RDFish Cannot Count to Three

_{Barry Arrington

December 5, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

In a prior post RDFish starts off with a promisingly cogent observation:

We’re not arguing about “evolutionary adaptation”, but rather about the highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms. Of course large populations and crossovers can help a bit with local optima, but saying these things will “tend to avoid” them is wishful thinking – there is just so much that can be assembled that way, which is why GAs come up with optimizations and not novel mechanisms. The important point, though, is not to argue about this in the abstract, because there is no way to demonstrate (yet) whether or not the combinatorial resources were sufficient or not.

Leading Mapou to respond:

Wow. RDFish is moving dangerously close to accepting the designer hypothesis (i.e., life requires consciousness)

To which RDFish responds indignantly:

HUH? Why in the world would you say that – I haven’t moved one iota in that direction, of course, because there isn’t a shred of evidence for it. I deny that evolutionary theory accounts for biological complexity, but that doesn’t lend any credence whatsoever to the notion that some conscious being thought up designs for all us creatures and built us somehow!

I am always amazed when one of our opponents reveals that the metaphysical blinders they are wearing restrict their vision to such a degree that they cannot see the blatantly obvious implications of their own conclusions.

Let’s lay it out step by step.

Given our current understanding of causation, there are three and only three possibilities regarding the provenance of “highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms.” The first two possibilities, which in combination are often referred to as “natural causes,” are law and chance, including a combination of the two. The third possibility, Aristotle’s tertium quid, is the act of an intelligent agent.*

The project of modern evolutionary theory is to demonstrate that the highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms can be reduced to purely natural causes.

The project of intelligent design is to demonstrate that intelligent agency is a better explanation for the highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms.

Modern evolutionary theory and ID are playing a zero sum game. If modern evolutionary theory is correct about the sufficiency of natural causes to account for the observations, ID would be falsified. If ID is correct about the insufficiency of natural causes to account for the observations, that aspect of modern evolutionary theory would be falsified.

In the comment above, RDFish denies that evolutionary theory currently accounts for biological complexity.

Other things being equal, RDFish’s observation – to the extent it is true – undermines the standing of modern evolutionary theory.

Since we are playing a zero sum game, it follows that Mapou is generally correct; RDFish’s observation supports a design approach to the extent it undermines a non-design approach to origins, even if RDFish himself does not understand it.

RDfish again: “I deny that evolutionary theory accounts for biological complexity, but that doesn’t lend any credence whatsoever to the notion that some conscious being thought up designs for all us creatures and built us somehow!”

Uh, Fish, since it is one or the other, denying that one can explain the observations does tend to lend credence to the other (which is not to say that it establishes it, but it does tend in that direction).

__________

*There may, of course, be an unknown quartium quid (a fourth causal force in addition to law, chance and agency) that has escaped detection from the time of Aristotle to this moment. That is why I qualify with “given our current understanding of causation.” We do not know what we do not know, but if we must choose based on what we do know, there are only three choices.

Comments

Dear StephenB It seems to me the method of eliminating law/chance to identify the remainder (if specified) as design cannot work if dualism is false. So that particular method relies upon the truth of dualism, and thus appears to be a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one. I agree we can identify when matter is arranged for a purpose but I doubt we have an empirical/scientific method for doing so. By the way, Mr Arrington has started a new thread on this exact subject.Tiger131_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

RDFish
I knew you’d take it back sooner or later.
There is nothing to take back. You don't understand my argument. My philosophical position is that nature cannot contain a telic principle in the absence of a transcendent designer. If nature does contain such a principle, I hold that someone must have put it there. Hence, dualism However, ID, as understood by its proponents, does allow for that possibility of a telic principle in nature-- even in the absence of a transcendent designer. Thus, ID does not depend on dualism. Hence, they accept the logical possibility of monism. ID does not agree with my PHILOSOPHICAL position that a transcendent Creator must be responsible for any telic principle. ID is a scientific process. It has a beginning and an end and every step is made explicit. There is no step that includes the assumption of dualism. It's as simple as that. ID does not assume dualism--or depend on dualism.StephenB_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Tiger
In other words, you’re saying ID cannot be science unless and until dualism can be scientifically established. Or am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing something. ID is science because it its methods. Dualism cannot be scientifically established.StephenB_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

The Earth’s rotation and tilted revolution, the Sun’s uneven heating of the Earth’s surface, the arrangement of land masses and oceans, cause the formation of high and low pressure areas, as well as ocean currents. This, in turn, leads to the formation of clouds, winds, and, of course, raindrops. It’s a complex water pump.
And all of that was by design.Virgil Cain_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: No, it makes sense if matter is arranged for a purpose, even if the agent arranging the matter is not conscious. The argument only works if "law+chance" is strictly dichotomous with "intelligence". If not, then the argument fails.Zachriel_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Tiger131:
But the truth/falsity of dualism cannot now be established by empirical science.
That isn't an argument. And science takes risks like that.Virgil Cain_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

RDFis is ignorant of ID:
Again consider ID’s core argument: 1) Is the phenomenon explicable by law+chance? 2) If NO, then the phenomenon is best explained by intelligence.
That is incorrect. Not only do we have to eliminate necessity and chance but there also has to be some specification, ie a pattern that is at least mind correlative.
2) The core supposedly scientific argument in favor of ID is incoherent if dualism is false.
Which means ID is falsifiable, an attribute of a scientific concept.
I’m only interested in scientific methods here, and you don’t have any for identifying matter arranged for a purpose.
Of course we do and we have told you what is is: The criteria for inferring purpose in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” If we can ascertain purpose when a human did it, guess what? We can ascertain purpose you little infant. The fair reader knows that RDFish is a scientifically illiterate coward. I am OK with that. Cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

RDFish
Again consider ID’s core argument: 1) Is the phenomenon explicable by law+chance? 2) If NO, then the phenomenon is best explained by intelligence. This makes sense only under the assumption of dualism.
No, it makes sense if matter is arranged for a purpose, even if the agent arranging the matter is not conscious.Barry Arrington_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

RDFish: When water is arranged into raindrops and dropped onto plants below, it seems reasonable to say that the purpose of the rain is to water the plants. StephenB: There is no discernable pattern of arranged matter in that example. Huh? Of course there is. The Earth's rotation and tilted revolution, the Sun's uneven heating of the Earth's surface, the arrangement of land masses and oceans, cause the formation of high and low pressure areas, as well as ocean currents. This, in turn, leads to the formation of clouds, winds, and, of course, raindrops. It's a complex water pump.Zachriel_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Dear RDFish I'm not trying to ask a trick question. It's an honest question. I suspect StephenB will not agree with what I said. But I am unable to follow the explanations earlier in this thread so I'm hoping he will clarify. ThanksTiger131_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

Hi Tiger131,
You say if dualism is false then ID is false.
Yes, StephenB said this.
But the truth/falsity of dualism cannot now be established by empirical science.
Yes, StephenB and I agree that dualism is a metaphysical belief rather than a scientific fact.
It follows that the truth/falsity of ID cannot now be established by empirical science.
That is precisely correct, Tiger131.
In other words, you’re saying ID cannot be science unless and until dualism can be scientifically established.
Well sure, but don't hold your breath for that. What ID needs to do is to actually start researching intelligence as it exists and trying to figure out how it relates to evolution. Pretty funny that "Intelligent Design Theory" folks never actually study intelligence! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

Dear StephenB Please help me understand your view. You say if dualism is false then ID is false. But the truth/falsity of dualism cannot now be established by empirical science. It follows that the truth/falsity of ID cannot now be established by empirical science. In other words, you're saying ID cannot be science unless and until dualism can be scientifically established. Or am I missing something? ThanksTiger131_{December 14, 2015
December
12
Dec
14
14
2015
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
RDF: You have said that if dualism is false, then ID is false. SB: Correct.
Great, you're sticking with that. I've been trying to get you to admit that for years.
In my opinion, there can be no human intelligence unless immaterial rational souls exist. That is dualism.
Dualism per se is more minimal than your view; it merely holds that there are two distinct ontological types - the mental ("intelligence" in ID parlance) and the physical ("law+chance" in ID parlance).
However, ID, as science, makes no philosophical commitments.
ID depends upon the truth of a metaphysical position (dualism). I would call that a "philosophical commitment"
It cannot for the simple reason that it is a disinterested process that follows evidence where it leads. Assuming or even contemplating dualism (as something that is true as opposed to something that is possible) is not part of that process.
Again consider ID's core argument: 1) Is the phenomenon explicable by law+chance? 2) If NO, then the phenomenon is best explained by intelligence. This makes sense only under the assumption of dualism. Under physicalism, law+chance is all there is - it is everything - and intelligence is nothing more than law+chance. Therefore, if dualism was true, ID's argument means the following: 1) Is the phenomenon explicable by anything? 2) If NO, then the phenomenon is best explained by law+chance. Obviously this makes no sense, so ID is clearly dependent upon the assumption of dualism.
There are two ways of understanding our relationship to reality.
I'm only interested in talking about scientific understanding, where we base our conclusions upon our shared and repeated experience.
You still labor under the illusion that ID assumes dualism.
I knew you'd take it back sooner or later. :-) But it won't work. You're just waving your hands now, trying to somehow take back what you said by talking about understanding inside-out or outside-in, about your metaphysics and epistemology and how reality metaphysically reaches down to make contact with us(?!). The fact of the matter remains: 1) ID claims to be a scientific theory, not a religious belief or a philosophical belief. 2) The core supposedly scientific argument in favor of ID is incoherent if dualism is false. 3) Since dualism is not a scientific fact but rather a metaphysical position, ID's core argument rests on a metaphysical assumption.
I don’t have a scientific method insofar as I don’t use measurements, but I do have a method.
I'm only interested in scientific methods here, and you don't have any for identifying matter arranged for a purpose. It is not relevant in the least that we can sometimes recognize human artifacts or tell-tale signs of animal activity. Since you define "intelligence" as "the ability to arrange matter for a purpose", and you admit there is no scientific method for detecting purpose, you have now confirmed the second major objection I have to ID: It has no definition for "intelligence" that can be empirically evaluated in the context of ID.
Of course, ID also has a scientific method for detecting the presence of intelligence, but I am not discussing that at the moment.
I only am interested in scientific matters, as you know. It is hilarious that you would allude to but fail to identify some "scientific method for detecting the presence of intelligence" while instead describing some subjective, non-scientific method. I have no interest in your non-scientific methods, and you have already confirmed that there is no scientific method.
RDF: When water is arranged into raindrops and dropped onto plants below, it seems reasonable to say that the purpose of the rain is to water the plants. SB: There is no discernable pattern of arranged matter in that example.
Again: You claimed that even children could detect purpose… but then you disagree with Brian’s conclusions about what has been arranged for a purpose! And you can’t even tell Brian why you think he’s wrong, since you have no objective method for determining the truth about what has purpose and what doesn’t. It’s just his opinion against yours.
A spider’s web contains an objective purpose and function.
Again: A spider web floating around in outer space would appear, to someone with no knowledge of small animals like spiders and flies, to have no obvious purpose. So obviously the “purpose” cannot be inherent in the arranged matter per se. Rather, it must be subjectively evaluated in some particular context. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 14, 2015
December
12
Dec
14
14
2015
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT}

RDFish
You have said that if dualism is false, then ID is false.
Correct. That is my philosophical assessment. In my opinion, there can be no human intelligence unless immaterial rational souls exist. That is dualism. However, ID, as science, makes no philosophical commitments. It cannot for the simple reason that it is a disinterested process that follows evidence where it leads. Assuming or even contemplating dualism (as something that is true as opposed to something that is possible) is not part of that process. If that was the case, it would be leading the evidence, not following.
This is precisely what I meant by saying ID assumes dualism.
ID is a process. It does not assume or pay tribute to dualism in any way. Let me explain it another way. There are two ways of understanding our relationship to reality. We can, from a metaphysical standpoint, analyze or speculate on how the world impacts us, from the outside in, or we can, from an epistemological standpoint, analyze how we apprehend the word, from the inside out. Metaphysically, reality reaches down to to make contact with us. Epistemologically, we reach up to make contact with reality. My philosophical assessment was made from the outside in. ID operates from the inside out and is impervious to my philosophical assessment because it was designed to be free of any such intrusions.
We have now established agreement on this point, which is great.
I don't think so. You still labor under the illusion that ID assumes dualism.
Let’s be clear on why you are calling the web “designed”. Is it because it has CSI, or is there some other criterion that you applied to determine if the web was designed or not?
No, it is because a spider's web is matter arranged for a purpose.
Because you have no method to objectively identify matter arranged for a purpose!!!!!
I don't have a scientific method insofar as I don't use measurements, but I do have a method. It is called informal design inference. I can, quite often, identify matter arranged for a purpose and so can everyone else, including you. It is a simple matter of knowing that nature does not have the causal power to produce it. A bird's nest is obviously designed. It is not necessary to know anything about the history of birds or to measure CSI in order to know that nature was not the source of the nest. Of course, ID also has a scientific method for detecting the presence of intelligence, but I am not discussing that at the moment. I am talking about the kinds of informal design inferences people make every day.
When water is arranged into raindrops and dropped onto plants below, it seems reasonable to say that the purpose of the rain is to water the plants.
There is no discernable pattern of arranged matter in that example.
If there is no objective method for detecting purpose in arranged matter, why do you say you are “detecting” it?
A design inference reveals truths about objective reality. SB: We know that a human did it because he left clues—not because he is a human.being.
He left clues that led you to believe he was a human being! We recognized those clues because we know about what human beings do.
He left clues about many things, including his humanity and his intentions to commit burglary. However, the latter piece of evidence is more important because it explains why the dresser drawers were open and the jewelry is gone. His humanity does not explain that; his intentions do. So it is with the difference between murder and accidental death. We recognize the difference not because human beings are involved--humans commit murder and also have accidents-- but because malicious intent and purpose is evident in the 27 knife wounds. It is purpose and intent that distinguish design from law/chance, not humanity. SB: We know he did it because he left the dresser drawers upon and stole the jewelry—not because he is a human being. His status as a human is irrelevant.
What else besides a human being (or perhaps some other animal) would steal the jewelry?
You appear to be forgetting the point about injecting irrelevant terms into the paradigm. The presence of humanity, however interesting, is not relevant to ID's paradigm, which juxtaposes intelligence, intent, and purpose with law/chance. There is no way to juxtapose humanity with law/chance. Of course a spider does not have conscious intent. That is why I brought it up—to show you that the intelligent designer (as ID defines it) does not necessarily need to be aware of the purpose of its design. We are arriving at conclusions based on empirical evidence–not metaphysical assumptions and speculations. A spider’s web contains an objective purpose and function.
Ok, now you’re saying that the purpose in something tells us nothing whatsoever about any sort of conscious intention or mental attributes of what produced it.
No. No. I am saying that it doesn't necessarily tell us about conscious intention or purpose. Stab wounds in the back tell us a great deal about the murderer's sense of purpose. The spider's web, on the other hand, tells us nothing about its sense of purpose. Even so, objective purpose and function is present in both cases.StephenB_{December 14, 2015
December
12
Dec
14
14
2015
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

Actually, modern science is based upon the Cartesian duality. So it's a scientific fact.Mung_{December 14, 2015
December
12
Dec
14
14
2015
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
RDF: Is dualism is a scientific fact, or a metaphysical belief? SB: Dualism is a metaphysical position.
Excellent, thank you for that answer.
RDF: Are ID’s arguments coherent if dualism is false? SB: If dualism if false, that is, if there is no intelligent agency as ID understands I, then ID is obviously false by definition.
Thank you for that answer. ID's definition of "intelligence" as "the compliment of law/chance" is tantamount to the claim of mind/body dualism. If dualism is false, then ID false.
If there is no such thing as intelligent agency, then there is no such thing as an argument. If there is no such thing as an argument, then there is no such thing as an incoherent argument.
If dualism is false, that does not mean "there is no such thing as intelligent agency". Rather, it means that intelligent agency does not transcend law/chance. And to say that if dualism is false then "there is no such thing as an argument" is truly a ridiculous and bizarre thing to say. The fact that we are arguing does not prove that dualism is true, and the claim that dualism is false does not prevent us from arguing about it of course. Good grief. In any case, we agree that dualism is a metaphysical position, and we agree that if dualism is false then ID is false. That is real progress, thank you.
SB: ID provides evidence that dualism, which was assumed to be possible (not assumed to be true) is, in fact, true. RDF: Nobody suggested that anyone assume dualism is impossible, so the first part is irrelevant. SB: What in the name of sense are you talking about? Try to rephrase that question so that it corresponds to the comment that prompted it.
You say that ID assumes dualism is possible. I point out that the question of whether dualism is possible or not has never been at issue. Nobody is arguing that dualism is not possible. Rather, I am pointing out that dualism cannot be empirically supported. You have agreed with this by saying that dualism is a metaphysical position rather than a scientific result.
SB: There is no assumption of the truth of dualism. There is only the assumption of the possibility of dualism. RDF: Again, that is completely irrelevant, because the possibility of dualism is not a relevant issue. SB: It is the ONLY issue and you clearly are a mile away from understanding it.
No, the issue is not the possibility of dualism - we both agree that dualism is possible. You believe it is true, and I don't, but neither of us is saying that it is impossible that it is true. It is a metaphysical belief that can't be tested empirically.
If ID does not assume that intelligent agency (or dualism, for that matter) is possible, it cannot posit it as a scientific hypothesis.
Dualism is an hypothesis, but it cannot be posited as a scientific hypothesis. This is not because it is impossible, but rather because nobody can imagine any way to empirically test the hypothesis.
That is no the same thing as assuming that dualism is true—as I have explained countless times.
And of course we have agreed about this all along, so you needn't have even mentioned it.
I am simply correcting your claim that ID assumes the truth of dualism.
But you are still wrong about this. You have said that if dualism is false, then ID is false. This is precisely what I meant by saying ID assumes dualism. You can say that ID requires dualism, or that it entails dualism, or that it depends upon dualism. No matter how you say it, we are in agreement: If dualism is false then ID is false by definition. We have now established agreement on this point, which is great. The next step is this: We've agreed that if dualism is false, then ID is false by definition. But since there is no empirical method available to test the truth of dualism, then the truth of ID cannot be established scientifically. This is not the case with any scientific theory. No definition used in evolutionary theory - or any other scientific theory - relies on some particular solution to the mind/body problem. This is one reason ID is not a scientific theory.
RDF: As I’ve said many times now, without apparent effect, the concept of “purpose” can only be objectively established by figuring out what somebody consciously intended. SB: Obviously, I refuted that notion with the example of the spider’s web.
Huh? Here is what we said:
RDFish: As I’ve said many times now, without apparent effect, the concept of “purpose” can only be objectively established by figuring out what somebody consciously intended. SB: Which is often a very easy to do. That is why there is such a thing as evidence for attempted murder, which easily qualifies as objective purpose.
Is seemed as though you were agreeing here, by saying it is often easy to figure out conscious intent. Now you seem to be saying that it is not necessary to establish conscious intent in order to identify "purpose" in an arrangement of matter. OK.
A spider is not conscious of the purpose of its web.
Yes, we agree about this. And to compare with an example of some phenomenon outside of biology, a cloud is likewise not conscious of the purpose of the rain it produces.
Nevertheless, the web is a designed artifact...
Let's be clear on why you are calling the web "designed". Is it because it has CSI, or is there some other criterion that you applied to determine if the web was designed or not?
...with an obvious purpose. Even a child who knows nothing about entomology would perceive design, purpose, and function in the web.
Agreed, the obvious purpose of the web is catch food for the spider. To return to our example from outside of biology, the obvious purpose of the rain is to allow things to grow. In fact, I just asked my 9-year-old neighbor, Brian, what the purpose of rain is, and he replied "to grow flowers". So Brian thinks it's obvious that the purpose of rain is grow flowers. He also reports that the purpose of gravity is to keep us from floating off into space, the purpose of the sun is to provide light and heat to the Earth, and the purpose of the flowers is to keep us happy because they are beautiful and smell nice. Finally, I asked him a very hard question: If spiders make webs for a purpose, and birds make nests for a purpose, what do dogs make for a purpose? Brian answered immediately that dogs make poop. I asked what the purpose of poop was and he answered "so they don't explode"! Now it's nice to think that nine-year-olds can do science, but I'm afraid that what this shows is that attributing "purpose" to things we find in nature is a purely subjective and rather fanciful excercise. You agree with Brian about the purpose of the spider web, but I believe you disagree with him regarding the purpose of gravity, the sun, and flowers, and the dog poop. How would you instruct Brian to understand what things have purpose and what things don't? You have no such instructions, of course. All you have are examples. From your examples, it appears that most things produced by living organisms appear to be deemed for a purpose, and everything not produced by a living organism appears to be not for a purpose. But some things produced by living organisms (like dog poop) may not be for a purpose. Why do I have to try and induce the principles you are applying to these examples? Why don't you simply tell me how you judge what things are made for a purpose? Because you have no method to objectively identify matter arranged for a purpose!!!!!
We can often determine purpose by the perceivable and purposeful function inherent in the artifact. If you visited the planet Mars and observed a machine with an obvious function, you would infer design.
A spider web floating around in outer space would appear, to someone with no knowledge of small animals like spiders and flies, to have no obvious purpose. So obviously the "purpose" cannot be inherent in the arranged matter per se. Rather, it must be subjectively evaluated in some particular context.
What arranged patterns of matter did you observe in a light beam, or a watered crop, or a rain cloud. Please answer.
When water is arranged into raindrops and dropped onto plants below, it seems reasonable to say that the purpose of the rain is to water the plants. Brian, my nine-year-old neighbor, found this answer unquestionably true. But it's clear that it is nothing but a subjective view - both for Brian and for you.
I said nothing about methods. I said that, in many cases, purpose can be detected in arranged matter—period.
So here you are admitting that there is no objective method for determining what matter has been arranged for a purpose, and what matter has not been arranged for a purpose. EXCELLENT!
Purpose can be detected in arranged matter without any knowledge of intentions. We can, in some cases, infer intentions from the function that is inherent in the object.
If there is no objective method for detecting purpose in arranged matter, why do you say you are "detecting" it? It's all just purely subjective opinion. You claimed that even children could detect purpose... but then you disagree with Brian's conclusions about what has been arranged for a purpose! And you can't even tell Brian why you think he's wrong, since you have no objective method for determining the truth about what has purpose and what doesn't. It's just his opinion against yours.
We know that a human did it because he left clues—not because he is a human.being.
He left clues that led you to believe he was a human being! We recognized those clues because we know about what human beings do!
We know he did it because he left the dresser drawers upon and stole the jewelry—not because he is a human being. His status as a human is irrelevant.
What else besides a human being (or perhaps some other animal) would steal the jewelry?
Of course a spider does not have conscious intent. That is why I brought it up—to show you that the intelligent designer (as ID defines it) does not necessarily need to be aware of the purpose of its design. We are arriving at conclusions based on empirical evidence–not metaphysical assumptions and speculations. A spider’s web contains an objective purpose and function.
Ok, now you're saying that the purpose in something tells us nothing whatsoever about any sort of conscious intention or mental attributes of what produced it. Instead, the purpose is inherent in the object. A spider web floating around in space would have obvious inherent purpose, but it would tell us nothing whatsoever about what produced it. That's what you're saying, right? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 14, 2015
December
12
Dec
14
14
2015
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

RDFish The point about dualism is that ID’s aruments assume it is true, rendering ID a metaphysical conjecture rather than a scientific theory. ID doesn’t assume dualism.
If you could have refuted this point (or any other point I made) then you would have. But you haven’t, because you can’t.
I have refuted it many times. You don’t understand the refutation because you don’t know the chronology of the ID process, which is definitive and precise and contains no assumptions of dualism. I have asked you several times to reproduce the process from start to finish and you cannot do it. Since you don’t know the process, you can’t possibly know what is or is not in it. Since I do know the process, I can tell you that the assumption of dualism is neither explicitly or impicitly present in the process. RDF: If intelligence is nothing but the outcome of physical processes in human brains and bodies (that is, if dualism is false and law/chance is all there is), then how can you argue that law/chance cannot produce CSI?
Why no answer?
It’s a meaningless question. You are saying that if intelligence is something different than the way ID defines it, then ID is wrong. Well, no kidding. It’s a trivial observation. If ID is wrong about intelligence, then ID is wrong about intelligence. Thank you for that profound observation. . SB: ID assumes the possibility of dualism, not the truth of dualism. Please make a note of it.
If intelligence is nothing but the outcome of physical processes in human brains and bodies (that is, if dualism is false and law/chance is all there is), then how can you argue that law/chance cannot produce CSI?
Notice how you completely ignore what is written and promptly revert back to your talking points.
Is dualism is a scientific fact, or a metaphysical belief?
Dualism is a metaphysical position.
Are ID’s arguments coherent if dualism is false? I ask you these questions because I know you’ll dodge them. How do I know that? Because if you answered them you’d lose the argument. So I’ll check your response and keep asking these questions until you answer them.
I don't dodge intelligible questions. If dualism if false, that is, if there is no intelligent agency as ID understands I, then ID is obviously false by definition. If there is no such thing as intelligent agency, then there is no such thing as an argument. If there is no such thing as an argument, then there is no such thing as an incoherent argument. SB” ID provides evidence that dualism, which was assumed to be possible (not assumed to be true) is, in fact, true.
Nobody suggested that anyone assume dualism is impossible, so the first part is irrelevant. As to the second part, you are saying that ID does not assume dualism, but it provides scientific evidence that dualism is true. Is that right?
What in the name of sense are you talking about? Try to rephrase that question so that it corresponds to the comment that prompted it. SB: There is no assumption of the truth of dualism. There is only the assumption of the possibility of dualism.
Again, that is completely irrelevant, because the possibility of dualism is not a relevant issue.
It is the ONLY issue and you clearly are a mile away from understanding it. If ID does not assume that intelligent agency (or dualism, for that matter) is possible, it cannot posit it as a scientific hypothesis. That is no the same thing as assuming that dualism is true---as I have explained countless times.
Again you’re going on about the “possibility” of dualism when that has never been in question – you are so confused. Then you add a deprecating little jibe to make it look like I’m the one confused – very clever!
I am simply correcting your claim that ID assumes the truth of dualism. For some reason, you cannot grasp the difference between asserting that dualism is true and assuming that it as possible. As far as deprecating jibes are concerned, I have been very gentle with you.
Could a chimpanzee create Mount Rushmore? A parrot or a beaver? No, none of these intelligent agents could do it – only human beings
So what? So what? So what?.
So the best explanation is surely “human being”, not “intelligent agent”.
No, it isn’t. ID’s paradigm does not juxtapose law/chance vs “Human being.” ID’s paradigm juxtaposes law/chance vs intelligent agency. Human being is not interchangeable with intelligent agent. You can't just go around tweaking others' paradigms and expect to make a logical argument on that basis. It isn't rational. In order to have a reasonable analysis, you must use carefully crafted categories that accurately reflect the differences between competing paradigms.
As I’ve said many times now, without apparent effect, the concept of “purpose” can only be objectively established by figuring out what somebody consciously intended.
Obviously, I refuted that notion with the example of the spider's web. A spider is not conscious of the purpose of its web. Nevertheless, the web is a designed artifact with an obvious purpose. Even a child who knows nothing about entomology would perceive design, purpose, and function in the web. SB: hat is why there is such a thing as evidence for attempted murder, which easily qualifies as objective purpose.
GREAT – we agree that in order to determine purpose, we need to establish a conscious intent of the cause. This definitely helps clarify things
NO!. We can often determine purpose by the perceivable and purposeful function inherent in the artifact. If you visited the planet Mars and observed a machine with an obvious function, you would infer design. SB: Why should I admit something that isn’t true. Just because you don’t understand the difference between the broader concept of matter arranged for a purpose and the narrower concept of CSI doesn’t mean that I should cater to your ignorance, especially when I have already explained the difference.
All you said was that “matter for a purpose” was a broader category that included CSI. That doesn’t help objectively identify anything.
There you go again, moving the target in a futile attempt to escape refutation. You claimed that those terms were synonymous. They are not. I was correcting your error. Acknowledge the error and move on. Meanwhile, I have challenged you to tell me where you find matter arranged for a purpose in all the examples that you offered, and you dodged the question. What arranged patterns of matter did you observe in a light beam, or a watered crop, or a rain cloud. Please answer. Of course, you cannot answer. You cannot detect matter arranged for a purpose in your examples. Admit it and let’s move on.
If you could refute it, you would. If you could provide some METHOD to ascertain purpose, you would. But you can’t! All you can do is list EXAMPLES and expect somebody else to induce what criterion you are using! It’s completely ridiculous!
Again, your ideology leads you to still more confusion. I said nothing about methods. I said that, in many cases, purpose can be detected in arranged matter---period. You deny it and I keep correcting you with examples. Your response is to change the subject to methodology in a futile attempt to escape refutation. SB: Everyone can discern purpose in a beaver’s dam.
TOLD YOU! It’s because we know an animal built it! (and apparently you believe beavers have conscious intent – which I supposed I’ll agree with arguendo)
Nonsense. Purpose can be detected in arranged matter without any knowledge of intentions. We can, in some cases, infer intentions from the function that is inherent in the object. SB: Everyone can discern purpose in a murderous act.
TOLD YOU! Same stupid trick. It’s because we know that a HUMAN did it.
Same stupid answer. We know that a human did it because he left clues—not because he is a human.being. SB: Everyone can discern purpose in burglar’s action.
TOLD YOU! Same stupid trick – a HUMAN BEING did it.
A monumentally stupid answer. We know he did it because he left the dresser drawers upon and stole the jewelry—not because he is a human being. His status as a human is irrelevant. SB: Everyone can discern purpose in a spider’s web.
You really think spiders have a conscious intent to build webs in order to catch flies? Again, examples don’t help – you really need to provide a METHOD for determining purpose. But you can’t.
Of course a spider does not have conscious intent. That is why I brought it up—to show you that the intelligent designer (as ID defines it) does not necessarily need to be aware of the purpose of its design. We are arriving at conclusions based on empirical evidence--not metaphysical assumptions and speculations. A spider's web contains an objective purpose and function. That is one more reason why design cannot be synonymous with“human beings.” The paradigm, as I keep explaining, is law/chance vs design—and that’s all it is. You can’t substitute human for design or CSI for arranged matter. You may not know what these words mean, but I do, and I will not permit you to use them interchangeably in order to muddy the wateStephenB_{December 14, 2015
December
12
Dec
14
14
2015
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

RDFish:
Do you or don’t you agree that every known intelligent agent is either a human or other animal, and that human beings are the only known things that can produce semiotic codes?
So when we observe a semiotic code and it could not have been a human we infer it was via some other, unknown, intentional/ intelligent agency. Science 101
No, you never refuted the fact that while evolutionary theory is falsifiable on its own, ID theory can only be falsified by proving some other theory true –
So what? Newtons's four rules of scientific investigation mandate that
...another reason ID is unscientific.
Only a scientifically illiterate ass would say that, and here you are, RDFish. What is wrong with you? In what way does that make ID unscientific? Please TRY to make a case- I dare you.
The point about dualism is that ID’s arguments assume it is true,..
We infer it is true, based on the scientific evidence.
If you could provide some METHOD to ascertain purpose, you would.
We have and you ignored it as if your willful ignorance is an argument.
It’s because we know that a HUMAN did it.
What a dick. If we can ascertain purpose when a human did it, guess what? We can ascertain purpose you little infant. The fair reader knows that RDFish is a scientifically illiterate coward. I am OK with that. Cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain_{December 14, 2015
December
12
Dec
14
14
2015
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

RDB, I am sorry but that is really pathetic. A spider's web does not have anything to do with humans. Biological organisms, apart from humans, are also agents. Agency is irreducible to law and chance. The key notion you seem to be trying to avoid is 'pragmatic utility' ('purpose' is too vague in my opinion). Whatever you call it, dualism or not, I don't really care. I can observe for myself that irreducibility is a real issue in many disciplines. Naturalism is fine in many areas but it is not a panacea. Reality does not have to be reducible to law and chance. When you deal with how nature came to be, naturalism is not an option.EugeneS_{December 14, 2015
December
12
Dec
14
14
2015
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
RDF: What other known type of intelligent agent produces semiotic codes, StephenB? Seems like you would actually mention what you’re talking about if this were true :-) SB: It isn’t the “type” of intelligent agent the produces the codes; it is the capacity of the intelligent agent.
Do you or don't you agree that every known intelligent agent is either a human or other animal, and that human beings are the only known things that can produce semiotic codes?
(RD rants on about points already refuted and provides endless repetitions of the same attempts to make a point)
No, you never refuted the fact that while evolutionary theory is falsifiable on its own, ID theory can only be falsified by proving some other theory true - another reason ID is unscientific.
Then address the scientific arguments and stop talking about philosophy, especially the philosophy of dualism.
The point about dualism is that ID's aruments assume it is true, rendering ID a metaphysical conjecture rather than a scientific theory.
If you do insist about injecting that subject matter into the discussion, then expect to get refuted on those terms as well.
If you could have refuted this point (or any other point I made) then you would have. But you haven't, because you can't.
RDF: If intelligence is nothing but the outcome of physical processes in human brains and bodies (that is, if dualism is false and law/chance is all there is), then how can you argue that law/chance cannot produce CSI? SB: SILENCE
Why no answer?
RDF: You can’t, of course. ID assumes dualism at the outset. SB: ID does not assume the truth of dualism.
You simply deny it but you don't try to counter my argument. Ridiculous.
(Notice how RD says we should stop talking about philosophy, even though he can’t stop obsessing about dualism).
The point about dualism is that ID's arguments assume it is true, rendering ID a metaphysical conjecture rather than a scientific theory.
ID assumes the possibility of dualism, not the truth of dualism. Please make a note of it.
If intelligence is nothing but the outcome of physical processes in human brains and bodies (that is, if dualism is false and law/chance is all there is), then how can you argue that law/chance cannot produce CSI?
If dualism is false, then ID cannot prove that it is true.
Is dualism is a scientific fact, or a metaphysical belief? Are ID's arguments coherent if dualism is false? I ask you these questions because I know you'll dodge them. How do I know that? Because if you answered them you'd lose the argument. So I'll check your response and keep asking these questions until you answer them.
ID provides evidence that dualism, which was assumed to be possible (not assumed to be true) is, in fact, true.
Nobody suggested that anyone assume dualism is impossible, so the first part is irrelevant. As to the second part, you are saying that ID does not assume dualism, but it provides scientific evidence that dualism is true. Is that right?
There is no assumption of the truth of dualism. There is only the assumption of the possibility of dualism.
Again, that is completely irrelevant, because the possibility of dualism is not a relevant issue.
At the same time, that which is assumed to be possible, must also be defined. However, to define what you mean by A is not to assume that A is true. Basic logic. Please try to comprehend this fact.
Again you're going on about the "possibility" of dualism when that has never been in question - you are so confused. Then you add a deprecating little jibe to make it look like I'm the one confused - very clever!
RDF: Most people would say it was made by human beings [rather than intelligent agency]. SB: No, they wouldn’t.
Why not try it - ask what sort of thing created Mount Rushmore to anyone outside of an ID forum, and see what they say. I'd bet they say something like "What, are you stupid? People made it of course - a bunch of guys back in the 1930s. What do you think made it - aliens from outer space? Hahahahaha".
RDF: Could a chimpanzee create Mount Rushmore? A parrot or a beaver? No, none of these intelligent agents could do it – only human beings. Do we know of any other “intelligent agent” in the entire universe that could do it? No, we know of no other sort of intelligent agent at all. So the best explanation is surely “human being”, not “intelligent agent”. SB: SILENCE

RDF: As I’ve said many times now, without apparent effect, the concept of “purpose” can only be objectively established by figuring out what somebody consciously intended. SB: Which is often a very easy to do. That is why there is such a thing as evidence for attempted murder, which easily qualifies as objective purpose.
GREAT - we agree that in order to determine purpose, we need to establish a conscious intent of the cause. This definitely helps clarify things.
Why should I admit something that isn’t true. Just because you don’t understand the difference between the broader concept of matter arranged for a purpose and the narrower concept of CSI doesn’t mean that I should cater to your ignorance, especially when I have already explained the difference.
All you said was that "matter for a purpose" was a broader category that included CSI. That doesn't help objectively identify anything.
RDF: Because you want to say that you can actually observe purpose in matter, and not just specified complexity. But you are completely, hopelessly, and comically wrong – you can’t observe “purpose” in anything – you can only observe specified complexity. SB: I have already refuted that one as well.
No, you haven't even tried.
Indeed, I don’t have to refute it because any rational person you will encounter can destroy your claim.
If you could refute it, you would. If you could provide some METHOD to ascertain purpose, you would. But you can't! All you can do is list EXAMPLES and expect somebody else to induce what criterion you are using! It's completely ridiculous! Watch - you'll just pull the same old stupid trick where you start giving examples of HUMANS (or perhaps certain other animals) doing things, and claim that we know they had conscious intent just by looking at the artifact, when in fact it's because we know what built it! Let's see...
Everyone can discern purpose in a beaver’s dam.
TOLD YOU! It's because we know an animal built it! (and apparently you believe beavers have conscious intent - which I supposed I'll agree with arguendo)
Everyone can discern purpose in a murderous act.
TOLD YOU! Same stupid trick. It's because we know that a HUMAN did it.
Everyone can discern purpose in burglar’s action.
TOLD YOU! Same stupid trick - a HUMAN BEING did it.
Everyone can discern purpose in a spider’s web.
You really think spiders have a conscious intent to build webs in order to catch flies? Again, examples don't help - you really need to provide a METHOD for determining purpose. But you can't.
Everyone can discern purpose in an ancient hunter’s spear.
TOLD YOU! Same stupid trick - ancient hunters were all HUMAN BEINGS.
You are the only one I know who cannot.
I'll let the fair reader decide what a pathetic shot this one is :-) Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 14, 2015
December
12
Dec
14
14
2015
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT}

RDFish
What other known type of intelligent agent produces semiotic codes, StephenB? Seems like you would actually mention what you’re talking about if this were true :-)
SB: It isn't the "type" of intelligent agent the produces the codes; it is the capacity of the intelligent agent. (RD rants on about points already refuted and provides endless repetitions of the same attempts to make a point)
I don’t care what you argue about philosophy; I’m only interested when you claim to be doing science.
Then address the scientific arguments and stop talking about philosophy, especially the philosophy of dualism. If you do insist about injecting that subject matter into the discussion, then expect to get refuted on those terms as well. SB: From the standpoint of sound philosophy, ID cannot be true unless dualism is true.
Don’t bring philosophy into this.
Are you cuckoo? I didn't bring philosophy into it. You did. I was simply correcting the error embedded in your philosophical intrusion. SB: Thus, neither ID science nor its methods depend on dualism for the simple reason that ID is obliged to withhold judgment on the matter until the evidence speaks.
If intelligence is nothing but the outcome of physical processes in human brains and bodies (that is, if dualism is false and law/chance is all there is), then how can you argue that law/chance cannot produce CSI? You can’t, of course. ID assumes dualism at the outset.
ID does not assume the truth of dualism. (Notice how RD says we should stop talking about philosophy, even though he can't stop obsessing about dualism). ID assumes the possibility of dualism, not the truth of dualism. Please make a note of it. SB: Even if metaphysical dualism must be true in order for ID’s conclusions to be true, it doesn’t follow that ID’s design detection process depends on, or must assume, dualism. Do you understand the difference? Try– really try–to get it.
It would help me to understand if you would answer the questions that I always ask. Here, just answer this: If intelligence is nothing but the outcome of physical processes in human brains and bodies (that is, if dualism is false and law/chance is all there is), then how can ID say that its scientific detection methodology (e.g. the “explanatory filter”) assumes that law/chance can be shown to be incapable of producing, while intelligence is capable of it? If dualism is false, that is like saying poodles can bark, but dogs can’t. It’s logically incoherent.
You are twisting yourself into a pretzel again. If dualism is false, then ID cannot prove that it is true. (More philosophical distractions from the one who says he doesn't want to discuss philosophy, even when I do so only to correct his errors). SB: ID science begins by withholding judgment about the truth of dualism until the evidence speaks. Once that happens, any reasonable person would conclude that dualism is much more plausible than monism.
It seems like what you are trying to say (but for some reason are afraid to say it outright) is that by employing the ID methodology, ID manages to show that dualism is true. Is that what you are saying, that ID has provided evidence that dualism is true?
ID provides evidence that dualism, which was assumed to be possible (not assumed to be true) is, in fact, true.
Here is what you are arguing ID’s methodology accomplishes: 1) Is the phenomenon explicable by any combination of law+chance? 2) If yes, then that’s the best explanation. 3) If there is no explanation based on law+chance, then we must conclude that the explanation must be something besides law/chance, and that means it is “intelligence” Is that a fair representation? I think so.

But as you can see, in step (3), ID assumes (without demonstrating) that “intelligence” is not law/chance. That is an assumption of dualism.
Reread your own comment. You used the word "conclude" is step 3). Last time I checked, assume doesn't mean conclude. There is no assumption of the truth of dualism. There is only the assumption of the possibility of dualism. At the same time, that which is assumed to be possible, must also be defined. However, to define what you mean by A is not to assume that A is true. Basic logic. Please try to comprehend this fact. Forensic scientists are not looking for "human activity in the context of differentiating accidental death from murder." They already have that. They are, in fact, looking for the very thing that has been defined and described: Purposefully arranged matter as opposed to naturally moving matter. That you cannot accept the facts are your problem, not mine.
Most people would say it was made by human beings [rather than intelligent agency].
No, they wouldn't. When asked to choose between law/chance and design, they would say design. They would not say "human being." That is your distraction.
As I’ve said many times now, without apparent effect, the concept of “purpose” can only be objectively established by figuring out what somebody consciously intended.
SB: Which is often a very easy to do. That is why there is such a thing as evidence for attempted murder, which easily qualifies as objective purpose.
WHAT???? How many times must I explain to you that while all of your examples have to do with human beings and ONLY human beings, that has nothing to do with ID? Human beings didn’t create life, StephenB.
You don't handle refutations very well, do you? Use your head and return to the question on the table. It is often very easy to demonstrate objective purpose from the way matter is arranged. When you get excited, you lose your train of thought.
The irrigation system in a corn field is clearly for the purpose of watering the crops so they will grow (you can ask the farmer). But while the raincloud above also irrigates the corn, how is it we could go about telling of it reflects a purpose or not?
Barry is right. This argument is muddle-headed–incredibly so.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.
So is that one.
Whenever you are completely trounced by my arguments the only dodge you have left is to say “sorry but you’re muddled so I won’t answer”. Guess what? That isn’t actually a counter-argument. But it is really, really funny that you think you can get away with it.
Obviously, you are the one who is struggling. As I made clear, you really look foolish when you try to claim that light beams, rain clouds, and buckets of water contain purposefully arranged matter that can be discerned. If you want to revisit that thesis again, bring it on. At this point, I must say that you are a glutton for punishment. SB: ID detects purpose by observing patterns in arranged matter. You can’t detect purpose by simply observing wet ground, or a wet crop, or a rain cloud, or a light beam because there are no detectable pattern of arranged matter to observe. Please tell me that you finally understand.
Here is what is obvious: What you are actually referring to as “pattern of arranged matter” is otherwise known as “CSI”, even though you won’t admit it. Why won’t you admit it?
Notice how you completely ignore what is written and try to change the subject. Why should I admit something that isn't true. Just because you don't understand the difference between the broader concept of matter arranged for a purpose and the narrower concept of CSI doesn't mean that I should cater to your ignorance, especially when I have already explained the difference.
Because you want to say that you can actually observe purpose in matter, and not just specified complexity. But you are completely, hopelessly, and comically wrong – you can’t observe “purpose” in anything – you can only observe specified complexity.
I have already refuted that one as well. Indeed, I don't have to refute it because any rational person you will encounter can destroy your claim. Everyone can discern purpose in a beaver's dam. Everyone can discern purpose in a murderous act. Everyone can discern purpose in burglar's action. Everyone can discern purpose in a spider's web. Everyone can discern purpose in an ancient hunter's spear. You are the only one I know who cannot.StephenB_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
RDFish (to Barry)
Ah, it's a tag team! :-) (You skipped the part where Barry says you can scientifically infer a conscious designer, then he says you can't. That was pretty funny, right?)
Distortion 1: It isn’t the human being’s “humanity” that is known to produce codes; it is the human being’s capacity for arranging matter.
Obviously it is a human being's "capacity for producing codes" that is responsible for producing codes, yes. Brilliant! And I didn't say it was "humanity" - you just made that up.
Human beings are not the only known intelligent agents, so being human is irrelevant to the paradigm.
What other known type of intelligent agent produces semiotic codes, StephenB? Seems like you would actually mention what you're talking about if this were true :-)
Distortion 2: Intelligence is defined as the capacity for arranging matter, not as the capacity for producing a semiotic code.
Um, here is what Barry said that I responded to: "I said that intelligent agents are the only known source of such codes." So it's really stupid of you to call my comments "distortions". Note that you skipped the argument regarding theories that can only be falsified by proving some other theory true. Again, while we all falsify Darwinism with concepts like irreducible complexity, there is nothing that an “intelligent agent” can’t do in theory, which means while evolutionary theory is eminently falsifiable, ID is not.
RDF: Either ID claims “intelligent agency” (which you define as something that acts “for a purpose”) is compatible with law/chance, or it doesn’t. If ID holds that intelligence is compatible with law/chance, then ID can’t claim that law/chance cannot produce CSI. If it doesn’t, then ID depends upon the claim that dualism is true. Which is it? SB: You are confusing the logical requirements for sound philosophy with the provisional findings of scientific methodology.
No I'm not. I don't care what you argue about philosophy; I'm only interested when you claim to be doing science.
From the standpoint of sound philosophy, ID cannot be true unless dualism is true.
Don't bring philosophy into this. From the standpoint of what your arguments for ID actually say, ID is incoherent unless you assume dualism. I've explained this over and over again, and it won't go away just because you ignore it: ID says that "intelligence" can produce CSI but "law/chance" cannot. ID is thus assuming that “intelligent causation” (aka “mind”) is fundamentally different from physical cause (aka “law/chance”). That is the very definition of dualism.
Thus, neither ID science nor its methods depend on dualism for the simple reason that ID is obliged to withhold judgment on the matter until the evidence speaks.
If intelligence is nothing but the outcome of physical processes in human brains and bodies (that is, if dualism is false and law/chance is all there is), then how can you argue that law/chance cannot produce CSI? You can't, of course. ID assumes dualism at the outset.
Even if metaphysical dualism must be true in order for ID’s conclusions to be true, it doesn’t follow that ID’s design detection process depends on, or must assume, dualism. Do you understand the difference? Try– really try–to get it.
It would help me to understand if you would answer the questions that I always ask. Here, just answer this: If intelligence is nothing but the outcome of physical processes in human brains and bodies (that is, if dualism is false and law/chance is all there is), then how can ID say that its scientific detection methodology (e.g. the "explanatory filter") assumes that law/chance can be shown to be incapable of producing, while intelligence is capable of it? If dualism is false, that is like saying poodles can bark, but dogs can't. It's logically incoherent.
ID science begins by withholding judgment about the truth of dualism until the evidence speaks. Once that happens, any reasonable person would conclude that dualism is much more plausible than monism.
It seems like what you are trying to say (but for some reason are afraid to say it outright) is that by employing the ID methodology, ID manages to show that dualism is true. Is that what you are saying, that ID has provided evidence that dualism is true? Here is what you are arguing ID's methodology accomplishes: 1) Is the phenomenon explicable by any combination of law+chance? 2) If yes, then that's the best explanation. 3) If there is no explanation based on law+chance, then we must conclude that the explanation must be something besides law/chance, and that means it is "intelligence" Is that a fair representation? I think so. But as you can see, in step (3), ID assumes (without demonstrating) that "intelligence" is not law/chance. That is an assumption of dualism.
Indeed, you must have arrived at that same conclusion when I asked you about the categorical difference between the tornado/burglar and accidental death/ murder. However, you were afraid to admit it, so you simply dodged the question.
Afraid to admit what? I've explained your confusion endlessly regarding burglars and tornados. They are very different sorts of things, but this has nothing to do with metaphysics at all - nothing to do with what lawlike regularities are, or random processes, or mental abilities. Nope, they are just obviously very different sorts of things that have very different effects, and no sane person would confuse them.
Forensic scientists are not searching for evidence of the murderer’s “humanity.”
They are looking for human beings. You have failed to provide a single reference from any forensics text that explains anything about "intelligent agency". Until you do, it's futile to pretend that forensics scientists learn about "intelligent agency" instead of what they actually study, which is how to collect evidence about human activities.
There are searching for evidence of his guilt, so that a court will convict him of crime. Please make a note of it, since I don’t appreciate issuing the same correctives time after time.
I know you talk like this - this pedantic, supersilious nonsense about "issuing correctives" - because it makes you feel like you're smart. But you're wrong about everything you say here, so it ends up just making you look even stupider. Anyway, you dodged this part that explains in yet another way why forensic scientists would never attribute something to "intelligent agency" rather than "human activity":
Most people would say it was made by human beings [rather than intelligent agency]. Could a chimpanzee create Mount Rushmore? A parrot or a beaver? No, none of these intelligent agents could do it – only human beings. Do we know of any other “intelligent agent” in the entire universe that could do it? No, we know of no other sort of intelligent agent at all. So the best explanation is surely “human being”, not “intelligent agent”.
Stop dodging the stuff you can't think of an answer for! It's futile.
RDFish: As I’ve said many times now, without apparent effect, the concept of “purpose” can only be objectively established by figuring out what somebody consciously intended. SB: Which is often a very easy to do. That is why there is such a thing as evidence for attempted murder, which easily qualifies as objective purpose.
WHAT???? How many times must I explain to you that while all of your examples have to do with human beings and ONLY human beings, that has nothing to do with ID? Human beings didn't create life, StephenB. We know all sorts of things about human beings, but we know nothing about the cause of life. We can talk to human beings, but we can't talk to the cause of life. We know that when a human being does something they may well have a conscious intention to do it, but we have no way of knowing that regarding the cause of life. If you had read this instead of dodging it you may have understood that already:
RDF: Unless you already know what made something, there is no way of knowing if there was any purpose involved. Moreover, if you don’t know that the source was conscious, then it’s not clear what “seeking a goal” means.

RDFish: The irrigation system in a corn field is clearly for the purpose of watering the crops so they will grow (you can ask the farmer). But while the raincloud above also irrigates the corn, how is it we could go about telling of it reflects a purpose or not? Barry is right. This argument is muddle-headed–incredibly so.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Whenever you are completely trounced by my arguments the only dodge you have left is to say "sorry but you're muddled so I won't answer". Guess what? That isn't actually a counter-argument. But it is really, really funny that you think you can get away with it.
ID detects purpose by observing patterns in arranged matter. You can’t detect purpose by simply observing wet ground, or a wet crop, or a rain cloud, or a light beam because there are no detectable pattern of arranged matter to observe. Please tell me that you finally understand.
Here is what is obvious: What you are actually referring to as "pattern of arranged matter" is otherwise known as "CSI", even though you won't admit it. Why won't you admit it? Because you want to say that you can actually observe purpose in matter, and not just specified complexity. But you are completely, hopelessly, and comically wrong - you can't observe "purpose" in anything - you can only observe specified complexity. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

RDFish (to Barry)
I’m not distorting what you have said, so stop accusing me of distortion. I’m not talking about what you have said. Rather, I am talking about what is the obvious truth: The only known sources of such codes are human beings. If you know of something else we can observe that produces codes like that – some other sort of “intelligent agent” – please tell me what it is. Otherwise, admit that the class of known “intelligent agents” that can create such codes is 100% co-referential with the term “human beings”.
Distortion 1: It isn’t the human being’s "humanity" that is known to produce codes; it is the human being’s capacity for arranging matter. Human beings are not the only known intelligent agents, so being human is irrelevant to the paradigm. Distortion 2: Intelligence is defined as the capacity for arranging matter, not as the capacity for producing a semiotic code. The former is a broader concept than the latter. That is why the science of design detection involves other sciences, including forensic science, which has nothing at all to do with semiotic codes.
Either ID claims “intelligent agency” (which you define as something that acts “for a purpose”) is compatible with law/chance, or it doesn’t. If ID holds that intelligence is compatible with law/chance, then ID can’t claim that law/chance cannot produce CSI. If it doesn’t, then ID depends upon the claim that dualism is true. Which is it?
You are confusing the logical requirements for sound philosophy with the provisional findings of scientific methodology. From the standpoint of sound philosophy, ID cannot be true unless dualism is true. However, ID does not presume to make that calculation. ID simply follows empirical evidence wherever it may lead. Thus, neither ID science nor its methods depend on dualism for the simple reason that ID is obliged to withhold judgment on the matter until the evidence speaks. You can’t withhold judgment about A and assume that A is true at the same time. Try to grasp the point. Even if metaphysical dualism must be true in order for ID's conclusions to be true, it doesn't follow that ID's design detection process depends on, or must assume, dualism. Do you understand the difference? Try-- really try--to get it.
OK, this seems clear – ID does not depend on dualism, got it. But if ID does not require dualism, how can law/chance be deemed incapable of producing CSI? Unless dualism is true, then even human action is due purely to law/chance. Unless ID requires dualism, its core arguments become incoherent.
Again, you are confusing philosophy with science. ID science begins by withholding judgment about the truth of dualism until the evidence speaks. Once that happens, any reasonable person would conclude that dualism is much more plausible than monism. Indeed, you must have arrived at that same conclusion when I asked you about the categorical difference between the tornado/burglar and accidental death/ murder. However, you were afraid to admit it, so you simply dodged the question.
For that 100000th time – forensic science has never identified anything that has ever committed a crime except human beings. There is no such thing as a non-human intelligent agent that can be identified by forensics. Forensic science has no reference to “intelligent agency”. They learn how to investigate the activity of “human beings”, not “intelligent agency”
You keep making this claim and I keep correcting it. Forensic scientists are not searching for evidence of the murderer's "humanity." There are searching for evidence of his guilt, so that a court will convict him of crime. Please make a note of it, since I don’t appreciate issuing the same correctives time after time.
RDFish: As I’ve said many times now, without apparent effect, the concept of “purpose” can only be objectively established by figuring out what somebody consciously intended.
Which is often a very easy to do. That is why there is such a thing as evidence for attempted murder, which easily qualifies as objective purpose.
RDFish: The irrigation system in a corn field is clearly for the purpose of watering the crops so they will grow (you can ask the farmer). But while the raincloud above also irrigates the corn, how is it we could go about telling of it reflects a purpose or not?
Barry is right. This argument is muddle-headed--incredibly so.
No, the reason you’re having trouble responding to the is because there really is no way to infer purpose without knowing the cause. Rather than actually try and say how we’re supposed to do that, you just toss out examples of how we know about human engineering and human purpose. But when I toss out a counterexample – where the same result derives from either conscious or non-conscious action – you are befuddled.
No one is befuddled except in the sense of marveling that you would think your examples prove something. I don’t understand how you can keep from being embarrassed.
RDF: WHAT? Irrigation systems do not have any purpose? Are you joking? Well, that shows that there’s no way to objectively detect purpose, because I would say that the purpose of an irrigation system is to water crops!
Don’t just react by putting one word in front of the other. Try to think. I mean--seriously--gird of the loins of your mind. ID detects purpose by observing patterns in arranged matter. You can’t detect purpose by simply observing wet ground, or a wet crop, or a rain cloud, or a light beam because there are no detectable pattern of arranged matter to observe. Please tell me that you finally understand. It's just insane to keep raising mindless objections about principles that you don't yet understand. If you would have answered my earlier questions, you would not keep making the same mistakes.StephenB_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Hi RDFish! What objectively observable characteristics or abilities do all natural causes have in common?Mung_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT}

Hi Barry Arrington,
RDFish: What’s important here is that there is, in fact, no way to scientifically support an inference to conscious awareness as a property of whatever caused living things to exist (more on this below). BA: False, as I have in fact demonstrated in the other thread.
False? Really? Ok, so you're saying that ID is able to marshall scientific evidence that whatever was responsible for the origin of life had conscious awareness, the way human beings are consciously aware. In that case, I do not understand what you meant when you said this:
BA: Is the teleology explained by a conscious, rational being? I believe it is, but that belief is a metaphysical belief.
It seems there you are saying the opposite, that inferring a conscious being is a metaphysical belief, not a scientific result. Help me understand what it is you think about this please.
RDFish: Human beings can’t be the cause of DNA, so the fact that humans are the only known source of such codes doesn’t enable us to infer a known cause for the DNA code. BA: Typical RDFish distortion. I did not say that human beings are the only known source of semiotic codes. I said that intelligent agents are the only known source of such codes. A critical difference that Fish distorts.
I'm not distorting what you have said, so stop accusing me of distortion. I'm not talking about what you have said. Rather, I am talking about what is the obvious truth: The only known sources of such codes are human beings. If you know of something else we can observe that produces codes like that - some other sort of "intelligent agent" - please tell me what it is. Otherwise, admit that the class of known "intelligent agents" that can create such codes is 100% co-referential with the term "human beings".
RDFish: So instead of offering a known cause for the CSI in biology, ID offers something that is unknown and hypothetical. BA: False. Intelligent agents are known to exist as a class. They are neither unknown nor hypothetical.
Again, there is exactly one known member of that class that can create such codes - homo sapiens. Other primates, cetaceans, birds and other animals may also qualify as "intelligent agents" depending on how you define the term. But surely all known members of the class of "intelligent agents" are human beings and possibly other animals, and thus could not have been involved in the creation of the first living things. Note that you skipped the argument regarding theories that can only be falsified by proving some other theory true. Again, while we all falsify Darwinism with concepts like irreducible complexity, there is nothing that an "intelligent agent" can't do in theory, which means while evolutionary theory is eminently falsifiable, ID is not.
I am saying that intelligent agents leave objectively identifiable markers of their activities that are distinguishable from law/chance. One does not have to solve the mind-body problem to know this is true.
Saying that something is distinguishable from law/chance must mean that what is being distinguished is NOT law/chance. ID is thus assuming that "intelligent causation" (aka "mind") is fundamentally different from physical cause (aka "law/chance"). That is the very definition of dualism.
Therefore, even if I had no idea about the history of the mountain or who carved it, I would say the best explanation for its existence is “intelligent agent.”
Most people would say it was made by human beings. Could a chimpanzee create Mount Rushmore? A parrot or a beaver? No, none of these intelligent agents could do it - only human beings. Do we know of any other "intelligent agent" in the entire universe that could do it? No, we know of no other sort of intelligent agent at all. So the best explanation is surely "human being", not "intelligent agent".
RDFish: Now, once you concede that dualism is a metaphysical position and not a scientific fact, the whole concept of distinguishing “law/chance” vs “intelligent causes” falls apart, scientifically speaking. BA: False. Dualism is not a metaphysical positon. It is an incontrovertible fact. Yes, I know you deny that fact. That is what makes you so incorrigible – you deny facts you know with an absolute certainty are true.
You just got through saying ID does not have to take a position on the mind/body problem, right? Now you appear to be saying dualism is true, but apparently this makes no difference to ID, right? Either ID claims "intelligent agency" (which you define as something that acts "for a purpose") is compatible with law/chance, or it doesn't. If ID holds that intelligence is compatible with law/chance, then ID can't claim that law/chance cannot produce CSI. If it doesn't, then ID depends upon the claim that dualism is true. Which is it?
False. As has been explained to you, ID does not require dualism. It requires the ability to arrange matter for a purpose.
OK, this seems clear - ID does not depend on dualism, got it. But if ID does not require dualism, how can law/chance be deemed incapable of producing CSI? Unless dualism is true, then even human action is due purely to law/chance. Unless ID requires dualism, its core arguments become incoherent.
RDFish: To see why, simply assume arguendo that physicalism is true and see if ID’s arguments make sense. If physicalism is true, then “intelligence” is a description of the operation of physical (law/chance) processes. It then becomes illogical to say that intelligence can do something that law/chance can’t – like saying poodles can bark but dogs can’t. BA: False.
Do you disagree that physicalism is contrary to dualism? Do you disagree that physicalism holds that intelligence proceeds according to law/chance? Do you disagree that if physicalism is true, it is illogical to say that intelligence can do something that law/chance can't? Unless you disagree with one of these statements, you haven't shown why what I said was false.
Forensics is based on the incontrovertible fact that it is possible to distinguish between the purposeful acts of an agent and purposeless natural forces. Forensic techniques work for theists and atheists alike.
For that 100000th time - forensic science has never identified anything that has ever committed a crime except human beings. There is no such thing as a non-human intelligent agent that can be identified by forensics. Forensic science has no reference to "intelligent agency". They learn how to investigate the activity of "human beings", not "intelligent agency".
As I have demonstrated, it is not necessary to resolve the mind/body problem for design inferences to be valid.
And as I have demonstrated, unless ID assumes dualism, the statement "law/chance cannot produce CSI but intelligence can" is incoherent.
RDFish: As I’ve said many times now, without apparent effect, the concept of “purpose” can only be objectively established by figuring out what somebody consciously intended. BA: Purpose, in this context, means acting for an effect in the future, i.e. goal-directedness.
But you can't detect "goal directedness" without observing something seeking a goal. Unless you already what made something, there is no way of knowing if there was any purpose involved. Moreover, if you don't know that the source was conscious, then it's not clear what "seeking a goal" means. I will say that in cybernetics, the term "goal directedness" would be interpreted as "incorporating negative feedback to seek a goal" - a completely mechanical, algorithmically describable process. But something tells me that meaning of the term wouldn't suit your purpose ;-)
Certainly, conscious agents can be purposeful in this sense. As I have explained before, ID is agnostic about whether non-conscious teleology (Nagel’s quartium quid, or a “telic force”) is possible Certainly it does not deny it.
So you're saying that ID does not provide scientific evidence regarding whether the cause of life was conscious. Got it. If it was not conscious, then, what other aspects of mentality would it still share with human beings?
RDFish: The irrigation system in a corn field is clearly for the purpose of watering the crops so they will grow (you can ask the farmer). But while the raincloud above also irrigates the corn, how is it we could go about telling of it reflects a purpose or not? BA: This argument is so muddle-headed it is difficult to respond to.
No, the reason you're having trouble responding to the is because there really is no way to infer purpose without knowing the cause. Rather than actually try and say how we're supposed to do that, you just toss out examples of how we know about human engineering and human purpose. But when I toss out a counterexample - where the same result derives from either conscious or non-conscious action - you are befuddled.
No, clouds to not have purpose. Nor do irrigation systems. How you think either example casts any light on the discussion is a mystery.
WHAT? Irrigation systems do not have any purpose? Are you joking? Well, that shows that there's no way to objectively detect purpose, because I would say that the purpose of an irrigation system is to water crops!
Barry: In our experience, conscious agents like human beings produce semiotic codes routinely, and humans’ consciousness is obviously connected to their ability to create semiotic codes. RDFish: This is not even obviously true in humans, BA: When you make idiotic statements like this I wonder why I even bother with you.
You have no knowledge of cognitive psychology and philosophy of mind. I do. Yours was the idiotic statement. You even skipped the reasons I gave you instead of considering them:
RDF: ...since much of our mental ability proceeds without conscious awareness. People routinely solve difficult problems while not consciously thinking them; mathematicians and inventors in particular report solutions to difficult problems “coming to them” without conscious reflection.
You might want to peruse a short summary of cognitive psychology before spouting off about consciousness and intelligence. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

RDFish: What’s important here is that there is, in fact, no way to scientifically support an inference to conscious awareness as a property of whatever caused living things to exist (more on this below).
False, as I have in fact demonstrated in the other thread.
RDFish: Human beings can’t be the cause of DNA, so the fact that humans are the only known source of such codes doesn’t enable us to infer a known cause for the DNA code.
Typical RDFish distortion. I did not say that human beings are the only known source of semiotic codes. I said that intelligent agents are the only known source of such codes. A critical difference that Fish distorts.
RDFish: So instead of offering a known cause for the CSI in biology, ID offers something that is unknown and hypothetical.
False. Intelligent agents are known to exist as a class. They are neither unknown nor hypothetical.
RDFish: Now, “intelligence” is a difficult, controversial, and famously ambiguous concept in the sciences, so papers about it traditionally begin by stating a particular definition that will be used in the context at hand. In contrast, ID blithely offers “intelligence” as though this single word is sufficient to explain the origin of life, of the species, of the values of the physical constants in the universe, and so on – without any technical definition or qualification at all.
You have repeated this error often and vigorously. Another iteration does not make it true. Intellience for purposes of ID: the ability to arrange matter for a purpose.
RDFish: All this means ID needs to (1) specify what it is that is being offered as an explanation, and (2) provide evidence such a thing actually exists, or existed, and produced living things.
(1) we have. (2) we have
RDFish: First, by saying “intelligence” can create codes but “law/chance” cannot, you imply that human intelligence somehow operates in ways that violate or transcend “law/chance” (aka physical cause). In other words, you declare that you have solved the mind/body problem in favor of dualism. I point out that the mind/body problem has not yet been solved, and just because you want to say that “intelligence” does not reduce to – or supervene upon – physical cause, that doesn’t make it a scientific fact.
False. I am saying that intelligent agents leave objectively identifiable markers of their activities that are distinguishable from law/chance. One does not have to solve the mind-body problem to know this is true. How do I know this? Let’s take an example. Mount Rushmore is beyond the capacity of purposeless natural forces. Therefore, even if I had no idea about the history of the mountain or who carved it, I would say the best explanation for its existence is “intelligent agent.” Is my design inference valid and sound? Yes. Have I provided a final scientific solution to the mind-body problem? No. Conclusion: Fish is wrong again.
RDFish: Now, once you concede that dualism is a metaphysical position and not a scientific fact, the whole concept of distinguishing “law/chance” vs “intelligent causes” falls apart, scientifically speaking.
False. Dualism is not a metaphysical positon. It is an incontrovertible fact. Yes, I know you deny that fact. That is what makes you so incorrigible – you deny facts you know with an absolute certainty are true.
RDFish: AGAIN: ID contrasts “law/chance” vs. “intelligent cause”. This can only be meaningfully interpreted if you already have assumed that dualism is true. Go ahead; try to deny dualism. Wait, does oxygen have the capacity to deny a truth claim? Carbon? Any of the other chemicals in the human body? What if you mix all the chemicals up? Do those chemicals then have the capacity to deny truth claims?
False. As has been explained to you, ID does not require dualism. It requires the ability to arrange matter for a purpose.
RDFish: To see why, simply assume arguendo that physicalism is true and see if ID’s arguments make sense. If physicalism is true, then “intelligence” is a description of the operation of physical (law/chance) processes. It then becomes illogical to say that intelligence can do something that law/chance can’t – like saying poodles can bark but dogs can’t.
False. Forensics is based on the incontrovertible fact that it is possible to distinguish between the purposeful acts of an agent and purposeless natural forces. Forensic techniques work for theists and atheists alike.
RDFish ID’s only option, then, to retain this specious “law/chance” vs. “intelligent agency” argument is to claim that yes, it has indeed solved the mind/body problem, and dualism is true! If that is what you are arguing, that’s fine – but obviously it should be made clear.
False (this is getting monotonous). As I have demonstrated, it is not necessary to resolve the mind/body problem for design inferences to be valid. ID depends on the ability to arrange matter for a purpose. It is compatible with (but not dependent upon) dualism.
RDFish: As I’ve said many times now, without apparent effect, the concept of “purpose” can only be objectively established by figuring out what somebody consciously intended.
It is correct that your error has not had its intended effect, which I assume is to get other people to adopt it. Purpose, in this context, means acting for an effect in the future, i.e. goal-directedness. Certainly, conscious agents can be purposeful in this sense. As I have explained before, ID is agnostic about whether non-conscious teleology (Nagel’s quartium quid, or a “telic force”) is possible Certainly it does not deny it.
RDFish: The irrigation system in a corn field is clearly for the purpose of watering the crops so they will grow (you can ask the farmer). But while the raincloud above also irrigates the corn, how is it we could go about telling of it reflects a purpose or not?
This argument is so muddle-headed it is difficult to respond to. No, clouds to not have purpose. Nor do irrigation systems. How you think either example casts any light on the discussion is a mystery.
Barry: In our experience, conscious agents like human beings produce semiotic codes routinely, and humans’ consciousness is obviously connected to their ability to create semiotic codes. RDFish: This is not even obviously true in humans,
When you make idiotic statements like this I wonder why I even bother with you.
RDFish: There is simply no science at all behind the inference of consciousness
Good thing that, as has been explained to you several times, ID does not infer to consciousness as a core part of its program.Barry Arrington_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Daniel King: I asked Mr Mung @113 for his own view on this question, and he bunted. As usual. Meanwhile I am on base and you are still scratching your head wondering what happened. What objectively observable characteristics or abilities do all natural causes have in common? RDFish can't answer that, so he won't answer it. That was my view when I first asked it and it's still my view now. It exposes the farce of his own question lodged at ID.Mung_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

RDFish: no way to scientifically support an inference to conscious awareness Scientific inquiry can't tell me if anyone else besides myself is conscious, let alone whether or not a putative creator is conscious. So your statement is a fair one. Scientific inquiry has its limits. There is simply no science at all behind the inference of consciousness to something we can’t observe. How would you go about inferring consciousness from something that you can observe? You only have, and can only have, a single data point of consciousness, which is your own.mike1962_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

Hi Barry Arrington,
RDF: ID has no scientific basis upon which to infer that the cause of life had conscious awareness. BA: Is the teleology explained by a conscious, rational being? I believe it is, but that belief is a metaphysical belief. ID does not require it. RDF: [Barry] admits ID can’t support an inference to a conscious mind. BA: Of course I never said this or admitted anything of the sort. RDFish, the quickest way to be shown the exit from this blog is to tell lies about me. Stop it. Last warning. (emphasis added) BA: So, in sum, ID does not require a conscious designer, but it certainly does not exclude one.
Ok then! What's important here is that there is, in fact, no way to scientifically support an inference to conscious awareness as a property of whatever caused living things to exist (more on this below). The next step is to realize that once you subtract consciousness from the meaning of "intelligence", there is nothing in the way of meaningful, empirically accessible attributes that can be inferred - without making some other assumptions about (or interactions with) the cause itself. Now let me respond to your arguments. I do thank you for outlining them clearly.
1. The semiotic code in DNA is best explained by the act of an intelligent agent, because for all such codes where the provenance of the code has actually been observed, invariably and without exception the code was caused by an intelligent agent, namely a human being.
Human beings can't be the cause of DNA, so the fact that humans are the only known source of such codes doesn't enable us to infer a known cause for the DNA code. So instead of offering a known cause for the CSI in biology, ID offers something that is unknown and hypothetical. Something that is sort of like a human being, in that it can produce CSI, but not a human being. The way ID expresses this is to say it is an intelligent agent. Now, "intelligence" is a difficult, controversial, and famously ambiguous concept in the sciences, so papers about it traditionally begin by stating a particular definition that will be used in the context at hand. In contrast, ID blithely offers "intelligence" as though this single word is sufficient to explain the origin of life, of the species, of the values of the physical constants in the universe, and so on - without any technical definition or qualification at all. That's not science, it's just good old anthropomorphizing. Intelligent agents were said to drive the planets across the sky, and direct the tides and the seasons and everything else we couldn't figure out because... well why not? There is nothing that an "intelligent agent" can't do in theory. Create complex machinery in the cell? Sure. Set the physical constants of the universe? Of course. Intelligent agency can do it all, whatever it is. For this reason, "intelligent agency" can never be falsified by finding some phenomenon that could not possibly have been produced by it. There are all sorts of ways to falsify Darwinian theory - plenty of things that cannot be produced by evolutionary processes. A complex new body plan arising in a short amount of time? Irreducibly complex systems? Voila - Darwinian evolution falsified. But the only way to "falsify" ID is to prove that some other theory is true! That's like saying that until you prove ID we must accept Darwin! That's not reasonable at all. All this means ID needs to (1) specify what it is that is being offered as an explanation, and (2) provide evidence such a thing actually exists, or existed, and produced living things.
As a corollary to this proposition, we see no law/chance cause currently in operation that has the capacity to cause a semiotic code.
First, by saying "intelligence" can create codes but "law/chance" cannot, you imply that human intelligence somehow operates in ways that violate or transcend "law/chance" (aka physical cause). In other words, you declare that you have solved the mind/body problem in favor of dualism. I point out that the mind/body problem has not yet been solved, and just because you want to say that "intelligence" does not reduce to - or supervene upon - physical cause, that doesn't make it a scientific fact. Now, once you concede that dualism is a metaphysical position and not a scientific fact, the whole concept of distinguishing "law/chance" vs "intelligent causes" falls apart, scientifically speaking. AGAIN: ID contrasts "law/chance" vs. "intelligent cause". This can only be meaningfully interpreted if you already have assumed that dualism is true. To see why, simply assume arguendo that physicalism is true and see if ID's arguments make sense. If physicalism is true, then "intelligence" is a description of the operation of physical (law/chance) processes. It then becomes illogical to say that intelligence can do something that law/chance can't - like saying poodles can bark but dogs can't. ID's only option, then, to retain this specious "law/chance" vs. "intelligent agency" argument is to claim that yes, it has indeed solved the mind/body problem, and dualism is true! If that is what you are arguing, that's fine - but obviously it should be made clear.
Therefore, we make an abductive inference. The best explanation for the cause of the semiotic code is “act of intelligent agent.”
You have no evidence upon which to choose "unknown agent" over any other ill-defined, unobserved thing. Abductions still require evidence - it isn't just "best guess out of a bunch of completely unsupported guesses".
2. Was the intelligent agent who created the semiotic code conscious? It is not necessary to answer this question to make the inference made in paragraph 1. Intelligence in this case is not defined as “conscious.”
What I believe this means is that ID presents no scientific warrant to conclude conscious awareness on the part of whatever caused living things - right?
It is defined as “the capacity to arrange matter for a purpose.”
As I've said many times now, without apparent effect, the concept of "purpose" can only be objectively established by figuring out what somebody consciously intended. The irrigation system in a corn field is clearly for the purpose of watering the crops so they will grow (you can ask the farmer). But while the raincloud above also irrigates the corn, how is it we could go about telling of it reflects a purpose or not?
In our experience, conscious agents like human beings produce semiotic codes routinely, and humans’ consciousness is obviously connected to their ability to create semiotic codes.
This is not even obviously true in humans, since much of our mental ability proceeds without conscious awareness. People routinely solve difficult problems while not consciously thinking them; mathematicians and inventors in particular report solutions to difficult problems "coming to them" without conscious reflection. But even if we could establish a causal role for conscious awareness in human engineering, that says nothing at all about a very different, non-human, even non-living thing (entity? process? demiurge?) experiencing conscious awareness while producing CSI. There is simply no science at all behind the inference of consciousness to something we can't observe. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Mung:
Mr Fish, What objectively observable characteristics or abilities do all natural causes have in common? Surely you have an answer.
I asked Mr Mung @113 for his own view on this question, and he bunted. As usual. Please, Mr Mung, give us your answer to your own question. (Since it seems so critical to you.)Daniel King_{December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply