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

JT:
How would you resolve the above statement with the following by JayM in 59:
Kolmogorov complexity is relative to the reference UTM. Some UTMs produce sand castles with a zero bit program, and some require humongous programs. But we still speak of some patterns having more KC than others. One way to make sense of this is to imagine scaling up the patterns to the point that the differences in UTMs are negligible. 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. 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.R0b_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

Rob wrote [100]:
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?
How would you resolve the above statement with the following by JayM in 59:
StephenB @49
I was hoping that you would respond to these two questions: Do you think that there is any qualitative difference between the cause of the formation of the beach and the cause of formation of my sand castle?
There is certainly a quantitative difference in the level of complexity of both the creation process and the result. By this I mean Kolmogorov complexity.
JT_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, thanks for your quick response.
I have confined my premises to what is observed: [1] intelligences, [2] designs made by same, [3] characteristic signs of such designs.
So in which of those three categories does the following premise fall: "we have never observed FSCI originating by chance + necessity only"?
Now, as to the assertion or inference that C + N is a credible source of FSCI, I have in essence asked a thermodynamic, search-space question.
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. (Lest you point me to what you've written on the subject, I've read it.)
The programs in your PC are FSCI and they are measured in [functionally specific] bits and bytes. And, if such a pgm has at least 1 k BITS of info in it, the search space is such that the entire resources of he observed cosmos, across its entire lifespan, could not search out 1 in 10^150 of the space.
If by "1kbits of info" you mean that it takes up 1kb of computer storage, then you're faced with the following problem: 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? If you want to measure information in terms of probability, how do you decide what distribution(s) to use? In classical info theory, the distribution depends, in general, on the receiver. If a receiver has no prior knowledge, we could assume a distribution based on the observed frequency of the various symbols, or use some other algorithm. If the receiver has prior knowledge, then correctly modeling the uncertainty may be very complicated. And again, if the information measure is based on a null hypothesis that includes the whole of C+N, then C+N can't produce FCSI by definition.
intelligence routinely finds such targets within human scale search resources.
I would love to see evidence of that. Let's give it a try. Who can use their intelligence to factor the following number? 66371577530824009051. The search space is many many magnitudes of order smaller than 2^1024. That's a little tongue-in-cheek, but it raises the question of what targets intelligent humans are able to find, and how they do it. Ascribing it to an irreducible, inscrutable phenomenon called "intelligence" explains nothing -- it's just a label.
And recall, mechanical forces cerate regularities not contingencies.
Mechanical processes are stochastic, in the general sense. They can be very regular, chaotic, or even ultimately random. The term "contingencies" has always confused me. Dembski says that the mess created by a spilled ink bottle is contingent. Barry Arrington says that the mess created by a bomb explosion is not contingent. Who's correct?
The only Q-begging I see here is the Lewontinian a priori materialism that is blocking the obvious explanation for the pervasive appearance of design in our world!
The question-begging was your presumed C+N/intelligence dichotomy. You haven't attempted to support that premise, so it's still question begging. And I agree that scientists like Lewontin and Dawkins tend to stray way outside the purview of science with many of their comments. 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?R0b_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

I said, "You skirted the question yet again"
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.
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. 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. In other words, natural law is necessary but not sufficient to account for the artifacts of intelligence. 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. It can be clearly seen why materialist ideologues wish to avoid the actual evidence.
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, 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. I can readily see your sense of balance on the issue.Upright BiPed_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

----Rob: Sand castles are made by humans. The question is whether human activity is reducible to natural processes. No, the question about human activity being reducible to natural processes PRECEDED the example about sand castles. The wind and the ocean waves are "natural processes." They cannot make sand castles; they never have and never will. Once one admits that humans made the sand castles and that the ocean and wind did not make the sand castles, the conversation is over for all rational people. The sand castles were designed by human agency and did not form randomly through natural causes. That is why JayM refused to answer the question. The bigger question is, why are you still laboring over it?StephenB_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Rob: I have confined my premises to what is observed: [1] intelligences, [2] designs made by same, [3] characteristic signs of such designs. I have also refused to censor the possible explanations of FSCI observable in say cell-based life, including our own. Now, as to the assertion or inference that C + N is a credible source of FSCI, I have in essence asked a thermodynamic, search-space question. On the search space and search resource -- needle in haystack -- grounds, I have no better reason to expect C + N to make FSCI than I do to get a macroscopic result that runs counter to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So -- just as I accept 2nd LOT, stat form, pending counter-example -- I accept that FSCI is reliably the product of intelligence [provisionally but confidently], indeed, diagnostically so. And, your empirical grounds -- no Lewontinian a priori Materialism please -- for inferring seriously that C + N could produce FSCI is . . . ? [Kindly provide a clear countrer example within the province of our observation -- the proper province for scientific evidence.] As to whether FSCI metrics presume uniform null hyp spaces; the most common one does not, ROB. The programs in your PC are FSCI and they are measured in [functionally specific] bits and bytes. And, if such a pgm has at least 1 k BITS of info in it, the search space is such that the entire resources of he observed cosmos, across its entire lifespan, could not search out 1 in 10^150 of the space. intelligence routinely finds such targets within human scale search resources. So, on inference to best explanation, if I see FSCI, I am entitled to infer to design, absent COMPELLING reason otherwise. And that is not begging questions, it is inference to best, empirically credible explanation. (And recall, mechanical forces cerate regularities not contingencies. If you with to say the cosmos is PROGRAMMED to generate intelligent life such as ours, then that is going to be a most impressive program indeed. Such would have a very logical source: design of the cosmos.] The only Q-begging I see here is the Lewontinian a priori materialism that is blocking the obvious explanation for the pervasive appearance of design in our world! GEM of TKI _____________ PS: DS, I did not think to look in a thesaurus, but that's a six to the stands . . . No, it's a Gary Sobers to the parking lot! PPS: Set up a paypal for the Barbara Forrest Thesaurus collection fund, pleeeze.kairosfocus_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
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.
First, you're again begging the question of whether "intelligences" are reducible to chance + necessity. What you're really saying (without any published data to support it) is that only humans have been observed to produce FSCI. The intelligences vs. chance+necessity dichotomy is not an observation -- it's an assumption on your part. Second, is the complexity/information in FSCI measured only against a uniform null hypothesis, or against all chance+necessity hypotheses? If the latter, then isn't it tautological to say that chance+necessity doesn't produce FSCI?R0b_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

JM: Re 89: "IF . . ." 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. Further to this, we know that he islands of function are credibly incredibly sparse in the config space, o much so that 1,000 bits specifies ten times the SQUARE of the number of quantum states of the 10^80 atoms of the observed universe across its credible lifespan. In short, for such a 1,000 bit sample of FSCI, the entire universe would search less than 1 in 10^150 of the space. So, i tis credible that -- per sparseness -- chance + necessity on the gamut of our universe lacks the resources to reach islands of function. Intelligent agents routinely produce examples of FSCI >> 1,000 functional bits; so that FSCI is a reliable empirical sign of intelligence. (And the precise digitalised description of a sand castle would easily top 1,000 bits.) So, now, where do you justify your "IF" in 89? And, why do so many insist that they can impose a priori, Lewontinian materialism on questions tied to origins, and say that if it does not explain by chance + necessity only, it is not science? is that not question-begging worldview-level censorship? Censorship that frustrates science from being an unfettered search for the truth about our world based on empirical evidence? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

I don't see how JayM is evading anything. On the contrary, he's pointing out the elephant in the living room. Sand castles are made by humans. The question is whether human activity is reducible to natural processes.R0b_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

JT, the question on the table is this: If you see a sand castle on the beach, how do you explain its existence? Everyone knows that answer to that question, so anyone who refuses to answer it is evading the issue.StephenB_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

StephenB [90]: Can only speak for myself, but [59] did not seem like evasion to me. He says there is most definitely a quantitative difference, and from his other comments its clear his working assumption is that there is no qualitative difference. An explicit personal affirmation to this effect would have been irrelevant for the purposes of establishing truth.JT_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

that should be.... "noticed [that] you skirt issues, but you get the drift.StephenB_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

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.StephenB_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @86
You skirted the question yet again
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.
– what part of electromagnetic field theory created the electric starter on Joseph’s car?
Where did I ever make a silly claim like that? Try to follow the simple syllogism: IF human intelligence is the product of natural processes THEN the product of human intelligence is also the product of natural processes. If ID theorists want to make the claim that the products of human intelligence are unique among all other natural processes, that's a potentially legitimate argument but requires significantly more empirical support than is currently available. 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. JJJayM_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Joseph @85

You really seem to have difficulty with the simple statement that if human intelligence is a natural phenomena then the products of that intelligence are also natural phenomena.
How are you defining “natural”? Is it “produced by nature”? Because that is what is being debated. So it cannot be used as evidence.
Exactly! And yet, that's what some ID proponents are trying to do by distinguishing "intelligent" causes from "natural" causes without supporting the claim that they are different. Note that my statement you quoted includes the phrase "IF human intelligence is a natural phenomena..." (additional emphasis added). That is a core assumption of methodological naturalism. If we want ID theory to be taken seriously as science, we can't simply claim that intelligence is separate from nature in some way. That would be assuming our conclusion, as you point out. JJJayM_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

According to JayM, If there are say an almost infinite number of universes such that any particular combination of events is bound to happen, then the following scenario is possible: In one of these almost infinite subset of universes life will form in some form and have the properties similar to what we now see. So it will happen an almost infinite number of times if can happen just once. Now in those almost infinite number of universes the level of life in terms of neural activity or what we call intelligence will happen an almost infinite number of times. And in this almost infinite subset of these universes where neural activity has reached a level of what we call intelligence, an almost infinite number of subset of universes will have intelligences far in excess of what we are today or even what we can imagine. And in one of these almost infinite number of universes from this subset there will be an intelligence that can understand and interact with the other universes. And one of these extremely massive intelligences will then say "Let there be Light." So all things are natural except where the first instance of natural came from. That wasn't natural. Why does anything exist will always be the ultimate question. And if JayM denies an almost infinite number of universes then there will be a problem of explaining the fine tuning, ool and evolution, all of which defy any probabilities we can imagine.jerry_{February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

JayM, You skirted the question yet again – what part of electromagnetic field theory created the electric starter on Joseph’s car?Upright BiPed_{February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

You really seem to have difficulty with the simple statement that if human intelligence is a natural phenomena then the products of that intelligence are also natural phenomena.
How are you defining "natural"? Is it "produced by nature"? Because that is what is being debated. So it cannot be used as evidence. So Forrest et al, can make all the claims they want. They are empty claims. That is what we have been trying to tell you. Once it is observed that nature, operating freely, can create CSI from scratch, then either ID is falsified, CSI needs to be tossed out as an indicator or CSI needs to be redefined. As for brick walls and neuroscience- as long as imagination passes for science- no, there won't be any.Joseph_{February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @82

However, if intelligence is reducible to natural law then it is not qualitatively different than other results of natural law, in the sense of being above, beyond, or transcendent to nature.
To which you were repeatedly asked “what built Joseph’s car, was it natural law? You argue that it is, yet, from what part of Maxwell’s electromagnetic field theory we get an armrest or an accelerator pedal - or even an electric starter – you are not willing to say.
You really seem to have difficulty with the simple statement that if human intelligence is a natural phenomena then the products of that intelligence are also natural phenomena. Personally, I don't believe that ID theory requires intelligence to be non-natural. While there is currently no theory of mind that demonstrates that human intelligence is of natural origin beyond a reasonable doubt, considerable work is being done in this area by neuroscientists and I'm not aware of any conceptual brick walls being encountered. Unless ID researchers can demonstrate that intelligence clearly cannot be explained in materialistic terms, or until a robust, objective definition of CSI or a similar measurement unique to intelligence is created, Forrest and others are not being unreasonable in maintaining the natural/supernatural dichotomy because their position is that intelligence is natural. JJJayM_{February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Paul Giem @81
Nature without humans, however, seems to be practically limited to 2 neutral mutations at a time. That is what the Behe-Snokes paper calculates, and that is what The Edge of Evolution argues for on observational grounds. And it fits the Lenski experiment as far as we know.
Your "at a time" observation is crucial. MET mechanisms preserve beneficial, and even neutral, mutations. As long as the number of possible simultaneous mutations is greater than zero, MET mechanisms can work. (The question of how far such mechanisms can go is separate, and more interesting.)
So large-scale evolution appears to require an intelligence at least equal to that of humans
That doesn't follow. In fact, if we accept the methodological naturalist assumptions, for the sake of argument, the ability of natural processes to produce something as complex as human intelligence suggests that other forms of complexity, such as biological constructs, are well within the capabilities of those same processes. Just because intelligence is sufficient to create such results doesn't mean that intelligence is necessary to create them. Demonstrating that is why we need more research into Behe's edge of evolution. JJJayM_{February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

JayM #79
I don’t see how this is debating definitions.
Yes, Jay, your support for the cause of arguing over definitions has been duly noted – by the way, did you see Popper? You suggest a debate (one lasting since the time of antiquity, when we thought the heart made blood and the sun traveled around the world) is not a debate over definitions. I think it is. People do what profits them. Arguing over definitions is profitable when you can’t support your claims from the evidence. This is the point that has been made. You simply ignore it by ignoring the questions asked of you from the evidence. You do this repeatedly. You had previously said:
However, if intelligence is reducible to natural law then it is not qualitatively different than other results of natural law, in the sense of being above, beyond, or transcendent to nature.
To which you were repeatedly asked “what built Joseph’s car, was it natural law? You argue that it is, yet, from what part of Maxwell’s electromagnetic field theory we get an armrest or an accelerator pedal - or even an electric starter – you are not willing to say. If someone refuses to submit to the qualitative difference between the existence of an electric motor and the non-existence of an electric motor, then arguing over definitions is certainly better than answering the question of what causes the electric motor to exist at all. You can loosely refer to this as common sense. As far as your caveat of being “above, beyond, or transcendent to nature”, this is just a continuation of the same argument, and should be expected. You have already been told that ID is not supported by anything that suggests something outside of natural law took place. So in the first part of your comment you ignore the evidence that there is a qualitative difference between the existence and non-existence of artifacts of intelligence, and in the second part you willfully misrepresent the evidence in order to avoid it. This is hardly a new position.
I suspect that this is what the evidence will show when more research is done into the “edge of evolution” but I am unaware of any significant evidence that shows intelligence is a “virtual necessity.”
Again, everyone is happy that research into ID will continue, but to use this acknowledgment as an excuse to put off accepting the differences cited above, is simply more of the same. Instead of ignoring the evidence, or misrepresenting it, you now want to ask of its significance. I would then ask again: what is the significance of the evidence that Josephs car exist? The only intellectually honest answer you can give is “nothing”, which is of course, absurd. As far as you not having seen any published works suggesting that intelligent input is a virtual necessity, it certainly wouldn’t be because it’s not available. After all, if you ignore the self-evident need for intelligent input in order to create Joseph’s car, then why would you seek information otherwise? In any case, I would point you to www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958 ...but there are others.
I would be interested in seeing the cites to published research that show that.
Have at it.
We also need to be careful with claims of parsimony, since adding an intelligent agent run afoul of Occam.
Really, please. Then establishment quietly buried Occam with the advent of the microscope, if not, then certainly by the unraveling of genetic instructions for living tissue. As far as parsimony is concerned, if you can make an argument that ID is less supported by the fossil record than the materialist’s accounting, then by all means make it. If you can’t, then consider accepting the rather self-evident conclusion that follows.Upright BiPed_{February 14, 2009
February
02
Feb
14
14
2009
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

JayM, In #80 you agree that humans can do things that nature without humans is for all practical purposes incapable of doing. Good. The quibble that "nature without humans" isn't all of nature if one accepts the assumptions of methodological naturalism is truly a quibble. Nature without humans exists now on Saturn and all of its moons besides Titan. Except for a few localized spots (which will stay localized if we sterilized the probes properly), it exists on Mars. Six million years ago, by anyone's reckoning, it existed everywhere. So yes, this is definitely whining over details that are irrelevant. We know that humans can produce genetic novelty. We do not just change the genome of yeast to produce human insulin; we get yeast to produce new varieties of insulin that have never, to our knowledge, been produced by nature without humans. So we know how to manipulate genetic code, and only our imagination (and money) stops us. Nature without humans, however, seems to be practically limited to 2 neutral mutations at a time. That is what the Behe-Snokes paper calculates, and that is what The Edge of Evolution argues for on observational grounds. And it fits the Lenski experiment as far as we know. So large-scale evolution appears to require an intelligence at least equal to that of humans. This is completely leaving alone the question of the origin of life. Again, we will not consider the question of whether that intelligence is natural or not; we just need it to be intelligent. You are right that most of the time we do not have a good way to put numbers on the requirement for this intelligence. We can't put numbers on Stonehenge, either. That doesn't make the conclusion any less true or obvious for those who don't have an ax to grind. For those who do, it's Monty Python argument time.Paul Giem_{February 14, 2009
February
02
Feb
14
14
2009
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

Paul Giem @76 (More apologies for the delay in replying.)
But if you don’t like that word, just answer the substantive question behind it. Can humans do things that nature without humans is for all practical purposes incapable of doing?
Well summarized. Clearly the answer is yes, although the quibble is that "nature without humans" isn't all of nature if one accepts the assumptions of the methodological naturalists. The issue, however, is that we currently don't have a way of quantifying the uniquely intelligent behaviors in such a way that they can be applied to systems not known to have arisen from human (or other) intelligence. JJJayM_{February 14, 2009
February
02
Feb
14
14
2009
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @71

However, if intelligence is reducible to natural law then it is not qualitatively different than other results of natural law, in the sense of being above, beyond, or transcendent to nature.
Once again, ID is about EVIDENCE, not debating definitions (see Popper).
I don't see how this is debating definitions.
A rational interpretation of the EVIDENCE shows that an input of organization at the nucleic level is a virtual necessity, and is (far and away) the explanation of living tissue that carries the greatest parsimony with all other evidence on the matter.
I suspect that this is what the evidence will show when more research is done into the "edge of evolution" but I am unaware of any significant evidence that shows intelligence is a "virtual necessity." I would be interested in seeing the cites to published research that show that. We also need to be careful with claims of parsimony, since adding an intelligent agent run afoul of Occam. JJJayM_{February 14, 2009
February
02
Feb
14
14
2009
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

Joseph @70 (As with my response to QuadFather, I apologize for the delay in replying.)
“No Fee Lunch” has that demonstration you are asking for- starting on page 292.
I'm afraid this isn't an demonstration of how to objectively, qualitatively measure CSI for biological systems, taking into account known MET mechanisms. If CSI is to be rigorous enough to be used as proof of intelligence in systems known not to be the product of human intelligence, it must be possible for anyone to calculate it for a given construct, such as an entire cell or a component like the bacterial flagellum, and come up with the same value in the same units as anyone else with the requisite mathematical expertise to perform the calculation. Further, the algorithm itself must reflect known biological mechanisms. In particular, since MET mechanisms do not create full genomes ex nihilo, any CSI computation that uses the length of the genome to reduce the result to below some probability bound is suspect. I would very much like to see such an algorithm because it would make design detection significantly easier. At this point in time, no such algorithm exists (to my knowledge, after considerable research). This is exactly why I think that Dr. Behe's approach of looking for the limits of MET mechanisms is more likely to be fruitful in the short to medium term. JJJayM_{February 14, 2009
February
02
Feb
14
14
2009
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

QuadFather @69 (My apologies for the delay in replying. Real life has a habit of getting in the way sometimes.)
Ah, I think we may be getting somewhere. It seems to me that there is a disconnect between your premise (intelligence is reducible to natural law) and your conclusion (intelligence is not qualitatively different from other results of natural law). In the first place, how does it follow that all effects resulting from a common cause are qualitatively identical? As a kid, I used to play with K’Nex and with Legos. Are you telling me that the rubber band gun I made with K’Nex is qualitatively identical to the castle I made with Legos? That these are qualitatively identical to the PB&J sandwhich I made for lunch? To the spreadsheet that I compiled for work? Are you really saying that none of these things are qualitatively different from each other, simply because *I* am the common cause of them all?
That's a very interesting point. I think the issue is contextual and probably related to the definition of "qualitative." In the context of materialistic versus non-materialistic explanations, there is no qualitative difference between the result of a non-intelligent process and a process in which human intelligence was involved because both processes are "natural." In other contexts, and with respect to other criteria, the results of the two processes can, of course, be qualitatively different.
I think it’s important to remember that transcendence is not a necessary property of intelligence. I do not believe that my intelligence transcends nature or natural law, but I *still* maintain that I can create things that nature cannot without my intelligent assistance.
If human intelligence is completely explainable by materialistic means, you cannot create things that nature cannot because your act of creation is an act of nature, by the original premise. Thank you for taking the time to go through this in detail -- I think that this is the essence of the issue, rather than semantic issues about what a "qualitative" difference really is.
It is true that natural law simultaneously constrains and makes possible my ability to create, but my intelligence is *required* for certain things nonetheless.
I don't dispute that human intelligence can accomplish things that non-intelligent processes cannot. However, if we accept the premises of methodological naturalism, processes that involve human intelligence are still "natural."
. . . A probable point of confusion is the jump in logic you made between your premise that [intelligence is reducible to natural] and your conclusion that [intelligence is the *result* of natural law]. Just because I accept that intelligence is reducible to natural law does not mean I accept that intelligence is the *product* of natural law (for reasons just stated).
I'm afraid I don't see the distinction. If it can be demonstrated that human intelligence is an emergent property of the complex interconnections of the human brain, that shows that it is a naturally occurring system. "Result" and "product" are synonyms in this case.
. . . The important point is: Intelligence is a REAL phenomenon that can be studied and quantified.
I would qualify that by saying that "human intelligence" is a real phenomena that can be studied and quantified. Any science fiction buff has been exposed to the idea that not all intelligence may be similar to ours.
Just because intelligence relies on the same matter and laws as the keyboard I’m typing on does not mean that intelligence cannot affect my keyboard in unique and quantifiable ways.
True, but the question in the context of ID is whether or not examples like writing can be used to create standards of measurement that can be applied to systems of unknown provenance. This is the problem with CSI. JJJayM_{February 14, 2009
February
02
Feb
14
14
2009
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Seversky (#55), I agree with you. If God exists, then He does at least partly fall within the domain of science, if science is suitably defined. BTW, that would seem to rule out a God Who works undetectably, as TE would have it. I rather think Barbara Forrest would agree. Given that she is an atheist, she would probably simply go with the option that God is not detectable because He does not exist. I think that there are evidences for intelligence before human intelligence, which makes me an ID adherent. I think this intelligence point strongly towards a God, which makes me a theist (okay, a theist-leaning agnostic, but for practical purposes a theist). This is true even though, in the case of life, we cannot be certain that the intelligence that created life is in fact God. Thus, the origin of life on earth could be natural in the sense of not requiring the direct action of God, while nature in the sense of physical reality could still point to something outside itself. But your definition of nature is simply all-inclusive. JayM (#46), I'll try it one more time. Try not to get hung up on the word "qualitatively". Humans make things that are not found in nature without humans, things like airplanes, automobiles, and computers. Humans can also make rounded stones indistinguishable from those made by nature without humans. This is true whether humans are deterministic machines or not. Furthermore, there are other entities that have a similar, although arguably lesser, ability, again whether they are deterministic or not. For example, beavers build dams, and birds build nests. If we come across a log dam, we may not be able to be certain whether it was created by beavers or humans, but we can be certain that it was not created by a tornado. To extend further, if we visit a planet orbiting Proctyon and come across an automobile, and turn a switch (with or without a key) and it starts an engine moving and we are able to drive it uphill, it would be entirely reasonable to assume that some kind of human-like intelligence had once been on that planet. This is true whether or not the proposed intelligence was deterministic. In fact, we would be unreasonable not to strongly suspect the existence of such intelligence. It seems to me that once certain thresholds of ability or complexity are passed, one can then speak fairly of a qualitative difference. Computers and the internet can enable communications like this one which could never happen with more primitive equipment. That, it seems to me, is a qualitative difference. But if you don't like that word, just answer the substantive question behind it. Can humans do things that nature without humans is for all practical purposes incapable of doing?Paul Giem_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed [71], Exactly, and I think this is the point I'm ultimately trying to get at: All of this talk about all of these poorly defined terms is patently absurd. We should instead invest our energies into what it plainly before our eyes: That intelligent activity is a REAL phenomenon that causes UNIQUE effects, and as such can be observed, studied, quantified, and inferred. Period.QuadFather_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Joseph, It cannot JUSTIFIABLY be categorically excluded, then. ;-)QuadFather_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Sal Gal, I think the problem is that "supernatural" cannot be defined in a way that is not identical to "natural" or "intelligent". The ONLY unique thing that it has to offer is the stigma of witches and ghouls. I strongly suspect that Barbara Forrest chose the word "supernatural" for the STIGMA rather than as a synonym for "intelligent" or as a mode of natural processes.QuadFather_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply