WJM is on a Roll

_{Barry Arrington
October 22, 2014

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

In response to this post rich says:

It’s a bit like looking at a clock for a tenth of a second and lamenting you’ve witnessed no hours. Did you expect to?

To which WJM responds:

what I’m lamenting is not that we do not see hours pass on the clock, but rather, I’m lamenting the faith-based, infinite credulity and certitude expressed by those that have looked at “the clock” for a 10th of a second (as you say) and have extrapolated that into virtual certainty that “the clock”, over time, came into being by chance and natural forces and through those processes developed all the different kinds of functional, accurate time pieces found on Earth.

Even when there is no evidence obtained in that 10th of a second to believe that chance and natural forces are capable of creating a single clock.

And yet, that which is known to regularly create a wide variety of functioning clock-like mechanisms is dismissed out of hand.

That is what we call “selective hyper-skepticism” combined with “selective hyper-credulity”

Comments

Hi StephenB,
You are mistaken. All the definitions of intelligence are framed scientifically and do relate to our common understanding of intelligence as it functions.
You don't seem to grasp what an operationalized definition is. Say you define "intelligence" as "that which produces CSI", and then you do some science with a result that you have found something "intelligent", using your operational definition. Does this mean you have found something conscious? That can learn? That can has free will? No, Stephen, the science hasn't told you any of that. It is has ONLY told you that you've found something that produces CSI.
ID paradigms also define intelligence as a capacity—period. What matters is why both define it as a capacity. SETI defines intelligence as the capacity to send signals as a means for detecting intelligent agents. Hence the I in SETI.
First, they don't say "intelligent agents" - they say merely "intelligence". And by "intelligence", SETI declares that it means "something that can send signals detectable on Earth". That doesn't mean something that is necessarily conscious, or that can learn, or that has free will. It means just what it says.
SETI researchers search for the kinds of signal patterns in space that nature is not known to produce.
Yes, that only human beings produce.
That is exactly what ID scientists do, except for the fact that the latter searches for patterns in features rather than in signals.
SETI looks for patterns that are NOT found in nature in order to infer life forms on other planets. ID looks for patterns that ARE found in nature, to infer a non-life form outside of nature. I'd say that's pretty darned different. But that still isn't the point. The point you refuse to acknowledge is this: SETI's operationalized definition of "intelligence" tells us nothing about the nature of the sender(s), including if it/they are single entities or civilisations, if it/they are conscious, if it/they have free will, and so on. If we found a signal, SETI would conclude that it has found "intelligence" - meaning nothing more than "something that can transmit signals to Earth". Any further inferences would be outside of SETI's domain (it would be in the domain of astrobiology). So, if ID aspires to be scientific, then it will provide an operational definition of "intelligence" such as "able to produce CSI". Then - just like SETI - ID can claim that it has found signs of "intelligence" - meaning nothing more than "something that can produce CSI". Any further inferences would be outside of ID's scientific domain. Any other characteristics would come from philosophers (or theologists). As far as ID is concerned, all that has been shown is what we already know just by looking at biological systems - they are chock-full of CSI, so whatever caused them must have had the ability to produce CSI. That is simply a truism. Whether the cause can learn, solve novel problems, or exercise free will - ID can't say. Whether the cause is an entity, a being, an organism, a system, a force, a property, a spirit, a multiverse, or anything else - ID can't say. ID's operational definition of "intelligence" doesn't imply or exclude any of these things - it is outside the scope of what can be inferred from the evidence. Instead of turning to astrobiology for more general descriptions of the cause like SETI would, ID must turn to philosophy and theology.
However, this deceptive political maneuver cannot change the fact that their approach remains the same as ID’s approach.
Well, you CLAIM that approaches are the same. If ID ACTUALLY used the same approach, you would agree that the operational definition of "intelligence" used by ID cannot support inferences to characteristics not in evidence. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 26, 2014
October
10
Oct
26
26
2014
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

RDF: In case anyone else is confused about SETI, they are clear about what they are looking for ... They believe these [intelligent aliens] might exist because WE ON EARTH are a civilization of life forms with advanced technology. We are a known cause of complex mechanisms and communication devices. HeKS: We humans living on earth are known causal agents of complex mechanisms and systems. Non-human aliens living on another planet we’re unaware of are not known causal agents. But if SETI found the effects of intelligence in a radio signal they would consider that to be strong evidence that non-human aliens really do exist as causal agents somewhere out there in the vastness of space. RDF: That’s right. RDF: SETI defines intelligence as the capacity to send signals, period. It takes no position on whether the senders are natural, unnatural, supernatural, or anything else.
As RDF notes, SETI uses an operationalized definition of intelligence; the capacity to send narrow band signals detectable from earth. He also notes that they substantiate this operationalized definition by the universal observation that the capacity to send narrow band signals into space is coextensive with intelligence, in our case human intelligence. He goes on to acknowledge that finding the operationalized marker of intelligence is sufficient ("period") to the task - i.e. that taking additional positions on the nature of the intelligence is unnecessary to the project of detecting an intelligence source. I agree with all these things. ID has no problem following this exact same methodology. Whereas SETI operationalizes the definition of intelligence as the capacity to send a narrow band signal through space, ID can operationalize intelligence as the capacity to encode information by the use of dimensional representations (i.e. representations with a dimensional orientation). Dimensional semiosis and human intelligence are coextensive. Anyone who has interacted with RDF will immediately realize that he simply cannot allow such a thing. Even though he cannot argue against the impenetrable physical evidence that demonstrates the fact of the matter, he is nonetheless emotionally obligated to his belief system. Any form of negative argument is sufficient to him under these circumstances.Upright BiPed_{October 26, 2014
October
10
Oct
26
26
2014
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT}

@RDFish:
SETI defines intelligence as the capacity to send signals, period. It takes no position on whether the senders are natural, unnatural, supernatural, or anything else.
Where did you get the definition from? Looking at Wiki or Google Scholar I find lots of mentions of non-"natural" with regard to SETI. Even SETI claims: "The main feature distinguishing signals produced by a transmitter from those produced by natural processes is their spectral width" I think more appropriate would be to say: SETI takes no position on whether intelligence is reducible to law and chance.JWTruthInLove_{October 26, 2014
October
10
Oct
26
26
2014
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT}

RDFish
Again, I don’t care if you claim that each of these definitions from different ID folks are different, or even compatible. They are either operationalized (such as “the ability to produce CSI”), in which case they don’t have anything to do with our common, intuitive understanding of “intelligence” (consciousness, volition, etc); or they are not operationalized, in which case they are meaningless in the context of a scientific theory.
You are mistaken. All the definitions of intelligence are framed scientifically and do relate to our common understanding of intelligence as it functions.
SETI defines intelligence as the capacity to send signals, period.
Obviously, you missed the point. ID paradigms also define intelligence as a capacity---period. What matters is why both define it as a capacity. SETI defines intelligence as the capacity to send signals as a means for detecting intelligent agents. Hence the I in SETI.
It takes no position on whether the senders are natural, unnatural, supernatural, or anything else.
On the contrary, SETI researchers search for the kinds of signal patterns in space that nature is not known to produce. That is exactly what ID scientists do, except for the fact that the latter searches for patterns in features rather than in signals. Now it is true that the secularists who manage that organization loathe ID and are terrified that the general public will discover that it uses similar methods. As a result, they have, for the last few years, begun to use tortured language, de-emphasizing the word, “intelligence” and skewing the discussion away from ET and toward astro-biology, which is more in keeping atheistic evolution. However, this deceptive political maneuver cannot change the fact that their approach remains the same as ID’s approach. There is simply no other way to search for intelligence other than to differentiate between what seems to be artificial from what seems to be natural. It is an inescapable fact.StephenB_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

RDFish
We would detect a signal that is not produced by any other cause we are aware of… that is a breakthrough result!
absolutely! The discovery of pulsars seems like a prime example of such a breakthrough discovery.franklin_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB, Again, I don't care if you claim that each of these definitions from different ID folks are different, or even compatible. They are either operationalized (such as "the ability to produce CSI"), in which case they don't have anything to do with our common, intuitive understanding of "intelligence" (consciousness, volition, etc); or they are not operationalized, in which case they are meaningless in the context of a scientific theory. This is just the same as in SETI: SETI operationally defines "intelligence" as "the presence of technology detectable on Earth", which does not imply anything about learning, memory, problem solving, and so on. In order to discuss these more general aspects of what may be responsible, one must enter the domain of astrobiology. How this applies to ID is this: ID's operational definition of "intelligence" may be "able to produce CSI" or "able to produce irreducible complexity" or whatever. These operational definitions imply nothing about the nature of what is producing these things. In order to discuss more general aspects of what may be responsible (such as consciousness, volition, learning, memory, and so on) one must enter the domain of philosophy (or theology).
By defining intelligence as the capacity to send signals, it tacitly rules out nature as a potential cause.
SETI defines intelligence as the capacity to send signals, period. It takes no position on whether the senders are natural, unnatural, supernatural, or anything else.
Otherwise, there would be no purpose in conducting the search. What would be the point of saying “guess what? we detected a signal from an intelligent agent..but never mind, it might have been nature doing its thing.”
WHAT??? That is such a weird thing to say! As if "nature" was a single thing, and we already knew everything about it? We would detect a signal that is not produced by any other cause we are aware of... that is a breakthrough result! In order to talk about what other inferences might be warranted, we would consult the astrobiologists. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

RDFish
It’s clear to me that ID is the paradigm – the explanation of the cause of biological systems. These people all just disagree on how to define that cause.
No, ID is not the paradigm. Irreducible complexity, specified complexity, counterflow, etc. are the paradigms. There is nothing to disagree about. Each provides its own contextual definition of intelligence.StephenB_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

RD
What do you think the operational definition of “intelligence” is in ID, Stephen? (I can hardly wait)
I gather that you missed the point that there can be no one-size-fits-all definition for the reasons indicated. However, one contextual definition is the capacity to choose between alternatives. There are others.
SETI makes no comment whatsoever about what might produce alien communication technology!!!
By defining intelligence as the capacity to send signals, it tacitly rules out nature as a potential cause. Otherwise, there would be no purpose in conducting the search. What would be the point of saying "guess what? we detected a signal from an intelligent agent..but never mind, it might have been nature doing its thing."StephenB_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

To be more precise, ID's contextual definitions of intelligence, which are tied to their individual paradigms, deal with specific capacities can can be detected by those paradigms.StephenB_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

RDFish
This means that whenever SETI speaks of “intelligence”, all they mean is “able to transmit signals to Earth”. Nothing else is meant by that term in the domain of SETI. In ID, this would be analogous to saying that “intelligence” means “able to produce the sorts of complex mechanisms we observe in biological systems”.
No. SETI's contextual definition of intelligence, which is tied to its methodology, deals with capacities. ID's contextual definitions of intelligence, which are tied to their individual methodologies, deal with capacities.StephenB_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
You continue to ignore the essential fact that any definition of intelligence or any criterion for intelligent activity must be specific to the paradigm and the methods used to facilitate the design inference. The reason for this should be obvious: ID doesn’t study the nature intelligence from an ontological perspective; it studies the effects of intelligence from an epistemological perspective.
I'm fully cognizant of that fact, Stephen. In fact, @159 describes just how different operationalized definitions of "intelligence" allow different sorts of analyses in different scientific domains.
SETI’s definition of intelligence should tell you something about the nature of developing a hypothesis and establishing a methodology for testing it.
Yes, exactly so!!
In fact, such an operational definition of intelligence is easily consistent with ID’s paradigms, which also provide operational definitions.
What do you think the operational definition of "intelligence" is in ID, Stephen? (I can hardly wait)
As is the case with ID, SETI recognizes the key point: natural causes cannot produce signals or communication technology; only intelligence can do that.
WHAT??? SETI makes no comment whatsoever about what might produce alien communication technology!!! That has nothing at all to do with SETI research!!! SETI defines "intelligence" as the presence of such technology, PERIOD. If you want to start talking about how that technology was likely produced, you must begin to study astrobiology!! You're just dead wrong here. It's all right here on the SETI site: http://intelligence.seti.org/pages/intelligence And review my clarifications @159 if you still don't understand.
In keeping with that point, SETI emphasizes technology and signals because that is their unique methodological road to the intelligent agent, not because each specialty or sub-specialty from other disciplines should define intelligence in exactly that same way.
SETI defines "intelligence" as the presence of that technology detectable from Earth. That is what the word means in SETI. It means other things in astrobiology. What does the word mean in ID?
Accordingly, some ID paradigms emphasize history (Meyer), some emphasize complexity (Dembski), others emphasize unity (Behe), and others emphasize counterflow (Ratzsch).
It's clear to me that ID is the paradigm - the explanation of the cause of biological systems. These people all just disagree on how to define that cause. But it doesn't really matter - not one of these people succeed in establishing empirical support for anything that is associated with the word "intelligence" such as the qualities listed by HeKS (consciousness, volition, problem solving, etc.) These are truly the qualities that you are interested in, but if you actually operationalized them, you would see that ID can't begin to provide evidence that any of them apply to the cause of life. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

Honestly, now I just feel bad for him.William J Murray_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

RDFish quoting from the SETI site
Intelligence is a term that we use to describe a range of abilities that have to do with how an individual processes information. This includes learning, memory, problem solving, abstract thinking, creativity, behavioral flexibility, and rate of information processing. There is no consensus on a strict definition of intelligence, and there likely never will be because intelligence is what is known as a fuzzy concept; it lacks well-defined boundaries and contains multiple components. However, the study of intelligence lies firmly in the domain of empirical science because its features can be operationally defined and its correlates can be quantified and measured.
Precisely, which is what I have been telling your for months, and what I repeated above. It refers to a "range of abilities." There can be no consensus decision for intelligence, no one size fits all. It is always contextual, depending on the paradigm being used. Thank you for making my point. So much for your claim that ID proponents should standardize their definitions. For more details, consult my post @154.
Please read my response to HeKS to see why no particular characteristic ID claims for the cause of life can be empirically supported.
Absolute nonsense. ID can provide evidence for, among other things, the capacity to "choose between alternatives for a purpose" the capacity to "organize parts into a unified whole," and to capacity to "produce ounterflow."StephenB_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

Since folks here seem to like SETI a lot, I think it is worthwhile to repost the quote from the SETI about intelligence again, with some clarifying comments:
Intelligence is a term that we use to describe a range of abilities that have to do with how an individual processes information. This includes learning, memory, problem solving, abstract thinking, creativity, behavioral flexibility, and rate of information processing.
This is like the term athleticism, that describes a range of other sorts of abilities that have to do with physical actions, including running, jumping, throwing, lifting, aiming, and so on. Or the term "beauty", which has to do with symmetry, proportion, colors, and so on.
There is no consensus on a strict definition of intelligence, and there likely never will be because intelligence is what is known as a fuzzy concept; it lacks well-defined boundaries and contains multiple components.
Anyone who has ever read any of arguments ought to understand this by now.
However, the study of intelligence lies firmly in the domain of empirical science because its features can be operationally defined and its correlates can be quantified and measured.
And this: In order to use a term like "intelligence" (or "beautiful" or "athletic") in science, the term must be provided with an operational definition. This means that the definition must stated in terms that can be empirically evaluated in an objective way, so that independent researchers will reliably agree on what things meet the criteria.
In the domain of SETI, intelligence has been operationalized as the presence of a technology detectable from Earth.
This means that whenever SETI speaks of "intelligence", all they mean is "able to transmit signals to Earth". Nothing else is meant by that term in the domain of SETI. In ID, this would be analogous to saying that "intelligence" means "able to produce the sorts of complex mechanisms we observe in biological systems".
In the framework of astrobiology, however, there is no need to limit the study of intelligence to these criteria.
In order to talk about other aspects of the sender of these signals, one must leave the domain of SETI and look to astrobiology instead. Astrobiology deals with brains, nervous systems, evolution, and other biological aspects of living organisms. In ID, this would be analogous to turning to theology in order to discuss other aspects of the cause of life. Theology deals with the nature of the Creator of Life - its consciousness, volition, goodness, and so on. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

Hi WJM, HeKS did a good job trying to respond to my argument, allowing me to respond to his points. In contrast, all you do is hide behind others and take pot-shots at me. Bad behavior, William - have you no pride, shame, or integrity at all? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Hi Box,
I see. So let’s say, for the sake of argument, that ID is wrong and that in fact it is proposing an unknown cause. You explicitely stated that you are fine with proposing unknown causes these days. So again, what is the problem this time?
The problem is this: While there is nothing wrong with hypothesizing the existence of some unknown sort of thing that would account for the phenomena (complex form and function in biological systems) we are attempting to explain, ID claims that their hypothesis enjoys evidential support. Please read my response to HeKS to see why no particular characteristic ID claims for the cause of life can be empirically supported. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Hi HeKS, First, let me compliment you on a very well articulated response, and a good-faith effort to debate the points. Here is my response:
Of course, if we want to be really precise...
Considering the claim that ID is a scientific theory, it really does behoove you to provide a precise meaning for this theory's sole explanatory concept.
For the wider category of intelligent agents we could use the following inclusion criteria and say that an “intelligent agent” must be: - Living - Self-Aware - Capable of rational and abstract thought at maturation - Possess volition - Possess the ability to act in harmony with its volition
BRAVO!!!! EXCELLENT!!! I'm so pleased to see someone here who is not afraid to say what they mean by "intelligent agency"! Thank you!! (Of course if I press ten other ID folks for their opinions, I will get twenty-five different answers, but let's ignore that and pretend your definition what is meant in ID Theory in general). 1) LIVING So the designer of all life was itself living? Hmmm. SETI folks talk a great deal about what it means for something to be "living", and they settle on the concept of "life as we know it" - complex physical organisms that process information. Since that is precisely what ID purports to explain, it hardly suits ID to offer the very same thing as an explanation!?!? Lots of people (Francis Crick, the Raelians, etc) have speculated that life on Earth comes from life elsewhere in the universe, but these speculative hypotheses have failed to generate much interest because... there is no evidence for them. 2) SELF-AWARE Pretty much the only thing we know about conscious self-awareness is that it requires a functioning brain. Some people (e.g. Dennett) think that any information processing system of appropriate characteristics would be conscious; others (e.g. Searle) think that consciousness is a biological function of the central nervous system, in the sense that digestion is a biological function of the GI tract. Still, even mind/body dualists don't deny that the body (brain) is necessary, though not sufficient, for human thought. So it's doubtful a priori that whatever produced the very first organisms could itself have a complex nervous system that seems (in our scientific experience) to be required to sustain consciousness. In any event, ID would clearly have to provide some specific evidence to support this claim. (Here most people start referring to NDEs, psychics, and other paranormal phenomena to bolster their belief that consciousness can exist without neural function. If you'd like to go there, simply admit that ID rests on the truth of these paranormal phenomena and I'll be happy to leave it at that). 3) CAPABLE OF RATIONAL AND ABSTRACT THOUGHT AT MATURATION First, your use of the term "at maturation" seems to imply that intelligent agents go through some aging/maturation process. Is that really what you mean? In any case, in order to provide evidence for this claim, it would be necessary to submit novel problems for the candidate agent to solve. Insects produce complex behaviors and artifacts, but are not capable of rational and abstract thought (and this can be revealed only by presenting them with novel problems). Same with computers, and even some human savants. Since we can't test the cause of life to see if it can solve novel problems, we have no way of ascertaining if it had this characteristic either. 4 & 5) POSSESS VOLITION, ACT WITH VOLITION I assume here you mean "volition" in the incompatibilist sense, as in libertarian free will. Since this is an untestable metaphysical speculation, it is certain that ID has no evidence that the cause of life possessed this trait. (While philosophers argue endlessly about this, they agree that there is currently no scientific test to resolve this ancient question, although folks like Libet and Wegner have made some progress). So given your criteria (thank you again!), we clearly see that ID is utterly unable to provide any evidence that the cause of life met your criteria for "intelligent agency". Not one of your criteria can be supported with any evidence whatsoever - you are zero for five here.
Finding such a signal, however, would not confirm that the agent belongs to any kind of larger civilization, that its mind or thinking ability is derived from a physical organ anything like the human brain or with a similar encephalization quotient, or how the agent came to exist or acquire intelligent agency in the first place, whether it was through a natural process or the product of design. Furthermore, they recognize that it is highly speculative to assign these kinds of additional characteristics to potential alien intelligent agents:
Let's dispatch this nonsense with SETI, shall we? SETI is not a theory of origins - it is not a theory of anything at all. It is a SEARCH. What are they searching for? Alien life forms with transmitters. If they received some sort of signal that looks like something we'd send, we'd have a big discussion of what that signal can tell us about the source. We have never received such a signal, so we've never gotten to that point. Most people figure that whatever would send such a signal would be substantially like us - complex beings who live and work in groups and build machines to communicate with. Would that be a scientific result of receiving some communication from outer space? If the signal displayed nothing but "artificiality" (SETI's main criteria for detecting a signal), then it would be difficult to argue these things. If we could somehow decode the signal and find messages and/or pictures of groups organisms with their machines, then we'd have some clear results.
HeKS: As I’ve said before (and will say again), the design inference can only provide us with insight into the minimum set of characteristics that the designer must possess rather than the maximum set of characteristics the designer might possess. Furthermore, even this minimum set of characteristics must obviously be deduced as a matter of logical necessity rather than observed. RDF: In that case, ID is perfectly vacuous: It says only that the cause of life must have had characteristics sufficient to enable it to be the cause of life, which obviously tells us nothing at all. HeKS: You could apply exactly that kind of silly reductionism to what we could say we would know about the agents responsible for a signal found by SETI: The cause of the signal must have had characteristics sufficient to enable it to be the cause of the signal.
EXACTLY!! NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE!!! (Except this has nothing to do with "reductionism", just what sorts of conclusions can be warranted by empirical evidence). Saying that the cause of X must be capable of causing X is merely a truism - it tells us nothing at all. We agree that the cause of life must have been capable of causing life. What we disagree about is what other characteristics we can ascribe to this cause based on empirical evidence. The answer at the moment, of course, is nothing at all.
Of course, what you would then actually do is deduce what that minimum set of characteristics would have to be, which would be the criteria for Intelligent Agents and the more specific subset of Intelligent Designers.
See above. None of those chacteristics could ever be deduced from, say, a simple narrow-band EM signal. If we saw pictures of living organisms with their machines, however, we would be likely to conclude that those organisms were sufficiently like we humans that we could conclude their mental and physical abilities were similar as well.
And yet, we do know that intelligence exists,...
This is like saying "beauty exists" or "athleticism exists" or "love exists". We all understand the truth of these claims, but these are not scientific propositions until the definitions for these qualities are operationalized. Essentially the problem you have with this concept (and most folks here) is that you reify "intelligence" - you act as though it is something that exists apart from the entity that exhibits particular behaviors that we might call "intelligent". As far as we can tell, intelligence doesn't exist apart from the thinking organism any more than athleticism exists apart from althletic organisms or beauty exists apart from beautiful things.
So, ultimately, your criticism of ID stated in this thread boils down only to the fact that it proposes a previously unobserved causal agent.
No, that's wrong. My criticism is that ID commits one of two errors: 1) Fails to say what they mean by "intelligence" (you have corrected this error!) 2) Fails to point to any evidence - or even the need for any evidence! - that their paricular hypothesis regarding the origin of life might be true, because they cannot ascertain the truth of ANY particular characteristic of the entity (or entities) they propose as an explanation. The ONLY thing you can say is that the Designer was capable of producing the phenomena we are trying to explain, which of course is a truisim - true for ANY theory of origins, or any causal theory at all.
ID, at least insofar as the history of life is considered, is an historical science and uses abductive reasoning to identify a best causal explanation of the complex functionally specified systems and molecular machines in living organisms.
Yes, I get this a lot. What is lost in this rush to abduction is that in science, a "best causal explanation" is not taken to mean "the least unsupported guess". You actually do need to have evidence in order to claim some conclusion has scientifically validity, and not just complain that everybody else's explanations are even more ridiculous. Self-organizational principles? Abiogenesis/evolution? Natural teleology? Natural genetic engineering? Multiverses? Alien life forms? Immaterial spirit? Solipsistic dream? Anyone can come up with some explanation for anything, but the idea is not to decide which is the least ambiguous/incoherent/wrong/dumb and call that a scientific theory. Rather, you actually must have evidence that the explanatory concept invoked (1) exists and (2) accounts for the phenomnena in question. ID has none. IF there was some sort of entity that was conscious and sentient and could produce complex physical machinery and that prexisted living things, THEN that entity would be a very likely candidate for the cause of living things. You simply ASSUME the antecendent of that conditional to be true, but, being a scientist myself, I require some sort of evidence for that.
Well, on the one hand you could challenge the claim that intelligent agency can bring about complex functionally specified systems and machinery, but that’s kind of a dead end, so instead you take the other path of trying to prove that undirected natural processes can do the job after all.
You still don't understand my position, I'm afraid. I do not take EITHER of those paths, of course! What I point out is that according to your definition of intelligent agency, ID has no way of demonstrating that WHATEVER was the cause of life had any of those particular characteristics!
However, simply claiming they can as a result of an a priori philosophical commitment to materialism doesn’t count as evidence that natural processes are sufficient to bring about the effect.
Completely irrelevant to anything I've ever said here.
And it’s kinda funny how studiously you avoid using the word intelligence or admitting that it is intelligence that is being searched for by an organization that has the name “Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence“.
I've shown you EXACTLY why the term "intelligence" is problematic (see above). You have obviated the problem, thankfully, by providing a perfectly fine definition of what it means to be an intelligent agent. The problem remaining for you, of course, is to show how it might be possible to ascertain if the cause of life actually meets those criteria. (hint: It isn't).
Finding a signal from space would not confirm for us that the intelligent agents responsible for the message had a minimum encephalization quotient any more than deciding that an intelligent agent really is necessary to explain life would confirm that said agent was immaterial. Furthermore, SETI doesn’t even say it would. They apply that characteristic to intelligent life on earth and speculate that it is possible that life on other planets may have similar physical characteristics, which is justified for them by certain philosophical presuppositions. Nonetheless, they recognize that attributing such characteristics to the alien intelligence would be speculative.
YES!!! EXACTLY!!! And for EXACTLY the same reason, the conclusions of ID are nothing but speculation!!!
What they are really searching for, pure and simple, is intelligence.
YES!!! And how do they define "intelligence"? Read it again - I'll quote it for you: "In the domain of SETI, intelligence has been operationalized as the presence of a technology detectable from Earth." So OF COURSE they are searching for intelligence, but by "intelligence" ALL THEY MEAN is "able to produce a signal that is detectable from Earth"! They do not include consciousness, or volition, or encephalization, or any other characteristic in their definition of intelligence!
The way they hope to find it is by finding a specific type of signal. Why? Because that signal would be the product of technology, and SETI considers technology to be operationalized intelligence.
OMG! You didn't understand what they said! They aren't saying that technology is a sign of intelligence, or that technology requires intelligence... what they are saying is that in the domain of SETI, the term "intelligence" is operationally defined as the ability to send signals to Earth!!! This is simply a misunderstanding on your part. Here it is again, with the important part highlighted:
Intelligence is a term that we use to describe a range of abilities that have to do with how an individual processes information. This includes learning, memory, problem solving, abstract thinking, creativity, behavioral flexibility, and rate of information processing. There is no consensus on a strict definition of intelligence, and there likely never will be because intelligence is what is known as a fuzzy concept; it lacks well-defined boundaries and contains multiple components. However, the study of intelligence lies firmly in the domain of empirical science because its features can be operationally defined and its correlates can be quantified and measured. In the domain of SETI, intelligence has been operationalized as the presence of a technology detectable from Earth. In the framework of astrobiology, however, there is no need to limit the study of intelligence to these criteria. Just as astrobiology is concerned with the study of the origin and evolution of life in the broader sense, it is critical to understand the origin and evolution of intelligence in order to create a scientific basis for guiding hypothesis-formation and searching strategies.
Do you see? In SETI, all they mean by "intelligence" is that it can send a signal - nothing else. This is analogous to ID: ID should operationally define "intelligence" as "the ability to produce the sort of complex form and function we observe in biological systems". However, in order to begin talking about any other mental aspect we often associate with the term "intelligence", you must move into the domain of astrobiology (which deals with encephalization, etc). That is analogous to ID moving into the domain of theology, where you can discuss whether or not the Creator was conscious, had volition/free will, and so on. The rest of your post repeats the same mistakes. I look forward to your response. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

bb #153 - excellent. If everything remains normal around here, that should end the discussion. If things have somehow changed radically, then your opponents will congratulate you on providing an irrefutable response and they will pledge to rethink their own position on this topic.Silver Asiatic_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

RDFish
Nonsense. SETI looks for narrow band EM signals, not “intelligent design”. It operationally defines “intelligence” simply as anything capable of producing such signals. It assumes that intelligence is a property of life as we know it, which requires complex nervous systems and other mechanisms, which are exactly the things that ID purports to explain!

It’s so hard to argue against ID when ID consists of so many mutually exclusive bad ideas.

So, you also refer to a class of things called “intelligent agents”, and I will simply repeat my question to you: What are the inclusion criteria for this class of things?

SETI operationally defines “intelligence” as the ability to produce communication technology that can send signals to Earth.
You continue to ignore the essential fact that any definition of intelligence or any criterion for intelligent activity must be specific to the paradigm and the methods used to facilitate the design inference. The reason for this should be obvious: ID doesn’t study the nature intelligence from an ontological perspective; it studies the effects of intelligence from an epistemological perspective. SETI's definition of intelligence should tell you something about the nature of developing a hypothesis and establishing a methodology for testing it. In fact, such an operational definition of intelligence is easily consistent with ID’s paradigms, which also provide operational definitions. As is the case with ID, SETI recognizes the key point: natural causes cannot produce signals or communication technology; only intelligence can do that. In keeping with that point, SETI emphasizes technology and signals because that is their unique methodological road to the intelligent agent, not because each specialty or sub-specialty from other disciplines should define intelligence in exactly that same way. Accordingly, some ID paradigms emphasize history (Meyer), some emphasize complexity (Dembski), others emphasize unity (Behe), and others emphasize counterflow (Ratzsch). Each aspect of intelligence is different from the other. The difference is expanded exponentially when moving from an intra-disciplinary perspective to an interdisciplinary perspective. For that reason, it is not possible establish, or even desirable to attempt, a singular, one-size-fits-all definition for intelligence. It is irrational to even ask for one. Like ID scientists, SETI researchers decide on the exact nature of the research question and develop a context specific paradigm to answer it. It is the individual scientist who must define intelligence in the context of a specific research question, which will depend, in large measure, on that researcher’s specialty. No one can provide a definition for him, and he cannot provide one for someone else. Everything turns on mission and purpose. The methods are there to serve that purpose. SETI uses signal processing technology to detect the presence of the intelligent agent that sent those signals, not, as you would have it, to detect signals for their own sake, which would be ridiculous and without purpose. That is why they give their research program the title of SETI rather than SETS.StephenB_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Dancing Darwinists In the course of this discussion, velikovskys called a sundial a clock. While they both are used to measure time and a sundial is a kind of clock, it isn't what most of us think of when we hear the word "clock". I mistakenly said that tintinnid first brought it up, and he was eager to distance himself from it saying in 60 "don’t blame me for bringing up the sundial". I wouldn't like to be credited with such a lame, and obviously squirming, point either. Rich said he didn't specify what kind of clock he was referring to in his "tenth of a second" statement that spawned this post. As a clock that can mark the passing of one tenth of a second would have to be intelligently designed, he replied
I actually said 'looking at a clock for a tenth of a second' – the clock doesn’t have to be configured in any way for that to be possible, only my gaze.
If that were the case, why a clock of any sort when any object would do? Vel said a naturally occuring sundial, i.e. a tree casting a shadow, was the "exact same device occurring by chance and nature" as an intelligently designed model. When challenged on the claim that there was no difference between the two, he replied: "Nope not saying that sundials don’t come in lots of designs" then retreated to the least common denominator: "that same motion of a shadow that occurs naturally". I challenged him twice to tell me the hour of the day this photo of a natural "clock" was taken and he is suddenly silent. I was able to say the time on the intelligently designed model was 10:15 AM meaning this: The "sundial" that became so by chance and necessity lacks sufficient information to make it possible for Vel to report the hour it indicates. If you can't tell time with it, it must not be a clock. It isn't "the exact same device" as the intelligently designed sundial with information added to make the shadow it casts meaningful. This has CSI that makes its function as a useful timekeeper possible. The tree does not, but can be modified to do the same by an intelligent agent, though not as accurately because its a tree, not a sundial.bb_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

RDF: Anyone can hypothesize anything; that is always legitimate. Box: You have been rather hysterical about proposing “unknown causes” – in fact you have presented it ad nausea as if this is strictly forbidden in science. RDF: You are delusional; I’ve never said anything of the sort. - - So I take it then that you are fine with proposing unknown causes. So what is the problem?
RDF #140: The problem is not that you are hypothesizing something unknown!!!! The problem is that ID PRETENDS that it is a KNOWN cause!!!! Over and over, ID folks pretend that they are invoking a cause for living things that is already known to exist, when in fact nothing of the sort of is true. That is the problem.
Aha. I see. So let's say, for the sake of argument, that ID is wrong and that in fact it is proposing an unknown cause. You explicitely stated that you are fine with proposing unknown causes these days. So again, what is the problem this time?Box_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Designophobia?kairosfocus_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

HeKS @149, This was a masterfully complete exposé of RDFish's painful cognitive biases concerning the term "intelligence", revealing something well beyond definition deficit disorder, where Darwinists simply refuse to employ standard definitions when addressing ID topics. This is more of a Design Derangement Syndrome, where Darwinists/Materialists display an apparent psychosis/derangement when it comes to certain uses of terminology - like intelligence, design, information, consciousness, intent, chance, etc. RDFish attempts to explain what SETI does in ways that avoid the use of the term "intelligence" at all costs, even though it is the essential characteristic of their very name. I remember back when the SETI site itself was far more straightforward about what they were attempting to do - finding the earmarks of intelligence in signals from space. I also remember the big brouhaha that occurred when someone from the ID community, many years ago, compared ID theory to SETI and SETI was caught in the middle trying to distance itself from ID. They put up a disclaimer that was hilariously hypocritical. Now, as a result, it appears that all the wording on the SETI site has been carefully reconstructed to avoid direct correlation to ID, and their definitional scope has been expanded into astrobiology (the search for ET life) in order to make their mission statement more palatable to the anti-ID crowd. All pointing towards Design Derangement Syndrome.William J Murray_{October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

@RDFish #113

RDF:Does this mean that an “intelligent agent” is something that can “order separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components”? HEKS: No, that’s not what an intelligent agent is in the sense of it being a definition. Rather, that’s something that intelligent agents often do.
So you disagree with Joe here, who offered that as an inclusion criterion for the set of “intelligent agents”.
Do you not see the difference between what you originally asked (which is what I answered) and what you are asking now? The wording of your first question ("an 'intelligent agent' is something that can...") implied that the ability to functionally order separate components was the sole inclusion criteria for an "intelligent agent". I said that was mistaken. I said instead that it was one of the inclusion criteria, even though I didn't use the term "inclusion criteria". Of course, if we want to be really precise then we could identify a category of "intelligent designers" as a subset of the category "intelligent agents" and say that the ability to "order separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components" is actually an inclusion criteria of this subset. For the wider category of intelligent agents we could use the following inclusion criteria and say that an "intelligent agent" must be: - Living - Self-Aware - Capable of rational and abstract thought at maturation - Possess volition - Possess the ability to act in harmony with its volition I'm open to other criteria, and some could quibble about the last item in certain cases, but this would be a good working description of an "intelligent agent" for our purposes.
It’s so hard to argue against ID when ID consists of so many mutually exclusive bad ideas.
Maybe you should try to get the ideas straight. I'm not sure what you expect when you ask a question that misrepresents one ID proponent, get an answer from another that corrects your misrepresentation, then misinterpret that answer to mean pretty much exactly the opposite of what it says and act as though it was in response to a different question.
So, you also refer to a class of things called “intelligent agents”, and I will simply repeat my question to you: What are the inclusion criteria for this class of things?
See above.

HeKS: That some agent had sufficient relevant knowledge and ability to produce an observed effect can be deduced from the existence of the effect.
What you’ve said here is that for any effect, there must be some cause capable of producing that effect. I won’t argue against that :-)
What a pleasant surprise. One can never really know.

HeKS: SETI’s description of the type of agents they are looking for consists only of the minimal necessary characteristics that can be logically deduced from the type of effect they are hoping to find combined with the assumptions of Methodological Naturalism.
You are mistaken; their assumptions come directly from the knowledge we have of ourselves. We are a civilisation of life forms who build technologies that employ narrow-band electro-magnetic signals to communicate. So, that’s what SETI looks for on other life-hospitable planets besides our own.
No. I'm not mistaken. First, you failed to include the next sentence in my previous comment:
And if they are anywhere going beyond that then they are making unwarranted (or at the very least unrelated) assumptions that are not connected to their design inference.
The assumptions they make about what they hope exists out there are guided by the assumptions of Methodological Naturalism, including evolutionary theory. If they found a message of some sort in a signal, which they inferred was the product of design, it would confirm a limited number of things: - There is an intelligent agent out there in space - The agent is capable of communication - The agent is capable of building some method to send narrow-band EM signals To this we could add whatever useful information might exist in the message itself if it is any way explicitly descriptive of the responsible agent. Finding such a signal, however, would not confirm that the agent belongs to any kind of larger civilization, that its mind or thinking ability is derived from a physical organ anything like the human brain or with a similar encephalization quotient, or how the agent came to exist or acquire intelligent agency in the first place, whether it was through a natural process or the product of design. Furthermore, they recognize that it is highly speculative to assign these kinds of additional characteristics to potential alien intelligent agents:
"These associations between neural mass and complexity, individual cognitive ability, and social complexity point to the possibility that there may be general or even universal principles that shape intelligence on this planet – and perhaps, by extension, on others."
In spite of what the SETI researches think they might find out there in terms the specific nature and characteristics of alien intelligent agents, the actual program revolves around the more general and basic concept of looking for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Period. And it does that by looking for the existence of complex technology in space, the existence of which is deemed to be a reliable indicator of the existence of an intelligent causal agent.
"SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, is an exploratory science that seeks evidence of life [by which they mean evidence of intelligent life] in the universe by looking for some signature of its technology."
If SETI found the type of signal they were looking for but it ultimately turned out that the alien agents, though being intelligent and capable of building complex technology, were almost nothing like what SETI expected in terms of their nature and physical makeup, would that mean that SETI actually had not found Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence?

HeKS: As I’ve said before (and will say again), the design inference can only provide us with insight into the minimum set of characteristics that the designer must possess rather than the maximum set of characteristics the designer might possess. Furthermore, even this minimum set of characteristics must obviously be deduced as a matter of logical necessity rather than observed.
In that case, ID is perfectly vacuous: It says only that the cause of life must have had characteristics sufficient to enable it to be the cause of life, which obviously tells us nothing at all.
You could apply exactly that kind of silly reductionism to what we could say we would know about the agents responsible for a signal found by SETI: The cause of the signal must have had characteristics sufficient to enable it to be the cause of the signal. Of course, what you would then actually do is deduce what that minimum set of characteristics would have to be, which would be the criteria for Intelligent Agents and the more specific subset of Intelligent Designers.
No, that’s not what I’m suggesting. Of course science must propose the existence of previously unknown things (forces, particles, entities, processes, whatever…). However, in order for us to decide if such a thing actually exists, the thing whose existence is being proposed must have some sort of characterization aside from causing the existence of that which we’re explaining. Otherwise, we could make up (hypothesize) any cause of any unexplained phenomenon, and simply point to the phenomenon itself as evidence that our hypothesis is true. Why does the Sun appear to rise in the East? Because Apollo drives His chariot from that direction. How do I know that? Because we see the Sun rise in the East!
I'm not sure how on earth you see the Apollo Hypothesis as remotely analogous. In reality, the Apollo Hypothesis simply shows the problem with making assumptions about a previously unobserved cause (or causal agent) that go beyond what can be directly deduced from the observed effect. There is no logical connection between the rising sun and Apollo's chariot. As an hypothesis it's on the level of, "I've got a theory, it could be bunnies" (if you don't get the reference don't worry about it). The Apollo Hypothesis is nothing at all like the inference that there exists a previously unobserved, non-human, intelligent causal agent possessing intellectual characteristics similar to, though greater than, our own. What kinds of intellectual characteristics? I've described them above. This is what we can reasonably and reliably infer from the evidence of biology. To go beyond these things and make further claims about the specific nature and qualities of the agent is to make philosophical assumptions that cannot be directly confirmed by the observable evidence itself. And yet, we do know that intelligence exists, that intelligent agency exists, and that it is, according to all evidence we have, uniquely causally adequate to produce complex functionally specified systems. So, ultimately, your criticism of ID stated in this thread boils down only to the fact that it proposes a previously unobserved causal agent. And to support your criticism you complain that the only evidence we have for the existence of this particular agent (who would be making use of a cause - intelligence - that we already know exists) is the evidence that directly points to the existence of that agent as a necessary explanatory entity. Furthermore, when it is pointed out to you that SETI uses precisely the same logic as to the implication of finding a certain kind of transmission from space, you try to distinguish it by pointing out that it makes additional assumptions (they are nothing more) about what alien intelligent agents might be like and about the very possibility of their existence itself based on at least two philosophical principles (Methodological Naturalism and the Copernican Principle).

HeKS: What you seem to be missing is the fact that if they found the effects of intelligence in a radio signal they would consider that to be powerful evidence of the existence of ET life forms.
Of course that is what they are looking for (narrow-band EM signals, actually), and of course it would be evidence of a civilization of life forms.
Well, actually, what it would be direct evidence for is the existence of at least one intelligent agent/life-form capable of constructing complex technology.
SETI hypothesizes that ET life forms exist (because of the Copernican principle, belief in abiogenesis and evolution, evidence of hospitable planets, etc). IN ORDER TO TEST SETI’S HYPOTHESIS we look for evidence (in the form of narrow-band radio signals). If we find it, we consider that we have supported our hypothesis with evidence.
Yes, SETI's hypothesis of the existence of alien life forms is based on philosophical assumptions. Here's what they say:
"Our current understanding of life’s origin on Earth suggests that given a suitable environment and sufficient time, life will develop on other planets. Whether evolution will give rise to intelligent, technological civilizations is open to speculation."
As an empirical claim, that bold text is pure nonsense. However, it is absolutely necessary that it is true under Methodological Naturalism (for our planet) and the Copernican Principle (for other planets). Their philosophical commitments lead them to propose the hypothesis that naturally arising and evolving life, and perhaps intelligent life, exists elsewhere. They then propose a piece of evidence (a certain type of signal from space) that would lend support to their hypothesis. And yet, were that evidence to be found, it would only directly support a very limited part of their hypothesis, not the entire picture of it. Based on your line of argumentation, it seems like you would be satisfied if I simply made a philosophical argument for the existence of God and then cited the evidence of biology as pointing to the existence of a non-human intelligent designer, thereby lending limited support to my God Hypothesis. But of course, you wouldn't accept that either. The other point you are ignoring here is one I mentioned last time but which you either ignored or dismissed (it's a little hard to tell). SETI is proposing a type of evidence that has not yet been found that would reliably support, though only to a limited extent, the philosophically motivated hypothesis of so-far unobserved intelligent alien life on other planets. In the case of ID, we're dealing with evidence that has already been found and are reasoning to a past cause of the already observed evidence (though, of course, it was widely believed prior to the discovery of the complex functionally specified biological systems and technology in living organisms that life was the result of a designer, not to mention the other philosophical arguments for the existence of God in particular). One does not need to specifically predict the existence of complex biological molecular machinery prior to its discovery in order for its discovery to count as valid evidence for the existence of an intelligent agent that caused it. That would be like saying that if scientists happened across a message from space prior to the formation of SETI or the philosophically-based hypothesis of life on other planets, the message from space could not be considered evidence that such life exists out there, which, of course, would be completely absurd. I can just imagine the discussion now: Person 1: "Guys! Guys! I can't believe it! I just picked up a message from outer space. This is evidence that there's other intelligent beings out there. Who would have guessed?" Person 2: "Yeah, but where's your evidence that there's any intelligent beings out there? Person 1: ".... Umm, the message in the radio signal from space. Didn't you hear me?" Person 2: "Yeah, yeah, that's cool. Message in a radio signal from space. Got it. That's awesome. But what I want to know is whether you have any evidence that there's any intelligent beings out there." Person 1: ".... Are you having a stroke?"
No, not at all! ID hypothesizes that some non-human conscious agent designed living things (because of the complex mechanisms we observe in biological systems, and the fact that we are conscious, and that we can build complex mechanisms). IN ORDER TO TEST ID’S HYPOTHESIS….. well, uh, actually, there is no proposed way to test ID’s hypothesis, so we have no idea whether or not it’s true.
This is hopelessly confused. ID, at least insofar as the history of life is considered, is an historical science and uses abductive reasoning to identify a best causal explanation of the complex functionally specified systems and molecular machines in living organisms. It claims that an intelligent designer is the best explanation due to being not only causally adequate to explain the effect (intelligent agency can bring about complex functionally specified systems and machinery), but uniquely causally adequate to explain it (intelligent agency is the only cause we know about that is capable of bringing about complex functionally specified systems and machinery). It therefore claims that the existence of some intelligent designer of life is necessary to account for life based on all available evidence and that the effects in question that we observe could not have come about by undirected natural processes. How do you test the claim? Well, on the one hand you could challenge the claim that intelligent agency can bring about complex functionally specified systems and machinery, but that's kind of a dead end, so instead you take the other path of trying to prove that undirected natural processes can do the job after all. However, simply claiming they can as a result of an a priori philosophical commitment to materialism doesn't count as evidence that natural processes are sufficient to bring about the effect.
We would infer just what the SETI folks say – some civilization of life forms exist somewhere with sufficiently well-developed brains (the SETI astrobiologists refer to this as a sufficiently high encephalization quotient) to design transmitters, etc. If you don’t understand how SETI thinks about intelligence, you need to read what they say about it.
I do understand what they say, but it's not at all clear to me that you do. And it's kinda funny how studiously you avoid using the word intelligence or admitting that it is intelligence that is being searched for by an organization that has the name "Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence". Finding a signal from space would not confirm for us that the intelligent agents responsible for the message had a minimum encephalization quotient any more than deciding that an intelligent agent really is necessary to explain life would confirm that said agent was immaterial. Furthermore, SETI doesn't even say it would. They apply that characteristic to intelligent life on earth and speculate that it is possible that life on other planets may have similar physical characteristics, which is justified for them by certain philosophical presuppositions. Nonetheless, they recognize that attributing such characteristics to the alien intelligence would be speculative. What they are really searching for, pure and simple, is intelligence. The way they hope to find it is by finding a specific type of signal. Why? Because that signal would be the product of technology, and SETI considers technology to be operationalized intelligence.
In that case, ID is a terribly stupid theory. Once you accept that there exist life forms somewhere else in the galaxy or the universe, you might as well just hypothesize that the species on Earth are simply descendents of those life forms, rather than the product of their advanced bio-engineering.
I meant ID operates on the same logic as SETI in terms of certain things indicating intelligent causes, not that both ID and SETI are specifically looking for aliens.

HeKS: Both SETI and ID are proposing a known cause in an otherwise unknown causal agent.
Nonsense.
No, it isn't nonsense. And the fact that you think is makes it highly unlikely that a reasonable discussion with you is possible.
SETI operationally defines “intelligence” as the ability to produce communication technology that can send signals to Earth.
Yes, which is to say that the ability to develop technology is the specific aspect or operation of intelligence that they are using to indicate what type of evidence would count as proof of intelligent causation and thereby necessarily indicate the existence of a non-human intelligence.
SETI also assumes that intelligence is a property of the nervous system of living things, and looks for intelligent life forms – living things with complex nervous systems, sense organs, and so on.
I've already addressed this numerous times. No need to do it again here.

HeKS: The only different between the two is that SETI is still looking for the effects of intelligent design in a radio signal while ID has actually found overwhelming amounts of evidence for intelligent design in life and in the cosmos at large.
Nonsense. SETI looks for narrow band EM signals, not “intelligent design”.
The fact that you can say that with (presumably) a straight face just goes to show you don't know what you're talking about and that discussion with you is pointless. Throughout your comment you exclusively drew attention to irrelevant distinctions between ID and SETI while completely ignoring the relevant distinctions as well as the relevant similarities. I have a hard time seeing a point in continuing a discussion with someone who operates that way.HeKS_{October 24, 2014
October
10
Oct
24
24
2014
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
...the argument is that while ID pretends to offer a known, familiar cause for biological complexity – the truth is that ID proposes something that is completely unknown to us: Either some sort of extra-terrestrial life form (which SETI has searched for but never found) or, even more outside of our experience, something with the mental and physical abilities of human beings that isn’t even a life form!
That's not an argument. RDFish:
ID proposes something that is completely unknown...
Intelligent causation may be completely unknown to you and Tamara, but from that fact it does not follow that intelligent causation is unknown. Just for the record, do you deny that you are the intelligent cause of your posts that appear here at UD?Mung_{October 24, 2014
October
10
Oct
24
24
2014
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Tamara Knight:
For the record, I categorically deny any involvement in the creation of life.
Let's pretend for a moment that posts here at UD are living things. That's not too much of a stretch, is it? Do you also categorically deny any involvement in the intelligent causation of your posts here at UD? You just weren't there when they were created, or what?Mung_{October 24, 2014
October
10
Oct
24
24
2014
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
That’s not the point – CSI, fCSI, dfCSI, irreducible complexity, codes, whatever you’d like to call it, I don’t care.
So you don't care about evidence yet you demand- wait for it- evidence. You are a sick fishy.Joe_{October 24, 2014
October
10
Oct
24
24
2014
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Tamara Knight, It appears you are another who doesn't know what ID says. ID is OK with evolution. The debate is about whether or not all the mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. The debate also entails how far can genomic changes change the phenotype. Phenotypic plasticity- dogs and horses- that would be covered under Dr Spetner's non-random evolutionary hypothesis. Do you really think selected genetic accidents did it? And I don't see how knowing who designed helps out. I wouldn't know how to go about finding out the who nor the how. Obviously the design is well above human understanding. That is where I would start- give us the labs and ID will produce the results that evolutionism cannot. My bet is that cells run on actual immaterial information- computer software is immaterial information. Only ID could flesh that out.Joe_{October 24, 2014
October
10
Oct
24
24
2014
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

OK, then, once again I put forward the call of POE. ID is not about the designer. The evidence for an intelligent designer comes in the form of the presence of intelligent design. There isn't any need to look for an intelligent designer BEFORE determining the presence of intelligent design. RDFish has it all backwards, as usual. First we determine the presence of intelligent design using the methodology that science mandates, namely the explanatory filter. Behe's criteria comes into play at the final decision box. The evidence for ID extends beyond biology. "The Privileged Planet" makes the argument for ID in cosmology, physics, chemistry, geology and astronomy. All RDFish can do is to either ignore it or hand-wave it away. BTW like SETI, ID assumes the Intelligent Designer(s) was at least as clever as we are. Intelligent agencies can manipulate nature for a purpose. The evidence is in and it says nature has been manipulated for a purpose. Now we can start asking questions about the designer(s). However knowing Orville and Wilbur designed the first flying airplane does not help you understand airplanes.Joe_{October 24, 2014
October
10
Oct
24
24
2014
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

Ok, then, once again I put forward an argument that contradicts ID, and nobody has any interest in even attempting to debate the argument. In case anyone missed it, the argument is that while ID pretends to offer a known, familiar cause for biological complexity - the truth is that ID proposes something that is completely unknown to us: Either some sort of extra-terrestrial life form (which SETI has searched for but never found) or, even more outside of our experience, something with the mental and physical abilities of human beings that isn't even a life form! Since nobody has a shred of evidence that either of these sorts of things exist, ID is obliged to provide actual evidence in order to support their hypothesis. But of course ID does no such thing. This (like all my other arguments) demolishes any pretense that ID is an empirically supported theory of origins. And the response here? Just nonsense from the peanut gallery, and silence from anyone who might be able to actually debate it :-) Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 24, 2014
October
10
Oct
24
24
2014
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 15 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply