Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

WJM is on a Roll

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
RD. You are starting to show those early signs of ranting again. Your positions become more incoherent and everything becomes bolded, capitalized, and followed by increasing strings of exclamation points. We've both seen where this leads, and it certainly isn't necessary. You should take it easy. Who knows why this subject should leave an otherwise intelligent person so incapacitated. Good luck with it.Upright BiPed
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
another quote from the paper These insights lay the foundation for a deep connection between data compression, prediction and understanding, a theoretical perspective on ......intelligence and cognisance........... which we refer to as ‘compressionism’. end quote: peacefifthmonarchyman
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
Hey Aiguy, you said, Your insistence that IIT has now bridged that gap is quite premature in my opinion. Can you provide any citations that develop that conclusion more fully? I say. This is where I struggle, not just with you but with people in general. I'm slow to catch things but when I finally understand something like this I feel like it should be obvious to others as well. I could try to give the high points to of the paper but the best thing to do IMHO is read it and do the math for yourself and let it sink in. The math is not particularly difficult even for a uneducated hillbilly like myself but it is profound. Is your problem with the observation that consciousness is Non-lossy integrated information (IC)? or Is it with the mathematical proof that demonstrates that Non-lossy integrated information (IC)is not computable? or Is it with the definition of intelligence as something that produces Non-lossy integrated information (IC)??? Peacefifthmonarchyman
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
RDFish
No, because by “natural causes” SETI does NOT mean “law + chance”. SETI means “causes that are not communication technologies built by human beings or other extra terrestrial beings”.
So what? We don't know everything there is to know about SETI's "natural" causes any more than we know everything there is to know about ID's "natural" causes. Indeed, we don't even know what those natural causes are. We are simply identifying them by their effects. For all we know, those kinds of natural causes may also be capable of producing the same narrow-band signals produced by intelligence. SETI concedes as much. By your arbitrarily contrived standard, then, SETI may not rule out those causes in order to draw an inference to intelligence. Again, by your standards, SETI is making a metaphysical commitment by carrying on, in principle, as if natural causes cannot produce narrow band signals. This is the very same charge you make against ID, holding that ID carries on, in principle, as if natural causes cannot produce CSI. So you are being inconsistent. You are not applying the same standard to SETI that you apply to ID. Please do not say that you have provided a reasonable response to this inconsistency. You have not.
Anyway, my last post still stands, because you still haven’t even tried to answer my question (because you can’t).
When you answer my question, I will answer your question. It poses no challenge.StephenB
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Hi Phinehas, 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. 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 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
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.
So, if SETI received an artificial signal from outer-space, they'd conclude a human being sent it. Their designation is a bit of a misnomer. It ought to be SETHB: the Search for Extra Terrestrial Human Beings. Or maybe SETT: the Search for Extra Terrestrial Terrestrials. Got it. Makes perfect sense.Phinehas
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
Hi Again FMM - Let me say this: I think IIT is a very interesting set of ideas, and if it turned out that we could actually connect phenomenological consciousness to non-computability, and then connect non-computability to the relevant mental abilities that we discuss here, I would actually be completely thrilled. 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! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Hi FMM, Again: Of all the posters here, you seem to be the only one who will concede that ID actually does need a theory of intelligence that connects empirically accessible evidence regarding the cause of life to our common notions of the mental, including consciousness, volition, learning and behavioral flexibility, use of natural language, and so on. Your insistence that IIT has now bridged that gap is quite premature in my opinion. Can you provide any citations that develop that conclusion more fully? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Hi StephenB,
You are not addressing the issue. According to you, ID is not scientific because it rules out a kind of cause about which we do not know everything, namely a physical cause. But the principle that you are appealing to (and have invented out of whole cloth) is that it is unscientific to rule out any cause about which we do not know everything whatever that kind of cause may be.
No - you can rule out known causes, you just can't pretend that anyone can rule out "law + chance"
Therefore, by that standard, it is unscientific for ID to conditionally rule out the possibility that natural causes produced CSI
Yes, because by "natural causes" ID means "law + chance".
...and it is also unscientific for SETI to conditionally rule out the possibility that natural causes produced narrow-band signals.
No, because by "natural causes" SETI does NOT mean "law + chance". SETI means "causes that are not communication technologies built by human beings or other extra terrestrial beings".
But your application of that arbitrarily-contrived principle is inconsistent. You use it to disqualify ID but not SETI. Why? Please do not say that you have already explained it. You have not.
I just did. Anyway, my last post still stands, because you still haven't even tried to answer my question (because you can't). But of course I answer yours, because I always do (because I am not afraid to, because I'm right). And once again: Physicalism: The philosophical (untestable) proposition that nothing but physical cause (or "law + chance") exists. SETI: Does not attempt to rule out physicalism in order to conclude intelligent life forms exist, and so does not utilize metaphysical arguments. ID: Attempts to rule out physicalism in order to conclude an intelligent being caused life, and so does utilize metaphysical arguments. Now, how about answering my question? Yeah, right :-) Cheers, RDFishRDFish
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
StephenB - Crossed posts - let me read yours and respond.RDFish
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
RDFish @268: Instead of making these ridiculous accusations, why don’t you actually try to defend your definition the way you said you would? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ANSWER. I’ll say it again, just so everyone here will know that you have no response: ... Waiting for your response – but I know you have none.
And what was your response? NOTHING!
You will now come back to say “Haha! I told you could not answer my challenge!!”
Uh, yes, of course that is exactly what I'm saying, because it is true, and could not be more clear!!! You have no response to my argument, so you lose!!! You're uncomprehending flailings are too funny to believe! YES SETI operationalizes its definition of "intelligence"! Why? BECAUSE WITHOUT THAT OPERATIONALIZED DEFINITION, “there is no consensus on strict definitions, and likely never will be”. That is why scientists ALWAYS operationalize "intelligence"!!! Scientists NEVER explain ANYTHING with the term "intelligence" without an operational definition of that term for that exact reason: Our everyday concept of intelligence is too fuzzy, ambigious, unbounded, multifaceted, and abstract to be of any use in science. Why don't you and the rest of the IDers operationalize the concept of "intelligence" in any way that relates to any of the concepts you believe ID infers? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T! You come up with all sorts of operationalized definitions all right - but not one of them has anything to do with any of the attributes you are actually talking about! What good is ID if ID can't support an inference to a conscious being (it can't)? A volitional being (it can't)? A being that can use natural language (it can't)? A being that can learn and solve novel problems (it can't)? ID can support none of these assertions because you can't operationalize definitions for those mental attributes in the context of ID. You lose, and very badly. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Hi StephenB, Ok, this really is you throwing in the towel, giving up, surrendering because you have been soundly defeated. I answered your question very fully and honestly, and in return, you completely ran away with your tail between your legs and didn't even try to answer my question to you. Did you think we wouldn't notice? Well, we did. You have no answer, no response, no defense, nothing, nada, zilch. You can't even pretend to respond to my points, because you know you're wrong and just won't admit it. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy P.S. I ALWAYS respond to your points even though you are too afraid to respond to mine, so: As for your pathetic dodge regarding "diametrially opposed", you're even wrong about that of course: A) Meyer: Intelligence DOES entail consciousness. B) Dembski: Intelligence DOES NOT entail consciousness. A is the absolute negation of B - the diametric opposite.RDFish
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
RDFish
Let me try to explain even more clearly: When SETI refers to “natural” radio sources, they are talking about stars, radio galaxies, pulsars, etc. They are not talking about the totality of physics – they are not talking about physical cause in general. By “natural”, SETI does not mean “law + chance”. Rather, they are talking about specific phenomena that occur in nature that produce radio signals. By rejecting that narrowband signals come from any of these things, they (tentatively) conclude that a narrowband signal would come only from artificial (man-made) technology. They do not conclude that something is occuring that transcends law + chance. SETI astrobiologists hold that intelligence is a property of physical nervous systems that act according to physical law. So when they rule out the “natural” they are not ruling out everything in all of physics. In stark contrast, when ID refers to “natural causes”, they are talking about any physical cause. ID purports to detect “intelligence” not by eliminating all known causes of CSI, but rather by eliminating anything that proceeds according to physical law. And that is precisely where my objection comes in: We cannot, in principle, rule out that any physical process (law + chance) could ever account for some phenomenon, because we can’t put any boundaries on what is “physical” or “natural”. Now, to say that the cause of some particular observed phenomenon can’t possibly physical is to say that some sort of cause exists which is not physical – in other words, it is to say that physicalism is false. That is not a scientific statement, and no scientific conclusions can follow from it. One can only say that we do not know what the cause of that phenomenon is.
You are not addressing the issue. According to you, ID is not scientific because it rules out a kind of cause about which we do not know everything, namely a physical cause. But the principle that you are appealing to (and have invented out of whole cloth) is that it is unscientific to rule out any cause about which we do not know everything whatever that kind of cause may be. Therefore, by that standard, it is unscientific for ID to conditionally rule out the possibility that natural causes produced CSI and it is also unscientific for SETI to conditionally rule out the possibility that natural causes produced narrow-band signals. But your application of that arbitrarily-contrived principle is inconsistent. You use it to disqualify ID but not SETI. Why? Please do not say that you have already explained it. You have not.StephenB
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Hey all, This thread has been very useful because it illustrates just how difficult the challenge of these conversations are. I'm fond of AIGuy and he gives every indication of being a capable even "intelligent" individual in other aspects of his life yet when it comes to this topic he just can't seem to get it. It turns out that IIT gives him exactly what he claims to be asking for, an operational definition of intelligence that also entails consciousnesses and it does so with mathematical rigor . It also turns out that this definition is merely a rephrasing of the very definition that ID has been using all along. The logical thing to do in such a case is acknowledge this and move on. from the paper quote: The implications of this proof are that we have to abandon either the idea that people enjoy genuinely unitary conscio usness or that brain processes can be modelled computationally. end quote: Because of the definition offered this implication extends well beyond consciousnesses to all other irreducibly complex phenomena. In other words.......... Either we have to abandon the idea that irreducibly complex things exist or the idea that they can be produced by algorithmic processes. That is the crossroads that AIGuy now finds himself on. lets see what side of the argument he comes down on. also from the paper quote: somewhere between input and output there must also be a binding process of integration that no computational modelling can disentangle. end quote: We call that process intelligent design. peacefifthmonarchyman
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
Reading up on this exchange with RDFish, I realize that one the reasons for my lifelong passion of chess is the wonderful fact that the rules of the game - particularly "checkmate" - are non-negotiable.Box
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT
RDF, the reason you accept the SETI methodology is because it operationalizes the concept of intelligence, thereby placing it "within the domain of empirical science" - even though it "describes a range of abilities that have to do with how an individual processes information" where "there is no consensus on strict definitions, and likely never will be". You have now lost this argument on those terms, and we are left with the specter of you demanding that ID do the exact opposite of the SETI methodology. You will now come back to say "Haha! I told you could not answer my challenge!!" and will embarrass yourself further still. I believe pity is an appropriate response. goodbyeUpright BiPed
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT
HeKS
ID proponents are not saying opposite things about the very same issue.
RDFish
Oh, sure they do. For example, while Stephen Meyer (like you) holds that any intelligent cause must be conscious and self-aware, William Dembski disagrees. Those positions about what “intelligent cause” means are in diametric opposition, and it would seem fairly important to know what the meaning of “intelligent” is in a theory that offers “intelligent cause” as the explanation for life and the universe.
Oh, sure they don't. Your reckless use of language exposes your pitiful attempt at an analysis. Do you grasp even in a small way what the words "opposite" and "diametrically opposed" mean? Obviously not. Stephen Meyer says that the agent is conscious and capable of choosing between alternatives for a specified end. Dembski says that the agent is capable of choosing between alternatives for a specified end, though not necessarily conscious. And this one distinction prompts you to characterize those two definitions as "opposite" and "diametrically opposed?" Also, although consciousness is not a requirement for Dembski, neither is it a disqualifier, which leaves an even smaller gap between the two definitions. Most importantly, there is a good reason why consciousness is not a requirement given Dembski paradigm. Do you know what that reason is? Of course, you don't. As usual, you are just blowing smoke.StephenB
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT
Hi StephenB,
The irony here could not be more evident. On the one hand, you declare that ID fails as a scientific discipline on the grounds that it prematurely and presumptuously rules out natural causes without knowing all there is to know about nature.
Not exactly, no. The reason I say ID fails to be scientific is because they fail to provide a scientifically useful definition for the theory's sole explanatory concept, intelligence. I have been saying this for years, of course. The point about knowing all there is to know about nature is just what I told you in @208:
RDF: So, if some sort of result or conclusion depends on the truth of physicalism, or its falisity, then it can’t be considered a scientific result. Likewise, any conclusion that rests on the truth of libertarianism or dualism can’t be considered scientific. Now, to say that the cause of some particular observed phenomenon can’t possibly physical is to say that some sort of cause exists which is not physical – in other words, it is to say that physicalism is false. That is not a scientific statement, and no scientific conclusions can follow from it. One can only say that we do not know what the cause of that phenomenon is. ... So, SETI does not claim to rule out – conditionally or otherwise – a physical cause for any narrow-band signals it may receive. Rather, it claims to rule out any cause that we have scientific knowledge of except our own technology. It is perfectly legitimate for ID to conditionally rule out causes for living systems that we already understand (all of physics, chemistry, biology). I agree that all known causes ought to be ruled out. What is not legitimate is to pretend that this is the same as saying, “We have eliminated one type of cause (the physical [or natural]) and what that leaves is this other type of cause (the mental [or intelligence])”. That is non-scientific.
Let me try to explain even more clearly: When SETI refers to "natural" radio sources, they are talking about stars, radio galaxies, pulsars, etc. They are not talking about the totality of physics - they are not talking about physical cause in general. By "natural", SETI does not mean "law + chance". Rather, they are talking about specific phenomena that occur in nature that produce radio signals. By rejecting that narrowband signals come from any of these things, they (tentatively) conclude that a narrowband signal would come only from artificial (man-made) technology. They do not conclude that something is occuring that transcends law + chance. SETI astrobiologists hold that intelligence is a property of physical nervous systems that act according to physical law. So when they rule out the "natural" they are not ruling out everything in all of physics. In stark contrast, when ID refers to "natural causes", they are talking about any physical cause. ID purports to detect "intelligence" not by eliminating all known causes of CSI, but rather by eliminating anything that proceeds according to physical law. And that is precisely where my objection comes in: We cannot, in principle, rule out that any physical process (law + chance) could ever account for some phenomenon, because we can't put any boundaries on what is "physical" or "natural".
You have carried on endlessly about this alleged lack of scientific rigor and characterized the process as nothing more than a metaphysical presupposition.
The assumption that anything is beyond law + chance is just that - a metaphysical presupposition. There is no scientific way to determine if anything transcends law + chance.
On the other hand, you acknowledge SETI as a legitimate scientific enterprise even though its researchers also rule out natural causes without knowing all there is to know about nature. Suddenly, and inexplicably, you have nothing to say about the “problems” of ruling out natural causes or smuggling in metaphysical presuppositions in the inferential process. How do you explain your inconsistency?
And I will explain it once again, as clearly as I can: ID says it rules out all physical cause (law+chance) as the cause of biological systems, and thereby supports the explanation that something else besides physical cause must have been responsible, and since the only thing besides physical cause is "intelligence", then ID concludes that the best explanation for life is "intelligence". The problem with that is that thinking that anything exists outside of the physical is nothing but metaphysical speculation. SETI says that it if it received a narrowband signal it could rule out all natural phenomena that emit radio sources except technology - which is physical and in that sense 'natural' - and which could indicate the existence of intelligent life forms (physical organisms with complex brains from which arises their information processing abilities and hence their intelligence). Nowhere in their methodology is any need to eliminate all physical law + chance, and so the problem of metaphysics never arises. * * * OK, that is my answer. I have been making these same points for years, so I'm not terribly optimistic that you will understand them, and I'm certain you won't agree with them, but true to my word that is actually what I believe is the correct position on these matters. Now it's your turn: An ID proponent here (HeKS) provided a nice illustration of how to take a fuzzy, abstract concept (one with no clear boundaries and that contains multiple components) and make it suitable for empirical investigation via operationalizing the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization#mediaviewer/File:Operationalization_of_Free_and_Fair_Judiciary.png Their example is “Free and Fair Judiciary”, and as you can see, this fuzzy concept is first broken down into the components that the authors believe are intrinsic to this concept (legitimacy, authority, neutrality, and uniformity). That is the first step. The second step is to provide operational definitions for each of these components. That means that independent researchers can assess something objectively to see if it meets each of these tests. Voila – a multifaceted but scientific definition for an abstract concept. 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 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? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
Hi HeKS,
ID proponents are not saying opposite things about the very same issue.
Oh, sure they do. For example, while Stephen Meyer (like you) holds that any intelligent cause must be conscious and self-aware, William Dembski disagrees. Those positions about what "intelligent cause" means are in diametric opposition, and it would seem fairly important to know what the meaning of "intelligent" is in a theory that offers "intelligent cause" as the explanation for life and the universe.
The reality of the matter is that SETI’s page on intelligence and their FAQ’s are saying exactly the same thing. The only thing you need to do to realize this is to correct your completely mistaken view of operationalization.
No, you're wrong. The woman who wrote the page on "intelligence" understood the necessity for operationalizing the term "intelligence", and she understood the limits of what could be inferred from a narrow-band signal, and she understood that any more general inferences regarding general mental abilities derived from extrapolations from terrestrial biology, and not some philosophical notion of what an "intelligent agent" was. The FAQ included none of that. The reason, of course, is just what several people here have already said: SETI researchers are scientists who did not imagine that people would take their methodology and pretend that it could solve the problem of biological origins. When SETI talks about an "intelligence", they are not talking about something that transcends law + chance; they are talking about organisms with complex nervous systems. We know the latter exist and can build communication technology, so that's a reasonable inference. We do NOT know that the former exists - that is nothing but the metaphysical speculation of ID. SETI assumes that builders of communication technology would be intelligent in a way that similar to human intelligence because they assume that they would be biological organisms that process information in ways similar to us. ID always claims to be offering a known cause of CSI as the cause of life, but that is just false: Nobody knows of any sort of CSI-producing entity that is not itself a CSI-rich physical organism with a complex nervous system for processing information. (SETI makes that clear enough when it assumes without equivocation that intelligence is a property of the nervous system). But ID allows an explanation for life that is completely unknown to us: Something that can produce CSI, yet is not itself a CSI-rich physical organism. Since nobody has any evidence that such a thing exists, it obviously behooves ID to provide evidence for it. ID fails to do so.
The point of operationalization in SETI’s program is to translate key aspects of the concept of intelligence – for which they give a conceptual definition on their page about intelligence – into a recognized observable effect of those key aspects of the concept, such as the effect represented in their operational definition.
No, you're just wrong: The reason given was to ensure "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." That's what it said, and that's what it means. Anyone who studies intelligence in any of the cognitive sciences is acutely aware that the concept of "intelligence" must be operationalized in order to be scientifically useful. The woman who wrote about intelligence for SETI obviously understands this.
Their operational definition does, indeed, indicate the presence of conscious intelligent beings, as their comments about these beings makes clear, because the operational definition (the observable, measurable effect) they’ve selected involves the purposeful construction of complex technology.
No, you're just wrong again. The only mention of consciousness I can find on the entire site is on the same page I cited originally, where she talks about bees having consciousness! Since SETI considers intelligence to be a function of the nervous system, there are certainly people there who would infer (1) the presence of a complex nervous system in a technologically sophisticated alien life form, and (2) infer the presence of consciousness from a complex nervous sytem.
And while the origin of consciousness and the way it works may be somewhat of a mystery to us...
I'd say you're displaying perhaps a tiny penchant for understatement here :-)
..., we have no difficulty defining what characteristics we are referring to when we speak of consciousness: consciousness - the state of being awake and aware of one’s surroundings - the awareness or perception of something by a person - the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world
That's dandy, but obviously not operationalized. The problem of other minds isn't one likely to be solved by empirical research in the near term. We solve the problem by means of strong analogy to other human beings (I know I'm conscious, and you are so much like me physically that I infer you are like me in this regard as well). The inference gets weaker when we look at other animals, but there are certain telltale behaviors that do convince us: Again, the SETI scientist does point out that our observations of bees' behaviors might indicate they are conscious. This is the whole problem: Cognitive ethologists write hundreds of papers explaining their operationalization of intelligence, and of consciousness, carefully enumerating their assumptions and providing detailed justifications for any conclusions they draw about animal learning, problem solving, conscious self-awareness, and so on. They do this even though these animals are sitting right there in the field or in their laboratory, available for observation in either controlled or uncontrolled studies. Then you ID folks come in and decide you can figure out if the "cause of life and the universe" has these mental abilities without any chance of ever observing this Designer of which you speak. And worse than that, cognitive ethologists are making analogies and comparisons among animals - organisms that that share a tremendous number of characteristics in the way they sense and process information about the world - while in ID you have no clue about the nature of what is supposed to have been designing living things and the physical constants of the universe. And worse than that, you don't even pretend to make these evaluations - you don't even bother to operationalize and test for these mental attributes.
What SETI’s search program itself infers to is merely the existence of an intelligent, sophisticated, extra-terrestrial being. Period.
Correct. That means "able to produce technology detectable from Earth". It doesn't mean "a conscious entity with self-awareness", or "something with behavioral flexibility" etc. Depending on what information is ever received by SETI, these more general conclusions may or may not be supportable. And of course SETI never intended anyone to imagine that its methodology could be co-opted as a pretense of scientific support for the inference to an immaterial entity that can somehow experience consciousness and process information without a complex nervous system. That simply goes against all of our scientific knowledge about intelligent beings.
No, nobody pretends that it establishes all attributes or types of intelligence that we are accustomed to finding in humans, but contrary to your nonsense and misunderstandings, it really does establish some attributes of intelligence.
In that case, simply give me one citation that explains which attributes of intelligence ID believes are empirically supported, and what empirical evidence those claims are based upon. Again, not even William Dembski believes that a self-aware consciousness is necessarily implied by "intelligent agency"! Sorry, you really are completely wrong about all of this. You just can't see it because of your ingrained assumptions about immaterial minds and the reification of intelligence and your anthropocentric notion of what the cause of life must be like.
In saying that we identify design simpliciter as the cause, the point is that we cannot infer to a specific designer, with a specific nature, make-up or form.
...or with any particular abilities aside from building the biological systems we observe. For example, can the Designer explain why It made so many different kinds of beetles using some sort of generally expressive language? How do you know?
It does not use philosophical or metaphysical commitments to limit what form an intelligent being could possibly take.
Neither do most scientists. But we do use our uniform and repeated experience to build up our scientific understanding, and that empirical knowledge is what we rely on when we say that "intelligence is a property of the nervous system" and that "the brain is the organ of intelligence" and that it requires an incredibly complex physical information processing mechanism for a human to exhibit intelligent behaviors. That is why scientists call foul when ID includes immaterial beings as possible members of its class of "intelligent agents" - not because of metaphysical commitments, but because there is no evidence that any such thing exists. [the rest of your post is just a bunch silly ad hominem errors] Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
RDF: I’ve been given many of them [operational definitions of intelligence] and all of them are perfectly legitimate operational definitions. UB: So this was a false statement you made in your argument: RDF: Of course ID can – and ought to – operationalize the term “intelligence” in “intelligent design theory”, just as SETI does. Duh. The problem is that ID does NOT operationalize its definition, of course.
What are you talking about? Good grief. I say "ID does not provide operationalized definitions", by which I meant none are given in published ID literature. Just because some anonymous poster (you) makes one up does not exactly contradict that! Instead of making these ridiculous accusations, why don't you actually try to defend your definition the way you said you would? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ANSWER. I'll say it again, just so everyone here will know that you have no response: You can offer whatever operational definitions you'd like to! What I point out is this: Your operational definition of "intelligence" fails to relate to the various characteristics commonly associated with the term “intelligence”, including consciousness, self-awareness, learning, behavioral flexibility, use of natural (generally expressive) language, volition, and so on. If you’d like to defend your definition to me, then I’m all ears: Simply explain what the connection is between your definition and the mental characteristics I just mentioned. Waiting for your response - but I know you have none. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT
RDF at #268 I absolutely addressed what I consider to be the most critical aspect of your definition: It fails to relate to the various characteristics commonly associated with the term “intelligence”, including consciousness, self-awareness, learning, behavioral flexibility, use of natural (generally expressive) language, volition, and so on.
ID Opponent: The concept of intelligence has many characteristics which make it a "fuzzy" concept. So in order for it to be scientifically useful, you must provide an operational definition, which entails finding an unambiguous feature that can be measured. ID Proponent: Okay, here is an unambiguous feature to measure. ID Opponent: You simply don't understand. You must provide an operational definition for the characteristics that make it fuzzy. ID Proponent: That doesn't make any sense. ID Opponent: You are not responding to my posts.Upright BiPed
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
RDFish
I am very much trying to respond to your posts. In fact, I just made a good faith offer to respond to any question you’d like to ask.
OK, I am a believer in second chances. Here we go. SETI, like ID, searches for "artificiality," which means that it officially recognizes the difference between art and nature. SETI researchers differentiate between narrow-band signals produced by intelligence (artificial) and broad-band signals produced by nature (natural) so that they can identify the former by ruling out the latter. SETI researchers understand that they could be wrong. It is logically possible that nature could produce a narrow-band signal. Still, they think it is reasonable to rule it out conditionally since we have no good reason to believe that what is logically possible in this case will ever come to pass. In keeping with that point, ID also recognizes that it could be wrong by conditionally ruling out natural causes. In fact, both disciplines depend on this art/nature dichotomy for the simple reason that it is impossible to detect design in radio signals, complex organisms, or anything else without first ruling out natural causes. I have alluded to this art/nature dichotomy throughout this thread. The irony here could not be more evident. On the one hand, you declare that ID fails as a scientific discipline on the grounds that it prematurely and presumptuously rules out natural causes without knowing all there is to know about nature. You have carried on endlessly about this alleged lack of scientific rigor and characterized the process as nothing more than a metaphysical presupposition. On the other hand, you acknowledge SETI as a legitimate scientific enterprise even though its researchers also rule out natural causes without knowing all there is to know about nature. Suddenly, and inexplicably, you have nothing to say about the “problems” of ruling out natural causes or smuggling in metaphysical presuppositions in the inferential process. How do you explain your inconsistency? Go for it.StephenB
October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
@RDFish
The SETI FAQ’s you found explain things differently that the specific SETI page on “intelligence” that I cited, and they did not explain how “intelligence” was operationalized in SETI.
No, RDFish, they do not explain things differently. The SETI page on intelligence is not remotely in conflict with their FAQ's. The entire problem here is that you have misinterpreted their page on intelligence because you have misunderstood the concept of operationalization and the use of "operational definitions". There is no shame in the fact that you initially misunderstood this. It is shameful, however, that you have resolutely refused to correct your misunderstanding on the matter in spite of the fact that all sources show you were mistaken. There's really nothing to argue about here. The tension between the intelligence page and the FAQ's is entirely in your own mind.
I would think you, as a proponent of ID, would be somewhat sympathetic to different authorities describing scientific concepts in different ways
This is a complete mischaracterization of the facts. ID proponents are not saying opposite things about the very same issue. There is no comparison between ID proponents focusing on different aspects of intelligence, thereby operationalizing it in different ways, and the kind of fundamental disagreement your interpretation creates inside SETI on the most basic concept of its program. The reality of the matter is that SETI's page on intelligence and their FAQ's are saying exactly the same thing. The only thing you need to do to realize this is to correct your completely mistaken view of operationalization.
But what you’ve found is that SETI would claim that signals would reveal the presence of a “technically sophisticated being”. Unless that refers to some complex biological organism (which is what SETI assumes, of course), all that means is “something that can produce sophisticated technology”! It says nothing about consciousness, volition, brain size and structure, behavioral flexibility, or anything else that you may associate with the term “intelligence” as you have been using it in this thread.
This is just sad. When you thought the division between SETI and Astrobiology helped your case you insisted that the line between them absolutely could not be crossed and a certain set of concerns were entirely in the domain of Astrobiology and not something considered by SETI itself at all. Now that you see you were wrong and that SETI really does infer to a sophisticated intelligent being as the cause of the signal-sending technology, you want to break down the wall between SETI and Astrobiology to make sure that the concerns and speculations of Astrobiology are necessarily tacked on to the minimal, logically-necessitated conclusions of SETI's search program. It is quite clear that your "reasoning" simply bends to your agenda and your agenda is flashing in neon lights. In your list of things which you think are not indicated by the finding of a signal, you combine essential mental aspects of intelligence, like consciousness, with physical attributes of intelligent beings on this planet, like brain size. SETI does, in fact, infer the former but they cannot know anything for certain about the latter, and speculations about the latter fall into the field of Astrobiology. From SETI's question on "What happens if we find something?":
we’ll know only a few things about the beings on the other end. We can pinpoint the spot on the sky where the signal is coming from, and slow changes in its frequency will tell us something about the rotation and orbital motion of E.T.’s home planet. But even though this information is limited, the detection of alien intelligence will be an enormously big story. We’ll be aware that we’re neither alone nor the smartest things in the universe. And of course there will be a clamor to build the big dishes that would allow us to pick up E.T.’s message.
Your assertion that SETI infers the existence of intelligent, technically sophisticated beings but not that they are conscious is patently absurd. I mean, really. You seriously think they would infer that these intelligent beings are technically sophisticated and at least as smart as us, if not smarter, but not necessarily conscious? Who are you trying to fool? All of this nonsense seems to stem from your ongoing refusal to correct your misunderstanding of operationalization. The point of operationalization in SETI's program is to translate key aspects of the concept of intelligence - for which they give a conceptual definition on their page about intelligence - into a recognized observable effect of those key aspects of the concept, such as the effect represented in their operational definition. Their operational definition does, indeed, indicate the presence of conscious intelligent beings, as their comments about these beings makes clear, because the operational definition (the observable, measurable effect) they've selected involves the purposeful construction of complex technology. And while the origin of consciousness and the way it works may be somewhat of a mystery to us, we have no difficulty defining what characteristics we are referring to when we speak of consciousness:
consciousness - the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings - the awareness or perception of something by a person - the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world
Intelligent, technically sophisticated beings must be aware of their surroundings in order to fashion complex communications technology. These are the kinds of basic features of intelligence that SETI's operational definition is specifically crafted to reflect as a matter of necessity. What is not necessitated by the finding of the effect encapsulated in their operational definition is that the technically sophisticated intelligent extra-terrestrial beings have their intelligence rooted in a physiology that is comparable to ours. It might be, but it might not be. That could not be directly inferred from the evidence they hope to find, and any speculations about that fall into the realm of Astrobiology, which does indeed speculate that alien intelligence, if we find it, might have a physiologically similar basis for their intelligence but, as I've shown, they are not absolutely wed to that idea, and to insist that this must be case would be to make a philosophical and metaphysical claim rather than a scientific one. What SETI's search program itself infers to is merely the existence of an intelligent, sophisticated, extra-terrestrial being. Period. The exact nature of that being and the issue of what that being's intelligence happens to be rooted in or derived from remains an open question for Astrobiologists to speculate about and someday, perhaps, discover.
HeKS: You didn’t ask me for a definition of “intelligence”. You asked me what criteria I was using to identify the category of “intelligent agent“. I provided some criteria and said it wasn’t necessarily exhaustive and that others could suggest additional criteria, but that mine were a good enough baseline for the current discussion.
Do you not understand that ID provides precisely zero information regarding its purported explanation for life, the physical constants, and whatever else, except to toss out this single word “intelligence” .... I’m not asking for a “baseline for the current discussion”
You once again skipped over the fact that I answered the question you did ask and then you complained that I hadn't answered the question you did not ask. Regarding the information you want about the responsible intelligent agent, you say:
It doesn’t say what has this “intelligence”, where it is, how it works, when it operated, or anything else.
What has this intelligence? Some very intelligent being. We can't know from the available data what form that intelligent being takes (took?) anymore than the finding of a specific kind of radio signal from space could tell us exactly what form the intelligent extra-terrestrial beings who sent it might take. In both cases, what we can know from the data is that it must have been caused by an intelligent being. Where it is? Like, now? Hard to say, and hard to see why it should matter. We can only answer approximately where and when it acted historically, which is in the places and at the times that life originated and where life made significant leaps forward in terms of genetic and morphological novelty. How it works? I don't see how that's relevant to determining that it did work. How it worked is a second-order question. How exactly was Stonehenge built? We don't know for sure. But we do know that it was built as the product of intelligence. If SETI finds a signal, will it need to know how the intelligent beings responsible conducted the work to manufacture the communications technology before concluding that such beings exist and did in fact do something to bring the technology into existence? Of course not.
I’m asking what it is that ID theory means when it says “certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause“.
It means that, based on our repeated and uniform experience, it is most reasonable to view those features as being the product of the deliberate activity of an intelligent mind which has been purposefully applied to the achieving of a functionally specified goal rather than being the product of the activity of natural laws operating on randomly determined initial conditions. This is precisely the same type of reasoning used by SETI:
SETI: Any signal less than about 300 Hz wide must be, as far as we know, artificially produced. Such narrow-band signals are what all SETI experiments look for. Other tell-tale characteristics include a signal that is completely polarized or the existence of coded information on the signal.
Moving on...
RDF: If you really are adopting this as THE operational definition for “intelligence” in ID, then you’re just fine scientifically.
Oh, please – you’ve edited my comment to put “THE” in caps, which were not in the original.
Yes, just as I edited my own to put the word "OFTEN" in caps and italics, which was to draw attention to the difference. You've repeatedly griped about ID proponents not all using exactly the same operational definitions and not listing precisely the same criteria for every concept. But now you suddenly don't have any trouble with multiple operational definitions.
what I have trouble with is that ID establishes operational definitions (e.g. able to produce CSI) and then implicitly – without discussion or justification – equivocates and pretends that anything meeting this criterion necessarily will display all of these other attributes of human mentality (consciousness, behavioral flexibility, etc). There is no justification for this whatsoever (which is of course why no ID proponents discuss it).
Complete and utter nonsense. No, nobody pretends that it establishes all attributes or types of intelligence that we are accustomed to finding in humans, but contrary to your nonsense and misunderstandings, it really does establish some attributes of intelligence. SETI doesn't deny this at all. You're the only one who denies this and you do so because your agenda demands that you must, no matter how ridiculous it is.
What are the requisite components of “intelligence” as used in ID? How are each of these components operationally defined? You say that consciousness is one component of “intelligence”, and certainly that sentiment is shared by most every ID proponent. How is “consciousness” operationalized within ID, HeKS? How is it that we can test the consciousness of the Intelligent Designer of Life? What about “volition” – what is the operational definition to evaluate the presence of this component?
None of this is even worth discussing with you when you're stuck on your misunderstanding of operationalization, which absurdly severs the link between the observable effect represented in an operational definition and the concept or conceptual variable it is being used to test for.
What you are missing is that “design simpliciter” is not an expanation of anything – you learn nothing whatsoever by hearing something is the result of “design simpliciter”, because “design simpliciter” doesn’t specify any particular proposition at all. Does “design simpliciter” entail a conscious designer? If so, then it becomes meaningful, but also without empirical evidence.
See above. In saying that we identify design simpliciter as the cause, the point is that we cannot infer to a specific designer, with a specific nature, make-up or form. Such things simply cannot be discerned from the data of biology. Perhaps the designer is some kind of physical being with a physiology that would be in some way recognizable to us, or perhaps it would be something completely unrecognizable to us. ID is agnostic on the issue. It does not use philosophical or metaphysical commitments to limit what form an intelligent being could possibly take. Scientifically we can determine design is the best explanation for certain features. We cannot scientifically determine the identity, nature or form of the designer on the basis of the data that is currently available to us. That does not mean that we should pretend that we don't know A simply because, at present, we can't also know B, C and D.
You’ve lost this debate, HeKS, even though you think otherwise.
Oh, well if you say it then that means ... nothing. Your arguments have been both wrong and absurd. Your misunderstandings have been tenaciously held in the face of correction and contrary data. All sources are against you and you warp your poor reasoning to accommodate your agenda to avoid admitting the obvious at all costs. Your arguments ultimately boil down to agenda-driven philosophical and metaphysical claims, which you then try to deny out of one side of your mouth while you repeat them out the other. And even where you make more moderate versions of statements that, on their own, are not particularly problematic (e.g. "there is good reason to question whether something that preceded biological systems would have these attributes"), your arguments actually hinge on the hardline philosophical and metaphysical truth claims (e.g. "finding a narrowband signal from outer space is not evidence that the source of that signal was conscious, or “volitional”, unless you suppose that the beings responsible were in fact biological organisms with complex brains/nervous systems"). If you can't even recognize the philosophical and metaphysical underpinnings for your arguments then there really isn't much hope for you to overcome your errors.HeKS
October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
RDF at #268: I’ve been given many of them [operational definitions of intelligence] and all of them are perfectly legitimate operational definitions.
So this was a false statement you made in your argument:
Of course ID can – and ought to – operationalize the term “intelligence” in “intelligent design theory”, just as SETI does. Duh. The problem is that ID does NOT operationalize its definition, of course.
And this was a false statement you made in your argument:
...you must provide an operational definition for “intelligence”. SETI does provide a scientific definition of “intelligence”, but ID doesn’t.
And this was a false statement you made in your argument:
SETI provides a scientific definition of “intelligence”, but ID doesn’t
And this was a false statement you made in your argument:
My criticism is that ID commits one of two errors: 1) Fails to say what they mean by “intelligence” 2) Fails to point to any evidence
And this was a false statement you made in your argument:
ID provides no operational definition of “intelligence”. In this case, ID fails because its explanation is too ambiguous to be scientifically meaningful or testable
...and of course, all of these false statements only highlight the sheer lunacy of this back-tracking, goal-shifting comment:
I have pointed out that without some operationalized definitions for particular, specific components of “intelligence”, the concept of “intelligence” is too fuzzy to be useful in a scientific context. SETI points out the very same thing.
...which you, in turn, try to cover with this comment from SETI:
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.
...but unfortunately for you they also add:
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.
...which leads us back to the very thing that you say ID must do, which is operationalize intelligence with a unambiguous marker ... and thus, the entire kaleidoscope of anti-intellectual obfuscation and dissembling starts back at the top and begins all over again. Good God what a waste of time. Give it a rest RD. Really.Upright BiPed
October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
RDF, you were given a coherent operational definition of intelligence.
Yes I was. I've been given many of them, and all of them are perfectly legitimate operational definitions.
You went on an ad-hom attack-the-messenger spree ...
Whoa there, cowboy - come on, nobody attacked you. Read what I said: It's a fact that if you take all of the anonymous posters on internet forums who claim to have made significant contributions to cutting-edge science, there is only a small fraction of them who might actually be right. I even said to you "I’m not saying you’re necessarily a crackpot, UB" in case you didn't understand that.
...without encumbering yourself with either the respectful or intellectual need to address even a single facet of that definition.
Not true at all!! I absolutely addressed what I consider to be the most critical aspect of your definition: It fails to relate to the various characteristics commonly associated with the term "intelligence", including consciousness, self-awareness, learning, behavioral flexibility, use of natural (generally expressive) language, volition, and so on.
One such definition was given to you and you immediately shrank from the challenge, even as I have been clearly ready to defend it.
If you'd like to defend your definition to me, then I'm all ears: Simply explain what the connection is between your definition and the mental characteristics I just mentioned. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
Hi Box,
You dismissed UB’s proposal, ...
No, I didn't dismiss it. I accepted his operational definition, and then pointed out that it had nothing to do with the characteristics commonly associated with the term "intelligence", including consciousness, self-awareness, learning, behavioral flexibility, use of natural (generally expressive) language, volition, and so on.
...because you, and ppl you consulted on the subject of intelligence, were not familiar with it,
No, I would never reject something because I wasn't familiar with it. Read what I told UB.
...but how about this for a operationalization: the capability to produce artifacts with irreducibly complexity – like a mouse trap”?
Again, that's just fine - anyone can offer any operationalized definition of "intelligence" that they would like to. Using your definition, once you find irreducible complexity in some biological structure, you can conclude that the cause of that structure was something capable of producing artifacts with irreducible complexity. As you can see, that isn't actually what you are trying to do. What you are trying to do is to conclude that whatever caused that IC structure had various characteristics commonly associated with the term "intelligence", including consciousness, self-awareness, learning, behavioral flexibility, use of natural (generally expressive) language, volition, and so on. In order to do that, however, you must provide ways to determine empirically what things possess these qualities and what things don't. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
Hi Heartlander,
the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value 10-13
You don't seem to understand what the point of this discussion is. Nobody here is arguing that biological systems evolved by random variation and selection, or that DNA isn't a language, or anything like that. What I am arguing is that ID has no way to scientifically support its claim that the cause of these systems possessed the characteristics commonly associated with the term "intelligence", including consciousness, self-awareness, learning, behavioral flexibility, use of natural (generally expressive) language, volition, and so on. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
Hi StephenB, I am very much trying to respond to your posts. In fact, I just made a good faith offer to respond to any question you'd like to ask. You won't even take me up on that offer, because you are afraid that afterward, you will be obliged to answer my question, and you know you have no answer for it. One more time, StephenB: Ask me any question you'd like about this, and I promise to answer it to the best of my ability. Go ahead - just try it! 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. Unlike the Intelligent Designer, you are very well understood and predictable :-) Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
RDF, you were given a coherent operational definition of intelligence. Your response could not have been more clear. You went on an ad-hom attack-the-messenger spree without encumbering yourself with either the respectful or intellectual need to address even a single facet of that definition. The reason for this sort of retrograde response on your part is most obvious. You've spent an entire thread arguing that (following SETI as a methodologically-valid example) one must operationalize the concept of intelligence by an unambiguous marker ("Narrow-band signals...are the mark of a purposely built transmitter. Natural cosmic noisemakers...do not make radio signals that are this narrow"). One such definition was given to you and you immediately shrank from the challenge, even as I have been clearly ready to defend it.Upright BiPed
October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
Hey Box That definition sounds really familiar. In fact it is simply a rephrasing of the definition I offered. When I presented it Aiguy praised me for understanding his argument. Lets see if you get the same treatment. peacefifthmonarchyman
October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8 15

Leave a Reply