WJM is on a Roll

_{Barry Arrington

October 22, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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 Alan,
Plenty of scope for scientific study before we throw up our hands and say “it can’t be done!”
There is tremendous opportunity for furthering our understanding of thinking. Even in AI there is truly exciting progress right now (deep belief networks, for example). I'm only doubtful that an explanation of phenomenology will be forthcoming, because nobody can even say what such a theory would even look like. Imagine we discovered precisely what physical structures and functions were necessary and sufficient to produce conscious awareness - that still wouldn't begin to answer the questions of phenomenology. Cheers, AIGuyRDFish_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

FMM writes:
You know that that that statement is demonstratively false according to the latest research in IIT don’t you?
Hi FMM, I seem to recall you as one of the calmer commenters at TT. No, I did not know that. Do you mean consciousness is false? I'd certainly accept that "consciousness" is such a vague, ill-defined term as to be positively unhelpful in studying how humans think. Or do you mean evolution played no part in the development of the human brain? That would be interesting if such were demonstrably false. I'd love to see the evidence if you have a link.Alan Fox_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox said. Human consciousness is an attribute that evolved. I say, You know that that that statement is demonstratively false according to the latest research in IIT don't you? peacefifthmonarchyman_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Implying that definitions to be valid must be operational imposes an infinite regress and is invalid. If underneath is the verification principle that unless operational or analytic then meaningless, it fails its own test and collapses. There are many types of definition which are quite valid, and intelligence is more than adequately defined in many acceptable ways. The objection is hyperskeptical and possibly rooted in outdated philosophy that is self refuting. KFkairosfocus_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

RDFish,
Box: You are no longer demanding that “intelligence” is defined as a property of human beings, their brains,(...)

RDFish: You’re mistaken – I’ve never “demanded” any such thing of course. In my view, “metaphysical naturalism” is a complete red herring.

Box: You are fine with the fuzzy concept “intelligence”, and you no longer hold that it necessarily stems from a material source?

RDFish: Again, you’ve completely got my position wrong – I’ve never said anything of the sort.
If that is true, how am I to understand the following:
RDFish: But unless there is evidence to the contrary, what appears to our uniform experience is that nothing can design anything without a well-functioning brain.

RDFish: Since it appears that well-functioning brains are required in order to experience consciousness (any number of things that can happen to our brain can make our consciousness go away), it appears a priori that something without a brain would not experience consciousness at all.

RDFish: What is generally unspoken in these discussions is what ID folks actually think they are talking about when they refer to an “intelligent agent”. Of course they are talking about something with a conscious mind like their own, with perceptions and sensations and conscious beliefs, desires, intentions, and emotions. So this thing is supposed to be able to think, feel, and build things like human beings do, without the benefit of being a complex physical organism. It’s supposed brainy without a having brain, to have a heart without having a heart, to be handy without having hands, and so on. Well, anyone can hypothesize whatever they’d like to of course, but we have no experience of anything like this in our uniform and repeated experience. This thinking – and ID in general – is strictly religious, and has nothing at all to do with science.
Box_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

RDFish
I’ve been making this point for years, and not one ID proponent has ever addressed the issue. The reason is because there is no way to address the issue – either the operational definition can’t be evaluated empirically in the context of ID, or it doesn’t relate to these attributes we associate with the concept of “intelligence”.
RD, as you know I take a different approach in the sense that I think operational definitions are contextual. However, if I was going to address this issue (I don't really perceive it as a big problem like you do), I would immediately place "intelligence" in two areas, conceptual understanding and problem solving intelligence. I define conceptual understanding to mean exactly what it sounds like, the capacity to grasp concepts, meanings, first principles, and such. It is the ability to internalize the big picture and the way constituent parts relate to the larger whole I define problem solving intelligence to mean the capacity define a problem, compare alternative solutions, make a decision, absorb feedback and take new action based on the feedback. Some people might even say that these steps are similar to the scientific method itself. In my judgment, blending both categories, while reasonable from a big picture perspective, misses the point about what CSI is really supposed to represent. That is why i think that problem solving ability is the correct meta-paradigm. We can think of in terms of what the designer does to design a function for a purpose. For another thing, it resembles the model that many observers believe to be the scientific method, i.e. establish the research question (or formulate a hypothesis) analyze the data, draw conclusions, and test for legitimacy. In a way, CSI seems to be the mark left by the designer who goes through the aforementioned steps to reach the design and intelligence is simply the ability to do it. Anyway, for what it is worth, that's my hasty and undeveloped (underdeveloped really) perspective on the relationship of CSI with the definition of intelligence and the definition of design. I have no emotional attachment to the idea, nor have I invested very much time trying to articulate it, so I don't mind whatever criticism comes my way.StephenB_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

aiguy writes:
I am of the opinion (along with folks like that unpopular Colin McGinn) that our minds are unable to understand what consciousness is and its relation to the world we (consciously) experience.
Hope you are not as much of a pessimist as McGinn seems to be. I see no reason not to make the attempt and we can start with simpler systems. Human consciousness is an attribute that evolved. We can look at other primates. We can look at the simplest "awareness" systems. The nematode C. elegans only has 302 neurons in its (adult) brain. Plenty of scope for scientific study before we throw up our hands and say "it can't be done!"Alan Fox_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Hi Alan - I've never read Thomasson - I'll give it look. I may hop over to TSZ and read that thread, thanks. In brief, I think IIT has interesting ideas regarding intelligence, but doesn't bridge the gap to phenomenological experience. I am of the opinion (along with folks like that unpopular Colin McGinn) that our minds are unable to understand what consciousness is and its relation to the world we (consciously) experience. Cheers, AIGuyRDFish_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

Hi Box,
To be clear, you are fine with the postulation of “intelligence” as a cause?
??? Of course - anyone can postulate anything as a cause of course. You could postulate that "boojah" was the cause of life, and that would be just fine, as long as you provide a definition for "boojah" that can be empirically evaluated in the context of the origin of life.
All you ask from ID is a operationalization of “intelligence” which logically connects to “consciousness, volition, learning and behavioral flexibility, solving of novel problems in multiple domains, use of a generally expressive grammatical language, and so on”?
Here's the issue: ID doesn't postulate "boojah" or "resantic morphotics" or "tinodulance" as the cause of life; it uses a word ("intelligence") that already has a common, everyday meaning. When you say "intelligence", people think of human intelligence, and the attributes of human intelligence include those traits I listed (consciousness, etc). So, if ID is going to say that it has scientific evidence that "intelligence" was responsible for life, it needs to provide a way to empirically support the claim that those attributes were possessed by the cause of life.
You are no longer demanding that “intelligence” is defined as a property of human beings, their brains, animal brains or other sources – assumed by metaphysical naturalism?
You're mistaken - I've never "demanded" any such thing of course. In my view, "metaphysical naturalism" is a complete red herring. I've always simply asked for a scientifically useful definition of "intelligence", which after all is the sole explanatory concept of ID Theory.
You are fine with the fuzzy concept “intelligence”, and you no longer hold that it necessarily stems from a material source?
Again, you've completely got my position wrong - I've never said anything of the sort. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

PS @ aiguy Are you drawn to the ideas of Amie Thomasson and her "non-reductive physicalism"?Alan Fox_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
However, none of these definitions are suitable for evaluation in the context of ID, because in ID, there is no opportunity to observe or interact with the subject.
So much for SETI and archaeology...Joe_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

aiguy writes:
I have said about a hundred million times on this site that my position regarding the mind/body problems is that WE DO NOT KNOW, and that both dualism and physicalism are unsupported scientifically.
We've been having a discussion on theories of consciousness, dualism and physicalism here, discussing Michael Graziano's recent book Consciousness and the Social Brain. I'd argue that the only evidence we can work with is physical, so it seems a bit harsh to say physical interpretaions of how the brain works are unsupported though I'd happily agree on incomplete. There is no evidence for an immaterial element. How could there be, by definition? I'd be very interested in your view on Graziano's attention schema theory if you have time to drop in. I see Giuli Tononi gets a mention upthread. I've been looking at Michael Tomasello's work too. Coincidence with all the Italian surnames? I don't think so!Alan Fox_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

RDFish: My point is this: Abstract concepts like “intelligence” that have multiple components need to be operationally defined in order to be scientifically useful. This is not controversial.
To be clear, you are fine with the postulation of "intelligence" as a cause? All you ask from ID is a operationalization of "intelligence" which logically connects to "consciousness, volition, learning and behavioral flexibility, solving of novel problems in multiple domains, use of a generally expressive grammatical language, and so on"? You are no longer demanding that "intelligence" is defined as a property of human beings, their brains, animal brains or other sources - assumed by metaphysical naturalism? You are fine with the fuzzy concept "intelligence", and you no longer hold that it necessarily stems from a material source?Box_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

I would argue that intelligence not is the capability of integrating information and consciousness is the result of that integration. should read.... I would argue that intelligence is the capability of integrating information and consciousness is the result of that integration. the "not" is a par for the course error on my part peacefifthmonarchyman_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Box said, I don’t think it is accurate to say that consciousness is IC. I would prefer to hold that the capability of integrating information is a (intelligent) feature of consciousness.4 Do you agree? I say, I would argue that intelligence not is the capability of integrating information and consciousness is the result of that integration. I would tentatively say that all Consciousness is IC. I'm not sure but I lean to the idea that all IC is consciousness in a sense. But with the strong stipulation that a particular kind of self-consciousness is restricted to "Intelligent" entities. I find this all to be fascinating cutting edge stuff that needs to be ruminated on and the implications fleshed out. Who would have of thought that a central ID concept would be at the forefront of a revolution in cognitive science, computer science and neuroscience Before it was accepted in biology? peacefifthmonarchyman_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

clarification for @335: There are plenty of operational definitions for “intelligence”. For example, one of them is “able to produce CSI”. => should read There are plenty of operational definitions for “intelligence” in ID. For example, one of them is “able to produce CSI”.RDFish_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Hi Box,
So “intelligent cause” is in and the only remaining problem is to come up with an operational definition of “intelligent cause”? Do I understand you correctly? Do you hold that the latter is impossible?
My point is this: Abstract concepts like "intelligence" that have multiple components need to be operationally defined in order to be scientifically useful. This is not controversial. There are plenty of operational definitions for "intelligence". For example, one of them is "able to produce CSI". The problem I am pointing out here is that these operational definitions are not among the attributes that are commonly associated with the term "intelligence". Commonly, we think of "intelligence" in terms of attributes like consciousness, volition, learning and behavioral flexibility, solving of novel problems in multiple domains, use of a generally expressive grammatical language, and so on. So, if ID wishes to be empirically-based (i.e. scientific), it would need to come up with operational definitions for at least some of these attributes that can be tested in the context of ID. Cognitive scientists come up with operational definitions for these attributes all the time. For example, there is the "mirror test" of self-awareness used by cognitive ethologists in animal studies, or various verbal tests for human subjects that are used. Alan Turing famously devised an operational definition of conscious intelligence that is known as the "Turing Test". Other operationational definitions include the existence of certain neural correlates of consciousness (particular brain structures). However, none of these definitions are suitable for evaluation in the context of ID, because in ID, there is no opportunity to observe or interact with the subject. I've been making this point for years, and not one ID proponent has ever addressed the issue. The reason is because there is no way to address the issue - either the operational definition can't be evaluated empirically in the context of ID, or it doesn't relate to these attributes we associate with the concept of "intelligence". That is one reason why ID is not scientific. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

RDFish: Allowed? Hahahaha – it’s not about “allowing” – it is simply about providing an operational definition of “intelligent cause”.
Glad to see that you are in a good mood. So "intelligent cause" is in and the only remaining problem is to come up with an operational definition of “intelligent cause”? Do I understand you correctly? Do you hold that the latter is impossible?Box_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Hi Box,
Obviously the position is based on the assumption of the philosophical position of metaphysical naturalism. Science should be about examining and explaining things – not philosophy.
I agree.
For instance, we observe a striking difference between a blob of silk and a cobweb, between cosmic noise and narrow-band signals, and a heap of sand and a sand castle.
Yes, these are all different things.
How do we explain these differences, if we are no longer ‘allowed’ to make a distinction between natural and intelligent causes?
Allowed? Hahahaha - it's not about "allowing" - it is simply about providing an operational definition of "intelligent cause". Here, maybe this will help: I have something here in my room, and I'd like you to tell me if it is (1) natural or (2) intelligent. You can ask me questions about this thing, and I'll answer them. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Hi Phinehas, I've answered all of your questions about SETI in my post to StephenB @306. So, I'd say some of what some SETI folks say is unscientific (such as their assumption that intelligence is solely a property of the brain) and some isn't. If you're interested in SETI perhaps there is a discussion forum for that somewhere. Here we're discussing ID, and the point I've raised is this: People typically associate a number of different attributes with the term “intelligence”, including consciousness, volition, learning, behavioral flexibility, and so on. ID provides no empirically-based justifications to conclude that those attributes apply to the cause of living systems. If you disagree, I invite you to take those attributes (or any of your choosing) and provide operational definitions for them that could be tested in the context of ID. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Hi JWTruthInLove,
Can someone please explain to me how one concludes “intelligence” is distinct from “law+chance” ???? Is this just a matter of definition or was there an experiment done?
AHA!!! Thank you very much JWT, you have certainly hit the nail on the head here! The answer, of course, is this: 1) ID defines intelligence as "the complement of law + chance" (this is only one of their definitions however) and also 2) ID assumes that intelligence is distinct from law + chance (as in the Explanatory Filter) and also 3) ID pretends that they experimentally verify that intelligence is distinct from law + chance (but won't tell you what the experiment is) Thanks JWT - you've zeroed in on the problem perfectly. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
RDF: Remember where we left off discussing ID’s operationalization of “intelligence” SB: Yes, I do. You know my position and I have made it abundantly clear. I don’t agree with your wide-scope approach. Each scientist can define his own terms in the context of his individual paradigm.
If that is the case, then everyone means something different by "Intelligent Design", which makes it perfectly impossible to debate the topic. How very handy for you!
I thought I made it clear that I don’t subscribe to a one size fits all theory for definitions or a one size fits all theory for operationalizing, either horizontally or vertically. So, I have nothing more to say about it.
Well, you could try to provide one single "individual paradigm" with an operationalized definition for "intelligence" such that we could see that the cause of life was conscious, or that it could learn or adapt. But of course there is no such paradigm. The fact is, ID cannot provide any scientific reason to believe that the cause of life had the mental attributes that ID proponents claim that it had.
Take me through the process. A man is lying dead in the street with what appears to be a single stab wound in his back. How do you arrive at the conclusion that it was the result of murderous intent?
This should have been settled long ago. Perhaps another dialogue will help: COP1: We got a dead guy with a knife wound in his back. IDGUY1: Ah! Let's see... do you think this was due to any combination of deterministic law + chance? COP1: Excuse me IDGuy, we are trying to work a case here, could you please shut up with the philosophy for a minute? IDGUY1 It's science, not philosophy! I'm helping you! You need to use the explanatory filter! COP1: No, we need to investigate this death. Let's see, there's a dog over there in the alley looking suspicious... COP2: Haha, I don't think dogs can wield knives without opposable thumbs! COP1: Right - the dog didn't do it, hahahaha. IDGUY1: If the dog did it, it would have been a case of Intelligent Design! IDGUY2: No, dogs can't create CSI and they aren't conscious rational beings... COP1: Hey IDGuys - put a sock in it, will you? We're working here! IDGUY1: We're explaining that if something occurs purely by law + chance that means it isn't an intelligent agent... COP1: I have no idea what you're talking about. COP2: You think he could have fallen on a knife somehow? COP1: Not likely - the knife went right into his back! IDGUY1: If he fell on the knife, that would not be Intelligent Design, because it would mean it was "law + chance" IDGUY2: But the victim was an intelligent agent - wouldn't that mean it was a case of Intelligent Design? IDGUY1: No, because the intelligent agent would have done it by accident, so it's not Intelligent Design, it's just "law + chance" COP2: Seriously, IDGuys - shut your pie holes! You are just in the way. You are not helping with this crap about "physical law + chance" and "design" and stuff. COP1: Right - you're not helping at all. We don't care about "law + chance" - we are just trying to figure out how the knife got in this guy's back. COP2: We get five cases a day in this city of people getting stabbed by other people - I'm going with homicide here. IDGUY2: Aha! You have used Intelligent Design Theory to solve this case! COP1: Nope. We use what we know from real life in order to solve crimes. We don't need to think about "deterministic law" or "randomness" or "intelligent agency" or any of that stuff - we just base our conclusions on our experience. There ain't nothin' else except a person - a real live flesh-and-blood human being - that is going to put a knife in somebody else's back, so we know what we're looking for. IDGUYS (whispering): They used ID theory and they don't even know it! Another victory for ID theory! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

JWT: A materialist sees a car and concludes an intelligent cause. A non-materialist sees a car and concludes an intelligent cause. What exactly is the problem?
Good question. You have to ask RDFish.Box_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

@kf:
Thus, we have a clear distinguishing mark.
Good job! We can indeed distinguish intelligent causes from all the other causes. See archaelogy, SETI, and so on. Materialists and non-materialists agree with you!
It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter.
No one has any clue what the mind is and how it works.JWTruthInLove_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

@Box:
How do we explain these differences, if we are no longer ‘allowed’ to make a distinction between natural and intelligent causes?
The same way you explain differences between all causes. You draw arbitrary categories and define your terms. So, you are 'allowed' to make a distinction between intelligent causes and all the other causes. It doesn't matter whether you're a materialist or non-materialist. A materialist sees a car and concludes an intelligent cause. A non-materialist sees a car and concludes an intelligent cause. What exactly is the problem?JWTruthInLove_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

JWT: Blind, as in non-purposeful, non foresighted, non planning, etc. As in Zener noise, sky noise, etc, or even ye olde dice etc. Why mutations in biology were said to be random. Not requiring flat random of course. Similarly, the trillions of observed actual cases of FSCO/I and its equally observed causal process leads to a pretty straightforward induction that design is a known causal process for FSCO/I, that it is the only actually observed effective causal process, that it passes the vera causa test and is best current explanation, that it is a reliable sign of same etc. The config space, needle in haystack analysis, then highlights that the other known cause of highly contingent outcomes is not a plausible source of FSCO/I. Thus, we have a clear distinguishing mark. One that is inductively arrived at, not by mere circular definition. (Where FSCO/I from text strings to Lego Castles to sand castles to brilliant cut diamonds to ABU Cardinal and 6500C3 reels, to paper tape readers, to codes on such tapes, to mRNA protein assembly codes and the Ribosome assemblers, and more, can be readily recognised. And, was, e.g. Orgel and Wicken c 1973 and 1979. Before metric models were invented to try to quantify, which however can be and has been done, with some success. As for failure to account for our intelligence on chance and necessity, let's try Crick's The Astonishing Hypothesis on brains and CNS'es:
. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
. . . then contrast J B S Haldane's much earlier and far more penetrating insight that speaks straight to the attempt to reduce mind to computing wetware:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
Game, set, match . . . Haldane. KFkairosfocus_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

RDF: Materialist: But “intelligence” is nothing but “law+chance” occurring in the brain. So they really aren’t two different categories – they are the same thing.
Obviously the position is based on the assumption of the philosophical position of metaphysical naturalism. Science should be about examining and explaining things - not philosophy. For instance, we observe a striking difference between a blob of silk and a cobweb, between cosmic noise and narrow-band signals, and a heap of sand and a sand castle. How do we explain these differences, if we are no longer 'allowed' to make a distinction between natural and intelligent causes? And if naturalistic metaphysical assumptions render science incapable of inferring design by intelligent causes, how do these philosophical assumptions contribute to the advancement of science? Science should at least allow for a methodological distinction between natural and intelligent causes; meanwhile upholding the principle of parsimony. Reflections on the reducibility of the mental to the material belong in the realm of philosophy - science ought to take a neutral position on these matters.Box_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

RDF:
For the millionth time, SETI hasn’t concluded anything about anything yet –
I thought we were talking about what they were searching for, not what they'd concluded. They are searching for "artificial" signals. You said this of artificial:
RDF: No, all of the definitions refer to a human being, never an “intelligent agent”. That is what “artificial” means – produced by a human being. Look it up – the definitions refer to human beings, always human beings, never “intelligent agents”. Why? Because what you’re talking about is actually human beings, and not anything else.
Do you still stand by this statement? So, if SETI received an artificial signal from outer-space, they’d conclude a human being sent it? If not, then how do you know SETI doesn't mean an "intelligent agent" when speaking of artifice? How do you know they are not looking for what they say they are looking for: Intelligence?
but if it ever does, whatever attributes it infers regarding the source of some signal will be based on the assumptions it makes regarding the complex biological organisms responsible.
Of course. And ID doesn't make these assumptions. Are you saying assumptions are what makes SETI a more scientific approach?
Again, SETI makes no metaphysical commitments, because it does not posit that any cause of narrow band signals is outside of law + chance.
Right. It doesn't make commitments, it just makes assumptions. It assumes law + chance, but this assumption has no basis in any prior metaphysical commitment whatsoever. Seriously?
If ID would like to acknowledge, as SETI says, that “intelligence is a property of the nervous system” and that “the brain is the main organ of intelligence” and so on, then we can debate the merits of ID’s conclusion that the first living things were designed by something intelligent.
Acknowledge? ID has no problem acknowledging SETI's metaphysical assumptions nor your own. It just doesn't feel any particular need to be beholden to them. (Are you sure they are just assumptions and not commitments? Because when you talk about "acknowledge" hear, it sounds like you are looking for commitment.)Phinehas_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

@kf:
blind chance and necessity
"Blind" -- what do you mean by that? I'm talking about chance+law or c+n.
On trillions of cases in point, FSCO/I is only known to be produced by design.
So what? The materialist sees the trillions cases of "design" and fully agrees that it is "design" or "intelligent design" by humans, aliens, interdimensional beings, or whatever. However for a materialist in his or her philosophical view "design" is part of "chance+law". So in the end IT IS a matter of definition.
further, our intelligence cannot reasonably be accounted for on C & N, on pain of self-referential incoherence
I don't know of anything that can account for our intelligence. Neither known instances of chance+law, nor unknown instances of non-chance+law. Btw.: What chance+law-explanation are you talking about? This one?
neural networks acting though blind cause effect chains that compute
JWTruthInLove_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

ffm,
It looks like your main difficulty is in the observation that Consciousness is NLII (IC) for me that was the easiest thing to grasp. It is very intuitive.
Integration of information is a top-down (non-computable) process. Natural forces constitute a bottom-up (computable) process. IC points to the existence of something (consciousness) that is capable of top-down integration of information. I don't think it is accurate to say that consciousness is IC. I would prefer to hold that the capability of integrating information is a (intelligent) feature of consciousness. Do you agree?Box_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 15 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply