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
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
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
kf, thanks for reminding me of that site.Mung
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
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
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
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
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Debate: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/otherwise.htmlkairosfocus
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
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
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
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
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
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
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
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/AIGuyRDFish
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PDT
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
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT
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
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT
RDFish:
You haven’t even touched my argument, Stephen.
So?Mung
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
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/AIGuyRDFish
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT
It's not called The Explanatory Filter for nothing. But methinks that will be lost on RDFishy.Mung
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
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
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
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
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
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
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
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/AIGuyRDFish
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
"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
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
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
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
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
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
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/AIGuyRDFish
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT
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/AIGuyRDFish
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT
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
June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
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
June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
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/AIGuyRDFish
June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
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/AIGuyRDFish
June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
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
June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 9

Leave a Reply