I say Asian hair is for the same reason as their eyes and possibly some other things. they simply bumped into the last stages of the "ice age' moving east and instantly the body was triggered to deal with a cutting wind. The hair is simply stronger to stay on the head. The eyes to protect the eyes from the cutting wind/dirt. simple changes from innate mechanisms. No evolution by selection. Probably these changes were not really needed but the body is sensitive. Robert Byers

Hi RDFish

To say that the cause of X is “intelligence” is to explain nothing, since nothing whatsoever follows from such a statement: We learn nothing about what the cause is, what it can or cannot do, what (if anything) it consciously experiences, nothing about any characteristics of the cause at all.

I disagree. To say that the cause of X is intelligence is to say that it was produced by a conscious choice for the sake of some end and was not produced by unconscious forces for no reason at all. Everyone inside and outside the ID camp understands the point. You will never hear a Darwinst say that he doesn’t know what ID’s argument means. He is too busy trying to shuffle the evidence in the other direction. If the meaning wasn’t clear, he would seize the point.

Until then, just as Denyse says, nobody has any idea what it means when ID says the cause of the flagellum was “intelligence”.

I doubt very much that Denyse would question the meaningfulness of the term “intelligence” or “intelligent agent,” as a cause for the bacterial flagellum. Clearly, Steven Meyer, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jay Richards (or any other ID proponent that I know of) would not question it. As far as I know, the only person who claims not to know what it means is you. It is never wise to dismiss context in any evaluation of this kind. Denyse was discussing, among other things, the difference in intelligence between races from an evolutionary perspective. She was not referring to intelligence as a cause for design. In keeping with that point, one would not expect a cosmologist and a physicist to present identical definitions for the word “energy.” It would only be unscientific if each discipline failed to present its own definition, just as ID presents its own definition of intelligence as a cause for design. There is simply no reason for an ID proponent to present the same definition of intelligence as that which might be provided by a cognitive psychologist, a physical anthropologist, or a military tactician, even if there are similarities in the concepts involved. Or is it your position that representatives from these and other disciplines should get together and standardize their definition of intelligence in order to say anything meaningful from a scientific perspective? StephenB

Hi StephenB, There really is no other reasonable interpretation of Denyse's remarks here, try as you might. Read it again:

Denyse: The problem is, no one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence.”

The only reasonable way to interpret this is that no one knows exactly what we mean by "intelligence".

Denyse: Until there is a scientific theory of intelligence (it will not be Darwinian, for sure), we actually do not really know what we are talking about.

The only reasonable way to interpret this is that we have no scientific theory of intelligence, and that there is therefore no scientific meaning for the term. To say that the cause of X is "intelligence" is to explain nothing, since nothing whatsoever follows from such a statement: We learn nothing about what the cause is, what it can or cannot do, what (if anything) it consciously experiences, nothing about any characteristics of the cause at all. Some day somebody might come up with an actual scientific definition for "intelligence" in the context of ID, just as psychologists have come up various other definitions of "intelligence" for other contexts. For example, as Timmy (@1) alluded, sometimes "intelligence" is defined as "that which is measured by an IQ test". Until then, just as Denyse says, nobody has any idea what it means when ID says the cause of the flagellum was "intelligence". Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish, still unable to use a dictionary. Do we need a theory of intelligence in order to define it? No. And no one but RDFish has taken the leap from no scientific theory of to meaningless to science. Talk about chump-bait... Joe

RDFish

Thank you, Denyse!

I would be very surprised if Denyse meant that ID has no theory of intelligence as a way of accounting for the existence of design in nature. Her point, as I take it, is that we have no theory of intelligence to explain why Asians are better at math than Europeans. Context matters. StephenB

Asian hair evolved to destroy roller-brush vacuum cleaners. The hair wraps around the roller, migrates to the bearings and heats up to incendiary temperatures where keratin maintains its strength long after polystyrene, polyethylene and bearing grease fail. - husband and father of 7 girls Robert Sheldon

The problem is, no one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence.” Until there is a scientific theory of intelligence (it will not be Darwinian, for sure), we actually do not really know what we are talking about.

Oh, my. I have been arguing for many years that we have no theory of intelligence, that the term means different things to different people in different contexts, and that in general, just as Denyse says, we do not know what we are talking about when we talk about "intelligence". It is very nice for my position to be validated here at UD. What seems to have escaped notice is that if the word "intelligence" is scientifically meaningless, then any "theory" which invokes "intelligence" as the explanation from everything from biological complexity to the values of physical constants to the relative size of the Sun and the Moon is... meaningless. Thank you, Denyse! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

There is a very scientific theory of intelligence, despite the fact that we don't know exactly what "intelligence" means. It is based on the fact that IQ scores correlate with outcomes (education level, income, illegitimacy rates, et cetera). Since at no point is macroevolution invoked to explain these racial differences, any accusation of racism cannot be sullied association with Darwinism. Timmy