Someone please send Barbara Forrest a thesaurus

_{February 9, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Barbara Forrest responds to David DeWolf in The News Star.

Early in the article Forrest puts forth a false dichotomy which undermines all that follows. My emphasis:

DeWolf’s portrayal of ID as scientific is falsified by his defining it as involving the “actions of an intelligent agent as the cause of phenomena that natural processes are unlikely to produce.” If phenomena are not naturally caused, they are supernaturally caused. There is no other alternative.

Not only are there other alternatives but supernatural isn’t even an antonym for natural. If we go to a thesaurus and look up the word natural we find listed among the antonyms the words technological and artificial. Notably we do not find the word supernatural listed as an antonym.

Maybe Babs should spend more time improving her vocabulary and less time disproving the assertion that ID is science.

Of course there’s an alternative explanation here. Perhaps Forrest is well aware that natural/supernatural is a false dichotomy and she’s just an unapologetic liar. In fact that makes more sense as you usually can’t get a PhD without at least a college entrance-level vocabulary.

Comments

R0b, using your hands to create a sand castle is “foresight” in that you expected the technique to end in a result that served the function of creating a facsimile of a castle.
The term foresight is usually used in connection with humans, but in order to be useful to ID, a generalized and operationalized definition is needed. Can computers have foresight? How about animals that gorge themselves before hibernating? Or ants that dig tunnels? Or a dog that salivates when a bell is rung? How about an electromagnetic force vector that points to a position that's linearly-extrapolated from a particle's previous position? Does linear extrapolation count as foresight?R0b_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
That means, then, that you can distinguish human agency from natural causes, which is the point that JayM denies.
I know that you don't intend to put words in my mouth, StephenB, but your questions and my answers said nothing about "natural causes", an ambiguous term. You previously defined "natural causes" to mean "law and chance". I cannot distinguish human agency from law and chance.
He maintains that we cannot know the difference, meaning that we cannot differentiate between [A] a sand castle that was formed by the ocean and the wind from [B] one that was designed by human hands.
Anyone reading this would think that, if true, then JayM must be a nutcase. The same is true of your claim from the other thread that the academy teaches that nothing is man-made. Those professors need to stop sniffing their dry-erase markers. The problem is that you load the terms "designed" and "man-made" with the metaphysical assumptions like libertarian free will and maybe dualism. In my experience, most people use these words in a way that's independent of any metaphysical baggage. When archeologists say that arrowheads are man-made, they mean that they were formed by humans. Whether human activity is reducible to C+N is a separate question.R0b_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

R0b, using your hands to create a sand castle is "foresight" in that you expected the technique to end in a result that served the function of creating a facsimile of a castle.Upright BiPed_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

----Rob: Even if I didn’t know this, I know that we humans have a mental store of information that includes what castles look like, and the ability to use our hands to fashion things according to our mental images. That would account for the similarity between the sand formation and castles. I can’t think of any aspect of wind and waves that would explain this similarity. That means, then, that you can distinguish human agency from natural causes, which is the point that JayM denies. He maintains that we cannot know the difference, meaning that we cannot differentiate between [A] a sand castle that was formed by the ocean and the wind from [B] one that was designed by human hands.StephenB_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

CJYMan, good to see you again.
The statement that intelligence is irreducible to C + N is a part of the intelligent design hypothesis. Easily falsifiable by showing that C + N absent previous intelligence does indeed produce intelligence. (Back to my much repeated and consistently ignored “take some background noise [chance] and an arbitrarily chosen set of laws [law absent any consideration for future results] and see if they will produce intelligence.”
Assuming that "intelligence" is well-defined and is something akin to human mental abilities, and assuming that the hypothesis is indeed false, I would guess that such an demonstration would be quite intractable, rather than "easily" achieved. And I find your "absent previous intelligence" qualifier interesting. Is it your position that, for instance, computers can be intelligent if a previous intelligence programs them to be so?
If intelligence is mainly equated with foresight
Okay, how do we operationally define foresight? In other words, given some phenomenon X, how do I determine whether X has foresight? I can think of some approaches, but I don't want to make presumptions about your argument.
and if there are certain effects which foresight does indeed aid in producing yet are not described by law (as mathematical descriptions of regularity)
"Mathematical descriptions of regularity" can describe any effect. Gettysburg Address? No problem. Define a mathematical function f whose co-domain consists solely of the Gettysburg Address. By "law" to you mean all known laws of physics? All known and unknown laws? All conceivable laws?
nor best explained by chance because of extreme improbability
Improbability under what distribution(s)? Improbability of the hypothesis given the event, or the event given the hypothesis? If the latter, by what logic is the hypothesis a poor explanation? (How do we apply modus tollens to probabilistic arguments?)
and if C + N do not intrinsically possess foresight
I'm not sure how to parse this, and it's partly because of ambiguity surrounding the terms chance and necessity. Do you mean, "If no C+N-reducible phenomenon can possibly have foresight", or "If the laws of physics cannot give rise to foresight", or "If the laws of physics are not guaranteed to give rise to foresight", or "If the abstract concepts of chance and necessity do not themselves have foresight", or something else?
Moreover, if C + N do not possess foresight, why would we expect them to produce foresight in the first place?
See above.R0b_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

Moderators, my errant half-post at 124 is a mystery to me...it can be removed for page loading sake if you wish. my apologies...Upright BiPed_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Jay, if you are going to cut and paste my arguments, please don't ignore the passage that directly addresses your claim by 1) stating it just as you have, and 2) dismantles it for what it is.
You then want to argue that indeed it is; if intelligence can arise by natural law then the artifacts of intelligence also arose by natural law. So lets take your claim in its parts; the first part (beginning with “IF”) being pure speculation without a shred of empirical evidence. (Ahem)…now lets move to the second part of your claim (beginning with “THEN”) which is nothing more than a conclusion based on the first part.
So my questions to you: 1) Is "IF intelligence can arise..." a speculative comment or is it not? True or False? 2) Is "THEN intelligence arose..." a conclusion based on the prior speculation. True or False? - - - - - - - - You see JayM, you can't ask me a question that I must ignore (as you repeatedly do) WHY? Because I am sticking only to the EVIDENCE. You want me to justify that an "intelligence distinct from natural processes is required" to build Joseph's car? Of course, the answer you are trying to sell is that the intelligence necessary (to act on materials and create the car) is itself a result of natural causes. Settting aside the lack of any observational evidence to back up this conclusion in any way whatsoever, I would just like to know the falsifiability of your claim - or does that not matter anymore? The sad part is that (S)cience goes out to the public that it must serve, and continually says that these matters are resolved. That is a lie, one that will come back to haunt science some day. Enjoy your public funding. - - - - - - - - Oh, and why is it that you have not addressed the paper I referred you to?Upright BiPed_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

If you think a six year old made the sand castle, how to you arrive at that conclusion? What is it about the sand castle that causes you to suspect that the wind and ocean waves did not form it. I am still waiting for a reasonable answer.
Speaking for myself, that's a pretty easy one. We humans have a widely observed ability and custom of making sand castles. Wind and waves don't. Even if I didn't know this, I know that we humans have a mental store of information that includes what castles look like, and the ability to use our hands to fashion things according to our mental images. That would account for the similarity between the sand formation and castles. I can't think of any aspect of wind and waves that would explain this similarity.R0b_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Jay, if you are going to cut and paste my arguments, please don't ignore the passage that adresses your arguyment by 1) restating it hjust as you have, and 2) dismantles it for what it is. namely...
You then want to argue that indeed it is; if intelligence can arise by natural law then the artifacts of intelligence also arose by natural law. So lets take your claim in its parts; the first part (beginning with “IF”) being pure speculation without a shred of empirical evidence. (Ahem)…now lets move to the second part of your claim (beginning with “THEN”) which is nothing more than a conclusion based on the first part.
So my question to you is "IF intelligence can arise...." a speculative comment or is it not?Upright BiPed_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Rob (#120): The statement that intelligence is irreducible to C + N is a part of the intelligent design hypothesis. Easily falsifiable by showing that C + N absent previous intelligence does indeed produce intelligence. (Back to my much repeated and consistently ignored "take some background noise [chance] and an arbitrarily chosen set of laws [law absent any consideration for future results] and see if they will produce intelligence." Why do some (many) people think that C + N will not produce intelligence? Excellent question. If intelligence is mainly equated with foresight, and if there are certain effects which foresight does indeed aid in producing yet are not described by law (as mathematical descriptions of regularity) nor best explained by chance because of extreme improbability [using up of all probabilistic resources], and if C + N do not intrinsically possess foresight, why would we expect C + N to produce these effects of foresight? Moreover, if C + N do not possess foresight, why would we expect them to produce foresight in the first place?CJYman_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Rob, my question at the end of #121 applies to you as well.StephenB_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

----Jay: "Now here’s the real issue: Nothing that you speak about in those four questions has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not human intelligence is a natural phenomena." In truth, your objection is little more than a refusal to make distinctions. So, if I ask if you just wrote the previous paragraph, you can say no, not really, it occurred "in" nature and was the result of a "natural process." Or, you say, yes, I am part of nature and nature caused me to do it. Or, you can say, yes, I am part of nature and nature allowed me to do it. If I ask if the aforementioned paragraph just happened as a result of chance, you can say, yes, it just emerged from "natural processes." If I ask you if it was the inevitable result of physical laws, you say, yes, nature made it happen. So, the answer to all questions is yes and no. So, for you, a radical materialist, posing as an ID sympathathizer, everything is "in" nature; everything is defined by nature; and everything can be explained by nature. For all that, you have not defined nature. In truth, "nature" is just a catch all term you use to refer to something without ever really explaining it. At least ID defines "natural causes" to mean law and chance. You, on the other hand, offer no definition of the word. You simply refuse to accept IDs explcit definition, revise it into an all inclusive term that means nothing, and then wonder why ID can't explain things in those terms. That is why you equivocate so much over my little sand castle. The question still stands by the way: If you think a six year old made the sand castle, how to you arrive at that conclusion? What is it about the sand castle that causes you to suspect that the wind and ocean waves did not form it. I am still waiting for a reasonable answer.StephenB_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
The root issue is whether you can [a] recognise yourself as an existing intelligence [however you got there], and [b] identify a case that can be described as directed contingency caused by such an entity. Your inability or unwillingness to combine the two in light of basic common-sense on a case as simple as getting a die on a table to show variation of the uppermost side by chance or design, is all I need to see that something has gone very wrong with the Evo Mat case indeed.
On the contrary, I did both [a] and [b] in #115, and I have made no objection to your dice example. But even after being pressed, you still haven't tried to logically connect this to your conclusion that intelligence is irreducible to C+N. Maybe one of your onlookers will step up and tell us what your logic is.R0b_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

JM: You seem, sadly, to be pretty much in the same boat as Rob. You have to act as an intelligence, but are unwilling to recognise yourself as one, and in particular to accept that intelligences -- however they got here -- do create artifacts that function based on complex information. All the while, while using a . . . COMPUTER on the INTERNET, and producing digital strings that greatly exceed 1,000 bits, and that are functioning as contextualy responsive, creative text in English. Then the onward chain of reasoning is simple: we have abundant evidence that intelligent agents do produce FSCI, and we have no good cases where we observe chance + necessity doing so. [try an updated form of the monkeys at typewriters example.) So, i tis reasonable, per provisonal induction, to identify FSCI as a sign of intelligent action. So, since we jhave no good reason to infer that we exhaoust actual or possible intelligences, when we see FSCI in the DNA molecule -- digital, fucntional, complex text strings -- we have excellent empirical [non- Q begging . .. ]reason to infer to intelligent design per best and provisional explanation. the burden of proof is on those who assert that FSCI, in the simple case of 1,000+ bit capacity digital strings that function in a context, can resasonably -- per needle in haystack issues -- originate by C + n but not design. [This is like the 2 LOT, under statistical forms.] You have thus undercut any reasonable basis for a serious discussion. But, in so doing, you have inadvertently exposed for us to see for ourselves the absurdities that evidently so deeply lurk in evolutionary materialism as a position that you cannot acknowledge plain simple facts that you are a participant in. Onlookers, the issue should be clear enough now. Sad, but we have to see the truth before we can fix what's so plainly broken. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Rob: There comes a point where an absurdity has been sufficiently shown. The root issue is whether you can [a] recognise yourself as an existing intelligence [however you got there], and [b] identify a case that can be described as directed contingency caused by such an entity. Your inability or unwillingness to combine the two in light of basic common-sense on a case as simple as getting a die on a table to show variation of the uppermost side by chance or design, is all I need to see that something has gone very wrong with the Evo Mat case indeed. (And BTW, def'n by example and family resemblance is PRIOR to precising descriptions or taxonomies. We accept the latter when they show themselves adequately capable of identifying cases and counter-cases per examples. [Try out the UD glossary by that test . . . including defns of FSCI, CSI and Sci Method, etc.]) FYFI, I think you will see that common sense is epistemically prior to articulation of arguments of warrant too. Okay, onlookers, I think we see enough to see what is going on. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

BTW, kairosfocus, when I ask "Do you understand how science...", I am not questioning your credentials. I'm just pointing out that your arguments and "data" seem to fall far short of the bar.R0b_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @112

We have observed intelligences originating function-specifying complex information [of at least 1,000 functional bits capacity], and we have never observed FSCI originating by chance + necessity only.
This is exactly the point under contention, so simply claiming it to be fact is begging the question.

First I'm going to quickly answer your questions: 1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) I have no idea what the precise meaning of FSCI is or how to explicitly measure it. 4) See (3) Now here's the real issue: Nothing that you speak about in those four questions has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not human intelligence is a natural phenomena. That entire section of your post is a non sequitur.
Now, the point I made was simply this: intelligences as we observe and experience, do produce FSCI, and in all cases where we observe the cause, we see such intelligences at work.
You continue to beg the question. Leaving aside for the moment the definition of FSCI and whether or not it is applicable in the biological domain, you are saying "We see human intelligence creating these kinds of artifacts, we see these kinds of artifacts in biological systems, therefore biological systems are intelligently designed." You've skipped the important bits of demonstrating that human intelligence is unique in its ability to create FSCI. You've merely claimed it is, then assumed that other instances of FSCI indicate intelligence. The alternative explanation, again assuming for the sake of argument that FSCI is rigorously defined, is that FSCI being present in biological systems indicates that it is not a unique identifier of intelligence. That is precisely how you are begging the question. JJJayM_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, first of all, you haven't even stated any logic to connect the steps of your experiment to your conclusion. Until you do (and, I suspect, even after you do), your "case proved" is a non sequitur. Second, what's this about common sense? I thought that ID was supposed to be science. One huge benefit of science is that it shows us where our common sense is wrong. If you think that your approach to ID is scientific, then I encourage you to publish it. Do you think that terms like intelligent agent, chance + necessity, and directed contingency have established meanings? If you have scientifically usable definitions for the above, then by all means, share. That would be a good first step in bridging the chasm between the ID and science communities. When I asked for a scientific definition of FSCI, you accused me of hyperskepticism, as if I'm being unreasonable. But in order to do science, we need measures that can be reproduced independently. If students in an ID class were given the assignment of measuring the FSCI in, say, a mousetrap, would most of them come up with the same answer? Do you understand how science attempts to minimize subjectivity? Where are the FSCI studies? Can't the DI spare some of their millions of research $ to perform a cheap and simple study where subjects independently measure CSI or FSCI? The so-called data you've presented is nothing of the sort, at least not in the scientific sense. Now to answer your questions: (1) yes, according my usage of the term "intelligent agent" (2) yes (3) yes, game-makers and most other people consider dice rolls to be "chance" as they're unpredictable. The output of a pseudo-random number generator is also "chance" according to this usage. (4) yes (5) yes, if you define "directed contingency" such that the answer is yes.R0b_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Rob: not so fast, pardnuh. Neat little rhetorical trick: assert Q-begging then do not substantiate, announce victory and go home. Let's look back at the example in Question:
[Rob] Go get a die, and toss it a few times [necessity and chance]. Then set it up to read 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6 in succession [intelligent direction].
1 --> Do you consider yourself an intelligent agent? (If not, why not?) 2 --> Does a tossed or dropped die fall by a natural regularity, one commonly known as gravity? 3 --> Do such dice then usually tumble to a value that is generally held -- e.g. by game makers -- to be essentially a matter of chance? [Per a bit on edges and corners and sensitive dependence on initial conditions leading to an unpredictable result in the long?] 4 --> Is the outcome of so tossing a die then not reasonably a matter of chance + necessity? 5 --> If you set up a die on a table to states 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in succession, is that not directed contingency? [or for that matter is the message you typed up and posted above not similarly directed contingency?] If you cannot answer a common-sense "yes" to all five Q's, I think that shows a very different problem, Rob: reductio ad absurdum on your part. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, thanks for your responses. The discussion has expanded beyond my bandwidth, so I need to go back to the fundamental issue: You continue beg the question of whether intelligence is reducible to C+N. For instance:
The search resources of the observed cosmos over their lifetime could not plausibly by C + N only find this or any other contextually responsive text of that length. but, in a few minutes, rob, and intelligent agent, produced and posted this.
I appreciate you finally trying to provide support for this premise, as follows:
Go get a die, and toss it a few times [necessity and chance]. Then set it up to read 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6 in succession [intelligent direction]. Case proved.
As you seem unaware that this continues to beg the question, I doubt that anything I say can make a difference.R0b_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

JM: In re 110 (as, if this is not resolved no further reasonable discussion is possible):
[GEM, 95:] We have observed intelligences originating function-specifying complex information [of at least 1,000 functional bits capacity], and we have never observed FSCI originating by chance + necessity only. [JM, 110:] This is exactly the point under contention, so simply claiming it to be fact is begging the question.
1 --> JM, are you intelligent within the meaning of this, from our glossary [and onward Wikipedia]?
[Intelligence:] “capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.”
2 --> Have you been observed producing strings of ASCII text in contextually responsive English; of length at least 143 characters, inclusive of spaces etc? [128^143 ~ 2^1,000] 3 --> Now, "your" post at 110 is 1,827 characters, well beyond 143. Does seeing a post at UD under your handle as a registered user count as a production of FSCI by an intelligent agent? 4 --> If not, kindly explain, and do so in a way that shows that you are not appealing to lucky noise or the like probabilistic absurdity. 9And, if you think that it is enough to claim your intelligence reduces to chance + necessity acting through materialistic evolutionary mechanisms across time, you will need to ground the credibility of your mind under such circumstances. Dismissive arguments will not be taken as a serious response.] +++++++++++++ Now, the point I made was simply this: intelligences as we observe and experience, do produce FSCI, and in all cases where we observe the cause, we see such intelligences at work. So, per induction, we can posit that -- pending a god counter-example, FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligence. this is reinforced by the needle in the haystack issue as the complexity rises well beyond 1,000 bits of capacity. And, I have defined FSCI by concrete example and family resemblance, which is a more fundamental level of definition than statements of description or taxonomies on genus-difference. In so doing, I have made no assumptions about the onward nature of reality or its roots. I am simply observing in our world and remarking on it based on glorified common sense. On those grounds, those who would assert or imply that chance + necessity are adequate to produce instances of FSCI in our observation, have some warranting to do. Accusations of question-begging such as above -- that to my common sense view begin to reduce to absurdity -- do not begin to address such a challenge. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @99
I said, “You skirted the question yet again”
Yes, and you were wrong.

I did no such thing and, frankly, I don’t care for your tone. I am attempting to participate in a collegial discussion. Your insinuations that I am being somehow disingenuous are unwarranted and rude.
I don’t set out to be contentious, but (considering your claim) I can certainly imagine you feeling somewhat provoked by being asked to address the actual evidence. In the end, neither your emotions nor mine matters in the least, the only thing that matters is what the evidence tells us.
I completely agree. Thus far you have presented none.

IF human intelligence is the product of natural processes THEN the product of human intelligence is also the product of natural processes.
The carelessness of your claim is exactly what I have been trying to get you to address.
Your baseless claims are what I've been objecting to. There is nothing "careless" about my syllogism. If you can't address it you should simply admit that.
Natural law brings order to the Universe. Without that order – if iron did not act like iron – then Joseph’s car would simply not exist. But the order within the universe, which can be described as natural law, cannot account for what can be made of iron. That requires intelligence.
Let's stop right here. Prove that statement (or at least support it). You are blatantly begging the question by asserting, without any evidence, that intelligence distinct from natural processes is required. You have completely ignored the issue that, if the premises of methodological naturalism are accepted, even just for the sake of argument, then human intelligence is a natural phenomena and any results of that intelligence are therefore also natural phenomena.

If ID theorists then want to go further and claim that the unique characteristics of human intelligence are found in biological systems not known to have human origins, that requires a rigorous, objective measurement criteria. CSI is nowhere near that level yet.
So let’s get this straight: materialist ideologues can make claims to the public without a shred of empirical evidence to back up there claims,
Not at all. Neuroscientists and others are actively researching the nature of intelligence. There are numerous peer-reviewed journals dedicated to the topic.
and also, their conclusions must be adhered to by anyone who wishes to be received with any support whatsoever within the scientific, academic and political establishment, oh, but if ID proponents make claims based on nothing BUT the observable evidence then they will not be allowed in the door.
Where is the observable evidence that human intelligence is a product of anything but natural processes?
I can readily see your sense of balance on the issue.
It's not my sense of balance, it's the reality of what is required to be taken seriously by mainstream scientists. JJJayM_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @95
We have observed intelligences originating function-specifying complex information [of at least 1,000 functional bits capacity], and we have never observed FSCI originating by chance + necessity only.
This is exactly the point under contention, so simply claiming it to be fact is begging the question. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that CSI is not rigorously enough defined, at this point, to serve as an objective measurement, I agree that we have seen human intelligence produce complex information. We have also seen complex information in biological systems. If we work from the assumptions of methodological naturalism, we conclude that human intelligence is the result of natural processes ("chance and necessity" in your words) so the products of human intelligence are, by definition, the products of natural processes. We also conclude that the complexity in biological systems is the result of natural processes because the assumptions of methodological naturalism allow no other conclusion. Scientists then research possible natural mechanisms to explain the observed complexity. Unless and until we can demonstrate that either: a) The complexity we observe in biological systems can only come from intelligence or b) There are limits to the capabilities of all possible natural processes that generate biological complexity then the methodological naturalists like Forrest are justified in framing the discussion in terms of natural and supernatural rather than the three options preferred by ID proponents. Again, I personally think that Dr. Behe's work on option (b) is likely to lead to more support for ID in the short to medium term. CSI and similar measurements are still too subjective and fail to directly address MET mechanisms that funnel information from the environment into the genome. JJJayM_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

StephenB @90
JayM: Upright Biped is not the only one who has noticed you skirt issues. Your incredibly evasive answer to me at @59 is a case in point.
I directly answered both your questions. I invite anyone to read the post and verify that. JJJayM_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

6] Ascribing it [FSCI] to an irreducible, inscrutable phenomenon called “intelligence” explains nothing — it’s just a label. So, to infer that Rob, at 100 above, was acting as an intelligence is "just a label"? So, is post no 100 jut lucky noise and necessity in action? So, then, we have no good grounds to take it as serious or meaningful. The absurdities get even more evident. 7] Mechanical processes Note, I spoke of mechanical FORCES. Such forces act in lawlike ways, as is well known: f = ma, F = G m1m2/r^2, etc. Thus, we see natural regularities and precisely low contingency. A heavy and unsupported object, reliably, falls under ~ 9.8 N/kg worth of force. That is not suitable for storing info. But, for many objects, under similar initial conds, outcomes vary significantly. If a die falls and tumbles, the uppermost face is contingent. if a fair die, by chance, if not, by intelligent direction, i.e design. And, this specific simple and clear example is there in that linked note and in the WACs. It is also instantly familiar to anyone who has ever played a board game using dice. This sounds, pardon, like willful obtuseness. 7] The question-begging was your presumed C+N/intelligence dichotomy. You haven’t attempted to support that premise, so it’s still question begging. Really now. This is relabelling of an observed fact of human experience as an "assumption." the better to dismiss evident fact pursuit of an agenda unsupportable otherwise. Go get a die, and toss it a few times [necessity and chance]. Then set it up to read 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6 in succession [intelligent direction]. Case proved. 8] I agree that scientists like Lewontin and Dawkins tend to stray way outside the purview of science with many of their comments. Glad you agree. 9] Are you of the opinion that Lewontin’s comments have some effect on the direction of scientific research? If so, do you have any specific examples? Try, National Academy of Sciences of the US, 2008:
In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. [[Science, Evolution and Creationism, p. 10. (NAS, 2008.)]
Translating: on origins, one may only infer to chance plus necessity acting on matter plus energy in space- time. Or, the friendly local Magisterium is gonna get you, you supernaturalist theocratic creationist fundy dummy! [And there is a long list of cases in point.] Or, science is being q-beggingly redefined -- cf Ms Forrest above (and the fruit of her work at Dover, PA, etc] -- as being under methodological naturalism. that boils down to science is the best evo mat account of the world, from hydrogen to humans. Forget such little niceties as that science should be unfettered/ uncensored and should seek the truth about the cosmos without imposing dogmatic blinkers. if the Magisterium that suppressed Galileo was wrong [and I know the politics and he- brought it- down- on- himself by ridiculing the pope issues . . .], so is the new one that supresses ID. And, the evidence on that is plain for all to see who will but look. ____________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT}

3] It’s a fact of coding theory that anything can be encoded in as few or as many bits as you please. Nothing in the real world comes to us pre-encoded, so how do we non-arbitrarily measure the amount of information in real world phenomena? Rob, I pointed out that we have a common metric of functional bits, e.g a CD comes with the stamp 600 - 800 MBytes on it. When we put in programs or data, we put in so many MB of that is functionally specific bits -- they do an observationally recognisable job [are functionally specified] and are in bits [take up a storage space], and if they pass the 1,000 bit threshold the functional bits take up enough space that no search based on C + N alone on the gamut of the universe can reasonably be expected to arrive at it. As to the idea that we can bring down any code to any level of conciseness, you are simply implicitly pushing back the info up one level: for such a sophisticated code to work, somewhere there has to be the storage of that many functional bits: in the library or the database so keyed or instance, or the compiler or the record otherwise. Not to mention the algorithms, programming language [another code!],and physical implementation machinery to recognise the concise code then fetch the meaning from where it is stored. All of this is abundantly empirically supported. 4] If you want to measure information in terms of probability, how do you decide what distribution(s) to use? We are not forced to do that in advance; H = - SUM pi log pi allows us to take in any arbitrary distribution of probabilities across the space of outcomes; as I discussed under the link between thermodynamic and informational entropy. (Indeed, in App 1, there is a discussion from Bradley on Cytochrome C, that precisely is non-uniform, and we see a calculated value of Icsi in that case. likewise, in the KD paper on measuring FSC in fits, no presumption of uniformity is made, just the opposite.) even with the Dembski metric, the probability on the chance hyp is not bound to uniform distributions. But, having said that, for DNA we have good physical-chemical reasons to see that chaining does not constrain in any major way the sequence. Similarly, for AA's. So, a quasi-uniform distribution is good enough a lot of gov or uni work! In short, red herring. 5] I would love to see evidence of that [of intelligence producing FSCI] Reduction to self-referential absurdity driven by selective hyperskepticism, folks. The post containing that is 3524 ASCII characters of contextually responsive English long, specifying a contingency space of 128^3524 ~ 6.43*10^7425 cells. The search resources of the observed cosmos over their lifetime could not plausibly by C + N only find this or any other contextually responsive text of that length. but, in a few minutes, rob, and intelligent agent, produced and posted this. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

Rob: On select points: 1] @ 100: in which of those three categories does the following premise fall: “we have never observed FSCI originating by chance + necessity only”? Rob, you presumably know science and logic well enough to know that I have given an EMPIRICAL datum. One tha tyou cannot overturn on that basis, so you substitute the idea that it is a presumed premise. You and I both know thart routinely we do observe FSCI produced by intelligence, and tha tit is a reliable sign of it, pending only a good counter-example. Such is not forthcoming, so I still have the right to use FSCI as a sign of intelligence. End of argument, unless you can provide EMPIRICAL counerinstance. 2] I didn’t assert, infer, or imply that C+N is a credible source of FSCI, and I couldn’t even begin to take a position on that until you tell me what FSCI and C+N mean in scientific, preferably operational, terms. Rob, kindly stop playing old selectivley hyperskeptical rhetorical games. We BOTH know per abundant example what fucntion-specifying complex info is. For instance, [1] this post as contextually responsive English text, as opposed to [2] a random text string:fuiwfwrhfwhfwfwfhjdgb or [3] a simple repeating one: dddddddddddddd. And you are doubtless familiar with the peer-review published categories OSC, RSC and FSC. Also, as you claim to have read my online note, you will know that the concept traces to Orgel, Yockey, Wickens et al trying to understand the difference between organisation of life systems and the simple order of crystals or random arrangements of discrete elements. There is now also a whole set of Weak arguments correctives [WACs, I suggest BarryA] that you seem to need to look up. FSCI is addressed in one of them. As a matter of fact -- as we all know -- the whole evo mat paradigm in origins science is premised on the concept that Chance + necessity can account for FSCI, thus also us as intelligent life forms. And that is what you did put up as your alternative in a context that suggested that it was question-begging to nor DISPROVE that first before suggesting that FSCI is a sign of intelligence. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT}

Smile, it's a Kodak moment.Upright BiPed_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

Rob: Sorry, I should have considered more carefully your following comment.
For instance, the pattern 111111111111 may require a larger program than a sand castle does for a certain UTM. But as we extend the sequence of 1s and simultaneously expand the sand castle, at some point the sand castle will require a bigger program than the sequence of 1s, regardless of the UTM.
JT_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

Rob:
At any rate, the information measure in FSCI is not Kolmogorov complexity. Every account of ID that I’ve seen measures information in terms of probability, possible configurations, or simply the lengths of sequences.
I would agree with that, but on the subject of Kolmogorov complexity, are you saying that observations about for example earthworm behavior being less algorithmically complex than a human's - that such observations are a matter of subjectivity no different than talking about qualitative differences. You could compare two complex computer simulations or games, and observe that one had a much larger program utilized more memory and processor speed, and say it was a more complex simulation with higher fidelity I assume. Its possible that a larger program could be ineffeciently coded of course. But that doesn't mean that things don't vary in complexity or that our ability to informally discern such differences is meaningless. The fact that you derive an encoding scheme that assigned very short binary sequences to complex programs and long ones to simple programs, wouldn't negate the fact that the former was actually more complex. Also admittedly you could say the probability of everything that exists now is 1, but only if you assume some process that created it, a process that must be equal in complexity to what exists now, and in fact equates algorithmically to what exists now. Now go ahead and shred this or disabuse me of of my ignorance.JT_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply