Science and Freethinking

_{Gil Dodgen

September 23, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Everyone has a religion, a raison d’être, and mine was once Dawkins’. I had the same disdain for people of faith that he does, only I could have put him to shame with the power and passion of my argumentation.

But something happened. As a result of my equally passionate love of science, logic, and reason, I realized that I had been conned. The creation story of my atheistic, materialistic religion suddenly made no sense.

This sent a shock wave through both my mind and my soul. Could it be that I’m not just the result of random errors filtered by natural selection? Am I just the product of the mindless, materialistic processes that “only legitimate scientists” all agree produced me? Does my life have any ultimate purpose or meaning? Am I just a meat-machine with no other purpose than to propagate my “selfish genes”?

Ever since I was a child I thought about such things, but I put my blind faith in the “scientists” who taught me that all my concerns were irrelevant, that science had explained, or would eventually explain, everything in purely materialistic terms.

But I’m a freethinker, a legitimate scientist. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. And the evidence suggests that the universe and living systems are the product of an astronomically powerful creative intelligence.

Comments

Chris, Give it up. I should. Some people will rule out believing one thing unless they see it with their own two eyes and then apply a radically different standard when it suits their fancy. When you dig past all the lip service paid to reason and science there's nothing but a personal preference waiting at the bottom.ScottAndrews_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, The point is simple. Why would you acknowledge that a carbon-based life form with DNA can build a car made of steel and other components, and then reason that only a carbon-based life form with DNA can build a carbon-based life form with DNA? What logic requires that?
And they do so by looking for traces of that missing particle. What are ID researchers doing to try to find traces of the missing Intelligent Designer?
Try indoctrinating every physicist with the idea that a particle or mass they don't observe can't possibly exist, and then see how far the search for it gets. If someone else wrote what you just did I would tell them to go read the FAQ and gain a fundamental understanding of what ID is so they could make informed comments. What is your excuse? Going back to the arson example, since when does a forensics investigator determine arson and then go hunting for the arsonist? He doesn't. He writes up a report saying that it was arson and then leaves to go look at the next fire. Someone else looks for the arsonist. You see, science doesn't stop because someone draws a conclusion. But that doesn't mean that one series of tests answers everything. One conclusion leads to a new investigation. By your reasoning, the arsonist would examine the evidence and determine arson. The police would ask him who set the fire. He'd say, "I don't know," and then the police would tell him that it couldn't be arson. No one would ever investigate or find arsonists because of their illogical basis for ruling out arson. That would be quite ignorant. This is simple. It gets repeated over and over, and then people like you who should know better by now go back to it again.ScottAndrews_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

So, do you rule out a "substantiated inference" to the design of Stonehenge, Lizzie? Do you think we should be searching for an accidental, naturalistic explanation for its creation instead? Functional Complex Specified Organisation leaves all the trace we need (if you're not allowing theological objections to distort your reasoning).Chris Doyle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Cheers :) Giuseppegpuccio_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: Although there are many possible implementations, the logical principles of design are simple, and we can derive them form our experience as designers: a) The designer already has the information he wants to implement. Then he can do two differen things: a1) Directly write the information in the appropriate support. a2) Intelligently select and fix the correct information as it comes from random variation: that's the case of the Weasel modle. b) The designer does nto have the final information, but has some form of specific understanding of how to find it. For instance, he knows the form of the search space and can shape the search algorithm so that finding the target is hugely more likely. Or he is just aware of the function to be expressed, and can measure it, even at very low levels, and shape intelligent selection based on measure and reward of that function after cycles of random variation. In all cases, the designer has some intelligent understanding of the problem to be solved. And a definite purpose in solving it. I don't know if that's what you mean by "invoking foresight". If it is, well then I am doing exactly that.gpuccio_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Congratulations gpuccio! That is very lucid, and very brave. I think it is completely wrong, but much rather that than "not even wrong" :) Will be back later :) Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, You see, if you decide to stay within materialistic naturalism you are bound to face infinite regression of cause and effect, hence my sneer at the strike-anywhere matches. DMullinex's matches are not a mere deficiency of analogy. They are bound to exist in this or that form in any such reductionistic scheme even though their names might be different. In your reasoning these matches are called the first abiotic self-replicator. The only sensible way out of this is to suppose there is the Originating Super-Cause that is outside of this world and is therefore not bound by any cause-effect necessity. A bonus one gets as a result of doing away with reductionism is gaining a purpose. In materialistic schemes purposes may only be myopic and local but never the final Aristotelian cause.Eugene S_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

We do not need to know anything at all about the motivations, origins, powers or mechanisms of the Designer(s) to conclude that something has been Intelligently Designed for a purpose (nor do we need to know what that purpose is).
Yes, we do, Chris, if we are going to make a substantiated inference. Unless you are simply going to assert that some disembodied, massless, energy-less force managed to interact with the physical world, and thus violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Without leaving a trace.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth: Thank you for the interesting comments. I will try to answer briefly, even if, obviously, we are opening the discussion to deep aspects which necessarily touch many philosophical, and not merely scientific, points. Anyway, I will try to stay as empirical as possible. First of all, I would like to clarify that I do believe that consciousness in its essence is transcendental, independent of physical interface, and that it has a fundamental property that can be described as both cognition and feeling. In pure form, those aspects of consciousness are not tied to specific representations. In our experience of human consciousness, however, we usually represent what arrives to us through the interfece (for instance, the brain), but the cognitive and sentimental value of those representations are essentially a product of consciousness itself. So yes, intelligence can be completely separated from specific representations and form the interface. In us humans, intelligence works mainly through the brain interface, and uses its computing structures, but every meaning, purpose, sense of good and evil, pleasure and pain, are properties of consciousness, not of the physical computing apparatus. You say: But your claim is that a being with no physical substrate, no logic circuits, no neurons, can be “smart”. To me, that seems to be a quite unjustified claim! Why? There is nothing strange in that. Pure consciousness can be much more than "smart": it can be wise. You say: Again, assuming that consciousness is not explained by the physical interface (I do not agree, but again will grant for the purpose of this discussion), the effects of consciousness must surely involve a physical interface? Sure. You are perfectly correct here. I absolutely agree. If, as pure disembodied consciousness, and even, let me grant for now, intelligence, I may be able to conceive the purpose of creating a great building, or work of literature how do I achieve this without interfacing with the physical world of bricks and paper? How do I lift those bricks into position? How do I move the pen across the paper? You certainly have to do all that. Your disembodied mind must, at the minimum, be an entity that exerts physical force, or else no matter how wonderful the conceived design, no execution of that design can occur. Are you arguing that your disembodied mind is nonetheless a physical force? A mass-less, energy-less physical force? Not exactly. I believe that my "disembodied mind" (the designer's) does exactly what my own "disembodied mind connected to a physical brain" (my personal mind) does all the time: it interacts continuously in both directions with a physical structure (the brain, and in particular the neurons). In the case of the designer, the physical structure would not be a personal brain, but possibly the cells of biological beings to be designed for further evolution. As you are certainly a good knower of the field, you must be aware of some kinds of approach to the problem thaty resemble in some way my position, for instance Eccle's. Many others have well argued here for models where the brain cells are influenced at subatomic level, in quantum modalities, by consciousness. You may have read, for instance, "The spiritual brain", a well done review of some of these issues. Interesting insight about such problems can also be found in Penrose's books, although his approach is slightly different. My approach is simple enough. Consciousness receives input from the brain, "reading" or "perceiving" its neuronal states. And it can also output to the brain, at quantum level probably, contrlling key aspects of the neuronal work without violating any known physical laws. The special nature of quantum reality allows that. That's what happens every moment in our brains. Biological design could well be implemented by similar mechanisms. A "disembodied consciousness" can well "read" the existing information in biological cells, including the inputs from interactions of those cells with the environment, and output to those cells, controling crucial aspects of their informational history. I have suggested some key possible ways in which consciousness could "design" biological informatio directly: a) Controlling mutations, that would be at least in some cases not random, but guided. Let's call this modality "guided variation". b) Selecting random variations. Let's call this modality "intelligent selection". Guided variation and intelligent selection can well explain how the designer's information and his purposes are implemented in biological information. No physical laws need to be violated in the process. Obviously, there is also the possibility that consciousness can act as a "force", as you say. I am not excluding that. In that case, some kind of new force could in the future be observed, probably at subatomic level, in living beings, whose processes, being typically "far from equilibrium", can at present scarcely be exhaustively described in terms of our known laws of matter. What I am saying is that such a "force" modality is really not necessary to convey information at the quantum level. Does your postulated Intelligent Designer in fact violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? This seems a much a far “worse assumption” than any of mine! I have tried to explain that such an assumption is not necessary. The second law of thermodinamics can well rest in peace. It is essentially a probabilistic law, and strictly tied to the concept of information. Shakespeare did not violate it, I presume, while writing Hamlet, and yet Hamlet is one of the most wonderful examples of information being created by a consciousness (not by a brain, not by a brain...). For the biological designer, what we need is only a different model of interface between consciousness and matter, different from the one that daily works in us, and yet at the same time based on the same principles. In that case, how is the interface with physical reality achieved? Something like the following. The designer's consciousness is aware of existing biological beings. It understands cognitively that existence, and it loves that existence, and yet it has a purpose, it wants to express more through that existence. So, the designer's consciousness interacts with the information already there, graduallly or more likely rather abruptly, and shapes it in new forms, expressing new functions, through guided variation or intelligent selection or both, or through other modalities we still have to understand. Probably, no physical laws are violated. Or just laws that we still don't understand well are used. The result is that new, crucial information is inputted, and new biological beings are engineered. That model can also apply to OOL, if the designer's consciousness can perceive and arrange inanimate matter in the same way it perceives and arranges biological matter. The final result can be simple. Suppose a new protein is needed for a new project. Everything could happen in a way similar to what darwinist think: a gene is duplicated and inactivated; then the desinger acts in the sequence, changes nucleotides, through guided variation that is in perfect accord with all biochemical laws: only it is not random, but shaped by intelligence. Or he can fix random variation that is in accord with the project, like in the Weasel model. When the new gene has the desired form, it is ready to be activated, and to be inserted in the new project, and coordinated with all the other designed information that has been added in the meantime. As you certainly understand, I am not saying that things went that way. It's just a very tentative scenario, to answer your questions about "how it could be possible".gpuccio_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

OK, I get what you are saying, thanks. Let me respond directly to your post:
We also observe that intelligent designers are not restricted to designing after their own likeness. A person can design a car. It doesn’t take an intelligent car to do it.
No indeed. But I don't really get your point. Are you saying that an unintelligent agent can design an intelligent person? If so, I'd agree, and I'd call that "unintelligent agent" heritable variance in reproductive success :)
The property of intelligence is relevant, not the physical makeup of the agents. How often do physicists look for some particle or mass because certain properties seem to indicate it, while ruling out any known particle or mass?
And they do so by looking for traces of that missing particle. What are ID researchers doing to try to find traces of the missing Intelligent Designer? This is what I keep asking, and people keep telling me: you don't need to know what it is, just that it exists. This isn't how physics works. People inferred the existence of the luminiferous ether, and went looking for it. They couldn't find it. Did they just shrug and say: well, we know it must be there, maybe it has no physical properties (which would be silly, because they inferred it from its apparent physical effects). No, instead, they revamped the whole of physics so that it hung together without requiring the missing ether. I don't think your analogy does you a lot of good :)Elizabeth Liddle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, The trouble with analogies is that they are analogies.
Where, in ID theory, no matter what you think about a designer, are the physical mechanisms? How were the molecules moved, if not by a physical being, exerting physical force?
Just because the identifying marks of the case in the analogy are specific physical mechanisms, that doesn't mean that the same must be so in any possible case. You could do analysis on a piece of writing and perhaps attribute it to a specific author without knowing whether it was originally typed, handwritten, dictated, or tapped in Morse code. As far as how those molecules are manipulated, you've readily admitted that abiogenesis research has no detailed explanations, only hypotheses supported by data. And that's fine. And, as I've replied previously, any of that research could also be applied to determining how an intelligent agent might have created life. So to the extent that any other explanation is supported by physical evidence, so is this one.ScottAndrews_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Round and round in circles we go! What I mean when I say that you need to know something about the designer is that you need a mechanism. Speaking of circles, how about that famous functionally specified complex organised set of rocks known as Stonehenge? By what mechanism was that assembled? And if we don't know the mechanism, then does that mean it wasn't designed and that we can't even infer design? Because that is the conclusion you must draw from your line of reasoning, Lizzie. And, any serious thinker must agree that that's obviously false. We do not need to know anything at all about the motivations, origins, powers or mechanisms of the Designer(s) to conclude that something has been Intelligently Designed for a purpose (nor do we need to know what that purpose is).Chris Doyle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

I blown away that someone could simultaneously argue that no intelligence is required and that too much intelligence is required. But you're right, I shouldn't even be phased.ScottAndrews_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

You are not, presumably, suggesting that we do not know how reproduction occurs? If not, what are you asking? And I'm not sure what you mean by "physics and chemistry are nowhere to be found" with regard to specific variants. The entire field of genetics draws on both physics and chemistry. And in many cases we can identify the precise gene variants responsible for different features. I'm really not sure what the basis for your claim is!Elizabeth Liddle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

You just moved the goal posts :) Arguing from analogy is fraught with problems. What I mean when I say that you need to know something about the designer is that you need a mechanism. This is as true of detecting arson as it is of detecting deliberately designed life. We know, when we infer arson, that we are, from the evidence, inferring that a physical person with physical arms, physical matches, and physical gasoline formed part of the causal chain that started the fire. Where, in ID theory, no matter what you think about a designer, are the physical mechanisms? How were the molecules moved, if not by a physical being, exerting physical force? In an arson investigation, if there is no evidence for the gasoline being placed at the scene of the fire, and ignited, then you can't conclude arson. You'd have to conclude that the gasoline got spilled somehow (earthquake? tornado?), then was ignited by some spontaneous spark. The source of which you would then look for.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Why does that blow you away?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

One at a time: 1) Yes, of course there is “intelligent selection”, gpuccio, dmullenix already said that. But the “creative” variance occurred by chance, the very thing ID people claim cannot happen. Completely wrong, I am afraid. ID says that a random system alone cannot generate dFSCI. ID says also that a random syste + NS cannot generate the kind of dFSCI we observe, for instance, in basci protein domains, unless that information can be shown to be deconstructable in simple, naturally selectable steps. Which is not.
Well, depending on what you mean by "a random system alone", of course, a system in which variance is randomly generated, but without heritable variance in reproductive success, cannot generate anything much, certainly not an adaptive population, and therefore not FSCI (what does the d stand for?). So there is no disgreement there. However, the claim that a system in which variance is randomly generated and subject to natural selection i.e. where that genotypic variance results in heritable variance in reproductive success cannot result in dFSCI (or, at least in an adaptive population) certainly is in dispute, and we can see, for example, in evolutionary computer algorithms, that it does indeed. Not only that, but what evolves can be "irreducibly complex" in the sense that necessary precursor steps need not be advantageous, and can even be deleterious. So there is no principled reason for thinking that random heritable variance in reproductive success can't result in evolving functions that optimise a population for its environment. Or, at any rate, you have not stated one!
It is obvious that RV + intelligent selection can generate dFSCI. I will make the most trivial example: Dawkin’s “Weasel”.
Yes, indeed it is, but, interestingly, "intelligent" selection is less, not more, likely to produce complex functions. If a dog breeder, for example, wants to breed a particular feature, and only selects for breeding, pups that seem to show mild traits of that feature, s/he may well fail, because a really effective version of the desired feature may require superficially "backward" steps. In Dawkins' weasel program, there are no necessary backward steps on any path to the unique solution. In AVIDA, there are, and if an "intelligent agent" were to do the selecting, they could well fail to "breed from" individuals who were less fit than their peers, but who contain genomic sequences that are necessary for the most advanced function. Intelligent selection is a quick way of getting to a specific function, but it's not the best way of evolving a fit population (which is evidenced, of course, by the poor health of many highly bred domestic species), and certainly not the best way of evolving complex functions (I don't call floppy ears or a cute nose, "complex"!) such as EQU in AVIDA or wings, or eyes.
It is very easy to generate random variation, select the correct variation when it happens by comparing it to the known final result, fix it, and go on with further variation.
You have taken a wrong turn here, in fact two. First of all, in nature there is no "correct" variation. There is simply differential reproductive success. Organisms with genotypes that tend to produce thriving phenotypes will, by definition, be more likely to pass those genotypes on to descendents. So they are also, by definition, the "correct" genotypes for their environment - ones that work. And your second wrong turn is that no artificial selection system that I am aware of "fixes" "incorrect" variations before continuing. Variants that are undesired are simply not bred from, or given fewer opportunities to breed. This is true of Weasel, and of animal breeding. Nothing is "fixed" (at least not yet - genetic medicine may be on the horizon).
The simple point is, the designer has to know the final output in advance, and input it in the system. It’s not exactly as powerful as writing directly the output, but it is very powerful just the same.
Again you have taken a wrong turn. In evolutionary algorithms (not weasel, but almost every other one), the output of the evolving organisms is assessed against a criterion (just as it is, naturally, in wild species) but the organisms themselves as output is NOT specified. Let me give a real example. I can write an evolutionary algorithm that works as a classifier. I give it two sets of brain images, one from a patient group, and one from a healthy volunteer group. Starting with a population that has no better than 50:50 chance of correctly classifying each brain, I end up with a population that can correctly classify every brain. I then give it a set to classify, and hope that it also correctly classifies them. In other words, I start by specifying what output I want from the classifiers (correct classification of the brains), but I do not specify the parameters of the best classifiers. They have to evolve. Starting with randomly generated parameters, I selectively "breed" from those that, through chance, happen to do better than 50:50, and, from their offspring, again, selectively "breed" from the best, and so on. However, the output I am interested in is not the output from the classifier (correct classification) but the set of parameters evolved by the best classifier. And this output is not specified in advance. Indeed I have no idea what they are - what they give me is new information And I can plot those parameters on a brain image and note where the largest parameters are - and that tells me what brain areas differ between the patients and the healthy volunteers. That, surely, by any calculation, is FCSI - it's functional, it's complex, it's specific, and it's information, and it did not exist before it evolved within my algorithm. It was certainly not specified in any form by me.
Another, more indirect way to add information to a system is to measure for the specific function one wants to develop. In that way, the function is neasured and recognized, even at very low levels that would never be useful in a biological context, even if in itslef it could never give a reproductive advantage. It is intelligently selected and “rewarded” by the intervention of the designer, That’s how bottom up protein engineering is done. It is a powerful method of design, too.
Yes, that's possible. But there are other ways in which neutral (i.e. non-advantageous) variants can get into the gene pool, and that is by drift. Indeed even slightly deleterious variants can do this, which is why EQU is able to evolve in AVIDA.
None of that is darwinian evolution. None of that is RV + NS. All of that is design.
Clearly artificial selection of non-advantageous traits because you anticipate that they may be a precursor of advantageous traits is design. None of the other things are, for the reasons I have given unless you stretch your use of the term so that it includes Darwinian processes themselves. Certainly intelligence is not required at the selection part (in better words: intelligence is not required to specify which variants should breed - that can be a direct result of phenotypic properties), and as I think you agree, it is not required at the production-of-variance part. So both components necessary for Darwinian evolution to occur are naturally occurring. No designer is required (except possibly to get the whole thing started, but that's not an argument about Darwinian evolution, it's an argument about organic chemistry).
That the Intelligent Design input into evolution is at the level of deciding who breeds and who doesn’t?
I have argued many times here that one of the possible ways design is implemented in ntural history if through intelligent selection of RV. There are many ways that could happen.
Well, apart from the fact that none is required (things that breed better will breed more), how does your postulated bodiless ID affect who breeds and who doesn't? What are these "many ways"?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

I have argued many times here that one of the possible ways design is implemented in ntural history if through intelligent selection of RV. There are many ways that could happen.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are invoking foresight. Selecting variants for future need in some yet uncompleted structure. Is that a fair characterization?Petrushka_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

I mean to be able to do it.Eugene S_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Your citation of Sermonti explains a lot about your views in general. It would take a whole web site to unravel his books. I will only say that online reviews are available.Petrushka_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

"Scott, anything that designs a car must be more intelligent than the car." Excellent! I agree. But what's more, the designer must be capable of running the project to successful completion. The Designer of our cosmos is indeed omniscient and omnipotent :) The only thing you are still missing out is that He does not have to have the same nature as the cosmos He created ex nihilo.Eugene S_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth,
evolutionary theory posits a vast set of physical mechanisms, including physics and chemistry, to account for the creation of variance, and even reproduction
It posits everything and applies nothing. Which mechanisms account for reproduction? Apply these mechanisms to some specific variance, like mammalian lungs. You'll quickly see that it becomes very high-level, and the physics and chemistry are nowhere to be found, like not-so-close friends on moving day.ScottAndrews_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

DMullenix, That is awesome! The only remaining bit to explain is how the strike anywhere matches came into being... So you assume your matches just spontaneously self-organised :)Eugene S_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

"In contrast, evolutionary theory posits" With the only exception that it does not really work on the grand scale. The only reliable evidence that it works is on microlevel. In order to infer design of an object one does not have to replicate it. It is sufficient to analyse information the object carries. So the fingertips are there available for analysis.Eugene S_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Dmullenix, I'm blown away. Not because your point is irrelevant, but because you use the amount of information in an amoeba to support your argument when it suits you.ScottAndrews_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

Dmullenix, What was the point of that little story? Why would anyone determine arson in that case? You're avoiding the question. If the signs point to arson (accelerant, etc.) then do you call it arson or do you reason that it can't be arson until you identify the arsonist and his ancestry? The question is simple. You apply rational standards in once case and then do a U-turn when it suits you to apply different standards. Apparently the greatest difference between the examples is you and your preference.ScottAndrews_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

No, evolution does not "rest upon the hypothesis that the door unlocked itself". ID rests on the hypothesis that the door was unlocked by mysterious agent that left no fingerprints, nor any evidence that s/he exerts any physical force upon the world. Or even exists. In contrast, evolutionary theory posits a vast set of physical mechanisms, including physics and chemistry, to account for the creation of variance, and even reproduction, and the simple logic that if self-replicators replicate with heritable variance in reproductive success in the current environment, populations will adapt to their environment by evolving functions that maximise their ability to survive and reproduce.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Scott, anything that designs a car must be more intelligent than the car. You will never get any kind of intelligence above that of an amoeba with less than a giga bit of information. And that's a lowball estimate.dmullenix_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews, say there's been a fire in the woods. Exhaustive investigation reveals no trace whatsoever of any human being anywhere near the scene at any time near when the fire started. However, there are scores of rats running loose and they are gnawing on scores of boxes of "strike anywhere" matches. It is well documented that rats start fires gnawing on "strike anywhere" matches. Yet you insist that a human started the fire. Welcome to the world of ID.dmullenix_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

gpuccio: thank you for your detailed response. Here is mine:
In my model, which has also been the model of many thinkers, and philosophers, in the history of human thought, consciousness is in essence transcendental and simple. Its interface, that allow it to interact with the outer world, is often complex, at least in humans. Yes, I am arguing that consciusness and intelligence, in pure form, do not necessarily require any complex physical substrate. Maybe no physical substrate at all. The basis for that assertion is that cosnciousness exists, and is in no way explained by its physical interface. IOWs strong AI is a gross falsity.
I disagree, in fact, but let me grant, for the sake of this discussion, that consciousness is a transcendental and simple property (whatever that means) that is separable from any physical substrate (that p-zombies, in other terms, are possible). Right now I am not concerned with consciousness but with intelligence. We know a lot about how intelligence works, even in models were "consciousness" is not assumed. Robotic devices can be "smart", increasingly so. But your claim is that a being with no physical substrate, no logic circuits, no neurons, can be "smart". To me, that seems to be a quite unjustified claim!
The worst assumptions are those about human cosnciousness. One thing is to say that in humans design is certainly accomplished using a physical interface. Another thing is to say that conscious intelligent representations, the basis for design, are explained by the physical interface. If consciousness is not explained by the physical interface, either complex or not, then it must be accepted as an independent principle in our map of reality.
Again, assuming that consciousness is not explained by the physical interface (I do not agree, but again will grant for the purpose of this discussion), the effects of consciousness must surely involve a physical interface? If, as pure disembodied consciousness, and even, let me grant for now, intelligence, I may be able to conceive the purpose of creating a great building, or work of literature how do I achieve this without interfacing with the physical world of bricks and paper? How do I lift those bricks into position? How do I move the pen across the paper? Your disembodied mind must, at the minimum, be an entity that exerts physical force, or else no matter how wonderful the conceived design, no execution of that design can occur. Are you arguing that your disembodied mind is nonetheless a physical force? A mass-less, energy-less physical force? Does your postulated Intelligent Designer in fact violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? This seems a much a far "worse assumption" than any of mine!
It is rather obvious that ID infers the existence of a designer for biological information, but it is not likely that the designer is a human being. While the designer has to have conscious, intelligent, purposeful representation to design things, there is no reason that those representations must necessarily be implemented through a complex physical interface, like in humans.
In that case, how is the interface with physical reality achieved?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 23 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply