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

RDFish, If you're not a materialist, you're doing a great impression of one.
You need to explain why you don’t consider the (designed) PNSG to be an intelligent agent, but you do consider the (designed) human being to be one.
Again, misdirection. Now you want to argue the definition of "intelligent". You're getting closer to the "is a dead dog really dead" argument. Whether I can clearly define unambiguously to your satisfaction the term "intelligent" doesn't change the fact that the PNSG is not, and the human is - any more than whether I can unambiguously define "dead" changes the fact that a live dog is alive, and a dead dog is dead. However, in the interest of advancing dialog, let me use the following definition of "intelligent": universal agreement of intelligence. A human being capable of creating a PNSG is universally agreed to be intelligent. 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. 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?drc466_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

Hi drc466, First, I'm not a materialist. Second, you missed the point: You need to explain why you don't consider the (designed) PNSG to be an intelligent agent, but you do consider the (designed) human being to be one. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

RDFish @66, Nice try at misdirection, RDFish, but no dice. The point is that, even if the immediate cause of a series of primes is unintelligent (PNSG), the initial cause (the human designer) is. Once you hit the level where an intelligent source initiated the design, there is no need to go to "who designed the designer", because the ID premise has been satisfied - the inference to an intelligent agent is True. What you, and materialists like you, are arguing is that the inference of an intelligent initiator is unwarranted - in other words, that the inference of no intelligence at any point is a valid one. This is plainly ridiculous.
If you insist that nothing can design prime numbers without itself being designed by something else, you must agree that human beings can’t design things like PNSGs without having been designed by something else.
YES! Exactly! Now you're getting it. This is a perfectly valid exercise of ID. In logical form: 1) Design is a sign of the act of an intelligent agent 2) Intelligence is, itself, evidence of design 3) Therefore, God. I'm sure ba77 could provide a link to somewhere that this is presented in a more formalized argument, but I couldn't agree with you more on this point (I am, after all, YEC). However, this is a separate argument from whether design indicates intelligence. You would like to state that, since infinite recursion on design = intelligence leads to a non-materialistic conclusion, that design = intelligence must be wrong. This assumes materialism, which is an ideological stance, not a scientific one. Additionally, I believe you were arguing against there even being a most logical inference, not an absolute one - the above argument requires an absolute (intelligence always indicates design, which always indicates intelligence).drc466_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Charles: " If you found amino acids arranged in prime numbers would think “evolution” or “intelligence”?" First, you would have to demonstrate to me how you could unambiguously translate the 20 amino acids into a numerical system. Until you could do this, your question is pointless. However, if you reworded it to say something like, if we found that the number of amino acids in all proteins was a prime number, we might have something to debate here. But even under this unlikely scenario, I wouldn't conclude that an intelligence was involved. I would also want to examine if there are any biochemical limitations that might necessitate protein lengths that were prime numbers.Acartia_bogart_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

reason and logic is rooted in Christianity But ID isn't religious. No no no.Graham2_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

Hi Upright Biped,
The physical capacity to transcribe and translate a number is the same as that for a natural langauge.
The physical capacity??? I thought we were talking about mental abilities. In any event, the mental ability to do math is utterly distinct from the ability to understand natural language. If you doubt this, remember that it was easy to produce a computer that can do the former, and yet there is still not a glimmer of understanding at how we might produce a computer that can do the latter (science fiction movies and Siri notwithstanding). Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Hi Charles,
See my thought experiment in post 16 on this thread...

Plainly, the prime number series being received from the 2nd PNSG has an intelligent source as it was made by AIGuy, regardless of how far from home it may be....
While the PNSG was designed by AIGuy, it is generating prime numbers all by itself. Similary, according your own beliefs (I am assuming this), human beings can generate prime number by themselves, even though they were in turn designed by some other Intelligent Designer. Now, in the case of human beings, their ability to generate primes qualifies them as being intelligent in their own right. Why, then, do you not consider PNSGs to be intelligent in their own right? Again: You believe that it requires intelligence in order to generate primes. When a human being does it, you credit the intelligence to the human being, and not to the human being's designer. But when a PNSG does it, you credit the intelligence to AIGuy rather to the PNSG itself. Why? It's clear why you (and most people here) think that way: 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". Nor can it choose not to generate primes, or explain why it does it in the first place. AIGuy can do all of these things. 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. And here, you object: Aha! Even if it is like a PNSG, we have seen that it took a human-like intelligence to produce it in the first place! So it is still the tell-tale sign of a human-like intelligence when we detect a series of primes! The answer to your objection lies in the question I just asked you: Do you not consider human beings to be intelligent in their own right, even though you believe they are themselves designed? Of course you do: You need not consider the origin of a human being in order to determine whether or not they are intelligent. That is like asking "Who designed the designer?", one of ID's least favorite quesitons. If you insist that nothing can design prime numbers without itself being designed by something else, you must agree that human beings can't design things like PNSGs without having been designed by something else. And of course nothing can design things like human beings without being designed by something else. And so on... into the infinte regress that ID rejects as a defeater of ID. (Presumably deflected with ancient theological arguments that we have all heard). In the end, your argument is one huge illustration of how to beg the question. If you simply assume that anything that can generate prime numbers must have been designed by something else with (at least) human-like intelligence, then you have assumed your conclusion - begged the question. If you do not, then you must admit that something may well exist that can generate prime numbers, but not do anything else, and without proving the existence of yet some other human-like intelligence. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

StephenB@27 wrote:
If a man does not conform his behavior to an objective moral code, he will soon find a subjective moral code that conforms to his behavior. It’s always about self-justification .
Exactly! That's why after being repeatedly refuted in previous postings, Acartia simply moves to the next one, starting from scratch as though nothing happened. For example, after attacking Michael Behe's math as "Behe’s voodoo magic pseudostatistics," A-B was unable to explain where Behe's probability calculations were wrong, instead insisting that simultaneous probabilities are somehow different than sequential ones inspite of being directed to the binomial theorem. And now, it turns out that Behe's 10^20 calculated estimate for the double or triple mutation required for CQR in malaria was about right after all! http://www.malariajournal.com/content/9/1/217 As I said before, the threadbare rationalizations are so transparent, they are reminiscient of Monty Python's dead parrot skit (excerpted):
Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call! (Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.) Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead parrot. Owner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned! Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!? Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major. Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk. Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords. Mr. Praline: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home? Owner: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!
-QQuerius_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart @ 57
Evolution, certainly. If the sequence was caused by an intelligent, or non-intelligent life form, it probably evolved by some mechanism.
Prime numbers caused by an intelligent alien life form that had "evolved" from some inanimate origin, treats evolution as indirectly responsible. I was asking (and didn't think to prequalify my question) about a series of prime numbers evolving directly from inanimate matter, similar to how DNA/RNA in a virus (which some would argue is inanimate) evolved. The "information" encoded in DNA/RNA is believed by materialists to have evolved. Would you consider evolution capable of evolving directly instead of the information in a DNA sequence rather a prime number sequence? If you found amino acids arranged in prime numbers would think "evolution" or "intelligence"?Charles_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

If you (Charles or any other ID proponent here) says that a series of primes warrants the inference to some entity with “intelligence equal to or greater than humans”, does that mean you would infer that whatever generated these primes could read and write in a natural languge? If so, why?
The physical capacity to transcribe and translate a number is the same as that for a natural langauge. There are two distinct categories of semiotic systems. One category uses physical representations that are reducible to their material make-up; the other uses physical representations that have a dimensional orientation and are not reducible to their material make-up. The first type is found throughout the living kingdom. The second type is found nowhere else but in the translation of language and mathematics.Upright BiPed_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank: The point is that a process with this logic is conceivable.
And fairies could be responsible for moving the earth around the sun. That's "conceivable" too. You miss the point. ID, and science in general, is not about what is "conceivable." It is about inferences to the best explanation given what we know about reality. Your hypothetical scenario may be possible but it's not the inference to the best explanation. We already have a much better candidate for a generator capable of generating huge numbers of sequential primes.Vishnu_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank @ 59
The point is that a process with this logic is conceivable.
Actually, it isn't. The problem with that logic is that it is relying on a superposition of regular patterns, even ignoring the kinds of physical process that generate them - they are regardless regular: they have "frequency", "harmonics", periodicity, they superimpose with resonance (however complicated). They are also characterized by rational numeric values. Prime numbers are not. Prime numbers are only whole numbers. They have gaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_gap between them. Any natural process or superposition of processes will have to inherently have interruptions or gaps which are as complex if not more so than the prime numbers. This is a case where regularity and continuous (as opposed to whole numbers) values are not your friends.Charles_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

RDFish @ 56 See my thought experiment in post 16 on this thread If you give it a serious, informative answer I will respond in kind to your questions in post 56. If, OTOH, you deflect with semantics or reasons as to why you can't or won't answer the questions as-is, then neither will I answer your questions.Charles_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

#55 Charles
But to produce the first 100 million prime numbers? For all the bluster I read when someone rejects “intelligence” as the source for a series consisting of the first 100 million prime numbers, I don’t believe for one second they actually comprehend the abstract reasoning and computational ability required to do that, correctly without error.
I cannot conceive of any mechanism capable of even writing the first 100 million prime numbers – much less working out what they are. The later ones in the series would have considerably more than 100 million digits! But as I said above, there are well documented cases of idiot savant who are capable of recognising whether a very large number is a prime but are barely capable of basic arithmetic. So I don’t think it necessarily involves much abstract reasoning and computational ability. Let me suggest the outlines of a relatively simple natural process that might do the job – of course the process doesn’t exist and is absolute rubbish physics - but it shows how a natural process with similar logic might work. Imagine a process deep within a star that emits emf bursts of regularly increasing frequency – maybe an increase of 1 Hertz per second until it gets to a 1000 and then starts again. Whenever a burst is emitted it meets a layer of some kind of plasma that surrounds the star that has two relevant properties. 1) When an emf radiation burst hits it it starts a series of harmonics so that instantly all the whole multiples of the frequency of the burst (up to a number well over a 1000) are resonating in the layer. 2) If the frequency of the burst is already resonating in the plasma then it totally absorbs the burst but if not, it will emit some of the burst of radiation to observers outside the star. The result would be that any observer outside the star observes a series of bursts of radiation where the frequency is the series of prime numbers up to 1000. Of course 1000 is an arbitrary choice. The example could be adapted for any limit. Please don’t waste time criticising the physics of this. The point is that a process with this logic is conceivable. It is a lot less mysterious than much of quantum mechanics.Mark Frank_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Hi Barry Arrington,
In the combox to the do we need context post a materialist who goes by RDFish
You may add to your long list of silly and egregious mistakes this telling error. I am not a materialist. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Charles: "For the record, sincerely, would you also seriously consider chance and evolution as worth researching as causes of a series of prime numbers?" If by chance you mean the result of natural physical events such as pulsars, novae, black holes, etc. I wouldn't rule them out completely, but I also wouldn't put too many resources into it unless the results were favourable. Evolution, certainly. If the sequence was caused by an intelligent, or non-intelligent life form, it probably evolved by some mechanism. But, again, it all comes back to how we define intelligence. Does it have to be self aware? Why? Does it have to understand the mathematical concepts that we use to define prime numbers? Why? Don't get me wrong. If we received a long stream of prime numbers, I would think the likely culprit is an extraterrestrial intelligence. But it is a big difference between an opinion and a conclusion (or strong inference). Maybe an analogy would help in understanding my reasoning. Earth is the only planet that we know of with an oxygen atmosphere. And we know that photosynthesis by life forms is required to maintain the oxygen levels in our atmosphere. Based on these observations can we conclude or infer that all planets in the galaxy with an oxygen atmosphere must contain life? Of course not. And for the same reason that we can't conclude that a series of prime numbers is the result of an intelligence. The sample size is too small.Acartia_bogart_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Speaking only for myself, and regarding a non-trivial series of prime numbers, I would presume intelligence equal to or greater than human...
First, note that I am not arguing about "speaking for oneself" about anything - I would never challenge anyone's personal, private opinion about gods, ghosts, aliens, angels, or bigfoot - especially if they held those beliefs dearly for personal reasons. What I do object to is ID's attempt to co-opt scientific credibility for its conclusions. Second, let me ask this: If you (Charles or any other ID proponent here) says that a series of primes warrants the inference to some entity with "intelligence equal to or greater than humans", does that mean you would infer that whatever generated these primes could read and write in a natural languge? If so, why? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart @ 52
At the same time, we would look at evidence for other natural causes [for the prime numbers]. Isn’t that what an IDist would do? Or would they simply conclude an intelligent source from the prime numbers alone?
Speaking only for myself, and regarding a non-trivial series of prime numbers, I would presume intelligence equal to or greater than human, and discard that presumption if I encountered additional evidence that the prime series was deficient in some way. e.g., 1, 2, 3, 5 I would reject out of hand as "intelligent" because it could easily be the natural sequence 1-5 with "4" omitted somehow. But to produce the first 100 million prime numbers? For all the bluster I read when someone rejects "intelligence" as the source for a series consisting of the first 100 million prime numbers, I don't believe for one second they actually comprehend the abstract reasoning and computational ability required to do that, correctly without error. For the record, sincerely, would you also seriously consider chance and evolution as worth researching as causes of a series of prime numbers?Charles_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

AB: Isn’t that what an IDist would do? Or would they simply conclude an intelligent source from the prime numbers alone?
You mistake "inference to the best explanation" for "conclude" as if someone has settled the issue for all time and space. That's not how science works. And nobody is asserting it. More muddled thinking from you.Vishnu_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Vishnu: I just think you guys are jackasses who like to argue and stir the pot in ID blogs” AB: Barry, I think that this confirms my earlier comment.
There, there. Barry asked for an explanation, and I express my opinion. I don't think there's any mystery whatsoever. Quite frankly, I think it's an inference to the best explanation! :D My apologies if you are not an actual jackass.Vishnu_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Charles, materialists like myself would not rile out intelligence as a cause for the prime numbers because we do not see intelligence on other planets as impossible. In fact, we don't even view it as highly improbable. So, of course, we would examine other lines of evidence to confirm that another intelligent life form was responsible. At the same time, we would look at evidence for other natural causes. Isn't that what an IDist would do? Or would they simply conclude an intelligent source from the prime numbers alone? Humans would not have advanced very far with that approach.Acartia_bogart_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

AB: In the sixties astronomers observed a signal that recurred every 1.3 seconds. It would have been easy to infer extraterrestrials,
But it would have been unwarranted.
... but they were better scientists than that. They later confirmed the existence of pulsars.
We go from the 100 first primes, to OOL (with some oblique reference to "magic"), then to this. The bankruptcy of your thought processes on the subject is in full view. Laying aside OOL, can you see the difference why an inference to intelligence as the best explanation that we have for the source of a transmission containing the first 100 primes might be a wee different than inferring an intelligent source from a 1.3 per second cosmic pulse? I'll give you a hint: one is highly specified and one is not. Ooops! I didn't just give you a hint, and actually told you what the difference is. What we know about the natural world tells us that all kinds of non-intelligent things are capable generating low CSI. The first 100 primes is not low CSI. It is high CSI. And there's only one known source of it. Keep kicking those thorns.Vishnu_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart @ 49
You are not very good at sarcasm.
You haven't seen me be sarcastic yet. That was a sincere question. You opened a door, I walked thru. You want your positions treated with respect, I asked a respectful question. What are your reasons to include "intelligence" among the lines of your research for the cause of a series of prime numbers? Would you also include chance and evolution (considering the power that materialists attribute to them)?Charles_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Charles: "Why research along intelligence lines about a series of prime numbers? If you had to expend your limited, personal resources on the avenue of research most likely to identify the cause of a series of prime numbers, why would you inlcude “intelligence” among your lines of research?" You are not very good at sarcasm.Acartia_bogart_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart @ 47
Jumping to the “intelligence” conclusion from a series of prime numbers, with no additional context and information simply isn’t sufficient. Is it sufficient to warrant more research along the intelligence lines? Absolutely.
Why research along intelligence lines about a series of prime numbers? If you had to expend your limited, personal resources on the avenue of research most likely to identify the cause of a series of prime numbers, why would you inlcude "intelligence" among your lines of research?Charles_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Vishnu: "Why don’t you stick to a specific, say, like what animal (other than humans) can generate the first 100 prime numbers? Or further, what animal (other than human) can build a machine and transmit those numbers out into space?" I have no idea. But I also have no idea how life originated but I am not willing to throw up my arms and say that it must be magic. For decades everyone with a TV observed electromagnetic signals from outside the solar system (we called it snow) and attributed it to everything except what it was. This is because we made inferences with very thistle information. We now know that it is CBR. In the sixties astronomers observed a signal that recurred every 1.3 seconds. It would have been easy to infer extraterrestrials, but they were better scientists than that. They later confirmed the existence of pulsars. Jumping to the "intelligence" conclusion from a series of prime numbers, with no additional context and information simply isn't sufficient. Is it sufficient to warrant more research along the intelligence lines? Absolutely. Is it sufficient to conclude the presence of intelligence? Absolutely not. " I just think you guys are jackasses who like to argue and stir the pot in ID blogs" Barry, I think that this confirms my earlier comment.Acartia_bogart_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

AB: Unless I have missed something (which is quite possible in such a long string of comments) I don’t think that RDFish has provided his “personal” opinion on whether the source of such a signal is likely to be the result of an intelligence (either directly or indirectly). And I know that I haven’t either. And, just for the record, my personal opinion is that an intelligence would likely be responsible.
No, what are you doing is denying that ID is the best inference for something like 100 primes transmitted from space. I.e, you're denying the obvious. For some strange (and somewhat humorous reason) you guys just can't get past it. All the while living your daily lives using the very same principle you deny. In short, it boils down to a philosophical issue. There are those of us that think abductive reasoning is valid with regards to some things like 100 primes from space and biological life, such as DNA/ribosomeic replicators, and those who don't. Those of us who accept it do it (I suspect) for the same reasons they do it in their daily lives. It's necessary. It is required of entities like us who are not omniscience. In short, it is the best bet. You and RDFish know this, yet you keep kicking the thorns. I disagree with Barry. I don't think it's a mystery. I just think you guys are jackasses who like to argue and stir the pot in ID blogs. Maybe you like to see how many words you can generate in replies. But I'm sure you are fine fellows in general.Vishnu_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

In the recent past, a similar discussion took place about fully functioning battleships, discovered at an unknown planet. Also then, according to materialists, intelligent design was not even an option as best explanation for these battleships. It makes one wonder what is going on in those thick skulls, indeed.Box_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

AB: You are equating the presence of complex mathematical capability with a high level of intelligence. But RDFish has already pointed out, quite correctly, that most animals on earth are quite capable of this, even though we would never say that they understand these mathematical concepts at a conscious level.
Why don't you stick to a specific, say, like what animal (other than humans) can generate the first 100 prime numbers? Or further, what animal (other than human) can build a machine and transmit those numbers out into space? Deny deny deny the obvious. Youse guyses are just silly.Vishnu_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

AB: "Perhaps so AB. But that is not the subject of this post. Indeed, the subject of this post is just the opposite of reason and logic – why do you and RDFish seem willing (nay, eager) to wallow around in obviously absurd error? Can you address that for me?". Two commenters (UB and Andre) go completely off topic and you say nothing. I comment on their ridiculous claims and I get chastised? That speaks volumes. Regardless, RDFish's argument can be boiled down to two points: 1) the logic you used to try to refute him was flawed, which it was; and 2) it is dangerous to draw overarching conclusions from little evidence. I don't think that any would argue this second point, but history is rife with examples of this happening. You, and others, are claiming that the ability to string a series of prime numbers (or random numbers, or whatever) is proof of intelligence. But all that we can really conclude is that humans are the only entities that we know of that can do this, and humans are intelligent. But humans are the only entities that we know of that routinely commit mass murder against our own kind (war). Is that also an indication of intelligence? I certainly hope not. You are equating the presence of complex mathematical capability with a high level of intelligence. But RDFish has already pointed out, quite correctly, that most animals on earth are quite capable of this, even though we would never say that they understand these mathematical concepts at a conscious level. Unless I have missed something (which is quite possible in such a long string of comments) I don't think that RDFish has provided his "personal" opinion on whether the source of such a signal is likely to be the result of an intelligence (either directly or indirectly). And I know that I haven't either. And, just for the record, my personal opinion is that an intelligence would likely be responsible. But I am not willing to let my personal belief bias any inference or conclusion I would derive from such an observation. Such a signal would be the start point of concluding if an intelligence was responsible, not the end point.Acartia_bogart_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply