Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An opinion to respect here:

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? If flu regularly killed those susceptible to it, presumably those genetically resistant would come to predominate. This is both reasonable and observable.

However, the thoughtful may be uneasy with some of this. Boilerplate evolutionary theory holds that when a beneficial mutation accidentally arises, its possessor has an advantage in the struggle for survival, has more children, and thus passes on the new trait. This makes sense, at least if the mutation does something really desirable.

But …

Wade points out that certain Asians, due to a mutation, have hair with thicker hair shafts. One is hard pressed to see how slightly coarser hair would promote survival so efficaciously as to result in having more children. It is not clear why it would be an advantage at all. In the absence of reason or evidence, various solutions may be adduced: thick hair cushioned the blows of clubs, or girls thought it was sexy and said yes, or … something. It smacks of desperation. More.

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.

For one thing, whatever survives, survives. It is easy to make up explanations after the fact.

Only predictions count. And predictions are only of value for what they can predict for behaviour, not for outcome. Some people might be more likely to fight injustice than others, but does that mean they will succeed? Or be smitten from the face of the Earth, their names lost to memory?

Then were they more fit, or less? Is that even the right way to look at it?

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution) — when you look at how little they have to go on, you can see why it ended up being about popular buzz like “race.”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
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
June 11, 2014
June
06
Jun
11
11
2014
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
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
June 11, 2014
June
06
Jun
11
11
2014
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
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
June 11, 2014
June
06
Jun
11
11
2014
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
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/AIGuyRDFish
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
Very well said, CLAVDIVS@219.RDFish
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
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/AIGuyRDFish
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
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/AIGuyRDFish
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
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 fussTimmy
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
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/AIGuyRDFish
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
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/AIGuyRDFish
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
@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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
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. CheersCLAVDIVS
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
@ 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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT
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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT
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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
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
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT
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/AIGuyRDFish
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT
RDFish ... What's your take on my queries above @ 196?CLAVDIVS
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 9

Leave a Reply