Why do Some Materialists Insist on Wallowing in Obvious Error?

_{Barry Arrington

August 14, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

In the combox to the do we need context post a materialist who goes by RDFish states this regarding a non-repeating series of prime numbers (comment 48):

The only known source of such a series is a human source.

Fish then emphatically declares that absolutely nothing can be inferred about the source of the series other than the fact that it is able to produce the series (comment 125).

I corrected Fish by showing how from his own concession an inference to the best explanation could be made. I argued as follows:

1. The only known cause of Y is Z.
2. We observe a particular instance of Y.
3. Because Z is the only known cause of Y, the inference to the best explanation is that this particular instance of Y was also caused by Z.

Because “intelligence” is the only known cause of a non-repeating series of primes, we can infer that the best explanation we currently have for this particular instance of non-repeating primes from an unknown source is “act of an intelligent agent.”

Fish is having none of it. He writes (comment 158):

Not only do I deny we could draw any warranted inferences about the source, but I also argue that “the ID inference” is underspecified to the point of meaninglessness.

Sometimes you’ve just got to slap your head and wonder why. Why do some people insist on wallowing in their error? The answer is not because RDFish is a materialist. Anyone who has ever read the book or seen the move Contact would know that famous materialist Carl Sagan would have disagreed with RDFish and readily conceded that the series was produced by an intelligent agent. Even uber-materialist Elizabeth Liddle has admitted in these pages that “act of an intelligent agent” is the best explanation for the data. See here.

Why then? Why does an obviously intelligent and articulate person insist on spewing such blithering idiocy? It is a mystery to me. Can someone explain it to me?

Update:
The best answer so far comes from Vishnu: “I suspect it’s because he gets some sort of enjoyment by being a difficult jackass on pro-ID blogs.”

Vishnu’s answer is parsimonious and accounts for the data admirably.

Comments

Why do Some Materialists Insist on Wallowing in Obvious Error? Did we ever get a good answer to this, or figure out why?Mung_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

RDFish, even though you have comprehension problems and think you're the smartest guy in the world, why don't you leave us ID retards to our delusion? What thrills do you get out of all of this? Do you feel better? Ok, thenVishnu_{August 19, 2014
August
08
Aug
19
19
2014
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

[continuing now from where I left off @ post 78] Some qualitative properties of prime numbers.
Prime numbers are whole numbers which are not divisible or factorable. The series of prime numbers is infinite, they do not stop. Prime numbers are always whole numbers. Never any fractions or decimal positions. Prime numbers are distributed unevenly, decreasing in quantity while increasing in size (they become fewer as they get larger) and their intervening gaps become larger - i.e. prime numbers are distributed more sparsely as they get larger in size. The prime number theorem says the average size of prime gaps near a prime number of value 'p' is around log p. While the size of prime numbers increases monotonically, their intervening gap sizes are non-monotonic: the gaps get smaller, larger, smaller again, even larger. There is no repeating pattern to prime number value or distribution. Prime gap sizes do repeat.
Some elaboration on those qualitative properties:
Prime numbers are larger than their adjacent gaps. That means for a natural process that produces two consecutive prime numbers, p_(k) and p_(k+1), the gap between them is log p_(k), which is 1 or 2 orders of magnitude smaller. Prime numbers aren't distributed consistently or proportionately. They can bunch closer together or spread further apart, and even while bunching closer together some will be further apart, and even while spreading further apart some will bunch closer together. But generally, on average, they get further and further apart as a log function. Consider the 1st 1000 prime numbers ( http://primes.utm.edu/lists/small/1000.txt ) up to 7,919 and note that generally you have 4-digit prime numbers which are separated by gaps (difference between consecutive primes) of 1-2 digits. Note further at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_gap the largest gaps of sizes 1-36 correspond to primes between 2 and 9,551. Further, consider the graph of P(g) vs gap g at http://sweet.ua.pt/tos/gaps.html and note that it is a log curve and also note that for the upper right end of the curve, the size of the prime numbers P(g) on the y-axis are of the magnitude 10^18 and the corresponding gaps on the x-axis are of the magnitude 1300-1400, and again compare with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_gap list, that gap sizes 1224-1442 are for prime numbers having 18 digits. The foregoing simply illustrates, visually, that gaps are orders of magnitude smaller than their adjacent primes, and further that as primes get much larger, the gaps do not grow proportionately. Primes of 18 digits have gaps that are still only 4 digits.
Implications for natural processes:
Natural processes are chaotic, random, and periodic, or a combination thereof. All natural processes are rational in that the measured values of those processes are rational: they are not whole numbers, rather they have fractional or decimal components. Natural processes can't be measured exactly; best case they can only be approximated to the resolution of the Planck scale. Prime numbers, however, are exact whole numbers. Natural processes do not enumerate themselves and they are divisible, down to quantum levels. But the quintessential quality of prime numbers, is that they are specific whole enumerations which are indivisible, a subset of a larger set of all whole numbers. Natural processes are not monotonic. They fluctuate, decreasing or slowing at times and then increasing or speeding up. All natural processes degrade over time. Whatever you measure today, a future measurement will be different due to friction, inefficiency, or entropic decay. Even if some natural process could generate exact prime numbers today, it would not in the future. Natural processes can not generate prime gaps. A "prime gap" is the interval or mathematical difference between two consecutive prime numbers. A prime gap is not a space or null signal. There is no single natural process or combination of natural processes that span the full range of prime number values which extend to infinity. For example, the electromagnetic spectrum spans 10^3 (radio long waves) to 10^18 (gamma radiation) and even within that spectrum, disparate unsynchronized processes control and generate any wavelengths observed, from particle pair production/annihilation and Compton scattering down to molecular electron excitation and plasma oscillation. Further, below 10^3 Hz (radio long waves), a transition to sound waves (say, perhaps from seismic vibrations) would be required, and above the electromagnetic spectrum a transition to some unknown process up to 10^43 Hz (Planck frequency) would be required, beyond which no physical process is observable. And there are already known prime number sequences in the range of 10^10546 (http://primerecords.dk/cpap.htm) which vastly exceed any quantum process at Planck limits of 10^43, and vastly exceed any cosmological limits such as 10^80 atoms in the universe or 10^17 seconds since the Big Bang, and vastly exceed the number of cypher keys possible with 256-bits, 2^256. But 'prime number generating' transitions across physical process regime boundaries is impossible, because physical processes do not communicate their ending 'prime' state to become the beginning 'prime' state of another disparate process (which operates on entirely different physics), and neither do disparate processes have innate physical abilities to "wait" until communication of the previous 'prime state' is received, and then begin its process with the next consecutive prime state. Lastly, the operational ranges of differing physical processes overlap, and there is no predetermined prime-number transition-boundary nor any means to synchronize the transition. For example, in the spectrum range of 10^15 Hz, how would a molecular electron excitation process of extreme ultraviolet light stop at prime number 844,893,392,671,019 and transition (with a prime gap of 860) to a Compton scattering process of soft x-rays to start at prime number 844,893,392,671,879? How would seismic vibrations making sound waves below 1k Hz at prime number 997 trigger ionospheric lightning to begin emitting VLF radio waves at prime number 1009? There are no naturally inherent prime number "boundary transitions" between any combination of disparate physical regimes because physical processes (assuming they were characterized by primes, which they are not) can not communicate an ending 'prime' state and trigger the beginning 'prime' state of another disparate process (which operates on entirely different physics), and neither do disparate processes have innate physical abilities to "wait" until communication of the previous 'prime state' is received, and then begin its process with the next consecutive prime state. Even assuming some infinite natural process that generates all whole numbers, the only way prime numbers could manifest (via a kind of interference pattern) is if some other natural process could generate prime gaps and then superimpose the two. But determining prime gaps is as complex, if not more so, as determining prime numbers. There is no basis in nature for prime numbers. Prime numbers are not natural, they are abstract.
Prime numbers are an abstractly reasoned concept:
A prime number is essentially a whole number that is not divisible or factorable. We generally qualify this definition by saying except by 1 or itself, which is another way of saying a prime number can't be divided or factored by any other number. Prime number distribution does not exhibit any pattern, nor is it chaotic, random, or periodic. Prime numbers are neither chaotic nor random; we are developing formulas which predict their specific whole values out to increasing limits, whereas chaotic and random processes can only be averaged and specific instances not predicted. As prime numbers do not repeat, they are not "periodic". Of the kinds of combinations that could be considered, multiplication (or division) can be ruled out by definition because a prime number can not be a multiple or quotient of some other number. As for addition (or subtraction) when a chaotic, random, or periodic process is added to or subtracted from (by superposition) another chaotic, random, or periodic process, the result is a more complex chaotic, random or periodic process. Because prime numbers have no physical manifestation, no basis in nature, their existence is purely abstract, a mathematical concept, and while physical nature is limited by physical constraints, the abstract concept, the series of prime numbers is unlimited. Euclid (c. 300 B.C.) first proved that prime numbers are infinite (an abstract concept), and Eratosthenes (c. 200 B.C.) devised his "sieve" for calculating primes (an abstract concept). Neither Euclid nor Eratosthenes were studying the (non-existent) occurrence of prime numbers in nature. They were both mathematicians, both engaged in abstract reasoning about prime numbers (among other things), and prime numbers have only resulted from abstract reasoning. Any entity capable of recognizing or generating a non-repeating series of prime numbers, is not mimicking a natural process (as none exists nor could exist), but rather is engaged in abstract reasoning because prime numbers are abstract (not natural) and their generation or verification requires reasoning (i.e. computation), computation which can not be performed by or inferred from any natural process.
A definition of "intelligence" is irrelevant to the context of prime numbers:
Prime numbers are abstract, they are not "human-like" - any non-human entity can use them, provided they have sufficient intelligence. The mathematical operations used to calculate prime numbers (algebra, calculus, etc.) are not "human-like" - any non-human entity can perform the same operations (though they might choose a base other than 10), provided they have sufficient intelligence. There is nothing "human-only" or "human-like" about prime numbers. Prime numbers are abstract, and as such, accessible to any abstract intellect of sufficient ability. Monkeys and crows, for example, are said to have rudimentary intelligence, and if either could understand prime numbers we still wouldn't say primes were "monkey-like" or "crow-like". The generic term "abstract" is all-encompassing where mathematics, especially advanced mathematics, is concerned. If some intelligence generates or detects a pattern of prime numbers, it is implicit they have whatever ability is required to count, to calculate, to recognize the irreproducibility of prime numbers in nature. We (or "it" or "they") might need to convert base number systems in how prime numbers are represented, but base conversion is not the same as questioning the meaning or adequacy of "intelligence". Being carbon-based and having 10 fingers versus being silicon-based and having 16 tentacles, are not determinative of "intelligence". If 16-tentacled crows could generate prime numbers, they would be "intelligent" for the purposes of characterizing the source of a non-repeatable series of prime numbers. If 16-tentacled crows (or Decepticons, or Goa'uld) generated more prime numbers than we previously knew, they would arguably have "super-human" intelligence, which again, regardless of qualifiers, is "intelligent". However, the minimum inference to draw from a non-repeatable series of prime numbers is "intelligence", not 16-tentacles, or human-like, or super-human. In abstract mathematics (irreproducible and nonexistent in nature), there is no "context" in which different qualifiers on intelligence (e.g. "human-like") alter in any way the definition, pattern, or meaning inherent in a prime number series. Using a prime number series to annunciate defines the "intelligence" of the source relative to the receiver. It is, quite literally, an intergalactic trans-species "public encryption/decryption key" which identifies the source as intelligent and, if recognized, identifies the receiver as comparably intelligent, and that both are able to reason abstractly about prime numbers.
A "context" is not required to announce. When a phone rings the context is "someone who has a phone and can dial is calling". When a computer chirps "you've got mail" the context is "someone who has a computer or smartphone and can send email or text is emailing". When a non-repeatable series of prime numbers is observed, the context is "an intelligence capable of abstract reasoning exists".Charles_{August 18, 2014
August
08
Aug
18
18
2014
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

RDFish to Charles:
You’ve been wrong about each and every point you’ve made, actually.
RDFish to Upright BiPed:
Every single statement you make here is wrong – including this one
Mung_{August 18, 2014
August
08
Aug
18
18
2014
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Charles is off going through hair replacement treatments.Mung_{August 18, 2014
August
08
Aug
18
18
2014
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

correction "...why a random series" => "...why a prime series"RDFish_{August 18, 2014
August
08
Aug
18
18
2014
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Hi Charles, You spent a lot of time on your thought experiment intended to show why a random series would be indicative of a human-like intelligence. I showed why, on the contrary, your thought experiment showed that it was no less likely that something which only produced PNs was responsible. You attempted to counter my argument, and in @91 I refuted each of your claims. Did you just give up? Good form would dictate that you concede the point, don't you think? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{August 18, 2014
August
08
Aug
18
18
2014
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Querius @65 I love the reference to the dead parrot skit. Every time RDFish tries to argue, he reminds me of the pet shop owner as he pushes the cage and says "There he moved." His argument is indeed a dead parrot, he knows it is but persists in arguing it isn't. I'm waiting for him to go on to sing the lumberjack song.bb_{August 18, 2014
August
08
Aug
18
18
2014
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

So I've been developing my origin of pyramides theory recently. But the funding is insufficient, and while I'm waiting for another research grant so that I could produce more (*crossed out* funny just-so storytelling *crossed out*) high-quality scientific research, I decided to work as a lawyer. I think I'll be successful, since my line of defence will always be grounded in the latest scientific reasearch and achievements in the spheres of logic, rhetoric and philosophy. For instance, my defence of a hacker who infected bank computers with his virus and then used stolen credit cards to get the money will be as follows. First of all, what can we say about the virus? It certainly exists, but what created this virus? The only thing we can infer about the source of this software is that this source was capable of generating this software, that's all. Even though the virus was traced back to my client's computer, this is not the proof that my client created it, that conclusion would be totally unwarranted. Instead, it could somehow be generated due to fluctuations of the surrounding electromagnetic field. We don't know yet how this feat was achieved by the electromagnetic field, but future scientific research will undoubtedly shed some light on this problem. As for the videotape which shows my client withdrawing money from ATM, as well as for his fingerprints found there, my suggestion is that this videotape together with the record it contains and my client's fingerprints simply created themselves out of nothing, since there is such law as gravity. I hope that the judge will make a fair decision.Lesia_{August 18, 2014
August
08
Aug
18
18
2014
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

RDFish:
If we agree that humans are intelligent, we are not making some conclusion about human beings
Wallow much RDFish? If we agree that electrons are subatomic particles with a negative elementary electric charge, we are not making some conclusion about electrons. Oh no. We are simply making some agreement about what we mean by the words “negative” and "charge".Mung_{August 17, 2014
August
08
Aug
17
17
2014
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Hi drc466,
The PNSG is NOT the source of the series of primes.
Of course it is. See my previous response to Charles.
My point was not whether there is universal agreement about intelligence, it is whether there is universal agreement that humans are intelligent.
Huh? You offered this "universal agreement" as a definition of intelligence, no? Anyway, what are you talking about? If we agree that humans are intelligent, we are not making some conclusion about human beings - we are simply making some agreement about what we mean by the word "intelligent". Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

Hi Charles,
RDFish @ 66: Now, in the case of human beings, their ability to generate primes qualifies them as being intelligent in their own right. … But when a PNSG does it, you credit the intelligence to AIGuy rather to the PNSG itself. Why? Charles @ 73: Because the human’s ability to generate primes has been transferred to the PNSG, and the PNSG is only doing what the human intelligence designed it to do. If a PNSG initially had no ability to generate primes but then innately developed that ability without any external input, then the PNSG would be credited with the intelligence.
First, humans do not do anything without any external input, either from the world or from other humans. Second, humans are born with innate mathematical abilities, just like PSNGs are. Third, rather than a PNSG, substitute an automatic theorem prover that devises novel proofs of mathematical conjectures - proofs not programmed or anticipated by the programmer. The computer's intelligence is perfectly analogous to the human's.
Because humans learned to detect and generate prime numbers on their own.
Really? Did you learn to detect prime numbers on your own? I truly doubt it - I think you were programmed to do so by someone else. Does this mean that when you generate prime numbers, you are not doing something intelligent?
No “Intelligent Designer” gave us formulae or taught us a course in PNG 101a.
Really? Again, if you personally did not figure out the concept of prime numbers, then when you generate primes, are you just an unintelligent PNSG? You're making this up as you go along, and you really haven't thought it out well at all.
Unless you will now argue there is a God in Heaven who does inspire and equip His creation?
Really? Are you arguing that this is not the case? That human beings are not designed, and that our innate abilities in language, mathematics, and all of our other inborn faculties are not the result of some Inteligent Designer? I'm afraid you lose both ways: Either you deny that humans are designed, or you agree that when PNSGs produce prime number series, they are as intelligent as when you do the same thing.
So the point remains PNSG’s are not intelligent but their developers are intelligent. PNSGs are an example of intelligent agency.
I think you meant to say that PNSGs are NOT examples of intelligent agency, but rather that PNSGs are the product of intelligent agency, but are not intelligent agents themselves. Your wrong in any case: You've failed to explain why you consider yourself to be acting intelligently when you compute primes, but why a PNSG is not acting intelligently when it does the same thing.
Because as per your own words in post 66, an intelligence, like AIGuy, can choose to not generate primes. The 3rd source initially was not generating primes and then later it was. This behavior of not generating and then generating primes, by your own acknowledgement, is indistinguishable from intelligent behavior. The 3rd source seems to be exhibiting selective behavior intelligence comparable to AIGuy’s.
This still makes no sense at all. Computers can start and stop their activities based on innate tendencies, on interaction with their environment, or for reasons that are completely indecipherable. Just like people.
You said human-like intelligence can’t be inferred – you ruled out human-like intelligence
You are missing the distinction. On one hand I say that there is no evidential warrant for the inference to human-like intelligence. On the other hand, that doesn't mean it is impossible for human-like intelligence to be involved. Can't you understand this? These inferences are based on evidence, and there is no evidence available to convince us that the PNs come from something with a conscious, human-like mind. So we do not make that conclusion, even though it could be that the evidence simply isn't available to us but exists all the same.
RDF: The question is, if we observe a PN series from an unknown source, can we infer a human-like intelligence? As I’ve argued from the start, the answer is no – and your thought experiment adds nothing to the argument. CHARLES: So you have now retracted what you’ve argued from the start, you now rhetorically imply that intelligence can’t be ruled out.
That's complete nonsense. I haven't changed my position one iota of course. If we lack the evidence we don't make the inference, but that doesn't mean we can rule it out. If someone is murdered and we have no reason to think that Jack Smith was the murderer, we do not make that inference and arrest him. That doesn't mean we can rule it out - it just means we have no reason to think he did it.
But again, you contradict yourself. You admitted earlier in your very same post: the extra-terrestrial PN source we’ve been discussing from the outset. It would be indistinguishable from the other two, just as you say RDF: I certainly never said it was certain that human-like intelligence was not involved!
And once again, you're just wrong: We don't rule out the possibility, but neither do we make the inference without evidence. Jack Smith isn't considered guilty without any evidence, but that doesn't mean we have some principled reason to rule out the possibility.
QED
You've been wrong about each and every point you've made, actually. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

Why do Some Materialists Insist on Wallowing in Obvious Error? It's better than wallowing in pig s**t.Mung_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

I hear you KF. 1But if Coyne himself couldn't stop Dembski from speaking in his own back yard at UC, even after lighting his hair on fire, maybe, just maybe, there's cracks beginning to appear in the wall of prejudice.jstanley01_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

Reciprocating Bill@83 wrote
A similar spoof could be concocted about Macho Picchu.
Or New York City. See Querius@77. :-) -QQuerius_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

JS: least regrets on being in error is a consideration, but I suggest factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power -- elegantly simple but not simplistic -- lend considerable credibility to an argument on a relevant body of evidence. For instance we did not observe the past of origins, so must interpret its traces. A key principle is vera causa, that we should explain by causes that per observation are adequate to create an effect. FSCO/I is routinely created by design and needle in haystack analysis makes blind chance and necessity maximally implausible. But, the rhetorical retort is usually along the lines of "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," those issuing smears like that taking it for granted that Creationists are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Years of exchanges in and around UD show this as a routine pattern. The contrast between the two discussions speaks for itself. KFkairosfocus_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

BA in OP:
Why then? Why does an obviously intelligent and articulate person insist on spewing such blithering idiocy? It is a mystery to me. Can someone explain it to me?
Methinks the problem lies with the wiggle room provided by the word "best" in "inference to the best explanation." What makes a particular explanation "best" on a subjective level? Given what I know of human nature, I'd say that a major factor would be the consequences of being wrong. If there are no consequences to being wrong, then there's no hindrance to -- for instance -- petulance just for the sake of petulance. Arguing just for the sake of arguing, after all, can be entertaining. Put a gun to someone's head and say, "So which is it, Pilgrim? An intelligent agent or something else? If you're wrong, I'm pullin' the trigger." And I venture to say the answer would be marvelously well thought-out, logical, and straightforward.jstanley01_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

Lesia- A similar spoof is being concocted about living organisms...Joe_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

RDFish @74,
You make this bald claim that a PNSG is not an intelligent thing, yet you cite as evidence of intelligence the very thing that a PNSG can do… and yet you don’t see your inconsistency.
Because it is not inconsistent. The PNSG is NOT the source of the series of primes. It is simply a medium. Like a book is a medium. Or a TV signal. Or soundwaves. Or a computer screen. Given that we, as humans cannot psionically communicate directly mind to mind, we have to use mediums to transmit information. You can invent as many fantastically elaborate mediums (aka Rube Goldbergs) as you want to (all of which are unintelligent), but none of these change the fact you can not supply a reasonable context in which a series of primes doesn't start with an intelligent agent.
Doesn’t it occur to you that there is no universal agreement regarding intelligence?
You misstate me. My point was not whether there is universal agreement about intelligence, it is whether there is universal agreement that humans are intelligent. If you find someone who denies that humans are intelligent (and, so far, the only undisputed intelligence), you've found someone who is either a)insane or b) using a different definition of intelligence than Webster's dictionary. As for all those other examples of disputed intelligence, I will gladly defer to you as to whether they are intelligent. If you want to call computers "intelligent", works for me - you still end up having to agree that only intelligent agents can create a series of primes - your pool of "intelligent agents" is actually larger than mine!
You still don’t get it! You can’t prove intelligence until you provide some particular criteria by which to establish its existence! And around and around you go, just digging deeper and deeper into your confusion.
If you can find a significant number of people who will agree with you that a) humans aren't intelligent and/or b) a book is, I will admit to being confused. If you can describe a scenario in which it is reasonable to conclude that a series of primes does not have a human source, I will admit to being confused. Otherwise I will simply conclude that, as Barry states in the title of this post, you are being deliberately obtuse.drc466_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

A similar spoof could be concocted about Macho Picchu.Reciprocating Bill_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

Lesia @80, that was a fun read.StephenB_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
The only thing I’ve ever argued here (about PNSGs or ID in general) is that there is no empirical warrant to conclude such a thing, as a scientific result must be.
There is no scientific reason to believe that RDFish is intelligent. You're preaching to the choir sister!Mung_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

I have a theory (or hypothesis, whatever) of the pyramides formation. The theory suggests that they were not built by any intelligent agents, instead, the pyramides were created solely by unguided natural forces (erosion, mineralization, action of tornadoes, tsunamies, sand storms etc.) Inconsistencies with the historical records which describe ancient pharaohs as the ones responsible for the buildings can be easily explained if we recall the natural tendency of human consciousness to attribute everything unknown and unexplored yet to intentional activities of some intelligent beings (for instance, creation of life is often attributed to God, but now we now that it evolved solely by unguided natural processes (this is as certain as color blue)). The exact mechanism of the formation of pyramides remains unknown, yet the theory can clearly be regarded as scientific since it doesn't involve explanations in terms of some superfluous entities (humans etc.) and seeks to understand how the pyramides were formed under the influence of purely natural (no intelligence required) causes. I suggest to call it abuildergenesis. The OOP (origin of the pyramides, not to confuse with object oriented programming) problem is very serious and requires further investigations. Please give me a government grant. ;)Lesia_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
What I do object to is ID’s attempt to co-opt scientific credibility for its conclusions.
You can use science to argue against ID but not to argue for ID. Understood.Mung_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

RDFish @ 75
RDFish @ 66: Now, in the case of human beings, their ability to generate primes qualifies them as being intelligent in their own right. ... But when a PNSG does it, you credit the intelligence to AIGuy rather to the PNSG itself. Why?
Charles @ 73: Because the human’s ability to generate primes has been transferred to the PNSG, and the PNSG is only doing what the human intelligence designed it to do. If a PNSG initially had no ability to generate primes but then innately developed that ability without any external input, then the PNSG would be credited with the intelligence.
RDFish @ 75: Why doesn’t this same thing apply to a human being? Isn’t a human being only able to do what the Intelligent Designer designed them to do?
Because humans learned to detect and generate prime numbers on their own. No "Intelligent Designer" gave us formulae or taught us a course in PNG 101a. Unless you will now argue there is a God in Heaven who does inspire and equip His creation? So the point remains PNSG's are not intelligent but their developers are intelligent. PNSGs are an example of intelligent agency.
RDFish @ 66: Nor can it [a PNSG] choose not to generate primes, or explain why it does it in the first place. AIGuy can do all of these things.
Charles @ 73: But the 3rd prime number series was not stated as sourced from a PNSG.
RDFish @ 75: I understand that - but so what?
Because as per your own words in post 66, an intelligence, like AIGuy, can choose to not generate primes. The 3rd source initially was not generating primes and then later it was. This behavior of not generating and then generating primes, by your own acknowledgement, is indistinguishable from intelligent behavior. The 3rd source seems to be exhibiting selective behavior intelligence comparable to AIGuy's.
Charles @ 73: And if it may be intelligent, then intelligence can’t be ruled out.
Who ever said that intelligent "can’t be ruled out?" That isn’t the issue.
You did. You said human-like intelligence can't be inferred - you ruled out human-like intelligence - and you did so earlier in the very same post in which you now claim intelligence can't be ruled out:
The question is, if we observe a PN series from an unknown source, can we infer a human-like intelligence? As I’ve argued from the start, the answer is no - and your thought experiment adds nothing to the argument.
So you have now retracted what you've argued from the start, you now rhetorically imply that intelligence can't be ruled out. You further elaborate that the issue was only whether the intelligence is human-like:
Who ever said that intelligent "can’t be ruled out?" That isn’t the issue. Rather, the issue is whether we have sufficient warrant to conclude that (human-like) intelligence was responsible. The answer is no.
But again, you contradict yourself. You admitted earlier in your very same post:
the extra-terrestrial PN source we’ve been discussing from the outset. It would be indistinguishable from the other two, just as you say I certainly never said it was certain that human-like intelligence was not involved!
The 3rd source, for which you admit intelligence can't be ruled out, and admit that human-like intelligence could be involved, a source whose behavior includes selecting to transmit or not transmit as could AIGuy, a source which is indistinguishable from the other two which you acknowledge were made by an intelligence, you admit that 3rd source could be intelligent agency. QED I will later (probably next day or so) post an explanation of why qualifiers such as "human-like" intelligence and defining "intelligence" are irrelevant to the context of a non-repeating prime number series.Charles_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

The powerful telescopes of the aliens focused on a small blue planet to see whether there was evidence of life on it. After seeing the New York City skyline, a minority of the alien scientists thought this was evidence of intelligent life on the planet, but this geolith was easily explained by differential erosion. Glints of glass were thought to be macrophyllosilicate intrusions such as sheet mica. The heat signature indicated the tail end of a long cooling process, and the electromagnetic signature of the geolith was explained by natural inductive resonances due to complex internal metallic lattices. At first, the geolith was thought to be uniform, but substructures were subsequently identified. A minority of dissenting scientists to the Theory of Erosion began to grow, which was met by resistance and hostility. The debates between Erosionists and Intelligent Dissidents became more strident. The dissidents were accused of being closet theists who wanted to credit God with creating these naturally formed geoliths. Then, metallic bodies were detected that traveled along heretofore undiscovered pathways within the geolith. They were named Random Motile Autonomes, and were first assumed to be junk, but later classified either as messenger, transfer, or regulatory RMA, depending on their interactions with each other and with the geolith. Other metallic bodies with linear paths above the geolith were called Directed Motile Autonomes, or DMA. The consensus among the Erosionists was that these controlled the interactions of the RMA since selected RMA often coincided perfectly with the DMA (the other RMA was called non-controlled RMA or nRMA). The Intelligent Dissidents argued that the sheer complexity of the geolith indicated an intelligent design, but the Erosionists demanded precise definitions for intelligence, God, God's presumed intelligence, alien intelligence, design, God's design, alien design, the appearance of design, and the transcendent meaning of the number 42. Since the Intelligent Dissidents could not produce definitions for each of these that the Erosions would agree on, the Erosionists declared victory, and that concluded that the geoliths obviously were generated through simple, natural natural erosion over billions of years. So this is an allegory of the argument regarding the origin and development of what started out simply as the “cell” (named by Robert Hooke after the cellula in a monastery) that was filled with protoplasm, the "tough, slimy, granular, semi-fluid" that was the basis for all life. Except that the cell, compared to New York City, turned out to be a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion or more times as complex. But this was no problem because after a lot of time, anything can happen, and since the geolith was there, it obviously musta happened. Then, many years later, the alien scientists received a signal from the geolith. It was a series of prime numbers . . . ;-) -QQuerius_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

Charles, important typo correction: Moreover, I said that I wouldn’t challenge people who wanted to believe that it was involved – it is like I think it would stupid or wrong to think that! => Moreover, I said that I wouldn’t challenge people who wanted to believe that it was involved – it is NOT like I think it would stupid or wrong to think that!RDFish_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT}

Hi Charles,
Because the human’s ability to generate primes has been transferred to the PNSG, and the PNSG is only doing what the human intelligence designed it to do. If a PNSG initially had no ability to generate primes but then innately developed that ability without any external input, then the PNSG would be credited with the intelligence.
Why doesn't this same thing apply to a human being? Isn't a human being only able to do what the Intelligent Designer designed them to do? How do you know that humans have "innate self-originated abilities to generate primes", rather than having these innate abilities because they were given them by their Designer?
But the 3rd prime number series was not stated as sourced from a PNSG.
I understand that - but so what? This 3rd PNSG would be unknown - exactly analogous to the extra-terrestrial PN source we've been discussing from the outset. It would be indistinguishable from the other two, just as you say. Why do you think this adds something to the discussion? We already know that (1) humans can generate PN series, and (2) humans can program machines to generate PN series. The question is, if we observe a PN series from an unknown source, can we infer a human-like intelligence? As I've argued from the start, the answer is no - and your thought experiment adds nothing to the argument.
But the 3rd source was initially silent and only began transmitting later.
And why is this important? I really don't see it.
And if it may be intelligent, then intelligence can’t be ruled out.
Who ever said that intelligent "can't be ruled out?" That isn't the issue. Rather, the issue is whether we have sufficient warrant to conclude that (human-like) intelligence was responsible. The answer is no.
If AIguy transmits only prime numbers and no music, jokes or puzzles, does that mean he isn’t intelligent? If not, then you must admit that generating prime numbers is not evidence of inability do anything else. Absence of evidence is not evidence of other inability.
Well, after all, is this our disagreement? I certainly never said it was certain that human-like intelligence was not involved! Moreover, I said that I wouldn't challenge people who wanted to believe that it was involved - it is like I think it would stupid or wrong to think that! The only thing I've ever argued here (about PNSGs or ID in general) is that there is no empirical warrant to conclude such a thing, as a scientific result must be. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

Hi drc466,
If you’re not a materialist, you’re doing a great impression of one.
Not at all. It is simply a shallow understanding of these issues (and social polarization) that leads you and others here to categorize me in ways that don't begin to apply.
Again, misdirection.
Hahaha! Misdirection! you cry, as you dodge the simple question yet again. On and on it goes, with every excuse, dodge, insult, and hypocritical accusation imaginable. You make this bald claim that a PNSG is not an intelligent thing, yet you cite as evidence of intelligence the very thing that a PNSG can do... and yet you don't see your inconsistency.
However, in the interest of advancing dialog, let me use the following definition of “intelligent”: universal agreement of intelligence.
Really? Doesn't it occur to you that there is no universal agreement regarding intelligence? My opinion is that computers are in and of themselves intelligent in the very same critical sense of the word that you can apply to a human being (essentially that they can learn and solve novel problems). And of course I am far from alone in that opinion. Yet I'm quite sure you disagree with that, and consider that a computer "can only do what it has been programmed to do by a human being" - as though humans have some secret sauce (res cogitans? a soul? elan vital?) that qualitatively distinguishes them. So where is this "universal agreement?" Even among ID proponents there is no universal agreement! I have debated ID proponents here who hold that conscious awareness is requisite to be considered "intelligent", and those who disagree. Some think libertarian free will is essential, others deny it. And so on and so on. Can you imagine some other "scientific theory" that defines its sole explanatory concept as something that "we know when we see it, but really can't put our finger on what it is?" It's laughable.
Anything not universally agreed to be intelligent (e.g. a PNSG) should require extraordinary evidence to prove intelligence, and would clearly not qualify as most logical inference.
You still don't get it! You can't prove intelligence until you provide some particular criteria by which to establish its existence! And around and around you go, just digging deeper and deeper into your confusion.
If you read words in a book, do you claim that the book is not an intelligent agent, therefore inferring that the words don’t have an intelligent source is valid? Do I need to explain why a (designed) book is considered not intelligent, and a (designed) human is?
In my view, a book can not learn and solve novel problems, and that is why I would not consider it to be intelligent. What is your reason for denying that a book is intelligent? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

RDFish @ 66
Now, in the case of human beings, their ability to generate primes qualifies them as being intelligent in their own right. ... But when a PNSG does it, you credit the intelligence to AIGuy rather to the PNSG itself. Why?
Because the human's ability to generate primes has been transferred to the PNSG, and the PNSG is only doing what the human intelligence designed it to do. If a PNSG initially had no ability to generate primes but then innately developed that ability without any external input, then the PNSG would be credited with the intelligence. But in the thought experiment, PNSG 1 & 2 had no innate self-originated ability to generate primes; AIGuy made them both. However, the 3rd source of prime numbers was not specified and you evaded answering. As you did not answer the questions posed as-is in the thought experiment, I'll not be answering your questions in 56, unless you specifically answer the following.
The PNSG can’t do anything except generate prime numbers. It can’t learn to generate anything else. It can’t read a book, play piano, tell a joke, solve a crossword puzzle, or do anything at all that we might call "intelligent".
But the 3rd prime number series was not stated as sourced from a PNSG. We don't know what the 3rd source actually is. The 3rd output is merely identical to that of PNSG 1 and 2. The source of the 3rd series may well be capable of additional activities that we might call "intelligent". AIGuy could even have stowed away along with PNSG 2 and began his own transmission back to earth on the return trip, but hasn't yet transmitted any jokes, concertos, or puzzle solutions. The 3rd source is simply transmitting a prime number series, identical to what AIGuy could transmit.
Nor can it [a PNSG] choose not to generate primes, or explain why it does it in the first place. AIGuy can do all of these things.
But the 3rd source was initially silent and only began transmitting later.
So, the reason I insist that a series of primes does not necessarily indicate that a human-like intelligence is responsible is thus illustrated by your thought experiment. Whatever is sending the primes may be like a human being, but it may also be like a PNSG.
If the 3rd source may be like a human, whose intelligence you've admitted, then the 3rd source may be intelligent. But the thought experiment never postulated a human-like intelligence for the 3rd source. It might be alien intelligence. It might be AIGuy who stowed away on the mission. Or it might be that Decepticons reverse-engineered PNSG 2 and cloned PNSG 3. All we know is the 3rd prime number series is identical to the 2nd and 1st and to what AIGuy could produce himself. And if it may be intelligent, then intelligence can't be ruled out. If AIguy transmits only prime numbers and no music, jokes or puzzles, does that mean he isn't intelligent? If not, then you must admit that generating prime numbers is not evidence of inability do anything else. Absence of evidence is not evidence of other inability. If generating prime numbers is not evidence of other inability, and the 3rd source transmits only prime numbers but no music, jokes or puzzles, does that mean the 3rd source isn't intelligent? So, given the only information we have is identical series of prime numbers, what can be inferred about the 3rd source and AIGuy? Are they both intelligent or both unable to do other things?Charles_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply