Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Categories
Human evolution
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
Hi Timmy,
RDF: Nobody has any good explanation of the origin of life. TIM: It’s like squeezing blood from a stone, but we’ve finally made some progress!
Progress? I suppose so - if you mean you've finally actually read something I've written.
So, explain yourself.
What I mean is this: Nobody has any explanation of the origin of life that we can demonstrate to be true by means of scientific evidence. The answer is, to date, simply unknown.
Most scientists (and we all know how you love majorities)...
Why do you say I "love" majorities? My point about majorities regarding libertarianism was merely to counter the notion that EVERYONE believes that intelligence is the complement of law + chance.
... endorse the neo-Darwinian explanation as perfectly “good”.
I am not a Darwinist, and even so, there is no such thing as a neo-Darwinian explanation for the origin of life. Darwinism only purports to explain the origin of biological systems once semi-conservative reproduction of living organisms had already originated. Theories regarding the origin of life are called theories of abiogenesis.
Apparently you disagree. What possible reason could you have?
Yes, I do not believe that Darwinian evolution successfully accounts for biological complexity because it is impossible that the complex form and function we observe could arise in the time available by any known evolutionary mechanism. And I do not believe that any current theory of abiogenesis has come close to explaining how self-replicating entities came to exist in the first place.
RDF: So which is it? Do you dare actually debate me, or will you continue this transparent and cowardly retreat? TIM: Such projection.
Apparently you think I am afraid to debate you? That's pretty funny. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
RDFish
That you would rather accuse me of “lies” rather than talk about the meaning of the word “intelligence”, or the reliance of ID on libertarianism, or any other substantive issue?
Again, I notice (as does everyone else) that you don't even dispute my report that you lied repeatedly after multiple corrections. Would you care to return to the many scenes of the crimes? How about this lie?
You were very (incredibly) wrong to think that everyone believes that intelligence is the complement of law + chance.
Or this one
Despite your insistence that EVERYONE believes that intelligence transcends law+chance, most philosophers deny this.
Or this one
You really are making no sense: You said EVERYONE believes that intelligence is the complement of law+chance.
Or this one
My point here is that ID presents one particular position regarding philosophy of mind, viz. libertarian dualism, and pretends that this particular metaphysics is settled science (as StephenB said, that everyone, EVERYONE, believes it).
Or this one
u, Another particular definition that Dembski is partial to (and you, at times) is that “intelligence” is our libertarian free will (that is to say, something that transcends law + chance).
Show me where Dembski defines intelligence as libertarian free will. Dembski allows for an impersonal, even immanent design principle in nature, which would not entail free will. You are just making things up again. Unrepentant dishonesty makes civil dialogue impossible.StephenB
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
RDFish,
Nobody has any good explanation of the origin of life.
It's like squeezing blood from a stone, but we've finally made some progress! So, explain yourself. Most scientists (and we all know how you love majorities) endorse the neo-Darwinian explanation as perfectly "good". Apparently you disagree. What possible reason could you have?
So which is it? Do you dare actually debate me, or will you continue this transparent and cowardly retreat?
Such projection.Timmy
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
Hi Stephen,
Let me know when you want to discuss your lies. When we get that problem out of the way, we can enter into a civil dialogue, assuming that you can be rehabilitated. Meanwhile, you have disqualified yourself from any such interaction.
Do you think that your evasion of the issues under discussion is somehow unnoticed? That you would rather accuse me of "lies" rather than talk about the meaning of the word "intelligence", or the reliance of ID on libertarianism, or any other substantive issue? It is infrequent that you do not misrepresent each and every point that I make. Sometimes I believe you just fail to understand what I've said (either because I haven't been clear or because you've misread it) and other times you have no good rebuttal to what I've said so you build a strawman instead. Yet I do not stamp my feet and wag my finger and call you a "liar" and refuse to resume the debate, because if I did that it would make me look as stupid as you do now. So which is it? Do you dare actually debate me, or will you continue this transparent and cowardly retreat? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
Hi Timmy, Apparently you had no response to the following points: 1) The lack of limitive laws that would allow science to rule out "material" explanations of thought the way it rules out perpetual motion. 2) The fact that leading ID authors (Stephen Meyer in particular) claim that conscious thought was involved in the creation of life, despite your questioning my justification for saying so. 3) The fact that the complement of law + chance is tantamount to libertarianism, which is a controversial philosophical position, and not a scientific result. Moving on...
TIMMY: …and that many organizations of matter (e.g. life) cannot be explained without reference to design. RDFish: Obviously there is nothing that cannot be explained by reference to “design”, which is why people have historically invoked this catch-all explanation for anything that cannot be explained any other way. TIMMY: Prove that life can be explained without an intelligent mind as the ultimate cause.
Nobody has any good explanation of the origin of life.
Failing that (duh), prove that each of the many and various objections to the no-”intelligent mind” explanation for life can be reasonably ignored.
This is confused. There is no explanation called a "no-intelligent-mind" explantion, of course. There are all sorts of attempts to explain OOL, from known biochemical mechanisms to as-yet-undiscovered self-organizational principles to as-yet-undiscovered alien beings to as-yet-undiscovered immaterial beings... all of these are merely conjectural, and none have empirical support.
You’ll fail that too, of course.
I don't consider this a failing of mine, actually - I am not an OOL researcher :-) It's just one of the questions that we have not (yet) been able to provide an answer to, that's all.
I’m sure you can figure out the implications, for example towards these ridiculous statements of yours:
Calling a statement "ridiculous" is not an argument, Timmy. You actually have to make a counter-argument. Can you at least try? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
SB: I would prefer to discuss your habit of lying and your reasons for doing it. REFish
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahAHAHAHAHAhahaha ha ha aha.
LOL. You don't even dispute the point, which of course you can't. Let me know when you want to discuss your lies. When we get that problem out of the way, we can enter into a civil dialogue, assuming that you can be rehabilitated. Meanwhile, you have disqualified yourself from any such interaction.StephenB
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
RDFish, Really? Lol. At this point the question is how embarrasing a lie are you willing to tell. Let's find out! Because you boxed yourself in a corner with this ill-conceived dodge:
Me: …and that many organizations of matter (e.g. life) cannot be explained without reference to design.
RDFish: Obviously there is nothing that cannot be explained by reference to “design”, which is why people have historically invoked this catch-all explanation for anything that cannot be explained any other way.
Prove that life can be explained without an intelligent mind as the ultimate cause. Failing that (duh), prove that each of the many and various objections to the no-"intelligent mind" explanation for life can be reasonably ignored. You'll fail that too, of course. I'm sure you can figure out the implications, for example towards these ridiculous statements of yours:
No, it doesn’t [make perfect sense to say, “material causes can’t account for…”], for the reasons I just gave.
ID does propose that design is independent of law+chance, but it does nothing to provide any evidence that this is the case.
Game. Set. Match.Timmy
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
) The term “intelligence” can mean so many different things that unless one specifies what one is referring to, the term has no meaning at all.
Nonsense. The word "intelligence" has several meanings and educated people can usually figure out which apply given the context.
The term “intelligence” is central to ID theory, since it represents the sole explanatory concept of the theory. It thus behooves ID theorists to specify just what they mean when using this term.
We have. YOU just choose to be willfully ignorant. So RDFish is just a cry-baby who chooses to obfuscate rather than learn.Joe
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
Hi Andre,
” A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—”catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.”
Ok, here's yet another definition of "intelligence". If ID were to standardize on this particular definition, then all that would be required would be to marshall the evidence that whatever accounts for biological systems did in fact match this particular definition. How, for example, might ID demonstrate the cause of life could read a book? Or that it had a broad and deep capability for comprehending its surroundings? Or that it could "catch on" or "make sense of things"? It could be, for example, that the cause of life could do nothing except produce the complex form and function we observe in biology - rather like a savant - and possess none of these other skills. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Hi Stephen,
RDF: I predict that you have no responses to any of these points, and that you will try to avoid the debate by complaining about my mendacious, evil, and sinful nature SB: I would prefer to discuss your habit of lying and your reasons for doing it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahAHAHAHAHAhahaha ha ha aha. Here are the points, fatal to the whole ID project, that you have no response to. If you were honest you'd admit it. Instead, you flail and panic and accuse me of being a liar (!) because I have pointed out the flaws in your cherished beliefs. So sad! 1) The term “intelligence” can mean so many different things that unless one specifies what one is referring to, the term has no meaning at all. 2) The term “intelligence” is central to ID theory, since it represents the sole explanatory concept of the theory. It thus behooves ID theorists to specify just what they mean when using this term. 3) However, no standard definition of “intelligence” is given for ID. Thus, without further qualification, the central claims of ID (that “intelligence” is the cause of life, etc) are meaningless. 4) There are any number of specific, meaningful definitions that one might provide for the term “intelligence”. If ID adopted any one of these definitions then ID would no longer be meaningless. However, once ID does adopt any particular definition for “intelligence”, it becomes apparent that there is no evidence that something matching that particular definition actually created life. 5) One particular definition that Meyer is partial to (and you, at times) is that “intelligence” refers to conscious thought. This is certainly a meaningful claim, but we have no evidence that anything besides a living organism could be conscious, and for some reason ID does not engage in any research that could support this claim. 6) Another particular definition that Dembski is partial to (and you, at times) is that “intelligence” is our libertarian free will (that is to say, something that transcends law + chance). This is also a meaningful claim, but we have no evidence that anything, including human beings, operate outside of law + chance. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Hi RDFish:
Here are some points I’ve made to which I believe you’ve not responded. Can you say which of these points you take issue with, and why?
I would prefer to discuss your habit of lying and your reasons for doing it. Cheers!StephenB
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT
RDFish.... I might help you and I do so gladly, because you typed up the tripe above contradicting yourself in the process. Here is the definition of Intelligence " A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do." Can you do all those? Yes sir you have intelligence but let me make it easier for you..... What is the difference between intelligence and non-intelligence in a nutshell? NON-Intelligence can only encode, intelligence can both encode and decode. I find it absolutely astounding that you are unable to define, categorize or even understand what intelligence is unless of course you are being obtuse on purpose and that my friend is not a very good sign of your integrity as a person. But then again in a world where survival is all there is I guess you don't need integrity do you?Andre
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT
Hi Stephen, Here are some points I've made to which I believe you've not responded. Can you say which of these points you take issue with, and why? I predict that you have no responses to any of these points, and that you will try to avoid the debate by complaining about my mendacious, evil, and sinful nature :-) 1) The term “intelligence” can mean so many different things that unless one specifies what one is referring to, the term has no meaning at all. 2) The term “intelligence” is central to ID theory, since it represents the sole explanatory concept of the theory. It thus behooves ID theorists to specify just what they mean when using this term. 3) However, no standard definition of “intelligence” is given for ID. Thus, without further qualification, the central claims of ID (that “intelligence” is the cause of life, etc) are meaningless. 4) There are any number of specific, meaningful definitions that one might provide for the term “intelligence”. If ID adopted any one of these definitions then ID would no longer be meaningless. However, once ID does adopt any particular definition for “intelligence”, it becomes apparent that there is no evidence that something matching that particular definition actually created life. 5) One particular definition that Meyer is partial to (and you, at times) is that “intelligence” refers to conscious thought. This is certainly a meaningful claim, but we have no evidence that anything besides a living organism could be conscious, and for some reason ID does not engage in any research that could support this claim. 6) Another particular definition that Dembski is partial to (and you, at times) is that “intelligence” is our libertarian free will (that is to say, something that transcends law + chance). This is also a meaningful claim, but we have no evidence that anything, including human beings, operate outside of law + chance. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT
Hi RD,
No response to any of this?
Actually, I have already responded to all your points and refuted them. At this point, I would like to discuss your propensity for lying. If you can tell me why you do it, I might find a way to help you break the habit. Cheers!StephenB
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
Hi CLAVDIVS,
Libertarianism is clearly a minority position.
Thank you so much for those interesting statistics! So much for the notion, so popular here, that EVERYBODY believes design transcends law + chance. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Hi Timmy,
If I said, “Material causes can account for perpetual motion machines of the second kind,” you would have no problem with that? If I said, “Material causes can account for reactionless propulsion,” you would have no problem with that? If I said, “Material causes can account for the resurrection of Christ,” you would have no problem with that?
I'm afraid your analogies are all backwards. In the examples you give, you present some phenomenon that is thought to be impossible (perpetual motion, reactionless propulsion, human resurrection) and ask if material causes could account for them. However, in the example we were discussing, we start with something that manifestly does exist (human thought and consciousness) but do not understand.
Implicit in the positive laws science has discovered is that many “events” can be ruled impossible by material causes, or impossible period. It is not even slightly necessary to have a perfect understanding of material causes.
Yes, some of the most important laws of science are limitive laws (such as the exclusion principle, the uncertainty principle, and the various conservation laws). We have discovered no limitive law in the area of consciousness or mental function, however. (Some have tried to use Godel's theorem as a limitive law regarding mentality, but this effort hasn't gained much traction in either philosophy or science).
So, it makes perfect sense to say, “material causes can’t account for…”
No, it doesn't, for the reasons I just gave. Perhaps thought and consciousness arises from quantum gravitation the way Roger Penrose imagines, for example.
RDF: Rather, what I think is this: ID proposes that a conscious mind was involved in the creation of life. TIMMY: What possible justification do you have for thinking that?
Because leading ID authors say it (e.g. Stephen Meyer). ID is of course a very big tent, meaning that people with all sorts of contradictory views declare that they are all supporters of the same "theory", ID.
As has been repeated ad nauseum, ID proposes that “design” is category independent to “chance + necessity”,
ID does propose that design is independent of law+chance, but it does nothing to provide any evidence that this is the case. Contra-causal (or libertarian) free will may exist, or it may not, but that is a question that has been debated for millenia and there is still no way to determine the answer. I realize you are heavily invested in believing in libertarianism, and your opinion is that anyone who doesn't is insane, LOL. The fact remains that nobody knows if it is true.
...and that many organizations of matter (e.g. life) cannot be explained without reference to design.
Obviously there is nothing that cannot be explained by reference to "design", which is why people have historically invoked this catch-all explanation for anything that cannot be explained any other way. Certainly IF there was an entity that existed prior to living systems that could think and plan and arrange matter according to its plans THEN we would have a well-supported explanation for life. But that is a big IF, and just assuming that it is true can't be considered a scientific result.
We D E D U C E from this the existence of an immaterial mind. DEDUCE, not propose. INFER, not assume.
No, you assume it as an hypothesis. As I just explained, IF this immaterial mind existed THEN we could explain our observations... but that is only the first step in a scientific investigation. Once we propose an hypothesis that would, if true, account for our observations, we then go about collecting evidence that our hypothesis is in fact true. There is no evidence that ID's hypothesis is true, however, and some reason to believe it could not be true (i.e. that mental functions needed to design seem to require properly functioning brains).
Pay attention: IF IT IS TRUE that design is a separate category and that life cannot be explained without design, THEN IT FOLLOWS INDISUPUTABLY that an immaterial mind exists.
Neither of your premises can be shown to be true. As I've argued above, "design" is only a "separate category" if you believe in libertarianism, which in fact remains nothing but metaphysical speculation. And also as I've argued above, there is no limitive result that would give us good reason to say that no explanation for life can ever be found without invoking a supernatural mind.
RDF: Anyway, we certainly know a lot about the biochemical systems involved in brain operation, and we understand a great deal about the operation of individual brain cells TIMMY: In other words, what I said.
On the contrary: You were under the impression that we understood how brains work, but I pointed out that was not the case. Saying we understand how brains work because we've learned how neurons work is like saying we understand how the internet operates because we know what a transistor is. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
Hi Stephen, 1) The term “intelligence” can mean so many different things that unless one specifies what one is referring to, the term has no meaning at all. 2) The term “intelligence” is central to ID theory, since it represents the sole explanatory concept of the theory. It thus behooves ID theorists to specify just what they mean when using this term. 3) However, no standard definition of “intelligence” is given for ID. Thus, without further qualification, the central claims of ID (that “intelligence” is the cause of life, etc) are meaningless. 4) There are any number of specific, meaningful definitions that one might provide for the term “intelligence”. If ID adopted any one of these definitions then ID would no longer be meaningless. However, once ID does adopt any particular definition for “intelligence”, it becomes apparent that there is no evidence that something matching that particular definition actually created life. 5) One particular definition that Meyer is partial to (and you, at times) is that “intelligence” refers to conscious thought. This is certainly a meaningful claim, but we have no evidence that anything besides a living organism could be conscious, and for some reason ID does not engage in any research that could support this claim. 6) Another particular definition that Dembski is partial to (and you, at times) is that “intelligence” is our libertarian free will (that is to say, something that transcends law + chance). This is also a meaningful claim, but we have no evidence that anything, including human beings, operate outside of law + chance. No response to any of this? You really are getting worse at this as time goes on. In this short time you've racked up all these embarassing errors, and you can't even pretend to respond to any of my points. Oh well. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
FWIW: Here are the results of a survey of over 3500 professional philosophers: Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%. Mind: physicalism 56.5%; non-physicalism 27.1%; other 16.4%. Note compatibilism entails the truth of determinism i.e. every event, including agent choice, is determined by causes such that it could not have turned out any other way. Conversely libertarianism entails the non-truth of determinism. Libertarianism is clearly a minority position. CheersCLAVDIVS
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
PS: Where also, the various dodgem proposals will either reduce to raw evo mat, or else be a way to cloud things enough not to see that the contempkative intelligent mind is utterly distinct from the blind GIGO limited computational processes carried out on modified rocks. Cf here the classic bug in early pentiums. PPS: And yes there has been a proliferation of complicated branding from Celeron to i-whatnot and Xeons etc. They are all Pentiums, or 586 family.kairosfocus
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
Hi RD:
While you seem to think that everybody agrees that intelligence is outside of law + chance, you are mistaken in this regard; libertarianism is actually an unpopular position in modern philosophy.
Inasmuch as I have corrected this blatantly dishonest misrepresentation at least five times, and inasmuch as you have willfully ignored my patient correctives, and inasmuch as you continue to repeat the same lie without even a semblance of a scruple, I will just have to assume that you feel desperate and cannot help yourself. Cheers!StephenB
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
RDF, I find it observable that (a) I am consciously aware and contemplative but (b) rocks are not . . . inclusive of (c) special semiconductor rocks arranged by intelligent designers to execute algorithms, such as ye olde 6809E or ye latest greatest Pentium quad core whatz it 3+ gHzer? I therefore find a phenomenon that is observable and has consequences in the material world . . . such as the text of this post . . . and which simply does not and cannot fit the matter-energy-space-time, blind chance and mechanical necessity frame so often imposed in our day. I therefore find it significant not to try to reduce the one to the other. Especially as a greatly exceeds the blindv search capacity of the whole observed cosmos ROUTINELY -- again, as with the FSCO/I in this post. Further to this, that entity a is intelligent on reasonable senses of that term. Finally, I find that the evolutionary materialist view, never mind the lab coats, is inherently, inescapably self referentially incoherent, as did Haldane. KFkairosfocus
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
RDFish,
So more accurately, I’d say that the evidence for some explanatory cause must be observable in our uniform and repeated experience, be it “material” or not.
You say tomato.
It doesn’t make sense to say “material causes can’t account for…”, because that assumes we understand everything about “material causes”
If I said, "Material causes can account for perpetual motion machines of the second kind," you would have no problem with that? If I said, "Material causes can account for reactionless propulsion," you would have no problem with that? If I said, "Material causes can account for the resurrection of Christ," you would have no problem with that? Implicit in the positive laws science has discovered is that many "events" can be ruled impossible by material causes, or impossible period. It is not even slightly necessary to have a perfect understanding of material causes. So, it makes perfect sense to say, "material causes can't account for..." and the rest of your evasive manuever disintegrates.
Rather, what I think is this: ID proposes that a conscious mind was involved in the creation of life.
What possible justification do you have for thinking that? As has been repeated ad nauseum, ID proposes that "design" is category independent to "chance + necessity", and that many organizations of matter (e.g. life) cannot be explained without reference to design. (There are a few other things, but that may be the chief one.) We D E D U C E from this the existence of an immaterial mind. DEDUCE, not propose. INFER, not assume. Pay attention: IF IT IS TRUE that design is a separate category and that life cannot be explained without design, THEN IT FOLLOWS INDISUPUTABLY that an immaterial mind exists. If you want to dispute something, dispute what is actually being claimed, not the inexorable conclusion.
Actually you’re being asinine for saying things like this while I’m trying to have an interesting debate in good faith.
Good faith, sure. You can start by conceding what ID actually is.
Anyway, we certainly know a lot about the biochemical systems involved in brain operation, and we understand a great deal about the operation of individual brain cells
In other words, what I said.Timmy
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
Hi StephenB,
This is irrelevant to your claim, which is that these philosophers do not know the meaning of what they are rejecting.
No, Stephen. Let's try to listen to each other, shall we? My points are not complicated: 1) The term "intelligence" can mean so many different things that unless one specifies what one is referring to, the term has no meaning at all. 2) The term "intelligence" is central to ID theory, since it represents the sole explanatory concept of the theory. It thus behooves ID theorists to specify just what they mean when using this term. 3) However, no standard definition of "intelligence" is given for ID. Thus, without further qualification, the central claims of ID (that "intelligence" is the cause of life, etc) are meaningless. 4) There are any number of specific, meaningful definitions that one might provide for the term "intelligence". If ID adopted any one of these definitions then ID would no longer be meaningless. However, once ID does adopt any particular definition for "intelligence", it becomes apparent that there is no evidence that something matching that particular definition actually created life. 5) One particular definition that Meyer is partial to (and you, at times) is that "intelligence" refers to conscious thought. This is certainly a meaningful claim, but we have no evidence that anything besides a living organism could be conscious, and for some reason ID does not engage in any research that could support this claim. 6) Another particular definition that Dembski is partial to (and you, at times) is that "intelligence" is our libertarian free will (that is to say, something that transcends law + chance). This is also a meaningful claim, but we have no evidence that anything, including human beings, operate outside of law + chance. 7) While you seem to think that everybody agrees that intelligence is outside of law + chance, you are mistaken in this regard; libertarianism is actually an unpopular position in modern philosophy. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
Hi Timmy,
RDFish: All we observe is the material universe, so only material causes can be considered.
I don't think the label "material" is helpful, because our most basic understanding of the material world (quantum physics) has revealed that matter is not fundamentally "material". Is a quantum waveform "material"? Are any of the fields described by physics "material"? Is quantum entanglement "material"? I wouldn't say so, but we have abundant evidence that these things exist as they are described by modern physics. So more accurately, I'd say that the evidence for some explanatory cause must be observable in our uniform and repeated experience, be it "material" or not.
UD: Material causes can’t account for the design in life, and intelligent design is the only other option.
It doesn't make sense to say "material causes can't account for...", because that assumes we understand everything about "material causes", which is quite obviously not the case. There are aspects of physical reality that are deeply mysterious (e.g. the apparently non-locality and non-realism in quantum physics) and consciousness itself is deeply mysterious. What is true is that we have no explanations for many things (what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for conscious awareness, how/if conscious thought is causal, how complex form and function in biology arose, and so on).
RDFish: GOTCHA! Intelligence requires a brain, the Designer didn’t have a brain and therefore is not a material cause, and therefore can’t be considered.
No, that was not my reasoning - again, I don't think the concept of "materialism" is helpful here. Rather, what I think is this: ID proposes that a conscious mind was involved in the creation of life. As far as we know, however, a brain in good working order is required for conscious thought. This doesn't mean it's impossible for conscious thought to occur absent a brain, but we'd certainly need some evidence that it can before we consider ID's hypothesis to be a scientifically supported result. I don't understand, then, why ID does not join the research that has gone on to substantiate the idea that thought can occur outside the brain. Paranormal psychologists have studied ghosts, out-of-body experiences, and so on - I don't think the evidence is very good, but if more research was done it's possible that such things could be convincingly documented. There was, for example, a recent attempt to verify NDE out-of-body perceptions in hospital operating rooms, but as far as I know those results are thus far negative.
UD: Lol.
LOL is not an argument.
We can simply take for granted that a (supernatural) mind may store and process information.
That's fine, but it obviously isn't science.
We know how animals’ brains work, and that’s because animals behave just as you would expect from something run by nothing more than an advanced computer.
No, neither of these statements are true at all. You don't seem to be familiar with neuroscience. Anyway, we certainly know a lot about the biochemical systems involved in brain operation, and we understand a great deal about the operation of individual brain cells, but nobody understands how ensembles of neurons operate together to accomplish perception, planning, problem solving, and so on - even in very simple organisms.
Similarly, we know how human brains work.
Nope, sorry, nobody understands this. I'd suggest you read an introductory text in cognitive science, or even glance at few references on the net - you'll discover that we don't even fully understand most of the rudimentary aspects of memory and perception, much less higher brain functions.
And it is patently clear that nothing inside the human brain is capable of inventing calculus out of thin air, let alone capable of free will.
This is very confused. First, since we don't know how people do things like invent calculus, and neither do we understand how brains work, nobody is in any position to say any of this is "patently clear" - including that something besides brain function is involved. Many people believe that brain function depends on quantum physical phenomena in ways we don't understand at all, for example.
But rather than admit this, you bore us by declaring that the brain is a mystery. No, the mystery is how the mind interacts with the brain. The brain is an open book.
To say the brain is understood is an incredibly ignorant position. Where is it explained what happens in the brain when we pick a chess move, or recognize a face, or solve a math problem? Moreover, there are very serious problems regarding mind/body interactionism or transmission theory. What functions are supposed to occur in the immaterial mind and which in the brain? Why do specific changes in the brain result in specific changes to our mental perceptions and abilities? When the brain stops functioning properly under anesthesia or injury, why do we lose consciousness? When the brain stops functioning permanently after death, why do you believe consciousness would return? And so on, and so on.
RDFish: I don’t see how determinism is relevant to this discussion. Timmy: Yes you do
No, I don't - none of the topics we've discussed hinges on the truth of (some flavor of) determinism.
you’re just being asinine and stalling for time.
Actually you're being asinine for saying things like this while I'm trying to have an interesting debate in good faith. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Joe: Indeed bias is not phil, and the core vision of phil is comparative difficulties across worldview options, which opens minds. As opposed to ideological power agendas. Oops, there goes that pesky term, minds . . . y'know, that funny little faculty that makes us dream and be different from a nice, comfy blind rock. Horror of horrors, contemplation refuses to reduce to computation. Shock, horror, awe! KFkairosfocus
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
Tim, thanks. (It's a draft for a course unit in systematic theology, meant to be a show-tell.) I hear your point, and you may want to see here and here, on how I respond to the intellectual and moral breakdown of evolutionary materialism. KFkairosfocus
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
RDFish
Most philosophers reject that there is anything except for physical process, so no matter what you might mean (it changes moment to moment) by “intelligence”, if you declare that it transcends the physical, you are taking a minority position.
This is irrelevant to your claim, which is that these philosophers do not know the meaning of what they are rejecting.
You said EVERYONE believes that intelligence is the complement of law+chance.
I have corrected you several times on this matter. I said that everyone knows what it means to say that intelligence is the complement of law/chance. It is not, therefore, a meaningless concept, as you keep claiming. I did NOT say that everyone BELIEVES that intelligence is the complement of law/chance. I am past the point of giving you the benefit of the doubt on this willful misrepresentation. Please do not do it again or I will start calling things by their right name.
Again, IF you define “intelligence” as “agency set apart from law+chance”, then of course “secularists” (by your meaning) will understand that you are positing something they do not believe exists.
Yes, which means that the concept of intelligence as agency set apart from law/chance is not meaningless, as you claim. One cannot reject an idea that is not understood. This is exactly the way ID (Meyer, Dembski, and everyone else) conceives of intelligence. The only varying factor is the element of consciousnsess, which is irrelevant to Dembski's specific paradigm and essential for Meyer's specific paradigm.
Anyway, it is really your insistence that one theory (“Intelligent Design Theory”) can have any number of different meanings to different people, and needn’t actually be defined at all, that is most problematic.
Intelligence has one general meaning (agency set apart from law/chance), which applies to all ID proponents, and more than one specific meaning with respect to which aspect of intelligence is being studied through any individual paradigm (as in [a] "a selection between alternatives or [b]"a conscious choosing between alternatives." ID must be open to both impersonalism an personalism. Demski studies the former aspect; Meyer studies the latter. Specifically, the definition of impersonal intelligence cannot be identical to the definition of impersonal intelligence. Generally, the definition of intelligence as agency set apart from law/chance is identical to both paradigms. Perhaps the point is too subtle for you to comprehend.StephenB
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
KF: Good link. Although Christians need to stop casting pearls before swine. No objection to Christianity deserves to be considered unless it is made by one who acknowledges that the existence of some supermaterial, creating Mind is inescapably deduced by science.Timmy
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus- Personal bias is not philosophy and philosophy is not science- Heck you know that as well as I do. And you also understand that RDFish is totally out to lunchJoe
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
PS: Cf recent OP here.kairosfocus
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply