More Astonishing Things Materialists Say

_{Barry Arrington
April 12, 2017

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

In response to my last post, Sev gives us an astonishing double down:

Yes, a microscopic living cell is immensely complex when you look at it closely but comparing one to a factory based on some similarities in the internal processes is an analogy not necessarily evidence of design. To judge the value of an analogy you should also consider the differences. For example, a human factory is vastly larger than a living cell. It’s also made of refined metals, plastics and glass which you don’t find in the cell. Judged by those attributes of known design, the cell is not designed.

OK, lets consider the differences that you point out.

1. Cells are smaller than factories. Sev, you didn’t think this one through. Think of the original computers. They were the size of a room and less powerful than today’s handheld smart phone. So which is the more sophisticated design, UNIVAC or my Galaxy Edge 7? The inference from miniaturization goes in the opposite direction you seem to think it does. Even the simplest cell is a marvel of nano-technology. The “nano” part of that phrase increases the confidence we can have in the design inference.

2. Cells are made from different materials. So? Mount Rushmore is a designed object that uses stone as a material. The computer I am typing this on is a designed object made of metal, plastic and silicon. The messages Craig Venter encoded in DNA were designed objects using DNA as the medium. The design inference is based on an analysis of whether the object is characterized by specified complexity, not the material of which it is made.

Comments

@UB
An act implies a verb and a noun being acted upon. What is this act?
The formalization of a symbol system using a set of spatially-oriented (rate-independent) symbol vehicles along with the set of non-integrable constraints required to interpret the symbols – i.e. a language. In an autonomous self-replicator, this formalization is required to achieve semantic closure, allowing self-replication to occur via a medium of information.
To which I responded…
IOW, what you seem to be suggesting is that a designer created the a set of macro functions in the form of DNA molecules that is a domain specific language (DSL) for creating organisms, in the way that the Ruby on Rails developers built a DSL on top of the Ruby programming language for creating web applications. However, the developers needed to first possess the knowledge of how to build web applications before they could abstract it into a DSL. And there is the matter of the knowledge in the ruby programming language itself.
So, it’s a question of knowledge, which is why I keep asking you for the origin of that knowledge.
Why do you think intelligence was the case?
1) There was a system that was predicted as being necessary to establish an autonomous self-replicator capable of open-ended evolutionary potential. This is a well-documented historical fact, and is widely held as both coherent and correct. That system was a language system, which was then verified by its physical properties to actually exist within the cell. 2) Recorded language is a universal correlate of intelligence.
Yes, UB. The explanation for the watch cannot be the same as the rock. It could only be knowledge. In the case of organisms the knowledge is a recipe in organisms themselves, which defines which transformations of matter are required to transform raw materials into entire cells. We seem to be in agreement on (1). However, you make a leap in (2). Correlation does not equal causation. Human designers are not magic. We have an explanation for how they create knowledge. And that explanation is compatible with natural selection.
and that the constraints that determine the system’s function are not integrable with a microscopic (lawful) physical description of the system operation itself. In other words, the “state transformation” are indeed not determined by the system’s dynamic properties.
Still not clear what you mean here. In regards to gene expression mediated by other parts of the system, those parts represent knowledge as to what mediations should occur. If you’re referring to the fact that what it means to be distinguishable is circular in Shannon’s theory of information, that is resolved in the theory of information I referenced. Again, what theory of information are you referring to?
Yet, you haven’t provided one iota of reason to believe that the system is – against all observations to the contrary – actually established by its dynamics, or that it somehow evolved prior to the onset of its evolutionary potential.
Again, we have concrete examples of the evolution of number systems, languages and computation. Each of which started out solving very limited, specific problems (limited reach) which was varied and improved. Then a disproportional leap to universality occurred, which we stumbled upon. And we have a concrete example in RNA, which is like Babbage’s Difference Engine, which was a precursor to a universal Turing machine, or Roman numerals. Since it depends on specific kinds of chemicals, such as proteins, DNA is presumably not a universal for specifying any kind of life form. However, it can also “program” organisms (give them instincts) to construct things outside of its bodies, such as nests, dams, etc. And utilize inorganics, such as calcium phosphate in bones, or the magnetite in a pigeon’s brain. What I’m referring to is a principle that all knowledge growth is by incremental improvement. It’s universal explanation for the growth of knowledge. But, in a number of fields, a threshold is exceeded when an improvement in the system causes a sudden, disproportional increase in reach, which makes it universal system in that relevant domain. When people brought about such leaps to universality in the past they rarely attempted to achieve it. That is, until the enlightenment, in which the universality of explanations people can create has become a priority. Note: this is why I keep asking for a explanation for the knowledge in organisms, not merely predictions or inductive inferences. We are universal explainers and that gives our knowledge reach that has allowed us to make rapid, open-ended potential to explain phenomena. The necessary physical proprieties necessary for replication is outlined in both papers I referenced. For example, this includes the ability to store information digitally, as it allows for error correction, etc.critical rationalist_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

When I ask with the origin of that knowledge, I’m looking for an explanation for how intelligence results in a designer possessing it that knowledge. What is that explanation? Specifically I’m looking for criticism along the lines of “The explanation for that knowledge is X, Y and Z. However, evolution doesn’t fit that explanation.” This is in contrast to an appeal to induction by saying “every time we’ve experienced knowledge, it has been accompanied by intelligent agents.” and since the future (and distant past) resembles the (recent) past, the designer of organisms was an intelligent agent. But the future is unlike the past in a vast number of ways. It’s our explanations of how the world works that indicates what we will experience. For example, if our long chain of independently obtained explanations for how our sun works indicated it would suddenly grow cold when its fuel supply is exhausted and that will occur in roughly 4.6 billon billion years after it was formed, we wouldn’t expect the sun to rise tomorrow despite having experienced it rising every day for the entirety of human existence. In the absence of such an explanation, it’s unclear how you can say a designer is the best explanation for that knowledge. Not to mention that a designer merely being an authoritative source of knowledge is a bad explanation. However, I can see why a theists wouldn’t find that explanation problematic as theism is based on the philosophical idea that knowledge in specific spheres comes from God, who is an authoritative source. As does empiricism, which says that knowledge comes from observations. These two views simply exchange one authoritative source for another. “Atoms or random chance isn’t an authoritative source of knowledge” is a bad criticism because it’s applicable to everything. An authoritative source of knowledge has no explanation. It “just was” complete with that knowledge. ID’s designer is abstract and has no such explanation. It is capable of designing things by nature of having the vague property of “design”, which is basically a tautology. At best, this is the Aristotelianism in the sense of saying fire has the property of dryness. Again, the flaw in creationism, ID and inductivism is that the explanation for knowledge is either inexplicable (supernatural), absent or irrational. On the other hand, I’m saying that the explanation for how human designers create the knowledge they posses is variation and criticism. We create both explanatory and non-explanatory knowledge. Evolution does fit this explanation, in that the non-explanatory knowledge in genes is created by variation and selection. Both fall under the universal explanation for the growth of knowledge.critical rationalist_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

To clarify, defining a language allows the content of every existing book to be translated in that language, but that doesn't define the content of those books. It's a way of representing the same knowledge in a different form. That is a property of information, not the "act of intelligence". IOW, If a designer wanted to construct an organism out of raw materials, the transformations of matter required would be the recipe that exists in that organism, or the the functional equivalent. In principle, the replication mechanism of cells could be replaced by nano machines that performed equilvent steps, including replicating the nano machines themselves, even if that knowledge was stored in binary form in those nano machines as opposed to DNA. Or they could receive that binary data from an external source. In each case, the explanation for that organisms features would be that knowledge. Nano machines can emulate the job of the cells replcation mechanism (constructing the same replicator vehicle) due to the universality of computation. Translating that knowledge into DNA so it can be performed by the cell itself doesn't create new knowledge that is relevant to the outcome or the organism. Did I learn something new when I learned that "noir" means "black" in French? Yes, but that isn't relevant to the content itself. The act of translating exisitng instructions to build a boat from English to French doesn't require an individual to actually know how to build a boat. That knowlege is in the English content. (Although it's very helpful in detecting errors in your translation) IOW, what you seem to be suggesting is that a designer created the a set of macro functions in the form of DNA molecules that is a domain specific language (DSL) for creating organisms, in the way that the Ruby on Rails developers built a DSL on top of the Ruby programming language for creating web applications. However, the developers needed to first possess the knowledge of how to build web applications before they could abstract it into a DSL. And there is the matter of the knowledge in the ruby programming language itself. So, in the case of biological organisms, what is the origin of that knowledge?critical rationalist_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Do you grasp what is going on here? First you misunderstand and misuse the actual claim of ID, then you ignore the physical requirements of the system in question, then you posit as an explanation the very thing that needs to be explained. Perhaps you should take a break and do some further study.
So, ID does claim to detect the origin of life? I suggested it didn't, but you seem to think I misunderstood. Which is it? And, for the umpteenth time, what physical theory of information are you referring to? Asking you to provide such a theory is the opposite of ignoring it. In fact, it seems if anyone is doing the ignoring, it's you. From the referenced paper...
1 Introduction In some respects, information is a qualitatively different sort of entity from all others in terms of which the physical sciences describe the world. It is not, for instance, a function only of tensor fields on spacetime (as general relativity requires all physical quantities to be), nor is it a quantum-mechanical observable. But in other respects, information does resemble some entities that appear in laws of physics: the theory of computation, and statistical mechanics, seem to refer directly to it without regard to the specific media in which it is instantiated, just as conservation laws do for the electromagnetic four-current or the energy-momentum tensor. We call that the substrate-independence of information. Information can also be moved from one type of medium to another while retaining all its properties qua information. We call this its interoperability property; it is what makes human capabilities such as language and science possible, as well as biological adaptations that use symbolic codes, such as the genetic code.
Again, I'm suggesting the origin of the knowledge (the recipe) is the origin of life. The interoperability of information allows knowledge to be represented as symbols. The origin of an organism's features is the origin of that knowledge. Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume some designer defined symbols that can represent it that wouldn't be the origin of that knowledge. After all, defining a language doesn't define content written in that language. You don't end up with the contents of every possible book in the process of defining a language that can be used to write books. Right? Those are two different things. So, You still have the problem of explaining the origin of the knowledge in ID's designer. The knowledge it would needed to posses to transform raw materials into organisms would have been the same recipe they now contain. That's the interoperability property of information at work. It's would just have been copied from one place, in a designer, to another, in the organism. Nothing new was actually created. This is why creationism is a misnomer. If God has always existed with that knowledge, already present, there would have been no genuine creation. This is because, due to the interoperability property of knowledge, the recipe in organisms would have always existed. it would be the same knowledge that would have been always present with God. So, creationism denies that creation occurred. That is, unless you assume that organisms "just appeared" with that knowledge already present. But that's the spontaneous creation of knowledge.critical rationalist_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

I’m in the middle of a product launch, so I’m unable to respond in detail at this time. However, I did not ignore what you wrote. From the same thread...
Without an explanation about how “intelligent processes” bring about symbols, it’s unclear how it can be the only source of them. What you’re left with is just induction: every “symbol” we’ve observed was correlated to “intelligent processes”. Thats simply bad philosophy.
Furthermore, you seem to be referring to a jumps of universality, which I’ve addressed elsewhere. For example, while the Arabic number system is universal, human beings started out with tallies. Counting sheep by reeling out string as they go out of a barn, and reeling it back in as they return would result in errors in measurement that would build up. This is inherent in analog systems. However, even tallies would be an improvement they allow for error correction inherent in digital system. Then we moved on to number systems, but their reach was very limited to the set of numbers encountered at the time. Even the Roman numeral system had limits. And one predecessor actually was universal, but additional rules were added that prevent it. The same can be said for the universality of computation, which only emerges when all of the requisite computations are present. This represents a disproportional jump to universality. We started out with devices designed to solve specific problems, like adding or calculating artillery shell trajectories, etc. But when the final computation is added, the system makes a disproportional jump to universality. IOW, we (human beings) stumbled upon universality while trying to solve other problems. It’s unclear how this disproportional jump is attributed to intelligent agents when it is an emergent phenomena of physical systems. Again…
In addition, I’ve referenced a deeper, universal explanation for knowledge, including the knowledge in biological organisms, that does not require a knowing subject and references to a theory of information that resolves the circularity in Shannon’s theory in regards to distinguishability, which you seem to be eluding to in regards to symbols that mediate gene expression, etc.
If you think that
The second is that Shannon’s theory is about information represented in distinguishable states, but does not specify what distinguishing consists of physically. So, consider the non-perturbing measurement that distinguishes two possible messages x and y. It has the following effects in those two cases: message receiver message receiver x x0 ? x x y x0 ? y y (1) where x0 is a receptive state of some medium capable of instantiating the outcome x or y. But this does not in fact distinguish message x from message y unless the receiver states x and y are themselves distinguishable. Therefore (1), considered as a definition of distinguishability, would be circular. Indeed, no existing theory of information provides a non-circular account of what it means for a set of physical states to be mutually distinguishable. The theory that we shall present here does (Section 4).
It’s unclear if you think a designer is necessary to somehow “ specify” that x and y are distinguishable, therefore playing some crucial role. But the referenced theory does not exhibit that circularity.critical rationalist_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

CR,
Again, please unpack this.
I already did. You ignored it.
An act implies a verb and a noun being acted upon. What is this act?
The formalization of a symbol system using a set of spatially-oriented (rate-independent) symbol vehicles along with the set of non-integrable constraints required to interpret the symbols – i.e. a language. In an autonomous self-replicator, this formalization is required to achieve semantic closure, allowing self-replication to occur via a medium of information.
Why do you think intelligence was the case?
1) There was a system that was predicted as being necessary to establish an autonomous self-replicator capable of open-ended evolutionary potential. This is a well-documented historical fact, and is widely held as both coherent and correct. That system was a language system, which was then verified by its physical properties to actually exist within the cell. 2) Recorded language is a universal correlate of intelligence.
If ID does not explain the origin of life …
As predicted above, you keep misstating the ID core claim, thus avoiding it altogether. There is something I’d like to know. Von Neumann was a keen fan of Turing’s architecture, and used that system in developing his own universal constructor concept. As a part of that architecture, Turing provided to the system (as its intelligent organizer) a set of “state transformations” (his term) that are not derived from the dynamic properties of the system. They are, in fact, the logical principles by which such a system can function. Indeed, the system would not function without them. In von Neumann’s version of Turing’s system, these “state transformation” are certainly no less critical. In fact, they are even more critical because without them the system cannot even start to function. Interestingly, neither Turing nor von Neumann presented their systems along with the “physics” required in their operation, but physicists have come behind them and filled in those blanks – noting for instance, that the genetic system is the only other general purpose language system other than human language, and that the constraints that determine the system’s function are not integrable with a microscopic (lawful) physical description of the system operation itself. In other words, the “state transformation” are indeed not determined by the system’s dynamic properties. They also note that the specific architecture of the system is the actual source of open-ended evolutionary potential within a physical system – just as Von Neumann envisioned it to be. Yet, you haven’t provided one iota of reason to believe that the system is – against all observations to the contrary – actually established by its dynamics, or that it somehow evolved prior to the onset of its evolutionary potential. Do you grasp what is going on here? First you misunderstand and misuse the actual claim of ID, then you ignore the physical requirements of the system in question, then you posit as an explanation the very thing that needs to be explained. Perhaps you should take a break and do some further study.Upright BiPed_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

@UB
an “act of intelligence” at the origin of life on earth
Again, please unpack this. Apparently I'll have to help you...
an “act”
An act implies a verb and a noun being acted upon. What is this act?
"of intelligence”
Apparently, this act was caused by intelligence. This implies there is some explanation as to how intelligence translates into the verb that occurred on a noun. Otherwise, why do you think intelligence was the case?
at the origin of life on earth
If ID does not explain the origin of life and since we seem to disagree on what the origin of life is, it would behove you to specify at what point that verb supposedly occurred in some kind of inverse timeline that starts when we have self replicating cells with recipes that include the transformations of matter required to build them from raw materials. Finally, what was the noun, present at that time, which was acted upon?critical rationalist_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

CR, again, you exemplified the intelligently designed origin of FSCO/I involving symbol strings in order to cast doubts up about that. The vNSR is a case in point of such an entity; where the failings of NASA while we see cells all around carrying out the architecture points to how advanced the technology in the cells is. Where, BTW, intelligence involved in intelligently directed configuration patently implies requisite knowledge and skills, it is time for you to move beyond strawman caricatures such as you just set up; I already pointed you to the ABET definition, which is suggestive as to how designs are done; though it is readily shown that we recognise designs from their features such as FSCO/I without necessarily knowing specific techniques, strategies, processes etc. Long since, you have been pointed to TRIZ as one approach that points to principles and strategies. And I don't know how many times we have suggested a need to update and upgrade your understanding of inductive reasoning. Birds fly, they show flight is possible. They do not exhaust the class of possible flying entities. KFkairosfocus_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

@KF
CR, self-replication per von Neumann kinematic self replicator is not mere “copying.” We are talking recorded information guided construction.
Again, I don't see how that disagrees with what I wrote....
But the watch couldn’t have just been lying there. Nor is it a raw material. It is well adapted to the purpose of telling time. And it couldn’t have come about though any other explanation than knowledge.
The knowledge of what transformation of matter is information that causes itself to be retained when embedded in a storage medium. When Information is embedded in a storage medium that medium is well adapted to serve a purpose. That's not random. You wrote:
And, in both cases the involved FSCO/I handily accounts for the indication of contrivance based on composing or selecting, arranging and coupling many parts to form a non-obvious harmonious whole that carries out functions based on specific configuration [any rock will do, more or less, not any config will) and then uses stored instructions to replicate itself including the self replication facility.
Yes, KF. Any rock will do, because it's not well adapted to serve that purpose. On the other hand, the watch is well adapted to serve that purpose. It can only be explained by knowledge. So, is a template replicator. Again, nothing you've said conflicts with that. It's unclear how human beings taking advantage of the laws of physics via symbols means that organism with symbols were designed. That direction isn't "evident" in observations.
Knowledge is not “chance”. That is because it plays a causal role in being retained when embedded in a storage medium. It solves a problem. Despite being an “intelligent agent”, if I want to build a car I cannot choose to perform any steps except those that will actually result in a car. Sure, I can pick the color of the paint and a number of different body shapes, materials, power plants and power trains. But [there are aspects of a "car" that are non-negotiable that I cannot choose otherwise without making the car less efficient.] I must possess the requisite knowledge. I can devise plan after plan, day after day. But unless my plans actually contain that knowledge, I will not end up with a car, regardless of the intent or purpose I had in mind.
You wrote:
We can conceive this class of machine, but NASA was daunted by what it would take to effect such.
Unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing would prevent us from doing so is knowing how. This includes building self replicating machines. Furthermore, are you suggesting that engineers at NASA not intelligent agents? They are literally rocket scientists, yet, as you pointed out, they are currently unable to build self replicating machines. Why? NASA engineers cannot build self replicating machines because they do not posses the necessary knowledge of what transformations of matter are necessary to construct one out of raw materials. And when we do build self replicating machines, we will have done so because we have created the necessary knowledge. Not because they decided one day that they wanted or intended to. You wrote:
I repeat, FSCO/I is a tested, reliable sign of design. KF
Since the streets are wet, it must have been raining? Rain isn't just a prediction that surfaces will be wet. It represents an explanation by which we can compare other explanations about how Both creationism, ID and induction share the same fatal flaw. Their explanation for the knowledge is either supernatural, absent or irrational. In the case of the supernatural, it's inexplicable. And in case of being irrational, it's effective absent. All of which are bad explanations. Why don't you start out by explaining how knowledge grows, then point out that that evolution doesn't fit that explanation. Merely saying that evolution isn't an authoritative source of knowledge isn't a good criticism because the idea that knowledge comes from authority is bad philosophy. One mistake of indiction is that the future (and the distant past) resembles the past. But that's simply not the case. We only experienced birds flying. They were the only "source of flight" we explained. We tried to fly over and over again and experienced nothing but falling. Then, one day, we came up with a good explanation for flight. Then we flew. In that order. Appealing to the fact that we've only experienced "designers" well adapting things to serve a purpose without an expansion as to how that occurs is highly flawed. It's as if you think designers merely have the property of "design" and that somehow explains it. But that's like saying fire has the property of dryness.critical rationalist_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

My prediction at this point is that you will a) continue to refuse to integrate ID's core claim into your reasoning, B) continue to ignore the physical requirements of an autonomous self-replicator, and C) continue to assume your conclusions.Upright BiPed_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

CR,
Apparently, you disagree with some part of this statement … When replication is complete, do we not end up with a entity that “contains a recipe which is used to make a copy of itself from raw materials”?
For the life of me, I don’t know why you keep bringing this up. The system contains a symbolic (rate-independent) description of itself, as well as the contingent (non-integrable) constraints that it must have in order to interpret the description. There is no phone, and no need for one.
Being well adapted to serve a purpose cannot be the explanation for being well adapted to serve a purpose? But that’s my point, UB.
I’m glad you see it that way. I‘d like you to hang on to that thought.
Again, the only explanation for how the watch and the cell became well adapted to serve a purpose is knowledge (which transformations to perform to adapt raw materials). So, the question is, what is the origin of that knowledge? I keep asking for one and you haven’t provided it.
Sure I did, long ago -- an of intelligence. Not only that, but I gave you a factual outline of why the inference to intelligence is valid, and I am perfectly capable of expanding that outline in critical detail. The empirical support that powers the inference isn’t even controversial. In other words, you would have to deny well-documented physical reality to argue that the inference isn't empirically supported. Your response to all this is to tell me that an “act of intelligence” at the origin of life on earth is not an explanation for any ultimate source of knowledge, which is why I keep trying to bring you back around to the core claim of ID – i.e. that an act of intelligence is detectable in the origin of life on earth. But as I predicted, you simply refuse to integrate the actual claim of ID into your reasoning. To do so would put you into the position of agreeing with ID – the very idea that you are attempting so hard to criticize. But your criticisms have failed, and failed, and failed again. Thus far, you have done exactly what I’ve predicted you would do to save your argument from its inevitable end. There isn’t the slightest bit of mystery in any of this.Upright BiPed_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

@UB Apparently, you disagree with some part of this statement. The question is, where?
in von Neumann terms, both the replicator vehicle and the recipe are constructed when the cell reproduces. So, the transformations matter has to go thought is defined in that recipe.
When replication is complete, do we not end up with a entity that “contains a recipe which is used to make a copy of itself from raw materials"? Did the recipe not consist of the transformations those raw materials must undergo? Did some external designer dictate when transformation should occur?
Moreover, in the most bizarre response possible, your answer to this problem seems to be that — since the necessary organization of the system is encoded in the system itself — it explains itself merely because it exist. WTF? You do realize that von Neumann’s system didn’t organize itself, right?
You mean, I haven't presented an explanation for that knowledge? Being well adapted to serve a purpose cannot be the explanation for being well adapted to server a purpose? But that's my point, UB. Again, the only explanation for how the watch and the cell became well adapted to serve a purpose is knowledge (which transformations to perform to adapt raw materials). So, the question is, what is the origin of that knowledge? I keep asking for one and you haven't provided it. Is it safe to say you have no idea which designer was in involved and how it knew which transformations matter in a cell must undergo in order to be “well adapted” as a entity that “contains a recipe which is used to make a copy of itself from raw materials? That knowledge would be a recipe of which physical transformations ID’s designer needed to perform to well adapt the storage medium in a cell to end up with that recipe. It’s possible that a designer could performed the transformations in that recipe in a different order, but would it be free to perform just any transformations and end up with the vehicle / recipe? That transformation only occurs when the requisite knowledge is present there. This is what I mean when I say a designer that “just was” compete with the recipe of which transformations of matter necessary to create the vehicle and recipe serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficiently state that the vehicle “just appeared”, complete with that recipe, already present. They both fail to explain the origin of that knowledge (And, “No.”, Neo-Darwinism is not the latter.) IOW, you have the very same problem. Adding an abstract designer merely just pushes it up a level without improving it. I don’t know why you cannot see this, unless you hold some additional assumptions you have yet to explicitly disclose, like knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative sources, which is bad philosophy, and not science. And if the designer didn’t possess that recipe, then how did it end up in organisms it created? That would be like an industrial robot coming of the assembly line pre-programed to build a car, when the knowledge of how to build cars wasn’t present anywhere in factory. That would be the spontaneous creation of knowledge.critical rationalist_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

Ahem. I think we can now safely say that you have no idea what “transformations” matter must undergo in order to be “well adapted” as a entity that “contains a recipe which is used to make a copy of itself from raw materials” -- i.e. the core of your argument. And without any idea what is physically required of the system, you have no way of knowing if your explanation is up to the task of being an explanation. Moreover, in the most bizarre response possible, your answer to this problem seems to be that -- since the necessary organization of the system is encoded in the system itself -- it explains itself merely because it exist. WTF? You do realize that von Neumann's system didn't organize itself, right?Upright BiPed_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

The question is critical to conclusions you are wanting to draw. Why are you so reluctant to engage it?
When you ask the same ambiguous question, without clarify what you mean, I have to guess what you mean and try to expand on that on your behalf. I cannot merely repeat what you wrote, because anyone can do that without having any understanding.critical rationalist_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

@UB Yet again, in von Neumann terms, both the replicator vehicle and the recipe are constructed when the cell reproduces. So, the transformations matter has to go thought is defined in that recipe. That's my point. Nothing external to the cell "decides" or "chooses" what transformations should occur when a cell replicates. It occurs when the requisite knowledge is present there. Nor does an organism's cell contain explanatory knowledge. For example, nothing in a tiger's genome understands (contains an explanatory theory of) how stripes on its fur result in improved ability to hunt due to optically camouflaging It in a specific environment. Is there some part of the above that you disagree with? Furthermore, that issue is addressed at length in the paper, so if that's not what you mean then your question is ambiguous and needs to be expanded to clarify what you mean.critical rationalist_{April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

CR, is it your intent now to just leave these questions unanswered and unaddressed? What is this, the 3rd or 4th time you've walked away when your argument comes under scrutiny? You seem awfully willing to merely assume your conclusions, particularly for someone so prone to lecture others about science and philosophy. I'll ask again: What “transformations” does matter have to undergo in order to be “well adapted” as a entity that “contains a recipe which is used to make a copy of itself from raw materials”? The question is critical to conclusions you are wanting to draw. Why are you so reluctant to engage it?Upright BiPed_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

CR, you failed to answer the question. You didn't even try. Instead, you point to a paper that also doesn't provide an answer. This is made very plainly evident by the fact that the paper doesn't even mention the issue. So I'll ask again: What “transformations” does matter have to undergo in order to be “well adapted” as a entity that “contains a recipe which is used to make a copy of itself from raw materials”?Upright BiPed_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Origines, it is really hard to fight against the evident, easily observed truth that FSCO/I is a common phenomenon and is readily seen to be a reliable sign of design as cause. There was once a brilliant man who --knocked off his high horse -- was told that it is hard to kick against the pricks. KFkairosfocus_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

CR, self-replication per von Neumann kinematic self replicator is not mere "copying." We are talking recorded information guided construction. The point was anticipated by Paley, who pondered a time keeping, self-replicating watch. And, in both cases the involved FSCO/I handily accounts for the indication of contrivance based on composing or selecting, arranging and coupling many parts to form a non-obvious harmonious whole that carries out functions based on specific configuration [any rock will do, more or less, not any config will) and then uses stored instructions to replicate itself including the self replication facility. We can conceive this class of machine, but NASA was daunted by what it would take to effect such. BTW, effecting such would transform the global economy. I repeat, FSCO/I is a tested, reliable sign of design. KFkairosfocus_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

KF quoted..
Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch should after some time discover that, in addition to all the properties which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself — the thing is conceivable; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts — a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools — evidently and separately calculated for this purpose . . . .
Nothing in that quote conflicts with Paley having clarified the appearance of design. After all, those implements would be well adapted to serve a purpose of making a copy of the watch. Right? And if they were modified their ability to serve that purpose would be reduced, or rendered inoperable. Moreover, all of those implements would sit idle without a recipe from which raw materials should be transformed into a copy of the watch. Furthermore, that recipe would also need to contain the transformations of raw materials necessary to build the complex "lathes, baffles", etc. in the copy of the self-replicating watch. Otherwise, they would be absent in subsequent generations. Right? Knowledge, when embedded in a storage medium is an example of matter being well adapted to serve a purpose. If you modify it physically, it will serve that purpose significantly less well, if even at all. In the same sense, good expansions consist of long chains of hard to vary, independently formed explanations about how the world works. If you modify them, they will no serve that purpose nearly as well. To put in another way, good explanations cannot be easily varied without significantly impacting their ability to explain the phenomena in question. For example, "An abstract designer did it" is a bad explanation, in that it's similar to the Greek myth of the seasons: they are both shallow and easily varied, the cast of characters are only connected to seasons though the myth itself, and the roles they play could be varied without significantly reducing it's ability to explain seasons, or the biosphere, respectively. This is in contrast to our current explanation of the seasons, which represents a long chain of hard to vary explanations across multiple fields. The earth's rotation is titled in respect to it's orbit around the sun. A spinning sphere retains it's tilt. Surfaces titled away from radiant heat are headed less. The origin of star light (nuclear fusion), etc. If we break any part of this chain, there is no easy way to vary this explanation without significantly impacting it's ability to explain the seasons. There is no where go. Furthermore, these links were formed independently of each other. Our explanation for the seasons is good not only because it's falsifiable, but because it's hard to vary.critical rationalist_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

@UB, Again, von Neumann terms, the vehicle and the recipe are copied anew when the cell reproduces. It is a constructor as outlined in the paper I referenced on an earlier thread. So, the proximate cause is that knowledge. All of this was spelled out in detail in the constructor theory preprint paper I referenced in an earlier thread. So, the origin of those features, including the replication functionality, is that knowledge. A designer that "just was" complete with that knowledge, already present, doesn't serve an explanatory purposes. That's because one could more efficiently state that organisms "just appeared" with that knowledge, already present. IOW, without an explanation for how "intelligent action" results in knowledge, even in human beings, adding them to the mix doesn't serve an explanatory purpose. It just pushes the problem up a level without actually improving it. Portraying a designer as an abstract authoritative source of knowledge is bad philosophy. Given that theists have a commitment to portraying God as a foundational source of authoritative knowledge, it comes as no surprise theists find this philosophical view unproblematic. However, one need not think that knowledge comes from authoritative sources to be a theist. Empiricism was the idea that all knowledge comes from observations. So, observations was an authoritative source of knowledge. (While this was an improvement, as it helped emphasize the importance of empirical observations in science, it got the role wrong). IOW, this criticism isn't specific to theism (not biased against it) because theism is a specific case of that philosophical view.critical rationalist_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

@Mung
The rock serves a purpose. It not only serves a purpose, but is well adapted to serving that purpose.
It does? So, what is that purpose and in what ways can it not be varied without reducing its ability to serve that purpose? A rock can be used as paper weight, a weapon, a building material, a means to to prevent a car from rolling away when changing a tire on a car, an uncomfortable seat, etc. It is not well adapted to perform any of these purposes because it could by modified significantly without impacting its ability to serve those them. For example, many rocks of entirely different compositions can be used and still serve those purses just as well. The knowledge of how to use a rock in those scenarios is in us, not the rock.critical rationalist_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @75
KF: It seems to me there is a habitual pattern among objectors to design theory of failing to attend carefully to the actual evidence and arguments design thinkers have used since Plato, Cicero and Paley down to today’s investigators. The effect is, they come across as closed, indoctrinated and attacking strawman targets.
Correct me if I am wrong, but, on this forum, I have never witnessed a single case of a materialist winning an argument or even a part of an argument. Whoever they are, whatever they put forward, they are always wrong and they are always losing. And somehow we all, both sides, have grown used to this situation.
KF: But, then cometh the day of hard reckoning when the ordinary people wake up and say, enough. (And that is what seems to be happening with things like Brexit and the rise of what is being scorned as populist nationalism and “fake news” etc.)
Let's hope so for the people in this world.
KF: Here, and more importantly (whether you mock or not), hereafter.
Let's hope that there is no place for materialism in the hereafter. :)Origenes_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT}

CR, What "transformations" does matter have to undergo in order to be "well adapted" as a entity that "contains a recipe which is used to make a copy of itself from raw materials"? Because of several brilliant researchers over the past 150 years, the answer to that question is already known. I am just wondering if you actually know -- given that your argument assumes an answer. Perhaps you'd like to start by discussing the material distinctions and limitations between the unknown template replicator you assume began the process, and the recipe replicator required at the origin of the heterogeneous cell?Upright BiPed_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT}

Origines, it has been years and years that the implications of a von Neumann kinematic self replicator were put on the table, especially in the context of being an additional aspect of something that carries out a separate function. Indeed, it seems to have been overlooked for 150 years that right after briefly speaking to finding a watch in a field vs a stone, Paley went on to Ch 2 in which he discussed at length the import of a time-keeping, self-replicating watch:
Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch should after some time discover that, in addition to all the properties which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself -- the thing is conceivable; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts -- a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools -- evidently and separately calculated for this purpose . . . . The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive in this new observation nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done -- for referring the construction of the watch to design and to supreme art . . . . He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which, was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair -- the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use. [[Emphases added. (Note: It is easy to rhetorically dismiss this argument because of the context: a work of natural theology. But, since (i) valid science can be -- and has been -- done by theologians; since (ii) the greatest of all modern scientific books (Newton's Principia) contains the General Scholium which is an essay in just such natural theology; and since (iii) an argument 's weight depends on its merits, we should not yield to such “label and dismiss” tactics. It is also worth noting Newton's remarks that “thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy [[i.e. what we now call “science”].” )]
It seems to me there is a habitual pattern among objectors to design theory of failing to attend carefully to the actual evidence and arguments design thinkers have used since Plato, Cicero and Paley down to today's investigators. The effect is, they come across as closed, indoctrinated and attacking strawman targets. Of course, when one has institutional dominance, willful resort to ideologisation and indoctrination in evo mat scientism and a track record of the sort of censorship, locking out and expulsion of dissidents, one can get away with a lot for a time. Latest tactic seems to be search engine and social media suppression. But, then cometh the day of hard reckoning when the ordinary people wake up and say, enough. (And that is what seems to be happening with things like Brexit and the rise of what is being scorned as populist nationalism and "fake news" etc.) A day of reckoning is coming. Here, and more importantly (whether you mock or not), hereafter. KFkairosfocus_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

Critical Rationalist @72
CR: The Mona Lisa isn’t a template replicator.
That doesn't help you. Upright Biped has explained to you, over and over, that a replicator points to intelligent design, recently here:
However, evolution requires a very special type of physical system in order to exist in nature (meaning that it requires a known threshold of organization in order to function). Physicists have thoroughly studied this necessary system, and have related it directly to the material laws that govern nature. And they have determined that the only other place that such a system can be found (anywhere else in the cosmos) is in written language and mathematics – two universal correlates of intelligence. [Upright Biped]
Origenes_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT}

CR:
The rock could have been lying there since the formation of the earth. But this explanation is not sufficient for the watch. Why? Because it not only serves a purpose, but is well adapted to serving that purpose.
The rock serves a purpose. It not only serves a purpose, but is well adapted to serving that purpose.Mung_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

@Origenes
So, according to you, Leonardo da Vinci doesn’t serve an explanatory purpose wrt the Mona Lisa?
The Mona Lisa isn’t a template replicator. It doesn’t contain a recipe which is used to make a copy of itself from raw materials without assistance from an external agent. Da Vinci (and other people) transformed raw materials into the Mona Lisa, as apposed to the painting transforming raw materials itself. Furthermore, we have a good explanation for the knowledge of which transformations were necessary to end up with the Mona Lisa: variation and criticism.
One could more efficiently state that the Mona Lisa “just appeared” and dispense with Leonardo da Vinci?
You seem to have mistakenly assumed the more efficient statement is evolution. It’s not. I’m pointing out that both fail to explain that knowledge. The latter is not net-Darwinism. Imagine da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, but did not possess the knowledge of what transformations the painting should make and how it would execute them. If the painting was still capable of making a copy of itself, the Mona Lisa would have “just appeared”, complete with the knowledge of how to make copies of itself, already present. That would be the spontaneous creation of knowledge.critical rationalist_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

@WJM Again, as I pointed out in #28 William Paley clarified the appearance of design as being well adapted to serve a purpose. The rock could have been lying there since the formation of the earth. But this explanation is not sufficient for the watch. Why? Because it not only serves a purpose, but is well adapted to serving that purpose. Paley wrote...
For this reason, and for no other, viz., that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g., that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to pour out the hour of the day
We cannot explain the watch's configuration of matter without referring to its purpose of keeping time and doing so accurately. It's not a coincidence that it keeps accurate time, or that its individual parts are well suited for this task, or that they are put together in this configuration, rather than another. Therefore, people must have designed that watch. The only thing that could result in the watch is knowledge. Namely, what transformations of matter are required to adapt raw materials into the watch. Of course, Paley's argument implied this is even more true in the case of biological organisms. He could simply point to the human eye to make his point. Specifically, the evidence for the appearance of design is not only that all parts serve that purpose, but if they were slightly altered they would serve it less well, or not even at all. In other words, a good design is hard to vary. However, the case of the biosphere, the knowledge of what adaptations to perform is in organisms themselves, not in an external designer. They build copies of themselves from raw materials, by following a recipe. Both the replicator vehicle and the recipe is literally constructed anew. This includes the “nano-machines” in question.
Unless it is your position that the nanotechnology in question was the result of planning, I suggest you are the one that has “woefully misunderstood” my use of the adjective form of “happenstance” (as synonymous with the adjective use of the term “chance”).
Again, the only thing that could result in the necessary adaptations that make up an organisms is knowledge, which is present in organisms themselves. That's what needs to be explained. Knowledge is not “chance”. That is because it plays a causal role in being retained when embedded in a storage medium. It solves a problem. Despite being an “intelligent agent”, if I want to build a car I cannot choose to perform any steps except those that will actually result in a car. Sure, I can pick the color of the paint and a number of different body shapes, materials, power plants and power trains. But if I do not perform steps that result in a light weight and aerodynamic shape, the car will not perform as well or be as efficient. I cannot merely choose to make a more efficient car. I must possess the requisite knowledge. I can devise plan after plan, day after day. But unless my plans actually contain that knowledge, I will not end up with a car, regardless of the intent or purpose I had in mind. IOW, raw materials become well adapted when the requisite knowledge is present there. And it’s present in organisms themselves, not an external designer, unlike other designed thing we’ve observed. So, the proximate cause for an organism’s features is that knowledge, not a designer. As such, the origin of the organism’s features is the origin of that knowledge. So, what is the origin of that knowledge? Saying a designer merely copied it there doesn’t explain how it possessed it in the first place. A designer that, “just was” complete with this knowledge already present, doesn’t serve an explanatory purpose. That’s because one could more efficiently state that organisms “just appeared”, complete with that knowledge already present. But that would be the spontaneous creation of knowledge. Why don’t you start out by explaining how human designers posses that knowledge, then point out how neo-darwnism doesn’t fit that explanation. Please be specific.critical rationalist_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

Trollish rhetorical projection of fear as unworthy motive, compounded by unfounded speculations. I again point out the existing record here, and note that despite the facts that attention has been repeatedly called to, the false narratives continue. The conclusion is, mere evidence, facts and logic have no effect on fixed evo mat scientism and/or fellow traveller ideologies. And of course, the substantial issue of a trillion member evidence base on the origin of FSCO/I -- design, just added to to create a sidetracking comment, has been again evaded. Were objectors in command of clear counter-examples demonstrating on observation that FSCO/I is produced by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity that would long since have been triumphantly trotted out. Such would kill design theory in one shot. The rhetorical tactics we have seen year after year and as we see today, are implying that in fact we are dealing with an ideological commitment in the teeth of the weight of the evidence on the source of FSCO/I. KFkairosfocus_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply