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

PS: Note, what you asked for: >> Can someone please explain to me how one concludes “intelligence” is distinct from “law+chance” ???? >> --> I gave an empirically observable distinctive expression of intelligence, FSCO/I, which stands on an empirical basis of trillions of cases in point. --> This is not merely definition, it is observation --> further, our intelligence cannot reasonably be accounted for on C & N, on pain of self-referential incoherencekairosfocus_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Both, my views are shaped by the considerations that lead me to mark the noted differences between blind chance and necessity and intelligent behaviour that reflects self-aware rational, reflective consciousness. As outlined. KFkairosfocus_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

@kf: Were you trying to answer my questions or was that some kind of a comment on your philosophical views?JWTruthInLove_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

Aiguy said, For all we know, there could be other non-computable aspects of the universe that are not associated with phenomenological consciousness. I say, You'll be surprised to know that in one sense I agree with you. It's possible that there are two kinds of things in our universe that produce non-computable phenomena the conscious things we are very familiar with in everyday experience And some mysterious unknown other process that does not produce consciousness even though it is capable of doing so. But such a contention is nothing short of a faith claim with no supporting evidence. This is the "other Minds" problem and I prefer to go with Occam's razor here. peacefifthmonarchyman_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

AIGUY, 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 from the paper Quote: What Tononi’s (2008) theory proposes is that when people use the term ‘consciousness’ to describe the behavior of an entity they have the notion of integrated information in mind. We attribute the property of being conscious to systems whose responses cannot easily be decomposed or disintegrated into a set of causally independent parts. In contrast,when we say that a video camera is unconscious,what we mean is that the manner in which it responds to visual stimuli is unaffected by the information it has previously recorded. end quote: and quote: According to Tononi, what we mean when we say that the human brain produces consciousness is that it integrates information,thus producing behaviour which reflects the actions of a unified, singular system. end quote: you said, Consciousness does not seem like information – it doesn’t seem like anything else at all. I say, To me Consciousness is what it feels like to be me. In other words what it feels like to have all my experiences thoughts, beliefs and proclivities. When you encounter Me you encounter a unified whole of all those experiences and thoughts characteristics. It it obvious that something with a different set of experiences thoughts, beliefs and proclivities could never be me Does that make sense? That is the gist of this aspect of the theory What part of that do you have a problem with?? peacefifthmonarchyman_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

JWT, it is deeper than that. Blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for natural regularities such as breadfruit or mangoes reliably falling from trees at 9.8 N/kg, thud; or for the distribution of molecular velocities in a gas like air, but they have a major challenge accounting for something like FSCO/I which requires high contingency that needs to find needles in haystacks that are just too big for chance forces on the gamut of solar system or observed cosmos. But there is more. Namely, mechanical and/or stochastic computation is not even in the same class as rational, insightful contemplation and actions that stem from it. And, that is what intelligent cause is about, e.g. in designs, we see intelligently directed configuration, often issuing in the FSCO/I we just mentioned. On trillions of cases in point, FSCO/I is only known to be produced by design, and that is backed up by the insuperable needle in haystack challenge C & N would face as a claimed alternative. For instance, we routinely recognise that text in a thread post comes from design, and speech through a phone network does the same. I have never seen SB, but I have interacted with him by text and speech, I have excellent reason to accept that he is an intelligent cause. I have never seen nor spoken with you, but on evidence of textual performance beyond the reasonable reach of C & N, I infer to a mind behind the text. The same extends to computer programs and to 3-d functionally specific designs such as ABU Cardinal fishing reels -- a fairly simple contrivance. And, to say the protein synthesis mechanism we find in the heart of life, complete with numerically controlled algorithm and code using assembly of proteins using information systems approaches. Where, computation is inherently a blind cause effect chain, it is contrivance that allows it to give accurate or useful results, for us often after a lot of debugging and development. (Remember how they had to recall early Pentiums because of errors in processing? Did any of the Pentiums complain, no that is an error? Nope, they blindly ground away, no more concerned to make sense than a rock sitting on a beach.) But such blindly mechanical computation is all the equivalent of the gears in that Cardinal reel grinding away at one another under blind cause-effect and with some chance effects too. Rational contemplation is not like that, we reason based on insights and logic as to what follows from what, making free choices to accept the verdict of logic. So, to conflate computation with contemplation is a category error. With of course billions of examples living and dead all around us to underscore the point. We see and recognise three distinct causal factors, mechanical necessity, chance leading to stochastically contingent patterns, contemplative intelligence giving rise to designs, many of which exhibit a feature not credibly within reach of C & N, FSCO/I. Of course, that cuts clean across a dominant ideology in our day, but in the end the ideology of evolutionary materialism has serious self-referential incoherence troubles, and in particular it is unable to account for the rational, contemplative, responsibly choosing mind in action that we term intelligence. As Haldane warned 80 years ago. The attempt to reduce mind to neural networks acting though blind cause effect chains that compute, spectacularly fails. But of course, until that ideology publicly, visibly collapses, many will cling to its confident assertions and will too often deride and dismiss those who dare to differ as IDiots and worse. At this point, I expect nothing different, much as I expected Marxists to remain Marxists, finding patch after patch and dismissing warnings and correction until their system publicly and spectacularly collapsed. The dogs bark and snap at the wheels, the caravan moves on. KFkairosfocus_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT}

@RDF, SB:
SB: Everything is either due to “law+chance” or else it is due to “intelligence” 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. SB: WHAT??? They are NOT the same thing. Law+chance is like wind or erosion – just unguided processes. Intelligence is different – it produces CSI. Materialist: CSI is produced by the brain, which operates according to the laws of physics and chemistry. In other words, intelligence reduces to physical cause. So you can’t contrast “law+chance” on one hand versus “intelligence” on the other hand, since they are fundamentally the same thing.
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?JWTruthInLove_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

It is complicated. 1) Check if he is really dead. What if it an act for some dumb TV Show ? 2)You will have to check whether he was murdered or if the stab wound was postmortem.You know he could have died of heart attack and some teen might have stabbed him postmortem for fun. 3)If it was murderous intent,the stab will be in the heart, not the back. Perhaps the murderer just wanted to wound and snatch the cash bag from the murdered guy ? 4)Turn over the murdered person to check if there is frontal fatal wound. If not, then it can be concluded that the murderer didn't have murderous intent and the stab aimed to incapacitate somehow hit a major vein leading to the poor guy's death. If there is a fatal frontal wound, it gets even more complicated. May be one person's intent was to murder, the other person stabbing the back was an accomplice. May be frontal wound was fatal, some one else stabbed later on ?Me_Think_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PDT}

RDF, actually, that's too messy. Just make it one stab wound. 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?StephenB_{October 30, 2014
October
10
Oct
30
30
2014
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

As I’ve already explained, of course we conclude murder instead of falling down.
Take me through the process. We will use the same example. A man is lying dead in the street with 27 stab wounds in his back. How do you arrive at the conclusion that it was the result of murderous intent?StephenB_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT}

RDFish
Remember where we left off discussing ID’s operationalization of “intelligence”
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. 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.StephenB_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
All accidental deaths are assumed to be the result of physical law+chance in the absence of intelligent agency, even though that point cannot be proven with 100% certainty.
Why can't you understand the problem with that statement? Do you actually believe that policemen consider whether "law + chance" subsumes all types of causes, or that "intelligence" is a category that trancends "law + chance"? (hint: no, they generally do not) How can I make this point to you? Try this:
SB: Everything is either due to "law+chance" or else it is due to "intelligence" 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. SB: WHAT??? They are NOT the same thing. Law+chance is like wind or erosion - just unguided processes. Intelligence is different - it produces CSI. Materialist: CSI is produced by the brain, which operates according to the laws of physics and chemistry. In other words, intelligence reduces to physical cause. So you can't contrast "law+chance" on one hand versus "intelligence" on the other hand, since they are fundamentally the same thing.
Now obviously you disagree with the materialist here, and in fact I do too (in my view, these questions are unanswered). But you have no scientific way to show that he is wrong, any more than he has a scientific way of showing that he's right. So, every time you talk about "law+chance" being distinct from "intelligence", you are making a metaphysical assumption. Please tell me you understand this now.
According to your ideology, the crime analyst cannot conclude that a murder was committed even if the victim has 27 stab wounds in his back because law/chance can never be ruled out.
As I've already explained, of course we conclude murder instead of falling down. But it has nothing to do with the concept of "law+chance" or the metaphysical assumption that intelligence is distinct from law+chance. The rest of your post was just silly and incoherent, SB. Of course I don't believe any of what you are pretending I believe. The critical mistake you are making here is still not realizing that by considering "law+chance" to be the complement of "intelligence", you are making a metaphysical commitment that materialism is false. That isn't scientific. I am now assuming that since you will no longer engage the argument I put forward about operationalizing "intelligence" in the context of ID, you concede that I was right and you wrong, and ID has no way of empirically supporting the claim that the cause of life had the mental attributes commonly associated with "intelligence" such as consciousness, learning, or natural language. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

RDFish
Uh no, the policemen is not claiming to eliminate the possibility that whatever caused this death operated within physical law.
All accidental deaths are assumed to be the result of physical law+chance in the absence of intelligent agency, even though that point cannot be proven with 100% certainty. If, for example, the victim fell on the knife, gravity was involved. It is precisely that point that your misguided ideology prompts you to ignore. According to your ideology, the crime analyst cannot conclude that a murder was committed even if the victim has 27 stab wounds in his back because law/chance can never be ruled out. You will not even bother to look for the murderer. Further, you will say that those who object to your anti-design agenda are injecting their libertarian philosophy into their methodology. You will insist, in RDF fashion, that the inference to design (murder) cannot be justified because some other unknown cause other than law/chance may have been involved. You will argue that since we cannot be certain one way or the other, we must withhold judgment that a murder was committed. Never mind the evidence, we cannot conclude that the wounds were caused by an intelligent agent with murderous intent because, as you would have it, murderous intent can never be separated from law/chance. We must first prove that such a thing as murderous intent apart from law/chance exists before drawing such an inference, and, as it turns out, there is no evidence that any such thing does exist. That is your philosophy.StephenB_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

Hi Upright BiPed,
This is your response to the simple bare fact that you can’t even enter the discussion of semiosis with me. You simply have nothing to work with. You’d be better off arguing that the earth is flat. It’s just that stark. So stark, that you’ve thus far avoided asking me to speak even a single word of it.
I did in fact ask you a very fair and pointed question: How can you connect an operational definition that deals with "dimensional semiotics" to the component attributes of "intelligence"?
SETI operationalizes “intelligence” with an unambiguous physical marker. They clearly tell you that the physical marker they are looking for is (as a matter of universal human experience) only produced by a single, very specific, intelligent artifact; a communications transmitter.
Sort of, except there is a difference between "looking for a marker" for something and "testing an operational definition" for something. But we needn't bother with that distinction at this point.
And so what now RD, do you really think a non-communicative, unaware, mold growing on some moderate exoplanet assembled a functioning microwave transmitter capable of sending a controlled signal across the vastness of space without having any input whatsoever as to what was required to create its function, or how the thing came together?
What in the world are you talking about? How could mold possibly produce technology?
If that’s where you’re at, then I hate to tell you that no one at SETI is that desperate. But of course, this is not where you’re at, at all.
Yes, that's right - that is not at all "where I'm at". So why did you bring it up? I wasn't talking about mold producing technology on other planets - you were.
And if I haven’t yet been clear enough for you RD, then allow me to disabuse you of the very core of your counter-argument where I am concerned.
I'm afraid that is the case, UB - you really haven't been clear at all. In fact, I have no idea at all what you are talking about. I'm asking about operationalizing the concept of "intelligence" in ID theory, and you're talking about mold assembling microwave transmitters!
You say that the ID methodology I promote doesn’t prove that the intelligence at the origin of life was necessarily conscious? Fine by me.
I take it, then, you are conceding that ID has no way of operationalizing the concept of consciousness - we agree on that then.
You say it doesn’t prove it was capable of solving a problem? Ah-yah Skipper. If that kind of twisted reasoning and analysis floats your boat, then have at it.
Regarding problem-solving, you've left out a critical component: It is not problem-solving, but the solving of novel problems that is typically considered as a requisite component of intelligence. The classic illustration of why this is so is the sphex wasp, which appears to solve complex problems in a thoughtful way until presented with a novel problem, at which point the apparent general intelligence is revealed to be rigidly sterotyped behavior that cannot adapt. In the context of ID, one could say that whatever caused biological systems solved the problem of producing biological systems (by definition). What we'd like to know, however, is for example could this cause of biological system solve other sorts of problems, such as verbal analogies? Or could it solve design problems other than producing the particular designs that we observe? If we assume that the cause of life was something with human-like intelligence, then the answer to these questions would be "yes". But why would we imagine that something that was not at all human like (perhaps it didn't even have a human-like brain) have human-like intelligence? In science you can't simply assume your conclusions, you actually have to provide empirical justifications for them. So can we empirically demonstrate that the cause of life had general human-like mental abilities? The answer, of course, is no, we can't.
And if you ask how I can be so disinterested in the tremendous importance you see in your claims; the reason is very very simple – using a completely physical operationalization of the term, the material effects of intelligence can be unambiguously demonstrated to be present in the coding of organic polymers in every living thing on earth. They are the very thing required to organize the cell, and initiate heredity.
Here you've made the same mistake that you make over and over again: You are telling me what the "material effects of intelligence" are, but you are unable to tell me what it is that characterizes "intelligence" in the first place. You've already conceded that we can't assume this cause was conscious, so we're already talking about something that wouldn't strike most people as something that is "intelligent". Unless something is conscious, it cannot have conscious beliefs, conscious desires, or conscious intentions. That isn't what most people are thinking about when they talk about an "intelligent agent". Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT}

RD at 298,
You have turned tail and run, UB, just like all the other times we’ve debated.
I've been on this board for a quite a while RD. I think I can say with some confidence that turning and running isn't something I'm known for.
1) First, you start talking about this or that sort of language or signal or physical coupling or “dimensional semiosis” or whatever.
This is your response to the simple bare fact that you can't even enter the discussion of semiosis with me. You simply have nothing to work with. You'd be better off arguing that the earth is flat. It's just that stark. So stark, that you've thus far avoided asking me to speak even a single word of it.
2) Next, I point out that you haven’t even tried to explain why anyone should believe that the cause of life was conscious, or capable of solving novel problems, or anything else we typically associated with the term “intelligent”.
Your question doesn't rank with me because I consider it to be a desperate invention in a whole new class of stupid. Really RD, who the hell do you think you're fooling here? Do you really think for a second that your bias isn't blatantly - and I mean throbbing, siren, capsicum, neon, lime green blatantly - obvious to anyone following along? SETI operationalizes “intelligence” with an unambiguous physical marker. They clearly tell you that the physical marker they are looking for is (as a matter of universal human experience) only produced by a single, very specific, intelligent artifact; a communications transmitter. And so what now RD, do you really think a non-communicative, unaware, mold growing on some moderate exoplanet assembled a functioning microwave transmitter capable of sending a controlled signal across the vastness of space without having any input whatsoever as to what was required to create its function, or how the thing came together? If that's where you're at, then I hate to tell you that no one at SETI is that desperate. But of course, this is not where you're at, at all. This line of defense is nothing more than the hapless clutching to a collapsed argument. Perhaps your problem, RD, is that you just don't understand the art of opposing force. When you attempt to flank a superior position, you really have to get them to take the bait. But I'm not taking the bait. I'm gonna stand over here with the SETI folks who operationalized intelligence with an unambiguous physical marker, and let you sell your deal all by yourself. And if I haven't yet been clear enough for you RD, then allow me to disabuse you of the very core of your counter-argument where I am concerned. You say that the ID methodology I promote doesn't prove that the intelligence at the origin of life was necessarily conscious? Fine by me. You say it doesn't prove it was capable of solving a problem? Ah-yah Skipper. If that kind of twisted reasoning and analysis floats your boat, then have at it. And if you ask how I can be so disinterested in the tremendous importance you see in your claims; the reason is very very simple - using a completely physical operationalization of the term, the material effects of intelligence can be unambiguously demonstrated to be present in the coding of organic polymers in every living thing on earth. They are the very thing required to organize the cell, and initiate heredity.
3) Then you hurl as many insults at me as you can think of….
cough cough Let’s be clear. Every single person on this thread arguing with you thus far, could completely drop every argument they’ve made, then go back into your comments and come up again with a whole new set of blatant contradictions, misrepresentations, and twisted logic. This is the level of dense you play at (which is quite an accomplishment for an otherwise intelligent person). And yet throughout the entire thread, you have insulted your opponents in virtually every paragraph. So…cry me a river, my friend. :| Feel free to contrive something in this comment of grave importance and lead yourself over the next hill.Upright BiPed_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB, Remember where we left off discussing ID's operationalization of "intelligence": 1) Provide your list of mental attributes that can be operationalized in the context of ID; this list can be whatever you think you can operationalize, even if it is only a short list 2) Provide operational definitions for each attribute in the context of ID (not in the context of cognitive psychology, say, where we have can give people IQ tests or see if they can understand their own image in a mirror or whatever). What about it? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
RDF: You think it is scientific to claim that we can (tentatively) rule out that some phenomenon was caused by anything in the physical world. ID does this. I disagree, because that is equivalent to saying that you have (tentatively) demonstrated that physicalism is wrong, and there is no method to evaluate that statement scientifically. SB: Of oourse. Similarly, the policeman rules out the possibility that the victim lying in the alley did not fall backwards onto the knife 27 times. His theory is murder.
Uh no, the policemen is not claiming to eliminate the possibility that whatever caused this death operated within physical law. He's just eliminating the "fall backwards" theory, and opting instead for the "human being" theory.
By your standard, he is prematurely inferring intelligence when there is a logical possibility that law/chance was in play. He could have been the victim of accidental death. This is your logic.
No, StephenB. I'm the one who says there is no systematic way to distinguish "intelligent things" from "things that operate according to law/chance", remember? Listen, SETI has never published a single paper that infers the existence of anything based on the reception of a narrowband signal (because none have been received). If we manage to decode a signal from outer space and it turns out to be an image of alien humanoids, that would support one set of inferences. If it was a series of prime numbers emanating from an Earth-like planet, that would support another set of inferences. If it is a monotone transmission on a narrow band that emanates from inside a neutron star, yet another set of inferences would be made. If SETI ever does report something, we can argue about the content of the signal and what that might say about the sender. But we're really not talking about SETI. We're talking about ID... Right?
SETI makes prior commitments; ID does not. Among other things, SETI commits to neurological intelligence and unguided evolution even before the evidence is allowed to speak.
Yes, their website indicates that those assumptions are made at SETI - but at least they make their assumptions explicit. Again, if they ever publish some sort of conclusions they reach regarding some particular signal, we can argue about their reasoning.
ID makes no commitments at all, before or after the evidence is analyzed. You are simply wrong about that.
No, I'm right about that, but that's off topic here.
SETI is far more presumptuous that ID could ever hope to be. Your double standard persists.
Again, if you don't like SETI assumptions, I won't argue that - I dont' actually care what SETI puts on their website, and have no interest in defending them. You asked me why what they did was different, and I told you. 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. So if you'd like me to say that SETI is unscientific when they assume that there is no immaterial component to mind and that it derives strictly from the brain, I will say just that - there is no scientific evidence that such a thing is true.
You reject ID not for rational reasons but for ideological reasons.
You're wrong about this too. Didn't you read when I wrote this @286:
RDF: Contrary to what everyone here thinks about me, I am not a committed atheist at all. I am merely a committed scientist. Nothing could be more exciting to me than to make scientific progress on questions of origins – especially if the answer had to do with the mind!
I know you don't want to believe that. You really want me to be some committed atheist who trashes ID because I really want there to be no God. Otherwise, it would be too scary for you that somebody who actually understands the arguments and has no ideological reticence to accept a scientific theory of origins that involves conscious minds would still think ID is unscientific nonsense. Still and yet, that is the case. My ideological prediliction is for justifying our beliefs with uniform and shared experience, rather than pretending we have empirical evidence for whatever we want to believe. I know you want to keep talking about SETI, because you know my point about operationalizing "intelligence" is fatal to your position. Ready to concede defeat on that one? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

@303 and 304 or for RDFish.StephenB_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Again, SETI makes no metaphysical commitments, because it does not posit that any cause of narrow band signals is outside of law + chance.
SETI makes prior commitments; ID does not. Among other things, SETI commits to neurological intelligence and unguided evolution even before the evidence is allowed to speak. ID makes no commitments at all, before or after the evidence is analyzed. You are simply wrong about that. SETI is far more presumptuous that ID could ever hope to be. Your double standard persists. You reject ID not for rational reasons but for ideological reasons.StephenB_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

You think it is scientific to claim that we can (tentatively) rule out that some phenomenon was caused by anything in the physical world. ID does this. I disagree, because that is equivalent to saying that you have (tentatively) demonstrated that physicalism is wrong, and there is no method to evaluate that statement scientifically.
Of oourse. Similarly, the policeman rules out the possibility that the victim lying in the alley did not fall backwards onto the knife 27 times. His theory is murder. By your standard, he is prematurely inferring intelligence when there is a logical possibility that law/chance was in play. He could have been the victim of accidental death. This is your logic.StephenB_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Except ID has provided those very definitions. Willful ignorance is not a refutation.Joe_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

In case anyone else misunderstood this the way Mung did:
Thank God that the assertion that “intelligence is a property of the nervous system” is only an assumption and not a conclusion! Thank God that the assertion that “the brain is the main organ of intelligence” is only an assumption and not a conclusion! Thank God that whatever attributes it [SETI] infers regarding the source of some signal will be based on the assumptions it makes regarding the complex biological organisms responsible!
Sarcasm isn't an effective debating method, but what Mung might have been saying here is that he questions whether SETI makes these assumptions or not. Yes, SETI does make these assumptions - those are all quotes from the SETI site, as is this:
SETI: 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. Earth is a natural laboratory for exploring the evolution of intelligence. Earth-based data and analyses concerning intelligence, brains, and correlations between the two provide predictive power as we pursue questions about intelligence in the vast range of contexts presented by astrobiology.
Or perhaps Mung means that these are not well-supported assumptions. I won't argue these assumptions here; if you'd like to deny them none of my arguments is affected in the least.
Not sure why these are an argument against ID.
They aren't arguments against ID. They are the difference between SETI and ID. The argument against ID is that ID cannot provide definitions of the components of an "intelligent cause" (e.g. consciousness, volition, learning, etc) in a way that can be evaluated empirically in the context of ID.RDFish_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

The power of self-delusion. RDFish:
For the millionth time, SETI hasn’t concluded anything about anything yet – 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. 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.
Thank God that the assertion that “intelligence is a property of the nervous system” is only an assumption and not a conclusion! Thank God that the assertion that “the brain is the main organ of intelligence” is only an assumption and not a conclusion! Thank God that whatever attributes it [SETI] infers regarding the source of some signal will be based on the assumptions it makes regarding the complex biological organisms responsible! Not sure why these are an argument against ID.Mung_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB, You think it is scientific to claim that we can (tentatively) rule out that some phenomenon was caused by anything in the physical world. ID does this. I disagree, because that is equivalent to saying that you have (tentatively) demonstrated that physicalism is wrong, and there is no method to evaluate that statement scientifically. I think it would be scientific to infer known causes of narrowband technologies (i.e. biological organisms) if we ever observed narrowband signals from space. SETI says this. You agree with that. You think that it would not only be scientific to infer known causes of those signals, but also it would be scientific to infer unknown causes (for example, entities that existed outside of spacetime and had no nervous system but could still produce complex mechanisms). I disagree, because in order to consider such a hypothesis (tentatively) confirmed, we would need evidence that such a thing existed. We've been over this a million times, and I think we understand each other's position on this, and we need to agree to disagree.
Again, by your standards, SETI is making a metaphysical commitment by carrying on, in principle, as if natural causes cannot produce narrow band signals.
Again, SETI makes no metaphysical commitments, because it does not posit that any cause of narrow band signals is outside of law + chance. ID makes this claim, which is a metaphysical claim.
When you answer my question, I will answer your question. It poses no challenge.
Here is what I said you would do @265:
RDF: Here is my prediction: You will make up some excuse, and refuse to pose a question for me, just so you don’t have to face my question afterward. Your other option is to ask a question, then reject whatever answer I give and use that as an excuse to even try to answer mine. That is all you do – just run away from the debate instead of actually argue it with me.
My prediction was 100% correct. * * * Newsflash - This just in. SB has responded to RDF's question - Hallelujah! * * *
Both Meyer’s definition and Dembski’s definition include or imply almost everything on that list.
That is a bald asssertion that I don't think is true. You'll need to actually say what operational definitions you're talking about and how they can be testable in the context of ID. So this is nothing but a bluff, SB - please show your cards.
Meanwhile, the capacity to choose between alternatives for the sake of a specified end requires almost every attribute listed.
What you're trying to do is to say that anything that creates CSI must be able to "choose between alternatives for the sake of a specified end", and that anything that can do this must necessarily possess various attributes of intelligence like consciousness, learning, and so on. That is merely assuming your conclusion - you are not providing ways to test your conclusion in the context of ID. The question on the table is for operational definitions of these mental traits. That means you must be able to objectively identify or measure the attribute in question. You have failed to explain how "consciousness" can be operationalized in the context of ID (the way it is, say, in cognitive ethology). You have also failed to explain how "volition" or "learning" or "behavioral flexibility" or "use of natural language" can be so operationalized. These traits are operationalized all the time in the cognitive sciences, but only because in those cases we are dealing with known and empirically accessible organisms, rather than an unknown hypothetical entity or spirit or god or something.
However, there is no rule that says an operational definition must include as many traits as that.
Yes, I've already said to you that you can provide your own list!
It could include very few and be quite good; it could include them all and be quite bad. Sometimes, the more narrow definitions produce more rigor. Other times, it can be both narrow and useless. Everything turns on the quality of the paradigm. Your desire to wrap it all up in a tidy little formula is misguided.
Let's gets back to the point. 1) Provide your list of mental attributes that can be operationalized in the context of ID; this list can be whatever you think you can operationalize, even if it is only a short list 2) Provide operational definitions for each attribute in the context of ID (not in the context of cognitive psychology, say, where we have can give people IQ tests or see if they can understand their own image in a mirror or whatever). In any case, I will commend and thank you for trying to respond to my question. Let's see if we can keep it up. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Hi Upright BiPed, You have turned tail and run, UB, just like all the other times we've debated. It always goes like this: 1) First, you start talking about this or that sort of language or signal or physical coupling or "dimensional semiosis" or whatever. 2) Next, I point out that you haven't even tried to explain why anyone should believe that the cause of life was conscious, or capable of solving novel problems, or anything else we typically associated with the term "intelligent". 3) Then you hurl as many insults at me as you can think of, and run away in a huff. Listen, seriously, you shouldn't feel bad. My question to you was a trick question, because there is no answer to it. It isn't that you aren't smart enough to figure it out - it really is that there is simply no way to provide empirical tests for consciousness, volition, learning, and all these other mental attributes in the context of ID. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Hi FMM,
Is your problem with the observation that consciousness is Non-lossy integrated information (IC)?
Sure that's part of it. Consciousness does not seem like information - it doesn't seem like anything else at all. I have always felt that nobody knows what a theory of consciousness would even look like. Neuroscientists might say something like "Well there's this 40hz wave of synchronized neuronal activity in the caudate nucleus and that produces consciousness"... but how can neural activity produce consciousness? You say "consciousness is non-lossy integrated information"... and I say, really?
or Is it with the mathematical proof that demonstrates that Non-lossy integrated information (IC)is not computable? or
From my reading, I think IIT shows that (1) IC is noncomputable, and that (2) unitary consciousness entails IC, and so (3) unitary consciousness cannot be modelled computationally. I haven't studied these papers well enough to agree or disagree with those conclusions, but I will agree with them arguendo here. That doesn't tell me why I experience a unitary conscious awareness just because I am using non-computable functions to think with. For all we know, there could be other non-computable aspects of the universe that are not associated with phenomenological consciousness.
Is it with the definition of intelligence as something that produces Non-lossy integrated information (IC)???
No, that's fine - it's actually by far the most interesting operational definition for "intelligence" in ID that I've yet encountered! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

Hi Phinehas,
ID provides no empirically-based justifications to conclude that those attributes apply to the cause of living systems…but SETI does.
For the millionth time, SETI hasn't concluded anything about anything yet - 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. 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. I suppose you don't want to discuss how ID could operationalize its definition of "intelligence", right? Because ... uh... who exactly is avoiding whom here? :-) Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed:
You are starting to show those early signs of ranting again.
Ranting is one sign of a superior intellect.Mung_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

RDF:
That is the first step in operationalizing the concept of “intelligence”. My question for you is, what operational definitions of these components does ID provide that enables us to use the concept of “intelligence” in the context of ID?

Now, here’s a list of the attributes commonly associated with “intelligence” (you may wish to substitute your own list of course): 1) Consciousness 2) Volition 3) Intention 4) Learning 5) Behavioral flexibility 6) Solving novel problems 7) Using of a generally expressive language
Both Meyer’s definition and Dembski’s definition include or imply almost everything on that list. However, Dembski’s paradigm does not include consciousness for very good reasons, Meyer’s does, for equally good reasons. Meanwhile, the capacity to choose between alternatives for the sake of a specified end requires almost every attribute listed. However, there is no rule that says an operational definition must include as many traits as that. It could include very few and be quite good; it could include them all and be quite bad. Sometimes, the more narrow definitions produce more rigor. Other times, it can be both narrow and useless. Everything turns on the quality of the paradigm. Your desire to wrap it all up in a tidy little formula is misguided.StephenB_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

RDF:
Apparently you don’t understand the topic. Here it is: 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.
Hmm. I thought the topic was more like:
ID provides no empirically-based justifications to conclude that those attributes apply to the cause of living systems...but SETI does.
Or are we avoiding that part of the topic now? Are we doing that because it didn't go so well for you? Because we weren't avoiding it earlier when you said of SETI's search for the "artificial" that:
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.
So, if SETI received an artificial signal from outer-space, they’d conclude a human being sent it? After all, that is what "artificial" means, and, surely, that is what they meant by "artificial." Right?Phinehas_{October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 15 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply