WJM is on a Roll

_{Barry Arrington
October 22, 2014

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

In response to this post rich says:

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

To which WJM responds:

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

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

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

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

Comments

RDFish #258: How can ID operationalize its definition of “intelligence” in order to establish empirically that the cause of some instance of “art” possessed the characteristics we typically associate with “intelligence” (...)
You dismissed UB's proposal, because you, and ppl you consulted on the subject of intelligence, were not familiar with it, but how about this for a operationalization: the capability to produce artifacts with irreducibly complexity - like a mouse trap"?Box_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Just a friendly reminder: Abstract: It has been repeatedly proposed to expand the scope for SETI, and one of the suggested alternatives to radio is the biological media. Genomic DNA is already used on Earth to store non-biological information. Though smaller in capacity, but stronger in noise immunity is the genetic code. The code is a flexible mapping between codons and amino acids, and this flexibility allows modifying the code artificially. But once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known. Therefore it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature, if that conforms to biological and thermodynamic requirements. As the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out. A statistically strong intelligent-like "signal" in the genetic code is then a testable consequence of such scenario. Here we show that 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). The patterns display readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to natural origin. Plausible ways of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information. The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic codeHeartlander_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

SB: What is my argument? RDFish
I just told you.
No, you didn't state my argument. I would be in a position to know what it is.
Why won’t you respond to my posts?
[a] Because you will not respond to mine. [b] Because you knowingly make false statements.StephenB_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Aiguy said, I’m so happy to talk to an ID proponent who actually understands my argument!!! I say, If a Bible thumping fundamentalist and a "Godless" postmodern can understand each other there is hope for the world ;-) Bye the way just because I understand your argument does not mean I think it has any particular merit. I couldn't help myself you say, It gets so tiring debating people here who can’t (won’t) even hear what I’m saying. I say. You should try being an ID proponent on the other thread ;-) you say, but I think you’re way too certain about IIT when you say this has been “established”. So far its just a few papers and some interesting ideas, I think. I say, The recent developments take this argument out of the squishy realms of Philosophy and Biology and into the hard realm of Math. I don't think I can overstate this. If the math is correct and it is then the resulting implications are certain. Peacefifthmonarchyman_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB, I just told you. Why won't you respond to my posts? I'll tell you what. You can ask me any question you'd like, and I will absolutely answer it to the best of my ability, making my response as clear as I can. And I will ask you to do the same. That way we might actually communicate and make some progress clarifying our arguments. Please tell me your question, stated as clearly as you can. My question, stated as clearly as I can, is this: How can ID operationalize its definition of "intelligence" in order to establish empirically that the cause of some instance of "art" possessed the characteristics we typically associate with "intelligence" (such as learning, behavioral flexibility, consciousness, self-awareness, and so on)? Come on now - just clearly restate whatever question you'd like to me, and don't dodge this question to you. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

RDFish
Ok, you’ve ignored everything I’ve said. I’m not complaining about the term “art” – you’ve missed the point entirely.
Don't dig your hole any deeper. Let it go.
I am addressing your point about “art/nature” directly. My response is: You have not provided a way to objectively evaluate what “art” implies about its cause.
So, you are addressing my point, are you? What is it?StephenB_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

Hi FMM,
nonlossy integrated information is synonymous with the ID term irreducible complexity
OK
That phenomena has now been demonstrated to be beyond the scope of algorithmic processes like evolution. Score a big one for our side
No, so far this would just score one against evolution. That isn't really one for "your side", as I've been saying for years: Proving evolution wrong does nothing to tell us what might be right.
Besides that the connection between nonlossly integrated information and consciousness has also now been established.
Now this is on the right track to score one for your side, but I think you're way too certain about IIT when you say this has been "established". So far its just a few papers and some interesting ideas, I think.
This nullifies your main stated objection to ID by providing an objective useful definition of intelligence as that which can produce things like NLII and by extension consciousness. Such a definition unifies the objective with the everyday definitions of intelligence
Again you're on the right track, FMM, and I'm so happy to talk to an ID proponent who actually understands my argument!!! It gets so tiring debating people here who can't (won't) even hear what I'm saying.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The implications of this incite are mind blowing. It’s only a matter of time before the dots are connected
In that case, perhaps its only a matter of time before there is actually some science behind ID instead of the load of confusion that people here toss around. I would look forward to that greatly!! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB, Ok, you've ignored everything I've said. I'm not complaining about the term "art" - you've missed the point entirely. I am addressing your point about "art/nature" directly. My response is: You have not provided a way to objectively evaluate what "art" implies about its cause. 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. Now, please take a look at the example that HeKS found that explains how fuzzy concepts can be operationalized, and tell me how you operationalize "intelligence" in the same way. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

SB: Meanwhile, you rehashed old points already refuted and ignored my key argument about the art/nature dichotomy. RDFish
I have not ignored that dichotomy –

I am trying to get you to understand that when you say “art” (a term that is new to this debate, StephenB @169
There is simply no other way to search for intelligence other than to differentiate between what seems to be artificial from what seems to be natural.
StephenB @181
The proper response on your part would be, “Yes, you are right and I was wrong. Both specialties detect design by separating art from nature.”
StephenB @222
A clean inference to intelligence based on the separation of art an nature.
StephenB @226
Thus, SETI rules out a natural cause and infers an intelligent cause, a separation of art from nature.
StephenB @229
But the art vs. nature dichotomy is always there and essential to the detection of intelligence.
StephenB @232
This claim is false and also does not address the issue: For SETI, “artificial” means not natural. “Hallmarks of artificiality” refers to indicators that are not natural. You are not dealing with the art vs nature paradigm that SETI uses.
StephenB @237
Meanwhile, you have not yet addressed the main portion of my comment …..For SETI, “artificial” means not natural. The term “hallmarks of artificiality” refers to indicators that are not natural. You are not dealing with the art vs nature paradigm that SETI uses.
StephenB @250
Meanwhile, you rehashed old points already refuted and ignored my key argument about the art/nature dichotomy.
StephenB_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Hey Aiguy, nonlossy integrated information is synonymous with the ID term irreducible complexity That phenomena has now been demonstrated to be beyond the scope of algorithmic processes like evolution. Score a big one for our side Besides that the connection between nonlossly integrated information and consciousness has also now been established. This nullifies your main stated objection to ID by providing an objective useful definition of intelligence as that which can produce things like NLII and by extension consciousness. Such a definition unifies the objective with the everyday definitions of intelligence This is just the tip of the iceberg. The implications of this incite are mind blowing. It's only a matter of time before the dots are connected peacefifthmonarchyman_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Hi FMM - Yes, I've been reading about IIT for quite some time now. Interesting stuff! How do you relate it specifically to ID? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB, (UB, this is for you too):
You are tempting my lower nature again, but I don’t think I will take the bait this time.
Hey, come on - all I said was "ouch"! If that's all it takes to tempt your lower nature, it may bubbling closer to the surface than I imagined :-) Seriously, we're doing so well - let's see if we can make some more progress without falling off of the civility wagon, OK?
Meanwhile, you rehashed old points already refuted and ignored my key argument about the art/nature dichotomy.
OK, here is what you need to understand: I have not ignored that dichotomy - I am trying to get you to understand that when you say "art" (a term that is new to this debate, actually), you seem to mean the same thing as "intelligence", and if you want this concept to be usable in a scientific context, you need to operationalize it (for reasons I have given you endlessly, and SETI has reiterated). You reply by giving me any number of different definitions, but not one of them actually works for ID. Thankfully, HeKS here has found a perfect illustration of how scientists take fuzzy concepts like "intelligence" and operationalizes them. Thank you, HeKS! Look at the graphic that HeKS pointed out in particular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization#mediaviewer/File:Operationalization_of_Free_and_Fair_Judiciary.png This shows how social scientists take an abstract concept with many components and no clear boundaries, and operationalizes it so it can be studied scientifically. 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, how can ID operationalize it's sole explanatory concept, "intelligence"? First, list the components you think are intrinsic to this concept. Here's a good list, I'd say, taken both from SETI and from HeKS (you of course may wish to use a different list): 1) Consciousness 2) Volition 3) Intention 4) Learning 5) Behavioral flexibility 6) Solving novel problems 7) Use of recursive grammatical language If you want ID to be scientific, simply operationalize these concepts - just like the example that HeKS pointed out. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

RDFish
Ooooh, really Stephen? You’re going with UB’s take on ID here? Ouch.
You are tempting my lower nature again, but I don't think I will take the bait this time. Meanwhile, you rehashed old points already refuted and ignored my key argument about the art/nature dichotomy.StephenB_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

RDF, No offense taken. But as I said, using the same methodology as mankind's other search for intelligence, we find an unambiguous physical hallmark of intelligence in the coding of organic polymers - before the organization of the first living cell, and enabling evolution. Imagine that.Upright BiPed_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

Steve:
For all intents and purposes, the designer is nature.
What? No.
Whether some advocates of ID extrapolate one step further and assert that there is an intelligence that produced nature, thats fine but it is not necessary to the scientific project.
But one of the 3 basic questions science asks is "How did it come to be this way?". That would ID is very necessary for science.
After all, nature did design Man.
Evidence please.Joe_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

OK, here it is again: intelligence- the ability to deal with new or difficult situations; the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environmentJoe_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

For all intents and purposes, the designer is nature. So it is a known thing. Whether some advocates of ID extrapolate one step further and assert that there is an intelligence that produced nature, thats fine but it is not necessary to the scientific project. Nature can fill in for God while He is out and about. So we do have a known cause. It does have the mental and physical capabilities similar to that of a human being. After all, nature did design Man. Or is there a discontinuity, a dichotomy that creates a barrier between nature and Man. If not, then we can all investigate the what, where, when, and how of a designing nature. ....we already know The Who.... just ask CSI.
4) THEREFORE, ID does NOT propose a known cause at all – it is in fact proposing a cause that is UNKNOWN to us, which is something that isn’t human, but still has mental and physical abilities similar to that of a human being.
Steve_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Aiguy, By that definition any process that leads to the production of nonlossy integrated information (consciousness)is intelligent. Google it to know what I'm talking about. There is some interesting stuff related to ID going on I'd hate for you to miss it peacefifthmonarchyman_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

Intelligent: any process capable of producing a transcendental ie non algorithmicly derived function. peacefifthmonarchyman_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

RDFish:
SETI provides a scientific definition of “intelligence”, but ID doesn’t:
LIAR- I provided you with such a definition and you choked on it.Joe_{October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

Hi HeKS, 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. I would think you, as a proponent of ID, would be somewhat sympathetic to different authorities describing scientific concepts in different ways. 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. Those are questions for the researchers who study intelligence. And what do they say? They say that brains are the main organs of information processing, and thus intelligence, which is a property of the nervous sytem. So, that is what SETI astrobiologists assume would be true of "technically sophisticated beings". This is an inconvenient result for ID, obviously - if you're proposing that intelligent beings designed brains (the most CSI-rich object we know of), but are faced with the fact that brains are the main organs of intelligence, you have a bit of a bootstrapping problem facing you. You can surely suggest that perhaps there could be some sort of technically sophisticated beings that can somehow process information without a brain, but for you to pretend that this is some sort of "best scientific explanation", then your ideologically motivated thinking becomes painfully apparent. From our experience of technically sophisticated beings, their ability to produce technology derives from their complex brains - the existence of which is (among other things) what ID is attempting to explain in the first place.
The role of Astrobiology – as part of its larger attempts to understand life in general, including life on earth – would be to attempt to determine what form that technically sophisticated extra terrestrial being might take, and using what we observe on earth, they speculate that such a being might have certain physiological features similar to those held by intelligent, technically sophisticated beings here, but they don’t know for sure. SETI itself merely infers to the bare existence of intelligent beings of an unknown kind as being necessitated by the finding of a certain type of signal.
Yes, fine - except the "bare existence of intelligent beings" does not imply that those beings shared any particular characteristic that you listed as essential to the concept of "intelligence"! No matter what you would like to believe, 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. That is plainly what SETI researchers assume, and plainly anathema to ID. You will try everything to pretend that there is some scientific result attributing human mental characteristics to the cause of first life, but there just isn't any such result.
You are obviously wrong about so much of this discussion it boggles the mind.
Well, HeKS, I would say that you are so obviously wrong about this discussion that your mind appears to have been pre-boggled.
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"? It doesn't say what has this "intelligence", where it is, how it works, when it operated, or anything else. Unless you say something specific about what is meant, ID says nothing at all. I'm not asking for a "baseline for the current discussion" - 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". If "intelligent" in that sentence means "volitional" or "conscious" or "sentient" or "able to learn" or "behaviorally flexible" or.... then it has exceeded any empirical warrant. And if it doesn't, then it means nothing at all.
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. I have no 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). Look at the illustration you point to in Wiki. We have an abstract concept - ‘Free and Fair Judiciary’ - operationalized. This is a perfect illustration of what ID needs to do in order to operationalize its sole explanatory concept, "intelligence", also an abstract concept with multiple components. 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?
Do you seriously not have any clue about the reasoning behind ID in biology?
I'm afraid so, and even more acutely aware of the lack of reasoning on such critical issues as "What exactly is it that ID proposes as the cause of life?"
You are talking about a need for evidence for the designer itself but you are doing so as though the proposition of its existence is being considered prior to concluding independently that design simpliciter is the best explanation for the observed phenomena of complex functionally specified systems and machines in living organisms. You are thereby misrepresenting the structure and logic of the argument.
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.
Honestly, I simply don’t see any point in carrying on a discussion with you.
That's fine, I'm getting tired of dealing with three or four ID folks at a time anyway. You've lost this debate, HeKS, even though you think otherwise. You are committed to the idea that anything that causes complex form and function must necessarily be conscious, volitional, behaviorally flexible, and so on. You have no scientific justification for these assumptions, however - they are nothing but anthropocentric predudices that you cannot overcome. Something that caused first life would be very, very different from life itself - in particular, it would not have a brain. Since it appears (empirically) that functioning brains are necessary for intelligent agents to process information, experience consciousness, and exercise "volition", there is good reason to question whether something that preceded biological systems would have these attributes. You believe this on faith, which is just fine. But if you'd like to claim that your beliefs have the status of a scientific result, you will need some evidence. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
ID scientists can operationalize and have operationalized intelligence in a number of ways. It depends on the research question and the methods used.
Yes, that is correct.
I notice that UB presents a good operational definition of intelligence right here on these pages.
Ooooh, really Stephen? You're going with UB's take on ID here? Ouch. Well, I'll ask you the same question I asked HeKS: In "Intelligent Design Theory", the term "intelligence" is offered as the sole explanatory concept offered for such disparate phenomena as the values of the physical constants and the origin of flagella. One might think that such a prominent theory that is touted to explain so much with a single word might have a good deal of literature describing in great detail what this term refers to. Yet when I ask how that term is defined operationally, both you and UB offer something that appears in precisely no ID literature - something that UB, an anonymous internet poster, has made up by himself. Does this not strike you as a pathetic joke rather than a serious academic theory? In any event, you can choose whatever definition you'd like, and you've chosen UB's definition. Fine. That definition has nothing to do with any of the attributes that anyone else I've ever talked to associates with "intelligence" (such as consciousness, volition, learning, behavioral flexibility, and so on). You assume that anything that can produce complex form and function would necessarily display these qualities, but there is no justification for that assumption - unless you make a number of other assumptions (like SETI astrobiologists do) regarding the nature of the source. (In particular, that it has a large, complex brain). Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT}

Hi UB,
RDF, in case you were not aware of this; empirical observations are not dependent upon authority.
That's correct, UB.
And given that I have assembled the observations of front line scientist into a coherent model of translation, while you have purported to be studying these topics since Moses was a baby, perhaps this situation says more about you than me.
It's just a priori probabilities here. The following represents a very small fraction: The number of internet posters who believe they've made original, fundamental contributions to cutting-edge science * divided by * The number of these amateur scientists who not total crackpots I'm not saying you're necessarily a crackpot, UB - just saying.
ID can operationalize intelligence as the capacity to encode memory using dimensional semiosis – i.e. the use of iterative representations that have a dimensional orientation.
I've never heard or read anything about that, whether inside or outside of the context of ID, but sure - why not?
...but also an independent set of protocols to establish the dimensional operation of the system itself.
OK then. Now you've operationalized "intelligence" for ID. Let's say you find this dimensional semiosis somewhere - you will then have established that your operational definition for "intelligence" (according to your specific operational definition) has been met. This has nothing to do with any of the attributes that anyone else I've ever talked to associates with "intelligence" (such as consciousness, volition, learning, behavioral flexibility, and so on). Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

HeKS to RDFish
You continually make comments implying that the concept of intelligence must have one single unified operational definition across all of ID and that it’s somehow scandalous if different ID proponents provide different operational definitions based on their area of interest. This is simply wrong. You develop an operational definition for an aspect of a concept based on the specific aspect you’re trying to investigate. Different ID proponents can operationalize “intelligence” in various ways based on what they are looking to investigate, measure, etc.
Yes, thank you. It would be a blessed thing if RDF could learn to process even this one fact.
For goodness sake. Do you seriously not have any clue about the reasoning behind ID in biology? You are talking about a need for evidence for the designer itself but you are doing so as though the proposition of its existence is being considered prior to concluding independently that design simpliciter is the best explanation for the observed phenomena of complex functionally specified systems and machines in living organisms. You are thereby misrepresenting the structure and logic of the argument.
Alas, he has been doing this for months. I have brought it to his attention so many times I have lost count.StephenB_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

SETI: Narrow-band signals – perhaps only a few Hertz wide or less – are the mark of a purposely built transmitter. SETI: Natural cosmic noisemakers, such as pulsars, quasars, and the turbulent, thin interstellar gas of our own Milky Way, do not make radio signals that are this narrow. SETI: the main feature distinguishing signals produced by a transmitter from those produced by natural processes is their spectral width 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. SETI: Once an artificial signal is confirmed as being of extraterrestrial intelligent origin, the discovery will be announced as quickly and as widely as possible. SETI: It’s likely that any civilization we discover will be far more advanced than ours, and might help us to join a galactic network of intelligent beings.Upright BiPed_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

RDFish
I gave you a citation clearly stating the operational definition of “intelligence” in the domain of SETI. In case you missed it:
You made a joint claim to the effect that SETI provides an operational definition of intelligence AND that ID does not. Part of the claim was true (SETI provides an operational definition of intelligence) and part of the claim was false (ID does not). Your joint claim, therefore was false. ID scientists can operationalize and have operationalized intelligence in a number of ways. It depends on the research question and the methods used. I notice that UB presents a good operational definition of intelligence right here on these pages. Meanwhile, you have not yet addressed the main portion of my comment
.....For SETI, “artificial” means not natural. The term “hallmarks of artificiality” refers to indicators that are not natural. You are not dealing with the art vs nature paradigm that SETI uses.
StephenB_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT}

@RDFish I asked this question:
Does SETI think that within their own program, the detection of a certain type of signal would reveal to them the presence/existence of sophisticated non-human life-forms / beings?
You answered:
If SETI finds narrow-band signals from space, it will infer technology on a distant planet that is similar to our technology. It will not infer that this technology was built by civilizations of humanoid aliens; in fact, it will infer nothing at all about how that technology arose. It will be up to others (astrobiologists) to hypothesize about that.
The reference to humanoid is a little superfluous, but this is basically the equivalent of what I said I assumed your answer would be:
Assumed answer from RDFish: No. SETI does not think that within their own search program the discovery of a certain type of signal would reveal to them the presence/existence of sophisticated non-human life-forms / beings. Within SETI itself, they would consider only that they have found a signal, or a signal and technology, but it is not within the realm of their program or part of their reasoning to say this would reveal the presence of sophisticated non-human beings. Instead, the question of whether sophisticated beings produced the technology would be a question left to Astrobiology, which would elucidate the possible physiological basis for some intelligence that might have created the technology.
Now that we've got that out of the way .... You're wrong. You're wrong because you are drawing the dividing line between SETI's search program and Astrobiology in the wrong place while also completely misunderstanding/misrepresenting the issue of operationalization. From SETI's FAQ's:
What sorts of research are conducted at the SETI Institute? The Institute has suites of activities in three arenas: (1) Astrobiology, the efforts to find and understand the prevalence of life in general (for example, microbial life under the parched landscapes of Mars or the icy crust of the jovian moon, Europa); (2) SETI, experiments designed to detect radio or light signals that would reveal the presence of technically sophisticated beings; and (3) Education and outreach projects that inform the public about our research, encourage young people to become more proficient in science, and train teachers in so-called STEM subject areas.
I have tried to help you correct your misunderstanding multiple times but you studiously avoid correction. SETI, the actual search effort, operationally defines intelligence as "the presence of a technology detectable from Earth" because, if found, that measurable, observable effect would be a reliable indicator of the existence of intelligence in some kind of technically sophisticated being. THAT is where SETI's search program stops. The role of Astrobiology - as part of its larger attempts to understand life in general, including life on earth - would be to attempt to determine what form that technically sophisticated extra terrestrial being might take, and using what we observe on earth, they speculate that such a being might have certain physiological features similar to those held by intelligent, technically sophisticated beings here, but they don't know for sure. SETI itself merely infers to the bare existence of intelligent beings of an unknown kind as being necessitated by the finding of a certain type of signal. All of this is painfully obvious if you read their material, including the page you have cited numerous times, and it's plain as day when you read through their FAQ's, which is why this discussion with you is so annoying. You are obviously wrong about so much of this discussion it boggles the mind. The trail of your argument about "life as we know it" is just one of the many things that show discussion with you is pointless. Here's another. You said:
Again, this term, “intelligence” is the sole term that is supposed to explain all of these disparate phenomena in this (very scientific) Intelligent Design Theory, and yet here you are, some anonymous guy on an internet forum, attempting to figure out what this term is supposed to mean.
Once again you show an inability to follow a discussion. 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. And this:

HeKS: Sure it has to do with reductionism; I’m just not using that term in its philosophical sense here.
It’s not its “philosophical sense” – it is what the word means.
"Reductionism" is a philosophical position. I was clarifying that I was not attributing that philosophical position to you generally. Why do I even bother? Coming back to the issue of operationalization, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. You're simply wrong. And you're so obviously wrong that it's kind of insane that I still have to be talking to you about it. Your confusion is present in every comment you make on the subject. For example:

HeKS: For the purposes of ID, this [able to produce complex functionally specified systems] is OFTEN how intelligence is operationalized.
If you really are adopting this as THE operational definition for “intelligence” in ID, then you’re just fine scientifically.
You continually make comments implying that the concept of intelligence must have one single unified operational definition across all of ID and that it's somehow scandalous if different ID proponents provide different operational definitions based on their area of interest. This is simply wrong. You develop an operational definition for an aspect of a concept based on the specific aspect you're trying to investigate. Different ID proponents can operationalize "intelligence" in various ways based on what they are looking to investigate, measure, etc. And there's this:

HeKS: That is how they operationalize intelligence. Not how they define it. These are the kinds of things they include in the concept of “intelligence”:
Here you go completely off the rails and completely misinterpret everything. Read what they say again:
I'm quite familiar with what they say. You are simply failing to understand the difference between the conceptural/theoretical definition they give (which I provided in the comment you're quoting from) and an (not the) operationalization (i.e. operational definition) of the concept. And you are further failing to understand the ongoing connection between the two.
You say they don’t define it that way, but that is precisely what they say they do – and obviously so.
They don't define the concept that way. They operationalize it (i.e. come up with an operational definition) that way. You think this creates a hard disconnect between the operational definition and any aspect of the conceptual (a.k.a. theoretical) definition. You're mistaken. You appeal to Bill to support your mistaken claims about operationalization:
Now, as I see Reciprocating Bill has pointed out, your confusion regarding operational definitions just continues.
No, he hasn't pointed out my confusion regarding operational definitions because I have no such confusion. Bill included information about the philosophical origin and intent of the concept of operationalization when it was first introduced. Those initial plans didn't pan out. And yet operationalization is still useful and practiced in precisely the way I've been describing. For goodness sake, just look up something on operationalization and operational definitions. Even wikipedia will do:
Operationalization In research design, especially in psychology, social sciences, life sciences, and physics operationalization is a process of defining the measurement of a phenomenon that is not directly measurable, though its existence is indicated by other phenomena. It is the process of defining a fuzzy concept so as to make the theoretical concept clearly distinguishable or measurable, and to understand it in terms of empirical observations .... some phenomena are directly difficult to observe (i.e. they are latent), but their existence can be inferred by means of their observable effects. .... The practical 'operational definition' is generally understood as relating to the theoretical definitions that describe reality through the use of theory. .... Most serious empirical research should involve operationalization that is transparent and linked to a conceptual framework. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization
By the way, do not fail to note the image on the page showing the "Operationalization of 'Free and Fair Judiciary'" where the conceptual variable of "Neutrality" has no less than five different operational definitions. Also:
Operational definition An operational definition is a result of the process of operationalization and is used to define something (e.g. a variable, term, or object) in terms of a process (or set of validation tests) needed to determine its existence, duration, and quantity. .... An operational definition is generally designed to model a theoretical definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition
You also said:
ID presents no evidence whatsoever that its hypothesis is true. What you call “evidence” is actually the explanandum. We observe the complex mechanisms in biology and we would like to explain how they arose. Some hypothesize that abiogenesis and evolution account for them, but their evidence fails to support their hypothesis. Some hypothesize that self-organizational principles account for them, or natural genetic engineering, or natural teleology, or space aliens, or God, or whatever… but none of these hypotheses are sufficiently well-defined and empirically supported to be considered to be a scientific result either.
For goodness sake. Do you seriously not have any clue about the reasoning behind ID in biology? You are talking about a need for evidence for the designer itself but you are doing so as though the proposition of its existence is being considered prior to concluding independently that design simpliciter is the best explanation for the observed phenomena of complex functionally specified systems and machines in living organisms. You are thereby misrepresenting the structure and logic of the argument. Honestly, I simply don't see any point in carrying on a discussion with you. You seem to have no understanding of the issues you're discussing or criticizing and I have no expectation that you're going to acknowledge your errors because that would completely undermine your position. Undoubtedly you will simply come back with more misrepresentation and obfuscation based on misunderstanding and/or mischaracterization of every issue you touch on. The only time you say anything even remotely plausible sounding is when you're arguing against a strawman you yourself have erected. If you're determined to think you have great arguments based on your own misunderstandings of these issues then you're welcome to that delusion, as is anyone who chooses to throw in with you.HeKS_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

RDF, in case you were not aware of this; empirical observations are not dependent upon authority. And given that I have assembled the observations of front line scientist into a coherent model of translation, while you have purported to be studying these topics since Moses was a baby, perhaps this situation says more about you than me. ID can operationalize intelligence as the capacity to encode memory using dimensional semiosis - i.e. the use of iterative representations that have a dimensional orientation. * A representation is an arrangement of matter that evokes a functional effect within a system where the arrangement of the medium and the effect it evokes are physicochemically arbitrary - i.e. the natural discontinuity that exist between the arrangement of the medium and its post-translation effect is preserved by the organization of the system. * A dimensional representation is a representation that has spatial orientation - i.e. the properties of the individual representations that make them recognizable within their system are independent of the minimum total potential energy state of the medium. Such systems are further characterized as requiring not only the necessary transfer protocols of any semiotic system, but also an independent set of protocols to establish the dimensional operation of the system itself.Upright BiPed_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
RDF: SETI provides a scientific definition of “intelligence”, but ID doesn’t: SB: This claim is false...
Really now? I gave you a citation clearly stating the operational definition of "intelligence" in the domain of SETI. In case you missed it:
SETI: However, the study of intelligence lies firmly in the domain of empirical science because its features can be operationally defined and its correlates can be quantified and measured. In the domain of SETI, intelligence has been operationalized as the presence of a technology detectable from Earth.
So I guess if you're saying that part of my claim was false, you're simply disconnected from reality. And if you claim (sigh) that ID provides an operational definition of "intelligence", please simply give me the citation where that operational definition is stated, and I'll retract my claim. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

Hi UB,
Ignoring the facts won’t make them go away
Correct. Neither will ignoring my arguments.
ID can unambiguously operationalize intelligence in the same manner as SETI,...
Is this your "dimensional semiotics" gambit, perchance? You might appreciate my skepticism if this is your original research, yes? I mean given that you are an anonymous poster on an internet forum, right? In any case, please do give me your exact operational definition of "intelligence", and provide a testing methodology. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 15 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply