Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Irreducible Complexity: the primordial condition of biology

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

nutshell

In 1996, Lehigh University professor of biochemistry, Michael Behe, published his first book Darwin’s Black Box, which famously advanced the concept of irreducible complexity (IC) to prominent status in the conversation of design in biology. In his book, Professor Behe described irreducible complexity as: A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

In illustrating his point, Behe used the idea of a simple mousetrap — with its base and spring and holding bar — as an example of an IC system, where the removal of any of these parts would render the mousetrap incapable of its intended purpose of trapping a mouse. Further, he provided examples of biological IC systems; each one dependent on several distinct parts in order to accomplish its task. Behe’s point in all this was that ALL the parts of the mouse trap are simultaneously necessary in order for a mousetrap to trap mice. And in a biological sense, if critical functions require several parts, then those functions would not occur until the various parts became available.  Read More

 

Comments
The RDFish vs Zächrielein exchange seems to have fizzled out prematurely. That's a shame. I was enjoying that while it lasted.mike1962
December 14, 2015
December
12
Dec
14
14
2015
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
CJYman: In reference to the point I made, is intelligence an arguably required attribute for the design of a narrow band signal? The only known source of narrow-band emissions are humans and their artifacts, and humans are generally considered intelligent (having the ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations). CJYman: Are all human attributes arguably required for the design of a narrow band signal? According to what we know of how technological intelligence occurs, then technological intelligence entails life at some point in its history.Zachriel
December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
Zachriel, again for purposes of this discussion, I don't really see anything with which to disagree. How does anything you've stated respond to my comment @296? And, I didn't say that order of inference is unimportant, scientifically. All I was saying is that your comment has nothing to do with my point. In reference to the point I made, is intelligence an arguably required attribute for the design of a narrow band signal? Are all human attributes arguably required for the design of a narrow band signal? You can carry on with actually responding to my comment @296 if you wish.CJYman
December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
CJYman: We are both only arguing for the ‘arguably required’ attributes, intelligence being the same arguably required attribute necessary for the existence of both the narrow band signal as well as semiotic systems. The SETI hypothesis is based on the evolution of technological organisms on suitable planets. That's why SETI looks at stars, especially long-living, next generation stars likely to harbor planets in the habitable zone. Yes, the order of inference is important in the scientific method @301.Zachriel
December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
The point was exactly as I stated:
Again, no one on your side or my side of the debate is arguing for every attribute that humans possess as being a part of either the source of the narrow band signal or the semiotic signal. We are both only arguing for the ‘arguably required’ attributes, intelligence being the same arguably required attribute necessary for the existence of both the narrow band signal as well as semiotic systems.
The 'direction of extrapolation' is irrelevant to this point.CJYman
December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
With regards to the former direction of inference, we tune an AM dial and listen to a love song on country radio. Aha! Mating ritual of humans. We tune the dial to FM and listen to NPR. Aha! Status display among Homo sapiens. We tune to Comedy Central. Aha! Some sort of ape laughing at someone slipping on a banana peel. We tune to a nebula. Aha! A periodic pulse, might be Little Green Men. Oops. No, just emissions from a neutron star. We tune to deep space. Hmm. Nothing but static. — Back to the love song. With regards to the latter direction of inference, based on our hypothesis, we point our radio telescopes to long-living, next generation stars, likely to harbor planets in the habitable zone, and listen. We continue to extend and refine our search based on our increasing knowledge of how planets form, how life begins, how life evolves, how technological organisms might communicate.Zachriel
December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
CJYman: What do you mean ‘my inference.’ Would it hurt you terribly to respond to my quote in context? It was a sarcastic response to RDFish and I explained this quite clearly. Yes, we read the sarcasm. The point you appeared to be making was that we extrapolate from the data-point of a narrow-band emission to a human-like organism. This is backwards with regards to SETI. Rather, we extrapolate from human-like organisms that emit radio emissions to the possibility of other human-like organisms that emit radio emissions. That's why we look at long-living, next generation stars, especially those likely to harbor planets in the habitable zone.Zachriel
December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
Hi Zachriel, What do you mean 'my inference.' Would it hurt you terribly to respond to my quote in context? It was a sarcastic response to RDFish and I explained this quite clearly. So, you really should take up your problem with RDFish. Oh, and for the purposes of this discussion, I see nothing in your response with which I disagree.CJYman
December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
CJYman: You mean like: 1) Humans build things that produce narrow band radio waves 2) Humans are living forms that eat, sleep, poop, — basically ‘life as we know it’ 3) Something in space produces THE signal 4) THerefore, that thing in space eats, sleeps, poops, etc. — is basially life as we know it
General Pope: My military headquarters are in the saddle. General Lee, on hearing this: If so his headquarters are where his hindquarters ought to be.
You have your inference backwards. Life appears to have arisen spontaneously on the primordial Earth, and humans evolved from that primitive beginning. Theories of abiogenesis imply that water, carbon and other second generation elements, as well as long stretches of time, are a minimum requirement for the evolution of technological organisms (meaning those capable of radio communications). Theories of star and planet formation imply that Earth-like planets are probably not unique. The recent discovery of exoplanets confirm and extend this general hypothesis (Bruno 1584). Hence, humans may not be the only technological organisms in the galaxy. This is encapsulated in the Drake Equation. http://www.seti.org/drakeequation To possibly detect other such organisms, pointing radio telescopes at next generation star systems, especially those that have suns stable enough to allow for long periods of evolution, especially those that have planets in the habitable zone, might result in detection of radio communications, or at least carrier signals, from those other, technological organisms.Zachriel
December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Just like when Jocelyn Bell discovered Little Green Men.
It wasn't a narrow-band transmission. Go figure...Virgil Cain
December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
Hello again RDFish, RDFish:
Yes, that is what SETI searches for – life as we know it, with intelligence as we know it.
CJYman:
If SETI is indeed looking for a certain level of intelligence … similar to the expressions of ‘intelligence as we know it,’ then that is exactly where the intersection lies between SETI and the ID argument from biosemiosis.
RDFish:
I don’t understand what you mean. SETI posits living organisms like us as the cause of a signal (if they ever get one);
That 'like us' part is really the key. It must be 'intelligent like us.' There is probably a good chance that it is indeed like us in many extra ways as you have already explained, however, a living thing could have everyone one of our attributes and still not produce the narrow band signal if it were not 'intelligent like us.' Do you now see what I mean. 'Intelligence' like us is THE key requirement and that is where the similarity between SETI and ID lies, regardless any differences. RDfish:
ID says absolutely nothing about what it is proposing as the cause of cellular machinery.
... except for something with intelligence like us. That is all the evidence permits at the moment. With SETI, the evidence may permit us to go a little further if the signal does indeed originate from a watery planet circling a star, etc. That is the difference. With ID, the signal destination is all we have at the moment, yet with SETI we could potentially also have the signal origin. The problem is that you seem to be implying that the presence of a difference between SETI and ID is proof of no similarity. If that is not what you are saying, then I really don't understand your point. CJYman:
It matters not where in space or time the signal begins, the signal points at the very least to some aspects of ‘intelligence as we know it.’
RDFish:
That would be the conjecture, yes, because “life as we know it” has “intelligence as we know it”. Obviously that conjecture doesn’t hold for something we know nothing about.
You are being arbitrary and inconsistent, or at least vague. At which human-like attributes does 'something we know nothing about' begin and end. If the signal is a chemical signal which requires at least human-like intelligence then we know something about its designer. If the signal is a narrow band radio wave originating from a watery planet orbiting a star, we may know something more about its designer. Where is your non-arbitrary starting point at which we may begin to infer attributes of the designer of a narrow band signal or a semiotic signal? What is your criteria for that non-arbitrary starting point? CJYman:
Serious?!?!? The answer: Humans use these abilities associated with the concept of intelligence to produce semiotic systems (automated systems) and semiotic patterns (books).
RDFish:
Serious?!?!?!? Just because humans are conscious, linguistic, etc. and they produce semiotic systems doesn’t mean that something else that makes similar systems that is very different from a human being is going to share those same attributes!
... except for the minimum of 'intelligence like us' ... you know, planning for future goals ... that is required to design semiotic systems. I could just as easily tell you that just because humans with a sufficient level of intelligence design narrow band transmitters doesn't mean that the designers of THE signal from outer space share every single attribute with us. We both already know that. That goes without saying. RDFish:
Humans use conscious thoughts (and knowledge of electrical engineering) to produce high-voltage electric arcs. Thunderclouds, however, produce high-voltage electric arcs without conscious thought or EE knowledge. Humans play chess by consciously thinking about moves; computers play chess (better than any human) without any conscious thought. Humans use conscious thought to solve search and tree optimization problems. Slime mold solves the same problems without any conscious thought. And so on, and so on.
Again, with the talk about consiousness. I think we have all made it very clear that intelligence and consciousness are quite different and one does not necessarily imply the other. You are preaching to the choir. RDFish:
It’s just a simple logical fallacy, really: Premise 1) X PRODUCES Y Premise 2) X HAS ATTRIBUTES A,B,C Premise 3) Z PRODUCES Y Conclusion) THEREFORE Z HAS ATTRIBUTES A,B,C (WRONG)
You mean like: 1) Humans build things that produce narrow band radio waves 2) Humans are living forms that eat, sleep, poop, -- basically 'life as we know it' 3) Something in space produces THE signal 4) THerefore, that thing in space eats, sleeps, poops, etc. -- is basially life as we know it In case you haven't figured it out, that was sarcasm. Again, no one on your side or my side of the debate is arguing for every attribute that humans possess as being a part of either the source of the narrow band signal or the semiotic signal. We are both only arguing for the 'arguably required' attributes, intelligence being the same arguably required attribute necessary for the existence of both the narrow band signal as well as semiotic systems. CJYman:
I don’t really see why you had to ask that question in the first place. What was the point anyway?
RDFish:
What question?
CJYman:
The question directly before my question. BTW, there is a difference between consciousness and intelligence, but I think that UprightBiped has already pointed that out.
RDFish:
That is why when ID proposes something that produces semiotic systems, but that something is likely very different from a human being, we have no justification for assuming it has the same array of mental abilities as humans do.
Incorrect. As far as we can tell, it must have the mental ability known as 'intelligence.' What we can't say for sure is exactly what structure of hardware, wetware, or information processing it utilizes to produce that ability until further evidence arises. CJYman:
That arbitrary classification is a distinction without significance. It has absolutely no application to the thread that actually is common between SETI and the ID argument from biosemiosis. I might be mistaken, but didn’t UprightBiped already go over all this with you?
RDFish:
UB bases his argument on an analogy with SETI. I’ve shown that his analogy with SETI fails for two reasons. First, SETI assumes that the sender of the signal is “life as we know it”, which is the basis for hypothesizing the sender may be similar in various ways to us (including having complex bodies with “high encephalization quotients”, which is how SETI says “big brains”). Second, SETI looks for signals that are not known to be caused by anything except living things like us. But the signal found in cells was obviously not produced by anything living like us.
You are still relying heavily on a distinction without significance. I've already explained how any difference between SETI and ID in reference to number of attributes that can be inferred does not negate the similarity to which Upright Biped has drawn attention. Actually, that should have been blatantly obvious from the beginning; requiring no explanation.CJYman
December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
You do realize that one of the more common definitions of Tarbaby is a racial slur? Slightly less offensive than th n word. You people must be proud of yourselves.George Edwards
December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
TarBaby: You seem to think SETI has not proposed a hypothesis, when they have explicitly done so. That's not very scientific of them.Mung
December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: you’ve been doing routine obfuscation work for your ideology for years. Says Upright BiPed, who has refused to answer a simple question four times previous. Upright BiPed: This conversation is about HOW we determine if intelligence life exists billions of miles away from earth. You seem to think SETI has not proposed a hypothesis, when they have explicitly done so. The hypothesis is that technological entities evolve on watery worlds revolving around a nuclear fireball. Furthermore, you confuse data with evidence. So try to answer that question. Why look at other star systems? Why look for watery worlds? Upright BiPed: You are a biological organism. You do not emit narrow-band radio waves. SETI searches for narrow band radio waves. Humans make radio waves like termites make termite mounds. Human manipulate what they find in the environment to produce radio waves like termites manipulate what they find in the environment to make termite mounds. Notably, termites produce termite mounds unconsciously, each individual termite following a simple set of rules. Upright BiPed: We identify narrow band radio waves with a spectrum analyzer. Spectrum analyzers do not detect consciousness, or IQ, or fashion sense. Either the signal is of the a narrow band variety, or it is not. If you are just collecting narrowband radio signals, then there are plenty on the AM dial. Why look at other star systems? Why look for watery worlds? Upright BiPed: Tax dollars will flow, socio-political lines will be drawn, and every astrobiologist on the surface of the planet will have a microphone stuck in their face to get some B-roll of them saying “We are not alone!”. Sure. Just like when Jocelyn Bell discovered Little Green Men. Any discovery of an extraterrestrial narrow-band emission will be met with scrutiny, but it will certainly be of great interest. Of course, if you found the Book of Genesis encoded in a natural genome, or in an extraterrestrial transmission, that would also be of great interest.Zachriel
December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Daniel King, If you need someone to spell it out for you, rest easy, you're not what SETI is looking for.Mung
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
LMAO. God I hope all this fancy equipment hasn’t cost the taxpayer anything. Take people who work with radioactive materials and have detection systems. Alarm board lights up. The second scientist to see the alarm thinks nothing of it. Wouldn’t want to arrive at any unwarranted conclusions! Muwahahahah. OMG. Thanks Zachriel. Good one! Seriously Upright BiPed, you are wasting your time. Zachriel is the Tar Baby of UD.
Mung laughed his ass off. Presumably a one-time event, given human anatomy. Why, is anybody's guess. Incoherent rants ("Muwahahahah. OMG") seem to be routine here.Daniel King
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
The second scientist probably wouldn’t bother. But if she did, she reads the same result, but draws no conclusion.
LMAO. God I hope all this fancy equipment hasn't cost the taxpayer anything. Take people who work with radioactive materials and have detection systems. Alarm board lights up. The second scientist to see the alarm thinks nothing of it. Wouldn't want to arrive at any unwarranted conclusions! Muwahahahah. OMG. Thanks Zachriel. Good one! Seriously Upright BiPed, you are wasting your time. Zachriel is the Tar Baby of UD.Mung
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
RDFish @ 287. Yes, I know you are not an idiot, just deeply misguided. And I know you did not mean what you said strictly literally. I have no idea what you actually meant, but certainly it is not what you actually said. I was just having a little fun at your expense. And it can be an object lesson. It is no fun when someone refuses to read you charitably, as you always do when you jump on your "no one has believed in materialism in 100 years" hobby horse.Barry Arrington
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
Barry: So, in sum, ID does not require a conscious designer, but it certainly does not exclude one.
RDFish: Either ID can provide an empirical case that shows the cause of living things had conscious awareness or it can’t.
Fish, you seem to have an impoverished understanding of what it means to provide rational empirical support for a proposition. I will try to help you. 1. The semiotic code in DNA is best explained by the act of an intelligent agent, because for all such codes where the provenance of the code has actually been observed, invariably and without exception the code was caused by an intelligent agent, namely a human being. As a corollary to this proposition, we see no law/chance cause currently in operation that has the capacity to cause a semiotic code. Therefore, we make an abductive inference. The best explanation for the cause of the semiotic code is “act of intelligent agent.” 2. Was the intelligent agent who created the semiotic code conscious? It is not necessary to answer this question to make the inference made in paragraph 1. Intelligence in this case is not defined as “conscious.” It is defined as “the capacity to arrange matter for a purpose.” In our experience, however, conscious agents like human beings produce semiotic codes routinely, and humans’ consciousness is obviously connected to their ability to create semiotic codes. Therefore, one could infer that the agent who created the biological semiotic code is also conscious, and such an inference would be supported by the empirical evidence. 3. The abductive inferences in both 1 and 2 are supported by the empirical evidence. The abductive inference in 1 is fundamental to the ID project. The abductive inference in 2 is not.Barry Arrington
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Hi Barry Arrington,
RDFish has reached a new level of idiocy. What compels him to make such blatantly indefensible statements? It is a mystery.
I'm not an idiot, and you know that full well. When you think I've said something only an idiot would say, you would do well to think a bit before you jump to the unreasonable conclusion that I am stupid. You are not stupid either. The reason is virtually always miscommunication, not idiocy. What you miss about SETI is the reason SETI folks look for radio waves. They didn't pick it at random, or because they are full of CSI, or that they are irreducibly complex. They picked those waves because human beings would send them out into space, and they're looking for things like human beings (life as we know it). If SETI wasn't looking for extra-terrestrial life forms, why would they look for these radio signals coming from other Earth-planets? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
Hi Barry Arrington,
RDF: [Barry] admits ID can’t support an inference to a conscious mind. BA: Of course I never said this or admitted anything of the sort. RDFish, the quickest way to be shown the exit from this blog is to tell lies about me. Stop it. Last warning.
Here is what you said:
Is the teleology explained by a conscious, rational being? I believe it is, but that belief is a metaphysical belief. ID does not require it.
I would say a reasonable interpretation of what you said would be just exactly what I said - that in your opinion, ID can't support an inference to a conscious mind. And you accuse me of lying about what you've said? Wow.
So, in sum, ID does not require a conscious designer, but it certainly does not exclude one.
And now you've said it again. Either ID can provide an empirical case that shows the cause of living things had conscious awareness or it can't. You say that ID does not require that this cause be conscious, and Dembski has said the same thing. If ID could present scientific evidence that the cause of life was conscious, then it would be part of the theory, but it isn't, because it can't.
“Purpose” is, of course, the key word. It means the designer must be able to act in the present for a remote end or goal, something that is beyond the capacity of chance and known mechanical law.
I'm still having trouble understanding why you think we can empirically establish "purpose" without actually knowing how something came to exist. The irrigation system in a corn field is clearly for the purpose of watering the crops so they will grow. But while the raincloud above irrigates the corn too, it's not clear that is its purpose, right? Now, you may just revert the conversation to CSI rather than "purpose" (perhaps you think the irrigation system has CSI but the raincloud doesn't), but then we're just talking about CSI rather than purpose, so why bring up "purpose" in the first place? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Stop with this already! Of course the detection of [narrow-band] radio waves has nothing to do with anything except detecting radio waves! intelligence!
Fixed that for you.Upright BiPed
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
RDFish
Stop with this already! Of course the detection of radio waves has nothing to do with anything except detecting radio waves!
RDFish has reached a new level of idiocy. What compels him to make such blatantly indefensible statements? It is a mystery. I suppose RDFish imagines the sales pitch to Paul Allen for $13 million to continue SETI went something like this: SETI Team: And we point our instruments at the sky, Mr. Allen, hoping to detect a certain kind of radio wave. Paul Allen: And if you detect that kind of radio wave, what then? SETI Team: Nothing of course, the detection of radio waves has nothing to do with anything except detecting radio waves Mr. Allen. Do try to keep up. Paul Allen: Sign me up.Barry Arrington
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
You are a biological organism. You do not emit narrow-band radio waves. SETI searches for narrow band radio waves. See the problem?
Yes, the problem is that you don't actually think very clearly. SETI doesn't think biological organisms emit radio waves; they think that they work together, using their big brains and the tools they develop, and the build technology, and that this technology is what emits these waves. That is why they look for those radio waves in order to find life out there in the universe.
1) If narrow-band radio waves are a good indicator of conscious, human-like intelligence,...
Most people don't think that just the radio waves are that at all. It would depend on other things, like the source of the transmission (e.g. was it from a planet with liquid water?), did it have other characteristics of human-like technology (e.g. was there modulation of the signal?) and so on.
We identify narrow band radio waves with a spectrum analyzer. Spectrum analyzers do not detect consciousness, or IQ, or fashion sense. Either the signal is of the a narrow band variety, or it is not.
Stop with this already! Of course the detection of radio waves has nothing to do with anything except detecting radio waves!
SETI can detect a measurable artifact of intelligence without the laundry list of attributes you insist on.
The "laundry list" is what most people associate with the word "intelligence". If you aren't talking about this laundry list, then you aren't talking about "intelligence" the way most people use the term. If you'd like to provide a technical definition instead, then do so. Otherwise, unless you can actually provide some sort of rationale for inferring those laundry list items, stop pretending that you have made an inference to "intelligence". Here, perhaps this may help: If we observed some humanoid alien (like in SciFi movies) who was able to produce something with high levels or IC or CSI of some sort, we would certainly infer that this creature has a brain somewhat similar to ours, had conscious mental experiences like ours, and shared the rest of our mental abilities more or less. If we observed some extra-terrestrial entity that was really different from us (like in more imaginative SciFi movies - maybe it's made out of light or it's a super-colony of space insects or...), we might have some doubts about what we shared. It probably wouldn't have a brain like ours... Would it have consciousness like we have? A language with recursive grammar like ours? Ability to learn new skills? We’d have to interact with the non-humanoid alien in order to ascertain these things, and it wouldn’t be easy. Now, what about something even more alien to us - perhaps an impersonal telic process that produced CSI but had nothing else in common with us (no sort of brain or sense organs, no sort of body at all, not even existing within spacetime, outside of our imagination). What reason could we give to say this, uh, whatever had conscious experiences like we do? Had linguistic skills like we do? That would be very hard to determine, and would depend on how we could interact with this thing. In the context of ID, there is no way to ascertain what particular items from the "laundry list" that describes intelligence may have been involved. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
Nor does detection of a narrow-band emission necessarily ‘prove’ the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. Any such emission will, if discovered, be subjected to exceptional scrutiny, and additional evidence will be required to support the hypothesis, perhaps some message independent of the medium.
I understand that in the context of this particular conversation you’d like to promote the idea that if SETI receives an unambiguous narrow-band carrier wave from some distant galaxy, their response will be to contain themselves as modest men, reservedly pondering what the signal might mean – but that’s a fairy tale. They will, as they have clearly indicated in their literature, first verify that the signal is indeed of extraterrestrial origin (not mistakenly an earthly transmission) and then they will announce the discovery “as quickly and as widely as possible”. Tax dollars will flow, socio-political lines will be drawn, and every astrobiologist on the surface of the planet will have a microphone stuck in their face to get some B-roll of them saying “We are not alone!”. They will all say it, and they will say much much more. But since you brought it up ... I wrote specifically about this issue on Biosemiosis.org:
AUTHENTICITY The methodology used to detect an act of unknown intelligence in the cosmos is used to detect an act of unknown intelligence at the origin of life. In both of these cases the issue of authenticity (i.e. the reliability of the result) will come into play – and as it turns out, there is a meaningful correlation between the two cases. If it came to pass that a narrow-band radio signal was received from across the vastness of space, the SETI institute would (enthusiastically) conclude that it had confirmed the presence of an unknown intelligence. If such a signal was received, there would be two things that could be objectively detected. First, there is the narrow-band “carrier” wave, and then there is the actual message encoded within that carrier wave. While it is possible that a strong carrier wave could be detected from deep space, the actual message (information) encoded within that signal would likely be either degraded or lost entirely over such an immense distance. SETI scientists understand this issue and have specifically set up their research to detect the narrow-band carrier wave because narrow-band waves are only known to be produced by artificial means. There is simply no rational conceptualization whereby inanimate forces come together to create narrow-band radio waves. They are, in fact, a distinct and reliable artifact of design. Even so, there would likely be skeptics who would question the conclusions of the SETI scientists, given the simple fact that there is no way to actually test whether or not some unknown combination of natural forces could have created the narrow-band signal (if one was received). But those dissenting voices would surely have to concede our universal experience – narrow-band radio signals simply do not occur in nature without intelligence. In the end, there would be little empirical basis to support their objection. However, there is one result that SETI scientists could produce that would immediately end all objections. This would be the case if SETI not only received a narrow-band carrier signal, but was also able to retrieve and translate the encoded message within that signal. In order to accomplish this, the researchers would have to isolate the representations within the signal medium and they would have to decipher the protocols that translate those representations into meaning. SETI researchers have already anticipated this exact opportunity; suggesting that even if the message was not decipherable, they would analyze it by other methodologies, perhaps (for instance) to determine how much information the message contained. As a matter of brute fact, it would be the discovery of this semiotic content within the signal that would immediately end all questions as to its intelligent origin. Its authenticity would become unquestionable based squarely upon the presence of that semiotic content. It simply cannot go unnoticed that the very observation that would make the SETI results unquestionable is the very observation already made within the genome of every living thing on earth. And just as it is in the case of narrow-band radio signals, there is simply no rational conceptualization whereby inanimate forces come together to create a system of spatially-oriented representations, as well as the rules to translate those representations into meaningful effects. Such things are, in fact, a distinct and reliable artifact of design.
Upright BiPed
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
RDFish:
[Barry] admits ID can’t support an inference to a conscious mind.
Of course I never said this or admitted anything of the sort. RDFish, the quickest way to be shown the exit from this blog is to tell lies about me. Stop it. Last warning. Now, I did say that if Thomas Nagel's "natural teleology" is found, it would not be necessary for that causal force to be conscious. In fact, that is Nagel's entire project; after the obvious failure of modern evolutionary theory to account for the observations of complex specified information -- which RDFish admits -- Nagel is pushing his fellow atheist monists to admit their past failures and start looking for answers that account for the obvious teleology in nature. And Dembski says in Being and Consciousness, that Nagel might be on to something, and his position is not far from the ID position in the sense of agnosticism about the nature of the designer. So, in sum, ID does not require a conscious designer, but it certainly does not exclude one. ID's requirements for a designer are very minimal: the ability to arrange matter for a purpose. "Purpose" is, of course, the key word. It means the designer must be able to act in the present for a remote end or goal, something that is beyond the capacity of chance and known mechanical law. Nagel believes his "natural teleological force" meets the bill. And if such a force exists he would be right and he and ID would be confirmed and "blind watchmaker" evolutionary theory would be refuted. And the "designer" would not be conscious. That is all Dembski and I have "admitted."Barry Arrington
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
UB: it’s not physically possible to search for “life as we know it” from a trillion miles away. RD: And yet that is exactly what SETI folks say they’re doing.
No they don’t, by their own words. Get this through your head: You are a biological organism. You do not emit narrow-band radio waves. SETI searches for narrow band radio waves. See the problem? We identify narrow band radio waves with a spectrum analyzer. Spectrum analyzers do not detect consciousness, or IQ, or fashion sense. Either the signal is of the narrow band variety, or it is not. Still with me? SETI can detect a measurable artifact of intelligence without the laundry list of attributes you insist on. ID can detect a measurable artifact of intelligence without the laundry list of attributes you insist on. Your argument against ID in regard to that laundry list is dead dead dead.Upright BiPed
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
Again, it’s not physically possible to search for “life as we know it” from a trillion miles away.
And yet that is exactly what SETI folks say they're doing.
As far as characterizing SETI as a search for “life as we know it”, the researchers could say anything or nothing at all and it would change absolutely nothing in the process of detecting the intelligence.
Of course it would change everything. They look for planets with temperatures like Earth, that have water like Earth has, and for planets old enough to allow for the evolution of complex organisms like those on Earth, so they have big enough brains to think like we do. They look for narrow-band signals because that is what we Earthlings use. They talk about all of this, explicitly. Why? Why hire astrobiologists if biology has nothing to do with the research? Why look for signs of technology like we use if they are not looking for life forms like us? I've explained all this over and over again, but you are too invested to hear it.
Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, at no time in the process of detecting a narrow-band signal is there anything altered, adjusted, changed, or modified to account for the laundry list of things you’ve argued for. The signal either fits the criteria or it doesn’t. Period.
The point you miss is that the reason SETI thinks these signals would come from intelligent (and perhaps even conscious) entities is because they are looking for life forms like us. Once they have assumed that civilizations of human-like organizations may use human-like technology to communicate from Earth-like planets, then of course the actual mechanics of scanning for the narrow-band signals from these human-like technologies does not need to involve any assumptions about liquid water, or temperate planets, or stars, or anything else.
RDF: You’ve just conceded that you have no scientific justification for inferring that conscious thought was involved in the producing the protein synthesis mechanisms UB: I’ve conceded nothing of the sort;
It appeared that you did. Why didn't you answer the question then? Either you believe that you have provided some sort of scientific case for the conscious awareness of the cause of living things, or you haven't. Which is it? (BTW, Dembski would answer no, ID cannot validly infer conscious thought associated with the cause of living things. And Barry A just explicitly agreed. So at least you wouldn't be alone as an ID proponent who admits ID can't support an inference to a conscious mind).
But instead of discussing the merits of the evidence (which you won’t touch with a ten foot pole)
WHAT? Please name one piece of evidence I have ignored that has anything to do with inferring the mental attributes of the source of protein synthesis machinery.
RD: I have explained to you that the context of SETI – their assumption that they are looking for something we are familiar with as a civilization of life forms – underlies their inferences regarding what might be responsible for narrow-band transmissions. UB: This first sentence tells us that SETI researchers will assume (by “life as we know it”) that a conscious entity is responsible for the existence of a narrow band radio signal (should one ever be received).
No, it tells you that SETI researchers look for those particular things because they have made a set of assumptions based on our knowledge of life on Earth.
Of course, they wouldn’t have actually *tested* for consciousness, and so by your standards, they wouldn’t actually have any “scientific justification” for it — but regardless, you see it as a reasonable assumption given that an intelligence has indeed been detected.
If they do receive such a signal, a scientific investigation will ensue of course. The reasoning that may lead SETI to conclude that consciousness was involved will be based on evidence that the senders are similar to human beings, because human beings (and other complex animals) are the only conscious entities we know of.
RD: I have explained to you that without those assumptions, they would not be justified in making any inferences regarding what characteristics may be true of the source of those signals. SB: So, you say — without making the assumption that the source of the signal was conscious, they would not be justified in inferring that the source of the signal was conscious.
NO!!!!!! You misunderstand once again. Here is what I am saying: Without making the assumption that the source of the signal was similar to human beings, they would not be justified in inferring that the source of the signal was conscious.. Do you see now? And yes, if you think it would take more evidence than merely some narrow-band signal for scientists (in or out of the SETI program) to conclude some conscious aliens are responsible, you are of course quite correct.
This appears to be another RDFish logical dumpster fire.
If you mean I've built one to burn your trashy argument, yes, I suppose, metaphorically speaking. :-)
Perhaps it’s akin to your other claim that rivers choose their paths to the ocean — it needn’t make sense.
Great! When I'm done ripping apart your fallacious semiotics arguments we can debate free will!
So to me you say: #226: … you have no scientific justification for inferring that conscious thought was involved in the producing the protein synthesis mechanisms. #236 … you have no scientific justification for inferring that conscious thought was involved in the producing the protein synthesis mechanisms in living cells. #243 … you have no scientific justification for inferring that conscious thought was involved in the producing the protein synthesis mechanisms
Yes I'd say I made that rather clear. If you'd been listening I could have saved a lot of typing.
And following your underlying theme, the reason that I have no “scientific justification” for inferring any reasonable attributes of the intelligence is because I did not assume them upfront.
NO. It is because you haven't said what you talking about. SETI assumes something that is like a human will have mental abilities like a human. So it looks for signals like humans make, and if it finds them, maybe they'll think a human-like mind was responsible. You just aren't getting it. Here, try this: RDFish talks to SETI: SETI: We're looking for intelligence. RDF: Huh? What do you mean, intelligence? SETI: Ah, we have written many papers about that - just read our site. We make a ton of assumptions regarding astrobiology, encephalization quotients, evolution, and other things, and are explicitly looking for civilizations of beings that are similar to us in many ways. One of the ways we assume they are similar to us is that they will build technology similar to that which we build (that assumption underlies our choice of our operational definition - the evidence that we are actually looking for). If we find evidence of such beings, we may (or may not) feel justified in saying that since they are similar to humans in other ways, they may also be similar in that they experience conscious awareness. RDF: OK! Good thinking. Hope you find some ETs! RDFish talks to UB: UB: I've shown that intelligence was responsible for protein synthesis mechanisms RDF: Huh? What do you mean, intelligence? UB: You are ridiculous. How dare you ask such a supid question! RDF: No, seriously - you haven't actually said what you're talking about. UB: I'm talking about semiotics! About codes and thermodynamics and spatial representations and all of these science-y sounding things! RDF: None of that has anything to do with what produced those things. UB: It was, you know... intelligence! Consciousness and whatever. I have an operational definition! RDF: SETI's operational definition derives from their assumptions about what they are looking for. What about yours? UB: I make no assumptions about what I'm looking for. I'm not actually looking for anything. I just look at the semiotic nature of cells and conclude no natural process could produce it. Then I simply declare, with no justification whatsoever, that the cause of this was something with a human-like mind - conscious awareness, general linguistic abilities, learning and novel problem-solving abilities, whatever. Then I go back and call the semiotic characteristics that are in the cells an "operational definition of intelligence"... but still I refuse to say what other attributes of "intelligence" are involved. Except consciousness... it's gotta be conscious, right? :-)
Perhaps the only thing that can enhance the deformity in this reasoning is to simply remember it doesn’t matter whether I assume them or not — they are completely irrelevant to the methodology of the test.
For the 100000th time, the methodology of the test is not the issue. The issue is what assumptions underly the test, and what the conclusion of the test would be based on.
Perhaps the only real explanation for this morass is your deep need to avoid talking about the observable facts of semiosis in the cell.
As I've told you 1000000 times, none of that has ever mattered, because we agreed on IC in the cell before the debate even began. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Zach, you’ve been doing routine obfuscation work for your ideology for years. It would be difficult to imagine that you don’t find it intellectual satisfying. You and I both know, when it comes to searching the stars at this juncture in our existence, WHERE we look for intelligent life does not alter HOW we look for intelligent life. This conversation is about HOW we determine if intelligence life exists billions of miles away from earth. We do it by looking for narrow-band radio signals. The bandwidth of any signal we recieve is the same regardless of what we might imagine is sending the signal, or what our hypothesis might be. One might think this would be obvious. I simply could not do what you do every day of the week. “The second scientist wouldn’t bother”. That’s just not something I want to do, and I could not hide it from myself what I was doing. It’s remarkable that you do it so well.Upright BiPed
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: And so…the second scientist “wouldn’t bother” to read the frequency display becuase Why look at stars? Why look for watery worlds? Why look at radio emissions?Zachriel
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
1 2 3 11

Leave a Reply