Skip to content
Tuesday, April 13, 2021

Uncommon Descent

Serving The Intelligent Design Community

  • Home
  • News Desk
  • Resources
    • Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design
    • ID Defined
    • Glossary
    • Archive of Posts by Michael Behe
    • Darwinian Debating Devices
  • Archives
  • Comment Policy
    • Moderation
    • Put a Sock In It
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
  • Home
  • Karl D. Stephan

Tag: Karl D. Stephan

Artificial Intelligence Intelligent Design Mind Naturalism

Computers can’t think like people; they only do symbolic logic

Engineering prof Karl D. Stephan: Symbolic logic says nothing about the truth or reality of what you give it. To understand what things really are, you have to get outside the pristine mathematical structure of symbolic logic and embrace what Prof. Kreeft calls Socratic logic.

Posted on July 31, 2019July 31, 2019 Author News Comment(1)

Advertisements

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Search

Advertisements

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Donate

Help us to continue generating quality content and reliable website service.

Recent Comments

  • bornagain77 JVL asks: "How do you test that (God) hypothesis in the lab?" Hmmm, interesting question, tell you what, you show... – Michael Egnor: Here’s why an argument...
  • Querius Asauber @45, Yes, exactly. Their spirituality was a Nazi blend of mysticism, honor, colorful ceremonies, solemn oaths, German mythology, strong... – Stephen Hawking was Sometimes Embarrassingly Stupid
  • Querius Bob O'H @43, Fair enough. I reacted because the quote being discussed here (“Because there is a law such as... – Stephen Hawking was Sometimes Embarrassingly Stupid
  • doubter Q. "Do you have any neurological support for experiencing pain or whether something is conscious or not?" Even in principle,... – At Scientific American: Why we live...
  • JVL ET: So it has to be able to handle the God hypothesis if that is how it really happened. How... – Michael Egnor: Here’s why an argument...
  • Querius Silver Asiatic @ 40-42, Nicely articulated in a target rich environment. ; -) As to the exact nature of the... – Stephen Hawking was Sometimes Embarrassingly Stupid
  • bornagain77 Bob, Please do explain the flagellum via unguided Darwinian processes. Electron Microscope Photograph of Flagellum Hook-Basal Body http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-08-20images/figure03.jpg Structural diversity... – Michael Egnor: Here’s why an argument...
  • Querius Viola Lee @39, Yes, I agree with this as well. And quoting an MLB star on some pronouncement on the... – Stephen Hawking was Sometimes Embarrassingly Stupid
  • Bob O'H The “replication errors” is a subjective judgement. Is it a “modification” or an “error” if it is directed? What if... – What Most People Don't Know About...
  • jerry Hasn’t the scientific understanding of factors involved with evolution changed quite a bit since then? Yes and no. We had... – What Most People Don't Know About...
  • Bob O'H ET - the bacterial flagellum is a lot bigger than a single molecule like dynein and kinesin. But nice try. – Michael Egnor: Here’s why an argument...
  • Querius VL @34, The truth of the matter is that almost everyone here is talking about things that we don’t have... – Stephen Hawking was Sometimes Embarrassingly Stupid
  • Viola Lee Hi Johnny. You write, "It sounds like you think that all scientists agree about everything, are up-to-speed about everything, and... – What Most People Don't Know About...
  • mohammadnursyamsu Natural selection is based around subjective terminology, differential reproductive "success", which subjective terminology is then objectified. The entire life cycle... – What Most People Don't Know About...
  • johnnyb Bob - The "replication errors" is a subjective judgement. Is it a "modification" or an "error" if it is directed?... – What Most People Don't Know About...
  • polistra I couldn't get past the Beavis and Butthead dudes. – Was the pupil of the eye...
  • ET There are actual photos of a bacterial flagellum, Bob. Mark Perkah uses those as alleged evidence against ID. But his... – Michael Egnor: Here’s why an argument...
  • ET The Darwinian ideological mindset implies materialism. That mindset dispenses with telic processes. That mindset says that blind and mindless processes... – What Most People Don't Know About...
  • doubter Tjguy You hit the nail on the head. – Was the pupil of the eye...
  • johnnyb Viola - "Was it not scientists who discovered all this, and thus broadened our knowledge about how genetics works?" Yes!... – What Most People Don't Know About...
  • Viola Lee WJM, you call it an "ideological mindset". I've asked this question before and never got a clear answer: do you... – What Most People Don't Know About...
Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent. All rights reserved.
Theme: Newspaper Plus by ThemeCentury. Powered by WordPress.