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
Tim, too many today are logic challenged, indeed. The cosmos exhibits massive fine tuning, and is evidently contingent. It points beyond itself to intelligence, and to intelligence not of matter as we observe it. Our own experience as conscious minded creatures points to the sharp distinction between the computational and the contemplative. (Cf discussion here on.) This, too is locked out or treated as a big problem no-one has a solution to so why sweat it. The key thing to me is to look at Smith's 2 tier controller cybernetic model -- cf the linked -- and then to add Bartlett's reminder of oracles and computers, and how hey transform computational systems. A higher order oracle that transforms the lower order computing device is an interesting perspective indeed. KFkairosfocus
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Joe: a great many philosophers today are some species or other of naturalist. Most are too sophisticated to be outright blatant materialists. Problem is, the various nuances usually break down under challenge. Many who dabble in brains, minds, intelligence and so forth are influenced, and the resulting cloud of errors under a fog bank would be amusing if it were not so sad. Here, we have RDF using intelligence to dispute its factual reality by playing definitionitis games. And, the notion that one can lock intelligence down to brains begs big questions on the roots of reality. But then, silly games and laughing those who raise a different view off the stage have been going on since the stoics and epicureans in Athens dismissed Paul as a spermologos then tried to entertain themselves intellectually at his expense. Ever since his opening remark on how the monument to ignorance on the root of reality, God, exposes the fatal foundational crack, speculative schemes that fail to reckon adequately with the root of reality have been irretrievably bankrupt. KFkairosfocus
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
RDFish,
Of course it could be that other things besides complex organisms with complex information storage/processing mechanisms similar to human brains might exist and have mental abilities similar to ours. If there were, then it would support the hypothesis that such a thing might have been involved in the creation of biological systems. Until we can observe such a thing, however, it remains a hypothesis without evidence.
And we're back to the ever-so-tedious question begging. Yes, RDFish, I understand that you are being very careful to dance around the following argument as much as possible, but you carrying water for those who make it outright. So let's cut the BS. RDFish: All we observe is the material universe, so only material causes can be considered. UD: Material causes can't account for the design in life, and intelligent design is the only other option. RDFish: GOTCHA! Intelligence requires a brain, the Designer didn't have a brain and therefore is not a material cause, and therefore can't be considered. UD: Lol. Until you decide to admit that there are no material causes up to the task of designing life, and therefore intelligent design is the only option on the table, and therefore that minds can exist without brains, and therefore that materialism and determinism are wrong, you are just wasting everyone's time.
Moreover, we can’t even guess how something that did not have a complex organ to store and process information might be able to think at all.
Lol. Actually, what we really can't even guess is how a material brain could invent novel designs (or have free will, obviously). We can simply take for granted that a (supernatural) mind may store and process information.
Or perhaps you are talking about the argument from design. We’ll just have to disagree about that: It is clear to me that positing a “brain-lacking intelligent mind” remains just a hypothesis lacking scientific evidence.
Get back to us once you figure out the difference between a hypothesis and a deduction.
Hahahaha, that’s pretty funny. What we can say empirically is that nobody knows how brains work, and nobody knows how we think, but it’s pretty clear that we can’t think without our brains.
Nobody knows how brains work? Lol. The only reason you can make such a ridiculous, self-serving assertion is because you attribute the workings of the immaterial mind to the brain. We know how animals' brains work, and that's because animals behave just as you would expect from something run by nothing more than an advanced computer. Nothing magical going on. Similarly, we know how human brains work. And it is patently clear that nothing inside the human brain is capable of inventing calculus out of thin air, let alone capable of free will. But rather than admit this, you bore us by declaring that the brain is a mystery. No, the mystery is how the mind interacts with the brain. The brain is an open book.
We agree that whatever designed life couldn’t have had a brain. We disagree that this constitutes evidence for something brainless with human-like mentality (including conscious experience). Again, calling opposing philosophical views “mad” is not a good argument.
You can't argue with mad people, for example, people who concede that life was designed--and even that whatever designed it couldn't have had a brain--but refuse to admit the obvious and inescapable conclusion that design in life therefore constitutes evidence of a brainless mind.
We disagree. I am not a physicalist myself, but I do understand the issues well enough to know that there are very sophisticated and reasonable arguments for all sorts of different solutions to the mind/body problem. You seem unaware of this.
Yet you can't understand the only issue that matters: none of your precious alternative solutions can stand except on a material-causes-only explanation for life's design. And there are no reasonable arguments for that.
I don’t see how determinism is relevant to this discussion.
Yes you do, you're just being asinine and stalling for time.Timmy
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Why doesn't anyone else make RDFish reference his BS?
Most philosophers reject that there is anything except for physical processes...
No reference provided, ever. And we know RDF's word is no good. Also philosophers aren't scientists and scientists can't even provided any evidence for that BS claim. Look RDFish is obviously a willfully ignorant ass troll who couldn't support his claims in an open forum in which it has to respond to all its critics.Joe
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
Hi Timmy,
RDF: It does, however, make it obvious that whatever goes on when we think, it has a great deal to do with the brain. TIMMY: When humans think.
No, other animals also use their brains to think.
It has nothing to do with intelligence in general or conciousness in general or minds in general.
Humans and other animals are the only things we know of with mental abilities, so everything we know about thinking comes from organisms that critically require brain function in order to learn, solve problems, design things, and so on. We have no observations in our repeated and uniform experience of anything that can perform these functions without a brain. Moreover, we can't even guess how something that did not have a complex organ to store and process information might be able to think at all. Of course it could be that other things besides complex organisms with complex information storage/processing mechanisms similar to human brains might exist and have mental abilities similar to ours. If there were, then it would support the hypothesis that such a thing might have been involved in the creation of biological systems. Until we can observe such a thing, however, it remains a hypothesis without evidence.
It is not true by definition, since we have excellent reasons to believe that a brain-lacking intelligent mind (or minds) exists.
What reasons are you referring to? Ghosts and poltergeists? NDEs? Or perhaps you are talking about the argument from design. We'll just have to disagree about that: It is clear to me that positing a "brain-lacking intelligent mind" remains just a hypothesis lacking scientific evidence.
Humans are the only empirically known entities with intelligence or minds, and the two happen to be entangled with our brains.
That's like saying our ability to see just happens to be "entangled" with our eyes.
Yet lots of animals have brains substantively like ours, yet lack our intelligence.
But they are able to do all sorts of things we often call "intelligent" - learn, solve novel problems, communicate, and so on. They do these things by using their brains.
The most you can say, empirically, is that human brains are magical.
Hahahaha, that's pretty funny. What we can say empirically is that nobody knows how brains work, and nobody knows how we think, but it's pretty clear that we can't think without our brains.
All design in life amounts to evidence of a brain-independent intelligent mind, because science says design is real (philosophy where it disagrees, is madness) and whatever ultimately designed life couldn’t have had a brain.
We agree that whatever designed life couldn't have had a brain. We disagree that this constitutes evidence for something brainless with human-like mentality (including conscious experience). Again, calling opposing philosophical views "mad" is not a good argument.
RDF: My point here is that ID presents one particular position regarding philosophy of mind, viz. libertarian dualism and pretends that this particular metaphysics is settled science TIMMY: Because it is.
We disagree. I am not a physicalist myself, but I do understand the issues well enough to know that there are very sophisticated and reasonable arguments for all sorts of different solutions to the mind/body problem. You seem unaware of this.
At the end of the day, the determinists and reductionists only have their indefensible opinions.
You are lumping a lot of "isms" together that are actually orthogonal: They are largely independent questions in metaphysics and epistemology.
It’s not an argument, it’s a statement of fact,...
Declaring something is a fact is not a good argument either.
...backed up by arguments that I do not need to waste my time making.
People who spend a lot of time saying they don't have time to explain their arguments seem suspiciously like people who can't actually explain their arguments.
Considering the way the world is, determinism is insane.
I don't see how determinism is relevant to this discussion. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT
Hi StephenB,
If most philosophers think that agency is nothing but a physical process, and if they reject intelligence as a complement to that physical process, then they obviously know what is meant by that definition of intelligence when they reject it.
Most philosophers reject that there is anything except for physical process, so no matter what you might mean (it changes moment to moment) by "intelligence", if you declare that it transcends the physical, you are taking a minority position. There's certainly nothing wrong with minority positions, of course - it's only when you mistake them for settled science that you look ridiculous.
It is not my contention that most philosophers believe that agency transcends physical law. My contention is that they know what agency means in that context and reject it on those terms. Thus, your claim that they don’t know what intelligence means in that context is false.
You really are making no sense: You said EVERYONE believes that intelligence is the complement of law+chance. I pointed out that you were mistaken. IF you define "intelligence" as "that which transcends law+chance", then most philosophers will be bound to say "In that case, we do not believe in what you are calling 'intelligence'". If however you say that "intelligence" is conscious thought, then, well, everyone does believe that exists (although most neuroscientists believe consciousness is perceptual rather than causal).
[a] ID = agency set apart from law, chance.
In that case, ID is the same as libertarianism. (Again, Dembski does admit this).
[b] Secularism = agency subsumed into law/chance.
I find that a very ideosyncratic definition for the word "secularism", which usually means "separate from religion". But if that is how you'd like to define the term, that's fine with me.
Secularists reject [a] and they understand what they are rejecting.
Again, IF you define "intelligence" as "agency set apart from law+chance", then of course "secularists" (by your meaning) will understand that you are positing something they do not believe exists. Anyway, it is really your insistence that one theory ("Intelligent Design Theory") can have any number of different meanings to different people, and needn't actually be defined at all, that is most problematic. It seems pretty clear that if you leave ID's sole explanatory construct undefined (or having arbitrarily many distinct definitions), then ID isn't a theory at all. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT
SB: "Everyone, including Darwinists, knows what it means to posit intelligence as a counterpoise to law/chance. Everyone." RDFish
My point here is that ID presents one particular position regarding philosophy of mind, viz. libertarian dualism, and pretends that this particular metaphysics is settled science (as StephenB said, that everyone, EVERYONE, believes it).
Notice how RDFish misrepresents what I said (Everyone knows what intelligence set apart from law/chance means) and transforms it into (Everyone believes that intelligence is set apart from law/chance). Read my quote and then read what he makes of it. Unbelievable! I have only one question. Is this gross misrepresentation a function of dishonesty or sloppy thinking. I really want to know.StephenB
June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
It does, however, make it obvious that whatever goes on when we think, it has a great deal to do with the brain.
When humans think. It has nothing to do with intelligence in general or conciousness in general or minds in general.
In contrast, saying “intelligence has a great deal to do with the brain” is not simply true by definition; it is a fact that has been established by empirical observation.
It is not true by definition, since we have excellent reasons to believe that a brain-lacking intelligent mind (or minds) exists. In fact that is precisely the point. Saying it's been established "empiricially" is at best a truism and at worst wrong. Humans are the only empirically known entities with intelligence or minds, and the two happen to be entangled with our brains. Yet lots of animals have brains substantively like ours, yet lack our intelligence. The most you can say, empirically, is that human brains are magical.
I would say there is precious little evidence that this is true
That is because you are busy not paying attention to ID. All design in life amounts to evidence of a brain-independent intelligent mind, because science says design is real (philosophy where it disagrees, is madness) and whatever ultimately designed life couldn't have had a brain.
My point here is that ID presents one particular position regarding philosophy of mind, viz. libertarian dualism
Well duh.
and pretends that this particular metaphysics is settled science
Because it is. The other side has no arguments that carry water. They might cling to their "design = illusion" nonsense out of sheer stubbornness, they might represent the vast majority of tenured academics, but it remains that our side has won every intellectual and scientific battle that matters. At the end of the day, the determinists and reductionists only have their indefensible opinions. We have facts, logic, and truth. Now, it may well be that this is not settled philosophy, but science trumps philosophy every time.
There are dozens of different theories and sub-theories regarding the mind-body problem, and not one of them has clear empirical support.
Yes, and some of them are clearly, obviously, wrong.
I don’t think that implying that any philosophical position with which you disagree is insane is a very good argument.
It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact, backed up by arguments that I do not need to waste my time making. Considering the way the world is, determinism is insane.Timmy
June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
SB: Most philosophers, even atheists, recognize that the rational options available are agency, law, or chance.
No, most philosophers argue that “agency” is a label given to entities which are themselves nothing but physical processes. They hold that nothing exists but physical processes, and that even human thought acts according to physical law.
I'm really at a loss as to why you don't understand that your argument doesn't work. If most philosophers think that agency is nothing but a physical process, and if they reject intelligence as a complement to that physical process, then they obviously know what is meant by that definition of intelligence when they reject it.
As it happens, I do not concur with this position, but it is the most common among academics.
Yes, your proclivity to say what you don't think and your reluctance to say what you do think has always been duly noted.
Your insistence that most philosophers believe that agency transcends physical law is very telling about you – honestly I think you operate in a very cloistered environment.
Again, you are not even following the argument. It is not my contention that most philosophers believe that agency transcends physical law. My contention is that they know what agency means in that context and reject it on those terms. Thus, your claim that they don't know what intelligence means in that context is false.
You appear to be utterly naive about what scholars in philosophy think (save for those few who already agree with you).
And the strawman returns yet again. I am well aware that academia is flooded with secularist/materialist partisans and that they are in the majority. Indeed, I have experienced it and been forced to work around it in order to survive. None of this means that these same partisans don't know what intelligence means as a complement to law/chance. They do know what it means and they reject it on the basis of that meaning. [a] ID = agency set apart from law, chance. [b] Secularism = agency subsumed into law/chance. Secularists reject [a] and they understand what they are rejecting.
Not only do you fail to understand that most philosophers disagree with your libertarian/dualistic metaphysics, you actually beleive that “everyone” agrees with it.
You have yet to grasp the argument. What is it about the difference between understanding what a concept means and accepting that concept as true that you do not understand? I mean, really, there comes a time when you must stop conflating these two issues and face the poverty of your claim.StephenB
June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Hi Timmy,
RDF: I would say that yes, intelligence has a great deal to do with the brain, quite obviously. TIMMY: Oh really? How is that obvious?
It is obvious because there are constant, reliable, detailed, localized correlations between brain activity and specific mental functions. That does not mean that brain activity is the same thing as mental function, nor does it mean that brain activity causes mental function. It does, however, make it obvious that whatever goes on when we think, it has a great deal to do with the brain.
What’s actually obvious is the counterclaim: intelligence is an attribute of the mind.
I don't believe that what you've said is a counterclaim at all - both things are true. In fact, I think that saying "intelligence is an attribute of the mind" is true merely by definition, because what we refer to as "mind" is in fact our capacity for and experience of thought (or intelligence). In contrast, saying "intelligence has a great deal to do with the brain" is not simply true by definition; it is a fact that has been established by empirical observation.
And minds can exist independently of brains.
I would say there is precious little evidence that this is true (I suppose there is some evidence for ghosts and poltergeists, and some people interpret NDE reports this way). But there is a mountain of evidence that when the brain stops functioning properly (due to illness, injury, anesthesia, and so on) mental function can be dramatically altered or cease altogether. When someone "loses consciousness", it doesn't mean that their consciousness is still active but somehow unattached to their brain; rather it means that their conscious experience ceases (as far as we can tell).
What are you trying to prove?
My point here is that ID presents one particular position regarding philosophy of mind, viz. libertarian dualism, and pretends that this particular metaphysics is settled science (as StephenB said, that everyone, EVERYONE, believes it). That simply isn't true at all. There are dozens of different theories and sub-theories regarding the mind-body problem, and not one of them has clear empirical support.
The point, as usual, is that dualism is the only sane philosophical position.
I don't think that implying that any philosophical position with which you disagree is insane is a very good argument. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
RDFish @ 58
I would say that yes, intelligence has a great deal to do with the brain, quite obviously.
Oh really? How is that obvious? What's actually obvious is the counterclaim: intelligence is an attribute of the mind. And minds can exist independently of brains. Why do you continue this scharade, RDFish? Everyone knows that when we speak of "intelligence" as a cause, that is mere short hand for "an intelligent mind". You know it, your precious philosophers know it. What are you trying to prove?
Not only do you fail to understand that most philosophers disagree with your libertarian/dualistic metaphysics
The point, as usual, is that dualism is the only sane philosophical position. Philosphers can get away with spouting rubbish for the same reason that theologians can and evolutionary biologists can, but engineers can't.Timmy
June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
RDF:
If you disagree, simply tell us what the definition of “intelligence” is that gives meaning to the sentence “ID holds that biological systems are best explained by intelligence“.
OK- intelligence, as it applies to ID: The ability to deal with new or trying situations and the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environmentJoe
June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Hi StephenB, Excellent, you've decided to actually engage the argument!
RDF: I said they reject libertarianism, the idea that intelligence transcends law+chance. SB: Most philosophers, even atheists, recognize that the rational options available are agency, law, or chance.
No, most philosophers argue that "agency" is a label given to entities which are themselves nothing but physical processes. They hold that nothing exists but physical processes, and that even human thought acts according to physical law. As it happens, I do not concur with this position, but it is the most common among academics. Your insistence that most philosophers believe that agency transcends physical law is very telling about you - honestly I think you operate in a very cloistered environment. I read what people say here just because I already know what I think and I like to understand what others think. You appear to be utterly naive about what scholars in philosophy think (save for those few who already agree with you). Not only do you fail to understand that most philosophers disagree with your libertarian/dualistic metaphysics, you actually beleive that "everyone" agrees with it.
Libertarianism, consciousness, personalism or impersonalism are added considerations that the researcher can either take into account or leave alone, depending on his line of argument.
No, these are the only sorts of things that can give the term "intelligence" any meaning. Once you refuse to take a stand on these characteristics, the labels "intelligence" or "agency" are completely meaningless. If you disagree, simply tell us what the definition of "intelligence" is that gives meaning to the sentence "ID holds that biological systems are best explained by intelligence". Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT
Robb
I’ll try to make my point more clearly. You claim in #7 that intelligence, by definition, entails conscious choice. Correct?
For me it does, yes. I prefer to argue on that basis. So it is with Meyer. Both of us are interested in that aspect of intelligence that makes the connection between the designer's intention and the finished product. That is the direction I hope for with respect to the "ID movement." For that reason, and for philosophical reasons, I define intelligence in terms of conscious agency.
But Dembski claims that, as “its proponents understand the term”, the definition of intelligent design makes no such commitment. Correct?
Yes. As I understand it, ID, as a research project, cannot presume to define intelligence for each individual scientist since each ID paradigm different. I think that intelligence should be defined by the individual scientist in terms of his own paradigm---not by the ID community. I do think that the ID community ought to have a unified statement of general purpose, and so they do. I understand Dembski to be saying that one cannot, in principle, rule out an impersonal, unconscious design principle in nature as the cause of design. I agree that there should be no such rule. One cannot insist on behalf of the ID community and all of its proponents that intelligence = conscious agency, even if I (or Meyer) happen to define it that way. For my part, it is perfectly fine for any ID proponent to either withhold or make a commitment on that question. From a scientific perspective, I think it is legitimate for one researcher to define define intelligence in terms of a natural teleological principle and another to define it in terms of a conscious agent, as long as both agree that teleology is in play at some level and that law/chance has been transcended. From a philosophical perspective, I think the idea of an impersonal design principle makes no sense. But the ID community (including Dembski) is not bound by my or anyone else's philosophical preferences. On the contrary, I think that Meyer can teach us things about design that Dembski cannot and vice versa, precisely because each has bracketed out one element in order to focus on another.StephenB
June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT
StephenB:
Well, not quite. I think you mean to say that Dembski has denied that intelligence necessarily entails consciousness.
I'll try to make my point more clearly. You claim in #7 that intelligence, by definition, entails conscious choice. Correct? But Dembski claims that, as "its proponents understand the term", the definition of intelligent design makes no such commitment. Correct?R0bb
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
"compliment" should be "complement"StephenB
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
RDFish
I said they reject libertarianism, the idea that intelligence transcends law+chance.
Most philosophers, even atheists, recognize that the rational options available are agency, law, or chance. Very few would say that they don't know what the compliment to law/chance is or what it means. Libertarianism, consciousness, personalism or impersonalism are added considerations that the researcher can either take into account or leave alone, depending on his line of argument. None of those elements are essential for understanding the meaning of agency as a compliment to law/chance.StephenB
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
RDFish:
1) Defining “intelligence” as the complement of chance + law is equivalent to positing libertarian free will.
Cuz he sez so.
...I will let the fair reader decide who made a fool of whom here.
I am sure they have.Joe
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
RDFish (again ignoring context):
I would say that yes, intelligence has a great deal to do with the brain, quite obviously.
Human intelligence does, yes.
Which leaves ID in the difficult position of explaining how the most complex mechanism that we have ever observed – the brain – could have been designed by something with… a brain
LoL! ID doesn't posit a human as the designer of living organisms. I call Poe - RDFish has to be trying to be a complete assJoe
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
Hi Jerry,
In the introduction of the Teaching Company course on intelligence, they remark the concept of human intelligence is sometimes controversial, but two things are surely true. First, no matter how “intelligence” is defined, you know someone who is not as intelligent as you are. Second, intelligence has something to do with the brain.
Very astute observations, of course. I would say that yes, intelligence has a great deal to do with the brain, quite obviously. Which leaves ID in the difficult position of explaining how the most complex mechanism that we have ever observed - the brain - could have been designed by something with... a brain :-) Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Hi StephenB, Just as I predicted, you have not responded to a single thing I've said. Here are some of the arguments to which you have no response: 1) Defining "intelligence" as the complement of chance + law is equivalent to positing libertarian free will. 2) Despite your insistence that EVERYONE believes that intelligence transcends law+chance, most philosophers deny this. 3) Any theory in which different people defines the sole explanatory construct in completely different ways is not a theory at all. Is "intelligence" the complement of chance+law? Is it the ability to produce CSI? Is it the ability to experience conscious intent? Is it the ability to learn? Is it the ability to solve novel problems? Is it the ability to use grammatical language to express ideas? Is it all of these things? Some combination of them? Which ones? (hint: none of these definitions will actually work in the context of ID, which of course is why all ID proponents refuse to provide a standard technical definition of intelligence in the context of ID!!!) Yes, instead of replying to any one of these fatal problems for ID, you plug your ears and say this:
Your contradiction stands. You said that no one, including philosophers, know what the word “intelligence” means.
What a joke. There is no contradiction here, as anyone can see. Nobody, including philosophers, can possibly know what any particular term means until a definition is provided. That was Denyse's point. Then you compound your failures with this:
Yet you also indicated that “most philosophers” reject the very same idea that they are alleged not to understand.
Stop lying! I said they reject libertarianism, the idea that intelligence transcends law+chance.
You can’t talk your way out of it.
AHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahaha If you have nothing else to say I will let you have the last word - you can just repeat your pathetic attempts to defend yourself, pretend I'm saying things that I never said, and I will let the fair reader decide who made a fool of whom here. If you dare to attempt to engage any of my arguments, however, I will courteously and summarily demonstrate why you are wrong. Cheers! RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
R0bb- ID doesn't say anything about the intelligence involved. And all we can really say is that it is capable of doing what mother nature could not or would not do.Joe
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
In the introduction of the Teaching Company course on intelligence, they remark
the concept of human intelligence is sometimes controversial, but two things are surely true. First, no matter how “intelligence” is defined, you know someone who is not as intelligent as you are. Second, intelligence has something to do with the brain.
So we can conclude the obvious, that some of the commenters on UD are probably more/less intelligent than others. Then there is that famous dictum by Dale Carnegie that no matter who you meet, they are better than you at something.jerry
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Robb:
And yet Dembski has denied several times that intelligence entails consciousness.
Well, not quite. I think you mean to say that Dembski has denied that intelligence necessarily entails consciousness.
So when ID argues for an intelligent cause, is it or is it not saying that conscious choice was involved?
"ID," as such, doesn't argue either way. Meyer uses conciousness as a construct and defines his terms accordingly. Dembski does not, preferring to make the more "minimalist" claim. I disagree with Dembski. I think consciousness should be presupposed. In any case, "ID's" arguments and paradigms are specific and individually based. Only the mission is general and it is expressed in generalized terms.StephenB
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
There is definitely a theory of intelligence. Whether anyone likes it or not, lots of people are engaged in it. But like "life", "science", "evolution", "information". "species", "selection", "junk DNA", it is hard to pin down one exact definition. The Teaching Company has a course on it by one of the world's experts on the subject: The Intelligent Brain http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1642 And there other courses that discuss intelligence. Passions: Philosophy and the Intelligence of Emotions http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=4123 Customs of the World: Using Cultural Intelligence to Adapt, Wherever You Are http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=3092jerry
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
Sorry RD, you are busted. Your contradiction stands. You said that no one, including philosophers, know what the word “intelligence” means. Yet you also indicated that "most philosophers" reject the very same idea that they are alleged not to understand. You can't talk your way out of it.StephenB
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
StephenB:
To say that the cause of X is intelligence is to say that it was produced by a conscious choice for the sake of some end and was not produced by unconscious forces for no reason at all. Everyone inside and outside the ID camp understands the point.
And yet Dembski has denied several times that intelligence entails consciousness. See, for example, this excerpt from his recent book, which StephenB interprets as follows:
ID does not argue for a transcendent agent, a personal agent, a conscious agent, or any agent at all, but it is open to any of these prospects.
So when ID argues for an intelligent cause, is it or is it not saying that conscious choice was involved?R0bb
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
RDFish:
And yet again: Nobody knows what “intelligence” means until they provide a definition.
Andf ID has a definition of "intelligence" and it is from the dictionary. IOW it is a well accepted definition of "intelligence".
You never have any actual rebuttal to any of my points,
You have never had any valid points. And you ignore all refutations of the diatribe you post. RDFish is a legend is its own little mind.Joe
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
Hi StephenB,
You are saying that if only ID would do something unreasonable you could demonstrate that it is not a viable theory.
Hahahahaha - this is your FIFTH (count 'em - five!) strawman mistake in this short thread! I NEVER SAID that this is the ONLY way I can show ID is not viable - just another way of course. You are the one who is obsessed with this minor point, for a very obvious reason: You never have any actual rebuttal to any of my points, so you pretend I've made some error and refuse to talk about anything else. Instead of desperately clinging to this, why don't you attempt to respond to anything I've said? (The answer is obvious).
What I said was that most philosophers reject the idea that intelligence transcends law+chance (that is to say, most philosophers reject libertarian free will).
Yes, and of course you've failed to respond to this correction. What about it, SB? What about the fact that one of your definitions of intelligence (the complement of law+chance) is tantamount to libertarianism (just as Dembski admits)? What about the fact that hardly any professional philosophers defend libertarianism any more, despite the fact that you said:
SB: It could not be more clear. Everyone, including Darwinists, knows what it means to posit intelligence as a counterpoise to law/chance. Everyone. RDF: In other words, most philosophers reject the notion that intelligence is a “counterpoise” to (i.e. is outside of, or transcends) law + chance. SB: I don’t suppose you would care to support that rather extravagant claim with a wee bit of evidence, would you?
What about it? Oh well - I know you'll never respond to any of these mistakes you make, it's just not how you roll.
You said that no one, including philosophers, know what the word “intelligence” means.
And yet again: Nobody knows what "intelligence" means until they provide a definition. This is a painfully obvious point that even Denyse O'Leary manages to understand. Your only response is that definitions don't matter - anybody can make up any definition at all and use it whenever they want. This is a breathtakingly inane position on your part.
Are you suicidal?
Now you're just being weird. Cheers! RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Folks, at this stage this is a grand red herring strawman caricature exercise on RDF's part. The truth is, we know from experience what intelligence is, and that it routinely does things -- creates designs -- that simply cannot credibly be done by blind chance and mechanical necessity. If RDF wishes to assert tot he contrary, let him come forth with a blind chance and necessity process that in our observation produces FSCO/I beyond 500 or 1000 bits of complexity. For instance, a random text generation process that gives rise to texts in English, or even in Java Code that works. It is true that we do not know the ultimate nature of intelligence in details or how to syntehsise one, especially an intelligence that is conscious, insightful, creative and volitional, not merely programmed and/or driven by some random process. Say, one that can play Go with reasonable competence, given the search space challenge. And, RDF actually full well knows this. So, he is doing little more than playing rhetorical games trying to make his interlocutors look foolish. I have long since concluded that he is not here for any serious reason, so let's just correct for record. And, back on the OP, let's note News' clip:
How did we get where we are? Through natural selection, says Wade. It is indisputable that selection can alter a species or subspecies. The unnatural selection which we call selective breeding produces animals of different sizes, shapes, and temperaments. Why would we think that human animals are different?
First, selective breeding is an intelligent design process and actually tends to create varieties that are less effective in real-world environments. Think, fancy goldfish here. Second, This is an exercise in question-begging. Evolutionary Materialism and other forms of generalised Darwinism are positing a change driver that has simply not passed the vera causa test: show mechanisms that generate body plan level changes, beyond the FSCO/I threshold of 500 - 1,000 bits. Intelligence, identified form examples, is routinely capable of novel FSCO/I in our demonstration. Next, we happen to be conscious, minded, knowing, reasoning creatures that depend on contemplation not merely GIGO limited computation. We are seeing here a big unbacked IOU on how to get tot hat. Which is the problem, to begin with. Going in circles, locking in a suggested means that has no credible ability to get to FSCO/I, while ideologically locking out what has the demonstrated capacity. It's all a rhetorical game, in the end, backed up by question-begging materialist ideology dressed up in a lab coat. KFkairosfocus
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply