Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Science and Freethinking

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Everyone has a religion, a raison d’être, and mine was once Dawkins’. I had the same disdain for people of faith that he does, only I could have put him to shame with the power and passion of my argumentation.

But something happened. As a result of my equally passionate love of science, logic, and reason, I realized that I had been conned. The creation story of my atheistic, materialistic religion suddenly made no sense.

This sent a shock wave through both my mind and my soul. Could it be that I’m not just the result of random errors filtered by natural selection? Am I just the product of the mindless, materialistic processes that “only legitimate scientists” all agree produced me? Does my life have any ultimate purpose or meaning? Am I just a meat-machine with no other purpose than to propagate my “selfish genes”?

Ever since I was a child I thought about such things, but I put my blind faith in the “scientists” who taught me that all my concerns were irrelevant, that science had explained, or would eventually explain, everything in purely materialistic terms.

But I’m a freethinker, a legitimate scientist. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. And the evidence suggests that the universe and living systems are the product of an astronomically powerful creative intelligence.

Comments
But I would say also, that if a person insists that the word design does not mean “by plan” or “intelligently ordered” or “with purpose”, etc. then it is really pointless to try to argue some of the more detailed points about ID.
The argument is not really about the dictionary definition of the word design, but about the history of living things. the question is not about whether complex structures have a function, but about their history. One does not learn the history of an object by consulting the dictionary.Petrushka
October 12, 2011
October
10
Oct
12
12
2011
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Design as a noun means form and structure, composition, combination of details, pattern. These are all common usages among English speaking people. They refer to form, not history. But I can’t think of a more vacuous exercise in futility than trying to argue the history of an object by citing dictionary definitions of a descriptive word. I can't see this as an exercise in futility at all. People argue against ID, as Elizabeth just did, by claiming that they "see no evidence of design". If we discover later that she (and other critics) believe the word design has no definition, or that they only select certain 10th level definitions of the word, then why bother discussing or arguing the topic. Clearly, a definition of terms is essential. Again, you selected some definitions of the term -- for a reason. You want to argue that design only means "form". But the same dictionary.com gives the first 4 meanings as:
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge. 2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully. 3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students. 4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape. 5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.
This is even easier simply to refer to Dawkins' use of the word design which I quoted earlier. He says "designed for a purpose". For Dawkins, this is something observable in nature. But I would say also, that if a person insists that the word design does not mean "by plan" or "intelligently ordered" or "with purpose", etc. then it is really pointless to try to argue some of the more detailed points about ID. Can we say that Stonehenge indicates evidence of having been designed (by use of design, plan, intelligent ordering of materials)? If "No" -- then we should pursue a much different discussion. (and that's what I was hoping to show to Elizabeth as well).Proponentist
October 12, 2011
October
10
Oct
12
12
2011
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Design as a noun means form and structure, composition, combination of details, pattern. These are all common usages among English speaking people. They refer to form, not history. But I can't think of a more vacuous exercise in futility than trying to argue the history of an object by citing dictionary definitions of a descriptive word.Petrushka
October 12, 2011
October
10
Oct
12
12
2011
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Simple, isn’t it?
Dictionary.com definde the noun "design" as:
9. an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed. 10. organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition. 11. the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.
Petrushka
October 12, 2011
October
10
Oct
12
12
2011
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
UprightBiped, "That entire defense is a scam." I have long been assuming it isn't (perhaps for too long I have been thinking some of our opponents are really after scientific truth) but am becoming disillusioned. That is all very sad.Eugene S
October 12, 2011
October
10
Oct
12
12
2011
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
F/N courtesy Wiki: >>DESIGN: (noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints; (verb, transitive) to create a design, in an environment (where the designer operates)[Ralph, P. and Wand, Y. (2009). A proposal for a formal definition of the design concept. In Lyytinen, K., Loucopoulos, P., Mylopoulos, J., and Robinson, W., editors, Design Requirements Workshop (LNBIP 14), pp. 103-136. Springer-Verlag, p. 109.]>>kairosfocus
October 12, 2011
October
10
Oct
12
12
2011
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
I have made a more structured response to the recent themes in this thread here.kairosfocus
October 12, 2011
October
10
Oct
12
12
2011
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
Petrushka: You are an artist! The word “design,” whether apparent or otherwise means nothing. Design means the process by which an intelligent conscious beings pusposefully imparts a specific form to an object. An object is truly designed if it originated by such a process. An object is apparently designed if it has some properties that can evoke the hypothesis that it was designed, but in reality it originated by some other process. Simple, isn't it? But I suppose that the word "design" is useless if we want to debate if things are designed or not, exactly like the word "consciousness" is useless in connection to the problem of what consiousness is, and the word "free will" has nothing to do with the question of having free choices, as compatibilists have so smartly demonstrated! It's only us ID morons who for some strange reason insist in the foolish habit of sticking to the meaning of words. But, probably, we don't understand that the word "meaning" cannot certainly have anything to do with what words mean, as you have smartly demonstrated...gpuccio
October 11, 2011
October
10
Oct
11
11
2011
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT
Information processing systems are not just molecules, Elizabeth. For they include: 1. Common alphabet. 2. Common language. 3. Common semantics. Credibly, these 3 points are a result of design. It is nowhere that we can provably point to those three spontaneously evolving.Eugene S
October 11, 2011
October
10
Oct
11
11
2011
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
Ptrushka, a legitimate one would be most welcome.Upright BiPed
October 11, 2011
October
10
Oct
11
11
2011
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle, your response is simply over-run by evidence to the contrary. I have responded to these remarks here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/science-and-freethinking/comment-page-3/#comment-402625Upright BiPed
October 11, 2011
October
10
Oct
11
11
2011
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
F/N: P, note too that the usual cases of claimed observed incremental creation of novel info beyond the FSCI threshold, as a general rule boil down to: (a) targetted movements within an island of function, where the implicit, designed in information of a so-called fitness function of a well behaved type -- trends help rather than lead to traps -- is allowed to emerge step by step. (GA's are a classic of this.) (b) The focus is made on a small part of the process, much like how if a monkey were to indeed type out a Shakespearean sonnet by random typing, there would now be a major search challenge to identify that this has happened, i.e to find the case in the field of failed trials. (c) We are discussing relatively minor adaptations of known functions, well beyond the FSCI threshold -- hybridisation, or breaking down based on small mutaitons etc. For instance, antibiotic resistance, from a Design Theory view, must be recongised in light of the prior question: how do we get to a functioning bacterium based on coded DNA? (Somehow, the circularity of evolutionary materialism leads ever so many to fail to see that ability to adapt to niches and changes may well be a part of a robust design!) (d) We see a gross exaggeration of the degree and kind of change involved, e.g. copying of existing info is not creation of new FSCI. A small change in a regulatory component of the genome that shifts how a gene is expressed, is a small change, not a jump in FSCI. Insertion of a viral DNA segment is creation of a copy and transfer to a new context, not innovation of information. Etc. (e) We see circularity, e.g. the viral dna is assumed to be of chance origin. And so forth.kairosfocus
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
P: I see your:
The word “design,” whether apparent or otherwise means nothing. It’s a smoke screen. The issue is whether known mechanisms can account for the history.
You are in grave error. Design is itself a known, empirically observed, causal mechanism. Its specific methods may vary, but designs are as familiar as the composition of the above clipped sentences of ASCII text: purposeful arrangement of parts, towards a goal, and typically manifesting a coherence in light of that purpose. The arrangement of 151 ASCII 128-state characters above as clipped, is one of 1.544*10^318 possibilities for that many ASCII characters. The Planck Time Quantum state resources of the observed universe, across its thermodynamically credible lifespan, 50 mn times the time since the usual date for the big bang, could not take up as many as 1 in 10^150 of those possibilities. Translated into a one-straw sized sample, millions of cosmi comparable to the observed universe could be lurking in a haystack that big, and yet, a single cosmos full of PTQS's sized sample would overwhelmingly be only likely to pick up a straw. (And, it takes about 10^30 PTQS's for the fastest chemical interactions.) It is indisputable that a coherent, contextually responsive sequence of ASCII characters in English -- a definable zone of interest T, from which your case E above comes -- is a tiny and unrepresentative sample of the space of possibilities for 151 ASCII characters, W. We habitually and routinely know of just one cause that can credibly account for such a purposeful arrangement of ASCII characters in a string structure that fits into T: design. The other main known causal factors at this level -- chance and/or necessity, without intelligent intervention -- predictably would only throw out gibberish in creating strings of that length, even if you were to convert millions of cosmi the scope of our own observed one, into monkeys and world processors, with forests, banana plantations etc to support them. In short, there is good reason to see that design is a true causal factor. One, rooted in intelligence and purpose, that makes purposeful arrangements of parts; which are often recognisable from the resulting functional specificity in the field of possibilities, joined to the degree of complexity involved. As a practical matter, 500 - 1,000 bits of information-carrying capacity, is a good enough threshold for the relevant degree of complexity. Or, using the simplified chi metric at the lower end of that range: Chi_500 = I*S - 500, in bits beyond the solar system threshold. So, when we see the manifestation of FSCO/I, we do have a known, adequate mechanism, and ONLY one known, adequate mechanism. Design. That is why FSCO/I is so good as an empirically detectable sign of design, even when we do not otherwise know the causal history of origin. Do you really mean to demand of us that we believe that design by an intelligence with a purpose is not a known causal mechanism? If so, what then accounts for the PC you are using? The car you may drive, or the house or apartment etc. that you may live in? Do you see how you have reduced your view to blatant, selectively hyperskeptical absurdity? And, of course, the set of proteins and DNA for even the simplest living systems, is well beyond the FSCI threshold. 100,000 - 1 mn+ DNA bases is well beyond 1,000 bits of information carrying capacity. Yes, that points to design as the best explanation of living systems in light of the known cause of FSCO/I. What's new about that or outside the range of views of qualified and even eminent scientists across time and today? The bottomline is that it is quite evident that you do not have a sound counter-example to design that could reasonably explain the origin of cell based life or body plans with coded, digital functional info in its heart and have chosen instead to try to undermine the credibility of design as a causal mechanism. But, that comes at a stiff price: your reasonableness. Please, think again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT
You cannot explain change using a mechanism without demonstrating how that mechanism effects such change in that or some other instance.
That what Thornton has been doing the past few years. Reconstructing exact mutation histories and detailing the exact effects of each and every one.Petrushka
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
Petrushka, Blueprints and recipes are not bad analogies, although every analogy is flawed. They are generous analogies, because I'm deliberately comparing self-reproducing life to something easy to assemble and with far fewer parts.
That’s true of the inner ear bones, which are produced from former jaw bones by changes in the timing of growth stages.
Even if I were to concede this transition, it fails to make your point. You're describing something functional modified to suit a different functional purpose. You claim to know what mechanism effected the change but are unable to describe in any detail, which means that you don't really know what caused it. You cannot explain change using a mechanism without demonstrating how that mechanism effects such change in that or some other instance. Otherwise we just have to take your word for it. The method of science is to start from what we think we know and find out whether it's accurate. You can't just quit at step one.ScottAndrews
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
Anyway, no one has answered the question:
Give us a specific example of of something that has no subcomponents functioning in other organisms.
I there are so many examples, it should be easy to find just one.Petrushka
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
genomes are not blueprints or recipes. Those are simply bad analogies. To the extent there are assembly instructions they are more like instructions to add so many raisins and mix for so many minutes and bake for so many minutes. At the extremes, the product is inedible, but it's not the same as assembling a watch. That's true of the inner ear bones, which are produced from former jaw bones by changes in the timing of growth stages.Petrushka
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
The argument is about the specific history, not whether 500 or whatever bits of code arose purely by chance. The argument is about whether the incremental mechanisms known to mainstream biology are sufficient to account for what we see in the current world. I'll echo SA's respone above - yes, that's the issue. But implied in your statement is that we weigh evidence, for and against. If we can see that a system didn't arise by chance in one step, as you point out, then that is evidence that something other than pure chance was involved. Ruling out chance leaves us with two possibilities. Chance + Law (or mechanisms) and Design. So, science moves to evaluate mechanisms -- starting with positive evidence that chance must be ruled out. But the positive evidence that supports an investigation of possible mechanisms is also positive evidence supporting the possibility of design. To claim that "there's no evidence for design" would mean that we have absolute certainty that unintelligent mechanisms are the cause. The word “design,” whether apparent or otherwise means nothing. It’s a smoke screen. The issue is whether known mechanisms can account for the history. I'll agree to some extent, but Dawkins uses the term design, so he's referring to something that his readers and the scientific community should understand. Design is differentiated from any combination of chance and natural laws. Dawkins observes "what appears to be" design in nature. That's what Darwin observed also, and his theory was an attempt to prove that the design he observed was an illusion. So, I don't agree that you can just dismiss design as meaningless. Again, notice how Dawkins uses the term -- he appeals to something that is obvious. Why not use science to determine what would qualify as design in nature? This goes beyond merely eliminating known mechanisms, because one could always refer to an "as yet unknown mechanism" and never reach the conclusion that something "most likely was designed". Design does mean something. It wouldn't be reasonable to state that one sees no evidence for design, and at the same time refuse to accept that design exists at all.Proponentist
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Petrushka,
The argument is about whether the incremental mechanisms known to mainstream biology are sufficient to account for what we see in the current world.
Because ID is a positive inference it can also be argued for or against separately. It looks like one argument because if you win the one, you falsify ID. So yes, that's right at the heart of the matter.ScottAndrews
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
You can either observe design (of some kind) or not. If you can observe it, then you already distinguish it from non-design.
One can accept the inference that a complex system didn't arise in one step by chance without saying anything specific about its history. The argument is about the specific history, not whether 500 or whatever bits of code arose purely by chance. The argument is about whether the incremental mechanisms known to mainstream biology are sufficient to account for what we see in the current world. The word "design," whether apparent or otherwise means nothing. It's a smoke screen. The issue is whether known mechanisms can account for the history.Petrushka
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: What is the positive evidence for ID Scott? Sorry to ask you this again, but I do not see any evidence that I would call “positive”. There are already some superb insights from Mr. Andrews, Dr. Puccio and others on this long thread. But with the simple restatement of this kind of question, it might be good to build the discussion on some minimum, common agreement. I don't know if this will help Elizabeth or not, but in order to understand ID and evaluate the evidence for it (you're denying that you can see any evidence at all), it might be best to start with "design". This has already been presented to you several times, with examples from forensics (evaluating a crime scene) and Stonehenge and others. I can't speak for anyone else, but I would like to see Elizabeth admit, in good faith, that "design can be observed" -- at least in a general sense. From that point, we can take the next steps to evaluate Richard Dawkins' statement:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1
How does Mr. Dawkins know that something gives the appearance of design? Can his statement be tested scientifically? Obviously, if Mr. Dawkins is correct, then he is talking about "evidence that design can be observed in nature". He must have (apparently) tested this evidence and determined that it was illusory.
The illusion of purpose is so powerful that biologists themselves use the assumption of good design as a working tool. River out of Eden (1995) p.98
You can either observe design (of some kind) or not. If you can observe it, then you already distinguish it from non-design. If you refuse to accept that design exists and can be observed (in opposition to Dawkins), then it might be good to explain that first.Proponentist
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
In addition, imagine having the all the parts for a functional home gym laid out on your floor. Many OOL explanations seem to focus on the presence or this or the presence of that. But in this simple illustration, you have all the pieces. Even with that enormous "problem" solved, there is still no function and no realistic chance for function to arise. This is because assembling the pieces also requires information. Forget about who or what interprets them and builds the machine. That information must exist. The functionally specific content of that information should be much easier to measure than trying to figure out the fcsi of a bunch of pieces. One could ask whether the combination of pieces is irreducibly complex. But what about the combination of pieces and their assembly instructions? Having the pieces is only a tiny part of the problem. The solution becomes irreducibly complex because there is no function without all of the pieces and the accurate assembly instructions. It's an analogy and therefore has holes. You could leave off an end cap or some padding and the machine will work. But within that machine is a set of functions and parts that cannot function at all unless completely present and assembled.ScottAndrews
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Give us a specific example of of something that has no subcomponents functioning in other organisms.Petrushka
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
In particular, he gives concrete examples of different functions the same biological structure (cilium) is capable of performing depending on system configurations and initial conditions. IOW, the same "chemistry" can produce vastly different outcomes in different circumstances. The particular fine-tuned configurations are another layer on top of chemistry and therefore cannot be reduced to it without losing the ability to account for the observed differences in functionality.Eugene S
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
KF: Thank you for your contribution, very clear as usual. Just a clarification about my position regarding fine tuning, which could seem ambiguous if taken out of context. I do believe, obviously, that the inanimate universe is intellugently shaped, and finetuned to allow the development of life. IOWs, I do believe in the validity of the cosmological argument, that you have beautifully summed up in the second part of your post. But I also believe that the cosmological argument and the biological argument for design are two separated things: they share the general concepts of design detection, but are applied to different contexts. That is in no way a flaw: indeed. two separate arguments, each of them perfectly valid, is better than one. So, while I do believe that the general laws of the universe, andin particula the laws of biochemistry, are fine tuned to allow life, I am absolutely sure (and I am certain you agree) that in themselves they do not explain life. For biological life to exist, huge inputs of functional information must have taken place "after", that is in natural history, both for OOL and for later evolution. That's why, when debating with darwinists like Petrushka, I often ask them if they believe that the laws of biochemistry are so fine tuned as to explain life. Because that is not true, and because I am curious to see if they would go to the extreme of sharing an integral theistic evolution position, just to fight ID :)gpuccio
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: I have not followed well your discussion about IC (being busy with that other discussion with you, my resources are limites :) ), but I have the impression that there is a basci error in your reasoning. IC, like any other ID concept, is not a logical, deductive principle. It is an empirical principle related to specific models. So, the problem is not to demonstrate that simple IC objects (if you allow me the pun) can be generated in a non intelligently designed system. If their complexity is low, they certainly can, because they are in the range of realistic RV. The term "complexity" must be correctly understood. Even simple objects can have some degree of complexity. That's why, in ID, we measure functional complexity in bits. If you refer to Nehe's discussions about IC, you will see that his models are made of components which are, in themselves, very complex (proteins). Behe's point is that, while a single protein (provided it cen emerge in some way in its functional state) can then be selected by NS, a structure including many proteins, all of which are irreducibly necessary to the funal function, can be selected by NS only if all the blocks are already present at the same time. So, if you give an example where all the blocks can easily be presente at the same time, because they are very simple, then the IC structure can well emerge. But if, like in the examples given by Behe, each block is already very complex (and, I would say, already impossible to explain in darwinian terms), then the IC of the final structure adds huge levels of impossibility to the working of the darwinian algorithm. It's as simple as that, and it's as true as when Behe affirmed it for the first time.gpuccio
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: I never try to argue from authority, too. My point is very simple. I will try to repeat it as clearly as possible. If you consider the brain as a computing machine (which it certainly is, although it is certainly also other things), then the brain performs computations, through specific, determined algorithms. Let's call those algorithms "the software". They are abstract mathemathical entities. The same computation can in principle be made on any computing machine, because the computation itself is an abstract thing, whatever the hardware it is computed on. Let's be simple. If you compute 2+2 on a simple calculator, a PC, an abacus, or a brain, the physical procedures to compute can be different, but the abstract computation is the same (provided it is correct). And the output is the same (4). That is true of any computation. Now, let's say that after computing 2+2 the brain changes its neuronal structure, and becomes able to compute 3x3, a computation that maybe it could not do before. And so? The hardware has changed, but as soon as it computes something, again that new computation is abstract, and reproducible in principle on any computing machine. You can always represent any computation in terms of input data, computing procedures and output. You are certainly familiar with the concept of a "Turing machine". I quote here a simple definition from Wikipedia: "A Turing machine is a theoretical device that manipulates symbols on a strip of tape according to a table of rules. Despite its simplicity, a Turing machine can be adapted to simulate the logic of any computer algorithm, and is particularly useful in explaining the functions of a CPU inside a computer." I would like to stress the part that says "can be adapted to simulate the logic of any computer algorithm". Now, here we have two possibilities: a) You think that all procedures in the brain (and in consciousness) are algorithmic (maybe with chance providing some random data). That is, as far as I can understand, the position of strong AI. Then, in principle, they can be simulated on a Turing machine, and they are independent of the hardware. b) You believe that human reasoning (and therefore brain activities) is not completely algorithmic. That would be, I suppose, Penrose's position, and certainly mine (although for different reasons). It is not, as far as I can understand, strong AI position. Penrose does believe, and IMO has demonstrated, that human processes of thought are not completely algorithmic, even in the strict field of mathematics. He has his personal theories on that. I absolutely accept his starting principle and his demonstration (based, as you may know, on the Godel theorem). But my explanation is slightly different, and is based, as you may have understood, on the independent existence of a conscious I. In all that, hardware, however flexible, howevere dynamically chiseled by the software procedures, is not really relevant, because anyway what we are interested in are the computations and the outputs. Now, again, there are three main positions that are possible about what is called "the hard problem of consciousness" (why some entities are conscious and others are not): 1) Consciousness is an independent principle, expressed through a physical interface (my position and, luckily, of many others). 2) Consciousness is an emerging property of the abstract structure and working of the software (strong AI) 3) Consciousness is an emerging property of the hardware. This is not a common position, as far as I know, but as you seem to hint at it, I would like to comment briefly. It means, for instance, that a neuron network can generate consciousness, but a Turing machine simulating exactly the same computations as the neuron network, moemnt by momet, would not be conscious. As you can see, that is a position completely different from strong AI. IMO, as I have already said, it is a position that is at the same time partially right and completely wrong. It is partially right if we accept position 1 (my position). In that case, the specific properties of the hardware do count, but not because of the computations they perform, but rather because they can be appropriate as an interface for consciousness, or not. So, a neuronal network can be appropriate as an interface for consciuosness, while a Turing machine or a PC, performing the same computations, could be inappropriate for that. That would make a big difference. But if you don't accept the interface model, then it becomes really difficult to offer any explanation for the assumption that neuronal cells should be able to generate conscious events, and a Turing machine performing the same computations should not. Have you some reasonable model to support that view?gpuccio
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT
Scott: Inference to best, empirically warranted explanation on tested, reliable so far signs is a reasonable method that is relevant to sciences that try to reconstruct the past history of origins of a phenomenon or process. And, FSCO/I is such a sign. What happens is not that that is not so, but that on the topic of biological origins especially, worldview commitments are being cut across by were the unwelcome evidence points. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
Cf the brain as an in the loop, front end I/O controller.kairosfocus
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT
P: Why do you try to dismiss on pigeonholing? Once the reality of information and its ability to give direction to controller loops is in hand, there is absolutely no reason to reject the potential significance of such a supervisory controller. Control loops are controlled towards a target set by an intelligent agent who is using he loop. they are built based on designing function towards that end. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 23

Leave a Reply