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

I don't know why you find the SETI project so difficult to grasp, Stephen. SETI Institute are looking for narrow band radio signals at frequencies that should get through water-laden atmospheres and dust-laden space. They are optimising their search as resources are limited. But they are looking for real signals. Deciding whether such signals are being generated by extra-terrestrial life-forms will no doubt generate endless fun and controversy after and only after there are some observations to consider.Alan Fox_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PST}

Why is it legitimate for SETI to conditionally rule out causes about which not everything is known and not legitimate for ID to conditionally rule out causes about which not everything is known?StephenB_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PST}

RDFish
1) SETI does not say “If not by law/chance”. Rather, they say, “If not by any physical process we are familiar with”. This is a critical difference. The former implies that there are certain phenomena that are outside of physical law, but such a thing has never been demonstrated. In other words, nobody can show that even the “artificial” – the actions of human beings – are not governed entirely by the same physical laws that govern everything else.
You are not really addressing the point. Even if there was a decisive difference between a physical cause and a natural cause (and I know knowledgeable SETI exponents who use the word “natural”) it wouldn’t matter. The same problem persists. We don’t know everything about physical causes any more than we know everything about natural causes, yet SETI says, “If not a physical (or natural) cause, then intelligence.” Or even if I grant your distinction, the problem persists: If, in the name of science, SETI, acknowledging that it doesn’t know everything about physical causes, can reasonably rule them out in a conditional manner, why cannot ID, in the name of science, confessing that it doesn’t know everything about natural causes, reasonably rule them out in a conditional manner?
2) SETI does not use the term “intelligence” in the general, fuzzy sense that we use in informal non-scientific discussions. They provide an operational definition that is measurable, viz “able to send signals to Earth”. If we ever detect signals from outer space that cannot be accounted for by any known phenomena (e.g. narrow-band EM transmissions) then SETI will ask the astrobiologists to weigh in on what might have been the source of those signals.
We have established SETIs operational definition of intelligence. This really has nothing to do with the process in question. It doesn’t matter who is consulted. What matters is that intelligence is understood to be a different kind of cause than a natural or physical cause. Otherwise there would be nothing unusual about it-- otherwise there would be nothing to detect The SETI researcher must be able to say how the cause of this signal is of a different kind than those physical causes we know about. So, again, the question: Why is it legitimate for SETI to conditionallyrule out causes about which not everything is known and not legitimate for ID to <i.conditionallyrule out causes about which not everything is known?StephenB_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PST}

RDF RE 197 Class act. Thanks for taking it in the spirit I meant it to be. I learn alot from you, dont always agree but you certainly have given me much food for thought.
I do, however, ALWAYS and INSTANTLY revert to civil debate the moment my debating partners do likewise.
Yes you do. Vividvividbleau_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PST}

Hi StephenB,
You agree that ID has, indeed, found evidence for CSI in biological organisms. You don’t dispute that point at all.
No, that's not really accurate. Let me be clear: I believe that the complex form and function we observe in biological organisms remains unexplained. Is "CSI" (or any of the variants) a well-defined and quantifiable concept? My guess is no, but I'm not concerned with that. If we look at a brain, or an eyeball, or a flagellum, or a blood clotting cascade, etc, I agree with you that these things did not arise purely by random mutation and natural selection, and that something very fundamental is missing in our understanding of origins. So it's not that we've found "evidence for CSI" - what we observe are the complex mechanisms themselves: We observe incredibly complex form and function that, in my view, could not have arisen in the 4.5 billion years available on this planet by means of any process we currently understand.
You do, however, question the proposition that one can ever rule out natural causes as the explanation because we don’t know all there is to know about nature. It is, therefore, always presumptuous and premature to say, “If not law/chance, then intelligent agency.”
Not only don't we know everything, but the category of "natural" is ambiguous. On one hand we contrast "natural" vs. "artificial", which implies somehow that the activity of human beings is not natural (something I don't understand). On the other hand we contrast "natural" vs. "supernatural", which is very different (in my understanding) from "artificial". In my view, what we have are things we understand and things we don't understand scientifically, and it doesn't help to talk to about "natural" vs. "supernatural" in science. As for "natural" vs. "artificial", that distinction works fine when we are talking about terrestrial phenomenon, because "artificial" clearly refers to something we know about - human beings (or perhaps other animals like beavers or termites). Once we open up the discussion to hypothetical causes that nobody has ever seen, that distinction must be clarified.
And yet SETI also draws an inference to an intelligent agent (“intelligence” if you like) by ruling out the prospect that the signals they search for could have ever been produced by nature. In other words, SETI, like ID, says, “If not law/chance, then intelligence.”
No, SETI does not say that. You actually have two important points wrong: 1) SETI does not say "If not by law/chance". Rather, they say, "If not by any physical process we are familiar with". This is a critical difference. The former implies that there are certain phenomena that are outside of physical law, but such a thing has never been demonstrated. In other words, nobody can show that even the "artificial" - the actions of human beings - are not governed entirely by the same physical laws that govern everything else. 2) SETI does not use the term "intelligence" in the general, fuzzy sense that we use in informal non-scientific discussions. They provide an operational definition that is measurable, viz "able to send signals to Earth". If we ever detect signals from outer space that cannot be accounted for by any known phenomena (e.g. narrow-band EM transmissions) then SETI will ask the astrobiologists to weigh in on what might have been the source of those signals.
Why is it good science for SETI...
SETI hasn't really done any science yet - they've just thought about what sorts of things we'd expect to find if other civilizations of life forms existed on other hospitable planets, and gone about looking for those sorts of signals. If they ever find any, again, we'll need to look at the information available and the astrobiologists will start arguing about what might have been responsible. For example, if the signals are similar to those we transmit and come from an Earth-like planet that is billions of years old, they might tentatively conclude that life forms similar to terrestrial organisms were able to build techology like ours. Alternatively if the signal comes from deep inside a neutron star, we would have to conclude that we have no idea what might be sending those signals.
...and bad science for ID?
The only science ID has done has been to critique evolutionary theory. There is no science behind "Intelligent Design" per se. For starters, there is no operationalized definition of "intelligence" that has been settled on that would allow researchers to objectively decide what is intelligent and what is not in the context of ID. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PST}

Hi Vivid, Thank you for the support, and also for your valid rebuke: It is true that I sometimes resort to tit-for-tat here, and it would be better of me to always hold myself to the standard I desire from others. I do, however, ALWAYS and INSTANTLY revert to civil debate the moment my debating partners do likewise. Thanks, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PST}

RDF RE 184
Well that’s a big fat lie, now, isn’t it? Where in the world did you come up with that? Show me one single sentence where I imply that… waiting… time’s up – you’re lying!
So dissapointing. Vividvividbleau_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PST}

Joe RE 186 Joe stop it. I expect these kinds of attacks from the viscious element of the anti ID crowd but not from ID advocates. I know I am in the minority as it relates to RDF but so be it. Would you please stop the personal attacks. I am not just speaking about this thread the same thing is going on in other threads as well. BTW if we are going to call out the other side regarding their behavior we must clean up our house as well. JMO Vividvividbleau_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PST}

RDFish, I have a question: You agree that ID has, indeed, found evidence for CSI in biological organisms. You don’t dispute that point at all. You do, however, question the proposition that one can ever rule out natural causes as the explanation because we don't know all there is to know about nature. It is, therefore, always presumptuous and premature to say, "If not law/chance, then intelligent agency." And yet SETI also draws an inference to an intelligent agent ("intelligence" if you like) by ruling out the prospect that the signals they search for could have ever been produced by nature. In other words, SETI, like ID, says, "If not law/chance, then intelligence." Why is it good science for SETI and bad science for ID? Why is the process justified for the former and not for the latter?StephenB_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PST}

I have provided RDFish with ID's operational definition of "intelligence". He tried to refute it but was caught misrepresenting it. He then got all huffy and puffy and said he was going to ignore me. If that is evidence that RDFish is a little cry-baby then there isn't any such thing as evidence.Joe_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PST}

RDFish, you are a wanker who thinks he is a legend. I have refuted your tripe so all you can do is ignore it and prattle on. You are the worst of humanity. And your projections are duly noted. BTW I am comfortable with the fact that if we were in a formal debate I would easily kick your arse.Joe_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PST}

Hi Joe,
You are a LIAR. You are a coward. You are ignorant and you think all of that refutes ID.
Oh, Joe. You are so precious. Always trying to bark with the big dogs, but all you've got is your little squeaky yap, yap, yap. You don't understand any of what is being said here, but here you are like a little chihuahua, biting my leg and baring your little teeth and feeling brave. So cute! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PST}

Alan Fox:
As far as I am aware, there is not even an entailed hypothesis — let alone anyone looking for evidence in support of any ID hypothesis.
Again, Alan, your ignorance means nothing. I have provided you with a testable hypothesis for ID. I have also provided evidence in support of that hypothesis. You are just a horse's arse.Joe_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PST}

Hi UB,
You can argue against the operational definition of intelligence I gave you (in which case you’ll lose that argument over facts), or you can argue that I am just a nobody (in order to avoid those facts) … but you can’t argue that I didn’t give you one.
As I've explained to you, "dimensional semiotics", is not "coextensive with human intelligence". Nothing that we know of is "coextensive with human intelligence". (But yes, it is also noteworthy that you are, like all of us here, just an anonymous poster on an internet forum, and if it is up to you to invent the definition for the sole explanatory concept of ID Theory, then ID Theory is a sad joke).
UB: Furthermore, to agree (in the space of a single comment) that the capacity to send narrow band signals into space is coextensive with human intelligence… RDF: What a big fat lie that is! Of course everyone can see you’re just lying about this. I never said any such thing. Why do you think you can lie like this and get away with it? Everything we write is right here on this page for everyone to see! From the earlier exchange: UB in #171: “He also notes that they substantiate this operationalized definition by the universal observation that the capacity to send narrow band signals into space is coextensive with intelligence, in our case human intelligence.” RDF in #173: “Using that same operational definition, yes.”
What's your point? You said that I agreed that sending narrow band signals is coextensive with human intelligence. I denied saying any such thing, because it is ridiculous. So you quote me saying that it SETI's operational definition of "intelligence", which it is. I guess you too just have no concept of what an "operational definition" is. Fortunately Reciprocating Bill here @179 provides a very detailed and accurate account. The essential point here is that operational definitions are NOT coextensive with the original (fuzzy) concept. "Intelligence" as the term is intuitively understood and informally used can mean all sorts of things that can't be measured in various scientific contexts (especially ID): consciousness, free will, learning, solving novel problems, behavioral flexibility, use of a natural language, and so on. That is why operational definitions are used that are not coextensive with the common (fuzzy) meaning of the term.
RD, if you’d like to argue that we understand “intelligence” enough to operationalize it, but we just don’t understand “human intelligence” enough to operationalize it, then I’ll happily take on that argument.
You still don't understand. Anyone can provide any operationalized definition for "intelligence" or any other word that they would like to! I can say that the operational definition for "intelligence" is "able to fly to the moon" or "able to ride a unicycle for one mile without stopping". As long as the definition is stated explicitly and is objectively measurable, it is a valid scientific definition. I think that you, like others here, are confused because you think of an operational definition as some sort of tell-tale signature of something more general. It isn't - it is actually the definition of the word being used some scientific context in order to study that property scientifically.
On the other hand, if you’d like to argue that the capacity to send narrow band signals is not “coextensive” with human intelligence (we just happen to know about it because humans do it) but is instead simply coextensive with “intelligence” regardless of it’s source, then I will happily agree.
It is very obvious that sending narrow narrow band signals is not "coextensive" with human intelligence. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by "coextensive" - it typically means having the same extent, or in this case describing the same abilities. Since sending signals is only one very specialized ability out of all we might ascribe to human intelligence, it clearly is not coextensive with it. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PST}

As far as I am aware, SETI researchers have not found any narrow-band signals. As their FAQ says
If we had, the world would know about it.
When (and if) there is a candidate signal to analyse, there will be some evidence to discuss. As it is, we can all speculate wildly about such an eventuality. Compare that to ID research. As far as I am aware, there is not even an entailed hypothesis -- let alone anyone looking for evidence in support of any ID hypothesis.Alan Fox_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PST}

The problem is that ID does NOT operationalize its definition, of course.
You can argue against the operational definition of intelligence I gave you (in which case you'll lose that argument over facts), or you can argue that I am just a nobody (in order to avoid those facts) ... but you can't argue that I didn't give you one.
UB: Furthermore, to agree (in the space of a single comment) that the capacity to send narrow band signals into space is coextensive with human intelligence… RDF: What a big fat lie that is! Of course everyone can see you’re just lying about this. I never said any such thing. Why do you think you can lie like this and get away with it? Everything we write is right here on this page for everyone to see!
From the earlier exchange: UB in #171: "He also notes that they substantiate this operationalized definition by the universal observation that the capacity to send narrow band signals into space is coextensive with intelligence, in our case human intelligence." RDF in #173: "Using that same operational definition, yes." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RD, if you'd like to argue that we understand "intelligence" enough to operationalize it, but we just don't understand "human intelligence" enough to operationalize it, then I'll happily take on that argument. On the other hand, if you'd like to argue that the capacity to send narrow band signals is not "coextensive" with human intelligence (we just happen to know about it because humans do it) but is instead simply coextensive with "intelligence" regardless of it's source, then I will happily agree. Or perhaps you'd like to argue that neither intelligence nor human intelligence is "coextensive" with the capacity to send narrow band signals, but instead the capacity "requires" intelligence, then again, I am happy to accept those terms. You've made my point either way. Now all you have to do is deal with the operational definition.Upright BiPed_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PST}

RDFish still spewing lies:
I have said this explicitly! 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.
You are a LIAR. You are a coward. You are ignorant and you think all of that refutes ID. Strange.Joe_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PST}

Alan Fox chimes in:
The difference between the SETI project and the “Intelligent Design” movement is that SETI are looking for real phenomena and ID proponents are not.
So origin biological information was not a real phenomenon? Or is Alan Fox just an ignorant chump? The design ID is detecting is real, Alan. Your ignorance is real, too. However unlike the design your ignorance doesn't mean anythingJoe_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PST}

Hi HeKS,
You think you’re going to get 25 different answers (and presumably different than mine) from ID proponents about the main criteria defining an Intelligent Agent?
Yes, I've gotten many different definitions for "intelligent" from ID proponents. Complement of chance+necessity. Ability to freely choose. Ability to produce CSI. Consciousness. Rationality. Ability to plan. Ability to use natural language. Ability to use formal language. Use of dimensional representations (!). Being alive. You could choose to say every one of these characteristics is entailed, of course - would you like to go that route? That would be fine with me.
SETI: There is no clear-cut meaning for “life as we know it.”
Yes, of course "LIFE" is another fuzzy concept, like intelligence. That is why no scientist would ever invoke that concept to explain anything without providing an operationalized definition. Yet you use it without any operationalized definition in your "scientific" criteria for intelligence.
But it would probably be just as good to leave the maturation bit off altogether based on the context we’re discussing.
Does it not occur to you how ridiculous it is that you are making this up as you go along? 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.
The ability to solve complex problems requiring forethought and abstract thinking is precisely what the biological evidence points to.
Oh, no, it really does not. Insects solve complex problems that require forethought and abstract thinking when human beings solve them, but the insects themselves are incapable of solving novel problems presented to them. Same with various other animals, and computers, and even some autistic savants. So who knows what might be true of something so radically different from a human being that it isn't even a physical organism? We don't know. It is impossible to present the Cause of Life with a novel problem, so we have no way of knowing what else it might be able to do aside from causing the very things we're trying to explain.
You are making philosophical and metaphysical assumptions about what kind of intelligent life could possibly exist..."
Well that's a big fat lie, now, isn't it? Where in the world did you come up with that? Show me one single sentence where I imply that... waiting... time's up - you're lying!
...while also wrongly assuming that every explanation must itself have an explanation that we are in a position to investigate.
Where are you coming up with these ridiculous strawmen? Are you drinking? Of course I never said any such thing. I get it - you can't argue against me, so you decide to make up both sides of the argument so you can win. Clever!
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. But of course that isn't what you mean at all. What you mean is that once you find CSI in biology, you leap over your own scientific definition and start making up stuff about consciousness, volition, maturation, and whatnot.
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.
The question is, What is being said once this simplified truism is unpacked? In other words, what characteristics must the cause have had in order to bring about the specific types of things we find in living organisms?
Sure, that is the question all right :-) You postulate some hypothetical non-human but anthropomorphic being (that you happen to believe in a priori) and expect that to be accepted as a scientific result. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. You need to provide some evidence such a thing exists. Otherwise, we could just say that all of the species on Earth are simply descendent from life forms on another planet. We don't say what planet, or how they got here, and we don't explain how they came to exist either. Now, that's a really stupid theory, but it's better than ID! ID doesn't say where the Designer is, or how It put life on Earth, or how It came to exist either. And it's a lot less of a stretch to imagine extra-terrestrial life-exactly-as-we-know-it than it is to imagine extra-terrestrial something-that-isn't-even-a-physical-organism.
RDF: you actually must have evidence that the explanatory concept invoked (1) exists and (2) accounts for the phenomnena in question. ID has none. HeKS: Actually, you don’t need to have either of those things. If you did, it would be impossible to hypothesize the existence of otherwise unknown entities on the basis that there existence is necessary in order to explain an observed effect.
Good grief - you're not even paying attention. How many times must I say you can hypothesize whatever you'd like; just don't imagine your hypothesis should be taken as an empirically supported theory until you actually provide evidence?
However, when it comes to ID, it does, in fact, have both. Again, you are only quibbling that the specific agent indicated by the evidence is not already known to exist independent of the evidence that suggests that agent’s existence is necessary.
Yes, there is that little matter to quibble about: 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.
Or maybe you just want people to say nothing on the subject at all.
Hypothesize away! And, if you'd like, profess your belief in whatever appeals to you. The only thing I object to is the pretense of any scientific validity to your conclusion.
Based on your line of argumentation, it seems like you would be satisfied if I simply made a philosophical argument for the existence of God and then cited the evidence of biology as pointing to the existence of a non-human intelligent designer, thereby lending limited support to my God Hypothesis.
No, my argument is not of that form at all, of course. What I'm saying is that you need evidence in order to claim empirically supported inferences with regard to the consciousness, volition, beliefs, desires, or general abilities of whatever caused life.
Ummm, if by “speculation” you mean “not completely certain” and “held tentatively as the most reasonable explanation based on the evidence we have to date but subject to revision if contrary evidence is discovered in the future”, then of course it’s speculation.
Nope, I mean speculation like "Maybe it's true, and maybe it isn't, and at the moment we have no way to decide by means of scientific investigation". Like multiverses are speculative. And self-organizational principles sufficient to account for life are speculative.
Do you mean to tell me that all this time you’ve been operating under the mistaken belief that ID proponents say they have definitively proved that life has an intelligent cause? If so, I’ve been wasting my time in this discussion. I honestly cannot believe how many people I’ve run into on this site that spend hours arguing that ID’s inference to design has not been definitely proven with all certainty, as though anybody on the ID side has claimed otherwise.
That's not the problem. The problem is that ID claims to be scientific but it isn't. There are three options for ID with regard to stating its explanans, and none of them support the scientific result you want: 1) ID provides no operational definition of "intelligence". In this case, ID fails because its explanation is too ambiguous to be scientifically meaningful or testable 2) ID provides an operational definition that is detectable, such as "the ability to produce CSI". In this case, ID succeeds technically, but it is merely a truism, and fails to make any connection to the concept of "intelligence" that you (and everyone else) are talking about - consciousness, self-awareness, volition, desires, intentions, etc. 3) ID defines "intelligence" to entail consciousness, volition, etc. In this case, ID fails because there is no evidence that the cause of life possessed any of these traits.
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:
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.
You say they don't define it that way, but that is precisely what they say they do - and obviously so. SETI understands that in order to remain in the domain of empirical science, they must provide an operational definition of this fuzzy concept, and so they do. They can't detect brains or opposable thumbs or consciousness on other planets - they can only detect signals. Then:
SETI: In the domain of SETI, intelligence has been operationalized as the presence of a technology detectable from Earth. In the framework of astrobiology, however, there is no need to limit the study of intelligence to these criteria.
This means that SETI can draw no more general conclusion about the source of found signals than what the operational definition states. Only within the framework of astrobiology can these other criteria (learning, memory, problem solving, abstract thinking, creativity, behavioral flexibility, and rate of information processing, etc). How does astrobiology approach those questions?
SETI: Earth-based data and analyses concerning intelligence, brains, and correlations between the two provide predictive power as we pursue questions about intelligence in the vast range of contexts presented by astrobiology.
They also make clear what astrobiology considers intelligence to be:
SETI: Intelligence is a property of the nervous system
Get it? * * * Now, as I see Reciprocating Bill has pointed out, your confusion regarding operational definitions just continues. (StephenB, this goes for you too).
When you operationalize a fuzzy concept you identify one of its effects, and if the effect is observed, you can infer the existence of aspects of the more “fuzzy” phenomenon that are indicated by the operationalization. The point is to identify an aspect of the concept that can be translated to a measurable effect because the concept is not directly observable, but it – or at least apsects of it – can be inferred from the observation of the measurable effect.
Completely wrong. You have no justification for inferring some hypothetical being that is conscious, volitional, etc, simply by observing biological mechanisms. You would need to test whatever it is that caused those mechanism to see if those properties applied. Astrobiologists make a number of assumptions based on terrestrial organisms; ID can't do that (because let's face it you aren't really talking about biological aliens as designers). Again, there are plenty of examples of things that can solve complex problems of a specific class, but do not have general abstract reasoning skills. How can you show that this very mysterious Designer isn't like that? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 26, 2014
October
10
Oct
26
26
2014
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PST}

Hi UB,
Taken solely as his words above, RDF has now tacitly acknowledged that ID can operationalize intelligence in the same manner as SETI, and can demonstrate the presence of intelligence in the coding of organic polymers – and it can do so without any need to take a position on whether the intelligence is “natural, unnatural, supernatural, or anything else”.
TACITLY? I have said this explicitly! 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.
Furthermore, to agree (in the space of a single comment) that the capacity to send narrow band signals into space is coextensive with human intelligence...
What a big fat lie that is! Of course everyone can see you're just lying about this. I never said any such thing. Why do you think you can lie like this and get away with it? Everything we write is right here on this page for everyone to see! The capacity to send signals into space is OBVIOUSLY and PLAINLY NOT "coextensive with human intelligence"!!! Rather, it is SETI's OPERATIONALIZED DEFINITION of intelligence. Good grief. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 26, 2014
October
10
Oct
26
26
2014
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PST}

@ aiguy I think you may be over-estimating the ability of some here to follow your point. Let me try and simplify! The SETI Institute are engaged in a search for narrow-band radio signals of non-terrestrial origin. The thinking is that anyone or anything using radio for communication would broadcast some particular frequency rather than over a broad range as happens with radio sources like pulsars and quasars. If they find such signals, then there will be intense debate on whether such signals are produced by intelligent lifeforms. As, currently, we have no evidence of such signals, speculation about them is unrestrained by evidence. So SETI is a search for narrow-band radio signals. The search may prove fruitless or, one day, find something unusual. Then the task will be to establish whether that signal could be attributed to an extra-terrestrial life-form. The difference between the SETI project and the "Intelligent Design" movement is that SETI are looking for real phenomena and ID proponents are not.Alan Fox_{October 26, 2014
October
10
Oct
26
26
2014
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PST}

RDFish
You don’t seem to grasp what an operationalized definition is.
Inasmuch as you mistakenly conflated the ID project with its individual paradigms, and inasmuch I explained the relationship between those paradigms and their attendant operational definitions, and inasmuch as I described the parallel between ID’s operational definitions and SETI’s operational definitions, it would appear that you are the one who doesn’t understand.
Say you define “intelligence” as “that which produces CSI”, and then you do some science with a result that you have found something “intelligent”, using your operational definition. Does this mean you have found something conscious? That can learn? That can has free will? No, Stephen, the science hasn’t told you any of that. It is has ONLY told you that you’ve found something that produces CSI.
That is a very good reason for not defining intelligence as that which produces CSI….. SB: ID paradigms also define intelligence as a capacity—period. What matters is why both define it as a capacity. SETI defines intelligence as the capacity to send signals as a means for detecting intelligent agents. Hence the I in SETI.
First, they don’t say “intelligent agents” – they say merely “intelligence”.
By definition, anything that is not produced by nature (an unintelligent non-agent) is produced by an intelligent agent. It certainly is not produced by a definition of intelligence.
….”declares that it means “something that can send signals detectable on Earth”. That doesn’t mean something that is necessarily conscious, or that can learn, or that has free will. It means just what it says.”
Again, you are confusing the fuzzy definition, which may or may not include these things, with the operational definition (from either specialty), which doesn’t. SB: SETI researchers search for the kinds of signal patterns in space that nature is not known to produce.
Yes, that only human beings produce.
SETI makes no such provisions or limitations. However, your comment constitutes a distraction from the main point. Both ID and SETI search for patters that are not found in nature. They take the same approach.
SETI looks for patterns that are NOT found in nature in order to infer life forms on other planets.
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.”
But that still isn’t the point. The point you refuse to acknowledge is this: SETI’s operationalized definition of “intelligence” tells us nothing about the nature of the sender(s), including if it/they are single entities or civilisations, if it/they are conscious, if it/they have free will, and so on. If we found a signal, SETI would conclude that it has found “intelligence” – meaning nothing more than “something that can transmit signals to Earth”. Any further inferences would be outside of SETI’s domain (it would be in the domain of astrobiology).
No, they would conclude that they have found an intelligent agent. But if that is all they can conclude, so what? If that is where their operational definition takes them, more power to them. Every scientist develops his own research question and formulates a method to answer it. I believe I have already made that point.
As far as ID is concerned, all that has been shown is what we already know just by looking at biological systems – they are chock-full of CSI, so whatever caused them must have had the ability to produce CSI. That is simply a truism.
No. Biological ID has shown that the features in human and animal made artifacts are strikingly similar to the features found in biological orgainisms. Cosmological ID has shown cosmos was likely finely tuned for life.
Well, you CLAIM that approaches are the same.
Not only did I claim they are the same, I showed how they were the same and you unwittingly agreed they were the same when you conceded that SETI searches for patterns that are not found in nature. It’s the same formula that all disciplines use to detect the presence of an intelligent agent: “Nature likely didn’t produce the observed pattern, therefore we conclude that it was the product of an intelligent agent.” SETI is just one of many. Why you cannot accept these incontrovertible facts is a mystery.StephenB_{October 26, 2014
October
10
Oct
26
26
2014
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PST}

@RB, While your comment is interesting, are you trying to say that operationalization, in practice, as it is used today, creates a hard disconnect between the operationalization and the concept being operationalized? If so, I simply can't agree with you. Looking back at my quickly written comment, the only clarification I would make is to say: "When you operationalize a fuzzy concept you identify one of its effects, and if the effect is observed, you can infer the existence of aspects of the more “fuzzy” phenomenon that are indicated by the operationalization." The point is to identify an aspect of the concept that can be translated to a measurable effect because the concept is not directly observable, but it - or at least apsects of it - can be inferred from the observation of the measurable effect. That is what SETI is doing.HeKS_{October 26, 2014
October
10
Oct
26
26
2014
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PST}

HeKS:
You “operationalize” a fuzzy concept because “some phenomena are directly difficult to observe … but their existence can be inferred by means of their observable effects”. When you operationalize a fuzzy concept you identify one of its effects, and if the effect is observed, you can infer the existence of the more “fuzzy” phenomenon. The fuzzy concept itself is the conceptual or theoretical definition of the concept. A given effect that you want to investigate is the operationalized definition.
Not quite. In advocating operational analysis, Percy Bridgman sought to replace abstract theoretical concepts within physics with the analysis of the operations by which those concepts are measured. It was not an attempt to “infer” fuzzy theoretical phenomena by proxy operations, it was an attempt to eliminate them altogether in scientific contexts because meaningless apart from the operations required to measure them. It was an early influence upon logical positivism and ultimately behaviorism: the logical positivist Feigl spent a sabbatical with Bridgman in 1930, after which he joined the faculty at Harvard and brought Bridgman’s views to the attention of E.G. Boring and his students S. S. Stevens and B. F. Skinner. They ran with it. Although Bridgman subsequently softened his position regarding the scientific admissibility of theoretical constructs, and the logical positivists ultimately rejected Bridgman's thesis as an unworkable oversimplification of the problem of scientific meaning, operational analysis came to be advocated by many behaviorists as a complete philosophy of science they called operationism, a term repeatedly rejected by Bridgman himself. Within the framework of Skinner’s operationism, for example, subjective experiences and cognitive activity were seen as beyond the reach of a truly scientific psychology. Although ultimately an insufficient basis upon which to found scientific meaning, the notion of “operational definition” remains a very useful guide to designing empirical research, as it compels one to be procedurally and methodologically explicit in advance of executing the actual research. Without that, replicability becomes impossible and fishing trips ensue. Operationalizing a definition removes ambiguity and enables one to define in advance the sorts of observations that will "count" as confirmation/disconfirmation of one's hypothesis. It also enables investigation of a phenomena without becoming entangled in the cloud of connotation that can surround abstractions such as "intelligence."Reciprocating Bill_{October 26, 2014
October
10
Oct
26
26
2014
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PST}

RDFish is a bloviating imbecile- He asks for evidence and when presented with evidence he sezs he doesn't care about it. He is just a troll...Joe_{October 26, 2014
October
10
Oct
26
26
2014
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PST}

HeKS, You don't really need to point it out. Nothing needs to be added to RDFish's comments at this point in this thread; the absurdity of his rampant, escalating obscurantism is painfully obvious. SETI, obviously, is looking for what it considers to be evidence of intelligence in signals not known to be produced by humans. ID is looking for what it considers to be evidence of intelligence in artifacts not known to be produced by humans. It's the same thing, whether or not those suffering from design derangement syndrome can admit it or not.William J Murray_{October 26, 2014
October
10
Oct
26
26
2014
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PST}

I feel the need to point out what seems to be a rather significant point of confusion. The idea of operationalization or operationalized definitions is being wildly misused by RDFish and I think to a certain extent others have started picking it up. I address this to a certain extent in my post #175, but operationalization is something you do to with a fuzzy concept because the concept is not directly observable. You "operationalize" a fuzzy concept because "some phenomena are directly difficult to observe ... but their existence can be inferred by means of their observable effects". When you operationalize a fuzzy concept you identify one of its effects, and if the effect is observed, you can infer the existence of the more "fuzzy" phenomenon. The fuzzy concept itself is the conceptual or theoretical definition of the concept. A given effect that you want to investigate is the operationalized definition. RDFish is arguing as though conceptual definitions and operational definitions are disconnected. They aren't. The operational definition remains connected to the conceptual definition (the fuzzy concept) because it is simply a method (and not necessarily the only one) of measuring and/or inferring the existence of the concept itself, which is not directly observable. RDFish's entire line of argument rests on this misunderstanding, which he keeps repeating over and over and over. The whole argument is fatally flawed and leads to claims that SETI doesn't think narrow-band signals or the communications technology they come from are an indicator of actual conscious extra-terrestrial intelligence and that for SETI, the entire concept of intelligence is nothing more than "something sending a narrow band signal", which is a complete misrepresentation of what they actually say about the subject.HeKS_{October 26, 2014
October
10
Oct
26
26
2014
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PST}

@RDFish #156

HeKS: Of course, if we want to be really precise…
Considering the claim that ID is a scientific theory, it really does behoove you to provide a precise meaning for this theory’s sole explanatory concept.
Did you notice the use of the word really in there? I wasn't suggesting that there is otherwise a general lack of precision but was simply saying that to avoid some confusion (and possible quibbling over minute details) it might be helpful for you if I made a distinction between the more general concept of an "intelligent agent" and the more specific concept of an "intelligent designer", even though both are generally used to mean "intelligent designer" in the current context.
BRAVO!!!! EXCELLENT!!! I’m so pleased to see someone here who is not afraid to say what they mean by “intelligent agency”! Thank you!! (Of course if I press ten other ID folks for their opinions, I will get twenty-five different answers, but let’s ignore that and pretend your definition what is meant in ID Theory in general).
Really? You think you're going to get 25 different answers (and presumably different than mine) from ID proponents about the main criteria defining an Intelligent Agent?
1) LIVING So the designer of all life was itself living? Hmmm. SETI folks talk a great deal about what it means for something to be “living”, and they settle on the concept of “life as we know it” – complex physical organisms that process information. Since that is precisely what ID purports to explain, it hardly suits ID to offer the very same thing as an explanation!?!?
The notion that life can only exist in a form very much like what we find here is a philosophical and metaphysical one. ID has no philosophical or metaphysical commitments on the forms life can take. It is at least theoretically possible that some physical form of life elsewhere in the universe could be quite different from us and perhaps be capable of complex intelligent thoughts while existing in a physical form that is much less complex and specified and therefore is less in need of an intelligent cause as an explanation of its existence. It's also possible that life could exist in some form entirely different from what we're familiar with on earth. If SETI imports philosophical and metaphysical presuppositions into their work, that does not make them more objective, empirical or scientific than ID, which does not. Oh, well, unless of course you count a priori philosophical presuppositions as the best indicator of objectivity and empiricism. I notice you continue to make a big deal about this "life as we know it" business. What does SETI mean by that? Well, they aren't entirely sure...
There is no clear-cut meaning for “life as we know it.” Usually this phrase refers to life based on DNA or RNA, probably also including viruses (although many biologists do not consider a virus to be alive). Sometimes the meaning is expanded to include any life that is based on the same sort of water-mediated carbon chemistry (with amino acids and proteins) that we have on Earth, but with some other inheritance mechanism that does not use DNA or RNA. Life as we don’t know it would include life that some speculate could exist on Saturn’s moon Titan, where the temperatures are far below the freezing point of water. However, even in this bitter cold, hydrocarbons like methane and ethane are liquid, and might conceivably form the basis for carbon-based life very different from that on Earth. Astrobiologists are uncertain how we could recognize or detect life as we don’t know it, although presumably any life would use energy to change its chemical environment, thus perhaps providing clues to its existence.
You'll note above that SETI does recognize the possibility of finding "life as we don't know it". Further on this, from an interview with Dr. Margaret Race of SETI:
All our laws, ethical systems, and religions are based on life as we know it. But what if we find life as we don't know it? What will that mean and how does that change everything on Earth - or not? That is why it's important to bring other disciplines in to think about these questions - and to talk about how we might balance those many different perspectives. I find that fascinating!
SETI is not wed to the idea that life itself necessarily means "life as we know it", which they use primarily as a description to refer to life we study on earth rather than as a limit they place on what they are looking for in space. Also, you seem to be operating under the assumption that in order for an explanation of some effect or piece of evidence to be considered valid, you must also have an explanation of the explanation. You don't. If the complex and functionally specified systems and machines present in organisms point to an intelligent cause - as they do, since every single other such system or machine that we can trace back to its source has an origin in an intelligent cause - then that's where it points. If we cannot ultimately discover the identity and nature of that intelligent cause, then so be it. We don't stop ourselves from learning what we can because of the possibility of not being able to learn what we can't. In any case, the point of including "living" in the description is to avoid some attempt to attribute intelligence to inanimate natural processes. Regarding the issue of self-awareness, see what I've said above.
3) CAPABLE OF RATIONAL AND ABSTRACT THOUGHT AT MATURATION First, your use of the term “at maturation” seems to imply that intelligent agents go through some aging/maturation process. Is that really what you mean?
You're right. I tagged the "at maturation" bit on after the fact to address someone trying to say that a one-year-old or a baby or any other young child isn't an intelligent agent in some sense, but I realized after I posted it that it doesn't really matter for our purposes whether someone says that. But if we want to leave it in then we could further tag on the end, "if the agent is of a sort that goes through a maturation process during its life". But it would probably be just as good to leave the maturation bit off altogether based on the context we're discussing.
Since we can’t test the cause of life to see if it can solve novel problems, we have no way of ascertaining if it had this characteristic either.
The ability to solve complex problems requiring forethought and abstract thinking is precisely what the biological evidence points to. You are trying to dismiss the evidence that points to an intelligent cause and the characteristics it must possess on the grounds that we already have the evidence instead of being in the position of still looking for it. Regarding volition, I mean only that there are times the intelligent agent wants to do something and that it has the ability to take some kind of action in attempting to attain its goal. I don't see any need to rule on the philosophical question of the nature or existence of a particular type of free will for the purpose of this description.
So given your criteria (thank you again!), we clearly see that ID is utterly unable to provide any evidence that the cause of life met your criteria for “intelligent agency”. Not one of your criteria can be supported with any evidence whatsoever – you are zero for five here.
You are making philosophical and metaphysical assumptions about what kind of intelligent life could possibly exist while also wrongly assuming that every explanation must itself have an explanation that we are in a position to investigate. ID does neither of these things. The biological evidence firmly points to the need for an intelligent cause of its existence, one that is capable of solving complex problems and bringing complex functionally specified systems and machines into existence. We can know that this intelligent cause is not human (unless we're going to go with the time travelling humans idea, but that would seem to create a logical paradox), but at this point the evidence we have available to us cannot tell us exactly what the designer was like or what form it took/takes.
Let’s dispatch this nonsense with SETI, shall we? SETI is not a theory of origins – it is not a theory of anything at all. It is a SEARCH.
This could not be more irrelevant. The point is that SETI recognizes that certain artifacts and effect clearly indicate intelligent agent causation, and this even if the intelligent agents responsible for the artifact were not previously known to exist. Furthermore, while they would most likely assume that the responsible intelligent agents are in some way and to some degree like "life as we know it", they recognize that it could be otherwise. The physical features we find in "life as we know it" are not logically necessitated by the evidence of intelligent causation that they would find and are looking for.
EXACTLY!! NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE!!! (Except this has nothing to do with “reductionism”, just what sorts of conclusions can be warranted by empirical evidence).
Sure it has to do with reductionism; I'm just not using that term in its philosophical sense here. You are reducing the specific characteristics of the cause that are directly indicated by the evidence to a statement ("the cause of life must have had characteristics sufficient to enable it to be the cause of life") that is, as you recognize, a simple truism. The question is, What is being said once this simplified truism is unpacked? In other words, what characteristics must the cause have had in order to bring about the specific types of things we find in living organisms?

HeKS: And yet, we do know that intelligence exists,…
This is like saying “beauty exists” or “athleticism exists” or “love exists”. We all understand the truth of these claims, but these are not scientific propositions until the definitions for these qualities are operationalized.
You seem to have lost a lot in that ellipsis. It's a little hard to think you didn't remove the rest so you would have something write in response. Here's the whole sentence:
And yet, we do know that intelligence exists, that intelligent agency exists, and that it is, according to all evidence we have, uniquely causally adequate to produce complex functionally specified systems.
For the purposes of ID, this is often how intelligence is operationalized. ID looks for complex and functionally specified systems and machines the same way SETI looks for "technology detectable from Earth". The specific and various natures of those systems and machines have been further specified by individual ID proponents who investigate the issue from different perspectives.
The ONLY thing you can say is that the Designer was capable of producing the phenomena we are trying to explain, which of course is a truisim – true for ANY theory of origins, or any causal theory at all.
See above.

HeKS: ID, at least insofar as the history of life is considered, is an historical science and uses abductive reasoning to identify a best causal explanation of the complex functionally specified systems and molecular machines in living organisms.
Yes, I get this a lot.... you actually must have evidence that the explanatory concept invoked (1) exists and (2) accounts for the phenomnena in question. ID has none.
Actually, you don't need to have either of those things. If you did, it would be impossible to hypothesize the existence of otherwise unknown entities on the basis that there existence is necessary in order to explain an observed effect. However, when it comes to ID, it does, in fact, have both. Again, you are only quibbling that the specific agent indicated by the evidence is not already known to exist independent of the evidence that suggests that agent's existence is necessary. You are simply saying ID can't invoke an intelligent agent that might not be very, very much like intelligent agents we observe on earth. This is a philosophical and metaphysical claim that has no logical force. It seems that instead you wan't to invoke a kind of cause (chance combined with natural law) that we have no reason whatsoever to think is capable of producing the effect in question even when we allow that such things exist everywhere. Or maybe you just want people to say nothing on the subject at all.
IF there was some sort of entity that was conscious and sentient and could produce complex physical machinery and that prexisted living things, THEN that entity would be a very likely candidate for the cause of living things. You simply ASSUME the antecendent of that conditional to be true, but, being a scientist myself, I require some sort of evidence for that.
I refer you back to the sample dialogue between Person 1 and Person 2 in my last post. You are saying, "I need evidence of such an agent's existence apart from the evidence that would seem to make its existence necessary. Oh, and I need evidence that the agent has the characteristics directly indicated by the evidence apart from the evidence that directly indicates them." I return to a comment I made in my last post that you didn't address:
Based on your line of argumentation, it seems like you would be satisfied if I simply made a philosophical argument for the existence of God and then cited the evidence of biology as pointing to the existence of a non-human intelligent designer, thereby lending limited support to my God Hypothesis.
Or maybe it would work the other way around, and the philosophical arguments would provide the evidence that the agent responsible for life really existed and is therefore a good candidate for the origin of life. Moving on...
You still don’t understand my position, I’m afraid. I do not take EITHER of those paths, of course! What I point out is that according to your definition of intelligent agency, ID has no way of demonstrating that WHATEVER was the cause of life had any of those particular characteristics!
Already addressed above.

HeKS: Finding a signal from space would not confirm for us that the intelligent agents responsible for the message had a minimum encephalization quotient any more than deciding that an intelligent agent really is necessary to explain life would confirm that said agent was immaterial. Furthermore, SETI doesn’t even say it would. They apply that characteristic to intelligent life on earth and speculate that it is possible that life on other planets may have similar physical characteristics, which is justified for them by certain philosophical presuppositions. Nonetheless, they recognize that attributing such characteristics to the alien intelligence would be speculative.
YES!!! EXACTLY!!! And for EXACTLY the same reason, the conclusions of ID are nothing but speculation!!!
Ummm, if by "speculation" you mean "not completely certain" and "held tentatively as the most reasonable explanation based on the evidence we have to date but subject to revision if contrary evidence is discovered in the future", then of course it's speculation. Do you mean to tell me that all this time you've been operating under the mistaken belief that ID proponents say they have definitively proved that life has an intelligent cause? If so, I've been wasting my time in this discussion. I honestly cannot believe how many people I've run into on this site that spend hours arguing that ID's inference to design has not been definitely proven with all certainty, as though anybody on the ID side has claimed otherwise.
YES!!! And how do they define “intelligence”? Read it again – I’ll quote it for you: “In the domain of SETI, intelligence has been operationalized as the presence of a technology detectable from Earth.” So OF COURSE they are searching for intelligence, but by “intelligence” ALL THEY MEAN is “able to produce a signal that is detectable from Earth”! They do not include consciousness, or volition, or encephalization, or any other characteristic in their definition of intelligence!
That is how they operationalize intelligence. Not how they define it. These are the kinds of things they include in the concept of "intelligence":
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.
Do you understand the difference between defining a concept and operationalizing it? Fuzzy concepts are operationalized because they "are directly difficult to observe ... but their existence can be inferred by means of their observable effects."

The way they hope to find it is by finding a specific type of signal. Why? Because that signal would be the product of technology, and SETI considers technology to be operationalized intelligence.
OMG! You didn’t understand what they said! They aren’t saying that technology is a sign of intelligence, or that technology requires intelligence… what they are saying is that in the domain of SETI, the term “intelligence” is operationally defined as the ability to send signals to Earth!!! This is simply a misunderstanding on your part.
OMG? Really? Were you twirling your hair and chewing bubble gum while you wrote that? In any case, no, this is not my misunderstanding. It's yours. And a ridiculous one at that. Especially this part:
They aren’t saying that technology is a sign of intelligence, or that technology requires intelligence
Of course, here's what SETI says:
SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, is an exploratory science that seeks evidence of life in the universe by looking for some signature of its technology.... ...Whether evolution will give rise to intelligent, technological civilizations is open to speculation. However, such a civilization could be detected across interstellar distances
Honestly, your claim that SETI doesn't say technology is a sign of intelligence or that technology requires intelligence is just downright ridiculous and obviously false. If I need to start parsing the sentences quoted above for you to show you that that is exactly what they are saying then there really is no point at all to our discussion.
Do you see? In SETI, all they mean by “intelligence” is that it can send a signal – nothing else.
I think you seriously need to figure out the difference between the meaning(s) included in a fuzzy concept and a particular operationalization of the concept. You seem to think they are the same thing. They aren't. SETI operationalizes intelligence as "technology detectable from Earth" because that gives them an observable effect of extra terrestrial intelligence that would allow them to infer the existence of an extra-terrestrial possessing the fuzzy concept of intelligence.
in order to begin talking about any other mental aspect we often associate with the term “intelligence”, you must move into the domain of astrobiology (which deals with encephalization, etc).
No, that's not true. Certain aspects could be logically inferred directly from the observable evidence. Furthermore, astrobiology considers things like an encephalization quotient to be a possible indicator or physical feature associated with intelligence that might carry over to life on other planets, but it has no commitment to the idea that intelligent alien life would absolutely have to have any particular encephalization quotient or anything else. I'll be gone most of the day and evening Sunday, so any further response from me, if it comes at all, will likely be delayed.HeKS_{October 26, 2014
October
10
Oct
26
26
2014
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PST}

Taken solely as his words above, RDF has now tacitly acknowledged that ID can operationalize intelligence in the same manner as SETI, and can demonstrate the presence of intelligence in the coding of organic polymers - and it can do so without any need to take a position on whether the intelligence is "natural, unnatural, supernatural, or anything else". Of course, we all recognize that RDF must argue against this situation regardless of the contradictions and biases that will be exposed by his retreat (see exhibit #173). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RDF, you cannot argue against the physical evidence of dimensional semiosis in the coding of organic polymers. All you can do is deny it. As a direct consequence, it is hardly surprising that you'd say I'm "just making it up" as a means of a defense against that evidence. Furthermore, to agree (in the space of a single comment) that the capacity to send narrow band signals into space is coextensive with human intelligence, then say that human intelligence is not coextensive with "anything that we understand", immediately demonstrates the contradiction and bias you are famous for.Upright BiPed_{October 26, 2014
October
10
Oct
26
26
2014
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PST}

Hi UB,
As RDF notes, SETI uses an operationalized definition of intelligence; the capacity to send narrow band signals detectable from earth.
That's right.
He also notes that they substantiate this operationalized definition by the universal observation that the capacity to send narrow band signals into space is coextensive with intelligence, in our case human intelligence.
Using that same operational definition, yes.
He goes on to acknowledge that finding the operationalized marker of intelligence ...
It is not a "marker" of intelligence! It is "intelligence". When SETI says that it is looking for "intelligence", it doesn't mean they are looking for some telltale sign that human-like intelligence exists - they mean they are looking for narrow-band signals from outer space. When they find those signals, astrobiologists may (or may not) be able to inform us of some likely characteristics of the source of the signals.
ID has no problem following this exact same methodology.
Oh yeah, it really does.
Whereas SETI operationalizes the definition of intelligence as the capacity to send a narrow band signal through space, ID can operationalize intelligence as the capacity to encode information by the use of dimensional representations (i.e. representations with a dimensional orientation). Dimensional semiosis and human intelligence are coextensive.
Sorry, you just made that up. Human intelligence is not "coextensive" with anything else that we understand, because we do not understand human intelligence. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 26, 2014
October
10
Oct
26
26
2014
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 15 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply