Are dem bunny prints?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008 at 5:55 pm and is filed under Proteins. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/are-dem-bunny-prints/trackback/

89 Responses to “Are dem bunny prints?”

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Hi All –

Bunny tracks look like bunny feet… so finding bunny tracks instantly tells us something about bunnies (at least what their feet look like).

What does biological complexity tell us about the Designer? Nobody thinks the Designer looks like a flagellum, of course… but does it tell us that thought was required in order to bring it into existence?

If we could agree on what things think and what things do not think, we might have a chance at investigating this question. But I've seen that not even ID proponents can agree amongst themselves about these things.

If you think I'm wrong, take this test: Which of the following things think, and which do not:

1) humans
2) slime mold
3) spiders
4) computers
5) evolutionary processes

There is no consensus even among IDers (much less the scientific community at large) about which of these are intelligent, or purposeful, or willful, or conscious, or thinking entities – and which are not. If ID can't even come up with a principled way to agree on these observable entities, when we can actually study them right in our laboratories, how can it hope to reach a conclusion regarding a completely unobservable, hypothetical entity?

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 11:19 am

MikeGene Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Hi aiguy,

What does biological complexity tell us about the Designer? Nobody thinks the Designer looks like a flagellum, of course"¦ but does it tell us that thought was required in order to bring it into existence?

If you read the essay, it is not about biological complexity requiring thought to bring it into existence. It is about the evidence that thought seems to connect two unrelated, crucial molecules "“ DNA and proteins "“ in a remarkably sophisticated manner.

Another point comes to mind. A couple years back, some critics were arguing that life's dependence on both proteins and nucleic acids was evidence of multiple designers. My essay shows otherwise.

As for trying to reach consensus/agreement, we need to remember what Monod noted:

Hence it is through reference to our own activity, conscious and projective, intentional and purposive-it is as makers of artifacts-that we judge of a given object's "naturalness" or "artificialness."

Because a design inference may necessarily rely on this subjective element, consensus may be a fantasy (and there are plenty of social and historical data to support that suspicion). What would thus matter is what I outline in The Design Matrix: a) people lay their cards on the table by using an open-ended method with agreed upon criteria and b) success is not measured by consensus/agreement of inference, but by the ability to illuminate biotic reality.

Comment by MikeGene — June 4, 2008 @ 11:44 am

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Hi Mike,

If you read the essay…

Apologies – I'm a newbie on your site – which essay are we talking about here?

As for trying to reach consensus/agreement, we need to remember what Monod noted:
Hence it is through reference to our own activity, conscious and projective, intentional and purposive-it is as makers of artifacts-that we judge of a given object's "naturalness" or "artificialness."

But Monod was not attempting to explore how to characterize cognition – just the opposite. Also he wrote this more than thirty years ago, and there has been an explosion of knowledge in the cognitive sciences since then.

Because a design inference may necessarily rely on this subjective element, consensus may be a fantasy (and there are plenty of social and historical data to support that suspicion). What would thus matter is what I outline in The Design Matrix: a) people lay their cards on the table by using an open-ended method with agreed upon criteria and b) success is not measured by consensus/agreement of inference, but by the ability to illuminate biotic reality.

I'm saying something a bit different than this. It is not just that two people looking at the same evidence might reach different conclusions about whether something is thinking (or intelligent) or not. Rather, I am saying that people do not know the meaning of the question they are attempting to answer. Some believe that consciousness must be involved; others don't. Some believe that physical cause must be transcended; others don't. Some believe that learning is essential; others think differently. And so on.

Until ID manages to put some concrete meaning to these terms, people will forever talk past each other, arguing about definitions rather than the facts of the matter without even realizing it. With definitions in place, we can finally see how much actual subjectivity there is in all this, without the confusion over what we're supposed to be detecting in the first place.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 12:16 pm

Pez Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Hi Aiguy,
http://www.idthink.net/biot/ra...
I was fooled too. I was going to argue about what the tracks in the snow really looked like to me.

Comment by Pez — June 4, 2008 @ 12:33 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Thanks for the link, Pez.

But the essay confirms the point I'm trying to make here. The essay talks about designs, designing and designers, like this from the Design Matrix:

Seen from this vantage point, the very structure of DNA is evidence that indicates life was designed to reproduce.

But as you well know, you and I and FMM and kornbelt and nullasalus all have very different ideas about what it means to be designed. Null thinks this means a conscious entity planned it out. You think something which could transcend physical cause was involved. Other ID advocates here say that evolutionary processes can be considered intelligent and can design.

So we aren't just disagreeing about our subjective views on what the evidence says. Rather, we are all trying to answer different questions.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
aiguy,

I think you're on the wrong track, at least as far as my own views are concerned. It's not about understanding the cognitive processes of any putative designer. It's simply about making a correlation about the output of "black boxes".

My children don't understand anything about the cognitive processes of humans or dogs. But they can tell the difference between they way dogs and people act.

If I made two black boxes that output two sets of repeating series of numbers, and then presented a third black box that produced the same set of numbers as box A, it would be reasonable to infer that box A and C were the "same kind of thing." You might say they have the "same cognitive processes", I might say, "they have the same number generating algorithm". My kids might say, "it's the same kind of box, dad." Nobody need know anything about the innards of the box. All we're looking at is the output.

So, in my case, I look at the "output" in the form of intra-cellular machinery and processes and make a correspondence to human designed machinery and processes, and I make a tentative forensic suspicion that the "same kind of thing" is at work in the design of both. It's not proof, and nobody around here (as far as I know), claims that it is. It's a suspicion based on correspondence, and not merely [edit: metaphor].

Please get a copy of Mike's book so you will be equipped to discuss more of the particulars.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 1:02 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Hi KB –

You might say they have the "same cognitive processes", I might say, "they have the same number generating algorithm". My kids might say, "it's the same kind of box, dad." Nobody need know anything about the innards of the box. All we're looking at is the output.

Good clarification – so it's not actually about the detection of "cognition" per se (or "intelligence" or "design" or "thought").

But if this truly was the approach here, why would the entire project be saddled with these difficult concepts like "intelligent" and "design" and "teleology" It just befuddles the analysis with extraneous philosophical connotations (not to mention dragging the whole culture war nonsense into it).

So, in my case, I look at the "output" in the form of intra-cellular machinery and processes and make a correspondence to human designed machinery and processes, and I make a tentative forensic suspicion that the "same kind of thing" is at work in the design of both. It's not proof, and nobody around here (as far as I know), claims that it is. It's a suspicion based on correspondence, and not merely analogy.

As we've discussed, similar effects sometimes have similar cause and sometimes don't. Your kids notice "it's the same sort of box, Dad" – but I notice that the "box" on top of our shoulders (our brains) is quite obviously and radically different from whatever "box" might have designed my brain in the first place. So without talking about the boxes per se, finding the "output" to be similar can't really tell us if the boxes are similar or not. One box could have a blind, unguided natural process inside, while the other had a little tiny human being, and they could both output the same stuff.

So in order to say anything at all about what makes these sequences (or proteins or…) we need to be able to talk about different kinds of boxes with some clarity. Otherwise we'll forever be remarking that this or that looks like what a human engineer would come up with, but we'll have no ability to draw any conclusions (subjective or not) about the significance of these observations… because we haven't decided what attributes of human engineering are even relevant (consciousness? volition? learning? having a brain? etc).

Please get a copy of Mike's book so you will be equipped to discuss more of the particulars.

Will do!

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 1:31 pm

MikeGene Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Hi aiguy,

Apologies – I'm a newbie on your site – which essay are we talking about here?

Just click on the bunny prints. If you read the essay, it is not about biological complexity requiring thought to bring it into existence. It is about the evidence that thought seems to connect two unrelated, crucial molecules "“ DNA and proteins "“ in a remarkably sophisticated manner.

Comment by MikeGene — June 4, 2008 @ 1:38 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Mike –

Thanks, I read the essay. Here is a good example from the essay of what I'm talking about here:

Since natural selection can act as a designer-mimic, it too would share this feature and be subject to similar limitations.

I submit that nobody here can actually say what this sentence means, since nobody can say what the difference between a "designer" and a "designer-mimic" is. (Or, more accurately, everyone will have a very different idea about what the difference is).

Likewise, you've repeated this:

It is about the evidence that thought seems to connect two unrelated, crucial molecules "“ DNA and proteins "“ in a remarkably sophisticated manner.

Until I know what you mean by "thought" (e.g. do you mean conscious thought?) I can't decide if there is evidence for "thought" connecting these molecules or not.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 1:45 pm

nullasalus Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
aiguy,

I submit that nobody here can actually say what this sentence means, since nobody can say what the difference between a "designer" and a "designer-mimic" is. (Or, more accurately, everyone will have a very different idea about what the difference is).

You can get by it with assumptions. 'I assume that X is not designed, but note that X is very similar to Y, which is designed'. Granted, the science problem there is obvious, but it's a way to communicate the idea.

Comment by nullasalus — June 4, 2008 @ 1:52 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Hi nullasalus,

You can get by it with assumptions. 'I assume that X is not designed, but note that X is very similar to Y, which is designed'. Granted, the science problem there is obvious, but it's a way to communicate the idea.

When you say "Y is designed", you mean "Y was reflected upon by a conscious mind". When KB says "Y is designed" he means something very different – so different that I honestly can't say how the two meanings intersect. So the problem isn't the science, it's the basic communication.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 1:58 pm

MikeGene Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Hi aiguy:

I submit that nobody here can actually say what this sentence means, since nobody can say what the difference between a "designer" and a "designer-mimic" is. (Or, more accurately, everyone will have a very different idea about what the difference is).

So what? What's the problem? Anytime we try to make some sense of a complex reality by attaching man-made concepts to our outside reality, we run into problems. For example, I recently highlighted examples where leading biologists still have much trouble defining life, species, and even self-replication. People have very different ideas about these words, yet biology survives and thrives. We could add other words which mean different things to different people "“ science, evolution, creationism, evidence, etc. There is no reason why I have to conform to standards that are atypically excessive.

If someone cannot follow my meaning by considering the context, then it merely means another person wasn't able to follow my meaning. I will only become concerned if I come to think that no one can follow my meaning and my points become completely incomprehensible to everyone.

As it stands, "it is not about biological complexity requiring thought to bring it into existence. It is about the evidence that thought seems to connect two unrelated, crucial molecules "“ DNA and proteins "“ in a remarkably sophisticated manner. It is about the evidence that thought seems to connect two unrelated, crucial molecules "“ DNA and proteins "“ in a remarkably sophisticated manner."

If you don't see it, you don't see it.
If you see it, there is more to see.

I'm not out to convince you or force you to "decide," aiguy. For why would I hold my perspective hostage to yours, when it is Nature herself who ultimately judges?

Gotta run…..

Comment by MikeGene — June 4, 2008 @ 2:19 pm

nullasalus Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
aiguy,

When you say "Y is designed", you mean "Y was reflected upon by a conscious mind". When KB says "Y is designed" he means something very different – so different that I honestly can't say how the two meanings intersect. So the problem isn't the science, it's the basic communication.

Well, hold on. I can mean 'reflected upon by a conscious mind', or I can mean something else. It's a question of specifying, sure, but it's possible within that (philosophical) context. I'm not committed to a single viewpoint – I'll typically just argue one for the purposes of discussion.

Comment by nullasalus — June 4, 2008 @ 2:57 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
aiguy: Good clarification – so it's not actually about the detection of "cognition" per se (or "intelligence" or "design" or "thought").

It's partly about looking at an effect and making a categorical inference about the cause. "Design" certainly implies something, but it need not imply any thing more than that is a "like" another cause in the sense that it can effect the same output. Humans design things. One need not get bogged down into how they do it to discuss what the characteristics of their effects are.

In the case of cellular machinery, an impressive analogy is seen between what humans can produce and what has been produced in cells. No matter what you call it, what is important is that the thing that produced cells is able to mimic the artifacts of human engineering.

If it can be demonstrated that the processes within cells require something like "foresight" (sorry, no way to get away from that concept – Dawkins couldn't either) – the ability to "see past" the "next/proximate state" – then something other than "blind" nature as that is normally understood must be at work.

But if this truly was the approach here, why would the entire project be saddled with these difficult concepts like "intelligent" and "design" and "teleology" It just befuddles the analysis with extraneous philosophical connotations (not to mention dragging the whole culture war nonsense into it).

Partly because of statements like this:

Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve this paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design. We shall look at a particular example and shall conclude that, when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly even began to state the case. (Blind Watchmaker, R. Dawkins, chapter 2)

Are Dawkin's words here meaningful to you? If not, then I don't think there's much hope for you.

It's impossible to get away from words like "foresight", "look ahead", "blind", "see beyond", "goals", because we're humans and we have and use that ability, and it leads to particular kinds of effects. Effects that seem to "see beyond" the next/proximate effect. In the case of cellular machinery (among other things), we are looking at something and thinking about whether the same kind of "foresight" is required to produce the effect. This is what Dawkins is doing when he writes words like that, and that's we we're doing when we refer to a possible telic cause of a given effect.

The question then is, could the cellular machinery and processes have arising without something that can "see beyond" the next/proximate effect? That remains to be answered, obviously. What makes some us wonder is the stunning likeness of intra-cellular machinery and processes to human designed machinery and processes. It's only a clue. It's not proof of anything. But it is meaningful.

So without talking about the boxes per se, finding the "output" to be similar can't really tell us if the boxes are similar or not.

That's right, and it doesn't matter. Two things that produce the same output can be considered to be the same kind of thing or that one thing can mimic another.

So in order to say anything at all about what makes these sequences (or proteins or"¦) we need to be able to talk about different kinds of boxes with some clarity.

One possible way science can help is to try to figure out ways "blind" nature could have come up with the cellular system. If it can, the telic hypothesis is falsified. If we discover cellular processes that are truly irreducibly complex, then the "blind" naturalistic hypothesis is falsified.

The telic forensic suspicion is useful if it spurs research towards answering these questions.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 3:08 pm

nullasalus Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
kornbelt888,

Are Dawkin's words here meaningful to you? If not, then I don't think there's much hope for you.

I'm sure he'll reply himself, but aiguy's said before that he thinks Dawkins is making the same mistake he believes ID proponents and others are making. So I'd vouch for his consistency on that straightaway. And his generally pleasant demeanor, since I'm throwing out compliments here.

On the other hand, since Mike doesn't think ID is science (though it may become such later), I'm not sure the issue applies in MG's case.

Comment by nullasalus — June 4, 2008 @ 3:17 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
aiguy,

MikeGene said:

So what? What's the problem? Anytime we try to make some sense of a complex reality by attaching man-made concepts to our outside reality, we run into problems. For example, I recently highlighted examples where leading biologists still have much trouble defining life, species, and even self-replication. People have very different ideas about these words, yet biology survives and thrives. We could add other words which mean different things to different people "“ science, evolution, creationism, evidence, etc. There is no reason why I have to conform to standards that are atypically excessive.

This is the point I was trying to make the other day with my crude remarks about eating and pooping, etc. Given the ambiguities, how are you able to comprehend anything? That leads me to suspect you're mentally challenged in a way atypical of the participants here, or you just here to "stir the pot", so to speak.

Seriously.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 3:21 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
nullasalus: On the other hand, since Mike doesn't think ID is science (though it may become such later), I'm not sure the issue applies in MG's case.

I don't think ID is science (yet) either. That's not the point. aiguy is demanding some kind of precision of the terms employed that apparently nobody is capable of providing. Of course, he's free to demand all he wants to. And as long as it's fun, I'll reply.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 3:57 pm

hrun Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I don't think ID is science (yet) either. That's not the point. aiguy is demanding some kind of precision of the terms employed that apparently nobody is capable of providing. Of course, he's free to demand all he wants to. And as long as it's fun, I'll reply.

I think the difficulty here lies in the fact that Mike is not trying to make an argument, while a lot of us reading think that he is trying to make one. When one speaks of 'evidence' for certain things, then this sounds to me like making an argument. But if one says 'If you don't see it, you don't see it. If you see it, there is more to see.' then this does not sound to me like making an argument.

If you want to make an argument based on an observation, then the important factors in that argument have to be well defined. They don't need a universally true definition, just an operational definition to see if the point holds. That's what biologists do with terms like species. In general, when one argues a point involving the term 'species', it is well understood what the term species means in this context. Species might mean something different elsewhere, and that's just fine.

In Mike's case, it seems to me that IF this was an argument supported by evidence, then the term 'thought' should indeed be defined. Not universally, mind you, but at least get an operational definition for this particular context. However, since all Mike is doing is essentially writing prose which may change the POV of some, and leave other untouched, it is certainly not necessary for him to do so.

Comment by hrun — June 4, 2008 @ 4:06 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
hrun,

I agree with you mostly.

I've never thought Mike was making an argument, but I think he's doing more than merely writing prose. If you've read his book I think it should be clear that he is on a forensic investigation to see what comes up with regards to telic-like inspired machinery and processes, particularly of the intra-cellular kind, and spur others on to do the same thing.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 4:17 pm

hrun Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I've never thought Mike was making an argument, but I think he's doing more than merely writing prose. If you've read his book I think it should be clear that he is on a forensic investigation to see what comes up with regards to telic-like inspired machinery and processes, particularly of the intra-cellular kind, and spur others on to do the same thing.

Well, to me 'a forensic investigation' generally ends with somebody making an argument for something. You know, making an argument about the plausibility, possibility or likelihood that something did or did not occur. So if you describe it as a forensic investigation, I would immediately think that Mike is making an argument. And if he is making an argument in this case, namely that thought connects two molecules, is it not reasonable to ask what he means by thought in this specific case?

Comment by hrun — June 4, 2008 @ 4:28 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Mike –

If someone cannot follow my meaning by considering the context, then it merely means another person wasn't able to follow my meaning. I will only become concerned if I come to think that no one can follow my meaning and my points become completely incomprehensible to everyone.

What I see is that everyone is reading their own meaning into what is being talked about, without being explicit about it. I have my own reasons for thinking this is a bad thing, but maybe you think that's just fine. Maybe ID is supposed to be like poetry, where everybody finds different meaning in the same words.

If you don't see it, you don't see it. If you see it, there is more to see.

I know – my religious friends say very similar things about their various faiths. That's fine.

I just think it wouldn't be all that hard to try and pin down just a bit what is meant by 'design'. For example, the issue of a conscious vs. an unconscious process is quite fundamental, no? Do you not think it matters if people are imagining the evidence for design is evidence for conscious thought or not? If these distinctions are truly unimportant, then I'm really not sure what ID is trying do.

Nullasalus –

Well, hold on. I can mean 'reflected upon by a conscious mind', or I can mean something else. It's a question of specifying, sure, but it's possible within that (philosophical) context. I'm not committed to a single viewpoint – I'll typically just argue one for the purposes of discussion.

So it can mean "produced by an unguided, natural process" instead?

KB -

Humans design things. One need not get bogged down into how they do it to discuss what the characteristics of their effects are.

Ok, so you mean that the cause is "like" a human, but everybody can mean something different in terms of the ways in which they are alike.

In the case of cellular machinery, an impressive analogy is seen between what humans can produce and what has been produced in cells. No matter what you call it, what is important is that the thing that produced cells is able to mimic the artifacts of human engineering.

And I don't find that important in the same sense because humans and non-human processes do things so differently. The fact that humans and clouds produce high-voltage arcs does not convince me that clouds think about making lightning the way humans do.

If it can be demonstrated that the processes within cells require something like "foresight" (sorry, no way to get away from that concept – Dawkins couldn't either) – the ability to "see past" the "next/proximate state" – then something other than "blind" nature as that is normally understood must be at work.

Most people who study cognition believe human thought goes from proxmimate state to proximate state, with only the end result being accessible to our consciousness. So while it appears that we somehow "see past" the next state, we actually considered and discarded that state subconsciously.

Are Dawkin's words here meaningful to you? If not, then I don't think there's much hope for you.

You believe that Dawkins is clear and correct about everything he writes? I wouldn't have thought that was the case. In my opinion, Dawkins is confused on any number of issues. For example, I disagree with him that "God" is an hypothesis that can be scientifically evaluated and dismissed as false. And yes, I think he is utterly confused about philosophy of mind as well.

It's impossible to get away from words like "foresight", "look ahead", "blind", "see beyond", "goals", because we're humans and we have and use that ability, and it leads to particular kinds of effects. Effects that seem to "see beyond" the next/proximate effect.

See above. The reason we have to use metaphorical words like "sight" (even though we really aren't talking about optical vision here) is because we are describing what it feels like to come across a solution. We don't know how we do it, which is why scientists have to do experiments to figure it out. It might be just "blind, unguided" processes inside our heads after all, which would really confuse the entire ID project (ID could no longer say that "sighted" processes were involved rather than "blind" processes).

That's right, and it doesn't matter. Two things that produce the same output can be considered to be the same kind of thing or that one thing can mimic another.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I can agree here. If the Sun produced light and heat by chemical combustion, we would be faced with the odd paradox that it is still burning after billions of years. It produces light and heat all right, but the same output can come from very different causes, and nuclear reactions are very different.

One possible way science can help is to try to figure out ways "blind" nature could have come up with the cellular system. If it can, the telic hypothesis is falsified.

The "telic hypothesis" says that "not-blind" (or "sighted") nature is responsible. Now you ask me to figure out how "blind" nature could have been responsible, in order to falsify the claim that "not blind" nature was responsible. And neither of us can say for sure if the processes underlying even human design abilities are "blind" or "not blind". So this enterprise seems to be a little far fetched to me.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 4:31 pm

Bilbo Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
aiguy:Most people who study cognition believe human thought goes from proxmimate state to proximate state, with only the end result being accessible to our consciousness. So while it appears that we somehow "see past" the next state, we actually considered and discarded that state subconsciously.[emphasis added]

What do you mean by "considered", aiguy?

Comment by Bilbo — June 4, 2008 @ 4:40 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Hi Bilbo -
Please don't think I'm suggesting we actually have a model of how human thought works, or even that we can say it is "entirely the result of brain activity". I am saying we really do not know how we think. But we do know that most of what goes on when we make plans, solve problems, and design things is not accessible to our conscious awareness, and our experiments do bear that much out.

For example, if you ask someone if two pictures are of the same object in different orientations, the time it will take them to figure out the answer is proportional to the number of degrees of rotation that the two figures differ by – as though our brains actually were rotating the figure in memory to see if it would match up. We aren't aware of this rotation, but there is some evidence that we're doing it. There are journals filled with such evidence.

Edit: To us, it seems as though we see through right to the answer, without having to consider intermediate positions at all.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 4:49 pm

nullasalus Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
aiguy,

So it can mean "produced by an unguided, natural process" instead?

As in the word 'designed' can mean that? I don't think so, personally. Not in an ID context. Though I also think casting what goes on in the human mind as 'blind, unguided processes' – or even entertaining the potential for that (at least as a whole) is hopeless. You once talked about certain basic assumptions that, while they can't be proven, must be taken for granted for conversation to proceed (existence of other minds, etc.) I think 'human thoughts and considerations can be and are purposeful' is one of those assumptions.

Comment by nullasalus — June 4, 2008 @ 4:52 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Nullasalus,

As in the word 'designed' can mean that? I don't think so, personally. Not in an ID context. Though I also think casting what goes on in the human mind as 'blind, unguided processes' – or even entertaining the potential for that (at least as a whole) is hopeless. You once talked about certain basic assumptions that, while they can't be proven, must be taken for granted for conversation to proceed (existence of other minds, etc.) I think 'human thoughts and considerations can be and are purposeful' is one of those assumptions.

Of course I agree – we couldn't make sense of human behavior without intentional language (and we certainly wouldn't want to!). You have made clear what it is you are talking about here (conscious, sentient mind), and how far you think that logical inferences against the physical evidence can take us, and how you choose to go the rest of the distance. You know I have no issue with that stance at all, and that it isn't so far from what I think too.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 5:00 pm

nullasalus Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
aiguy,

And I don't find that important in the same sense because humans and non-human processes do things so differently. The fact that humans and clouds produce high-voltage arcs does not convince me that clouds think about making lightning the way humans do.

What if humans were able to produce clouds that produce high-voltage arcs?

You have made clear what it is you are talking about here (conscious, sentient mind), and how far you think that logical inferences against the physical evidence can take us, and how you choose to go the rest of the distance.

Something about that depiction seems 'off' to me, but I suppose it's close enough for me to put it aside.

Comment by nullasalus — June 4, 2008 @ 5:12 pm

Bilbo Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
aiguy:Most people who study cognition believe human thought goes from proxmimate state to proximate state, with only the end result being accessible to our consciousness. So while it appears that we somehow "see past" the next state, we actually considered and discarded that state subconsciously. [emphasis added]

I'll ask again, aiguy: What do you mean by "considered"

Comment by Bilbo — June 4, 2008 @ 5:13 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Nullasalus,

What if humans were able to produce clouds that produce high-voltage arcs?

Sorry, don't see what you're getting at.

Bilbo,

I'll ask again, aiguy: What do you mean by "considered"

I meant that the process by which our brains solve problems and design things might progress from proximate state to proximate state, and to "consider" a series of states means our brains physically transition through a series of different states of neural activity. I do not mean consciously "consider" – in this case I mean unconsciously "consider".

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 5:23 pm

Bilbo Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
aiguy:I meant that the process by which our brains solve problems and design things might progress from proximate state to proximate state, and to "consider" a series of states means our brains physically transition through a series of different states of neural activity.

OK, aiguy, what do you mean by "solve"

Comment by Bilbo — June 4, 2008 @ 5:27 pm

nullasalus Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
aiguy,

Sorry, don't see what you're getting at.

It seems you're arguing that just because humans and clouds both produce high-voltage arcs, you see no reason to suppose that the electric arcs clouds produce are designed (while someone could/would obviously insist that the electric arcs humans make are designed). But a human making a cloud that produced an electric arc would at least establish that clouds (and their resulting effects) could be designed, rather than 'being brought about by natural, unguided processes'. And so on with every natural example.

Comment by nullasalus — June 4, 2008 @ 5:30 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Hi Bilbo -

I actually don't think there is any confusion at all between us regarding what the word "solve" means in this context. In the example I provided, to 'solve' the problem meant to answer the question posed of whether or not the two figures were of the same object.

I've noticed that when I ask people to look more closely at their assumptions and intuitions about mind, one thing that some people do is react with a hyper-skeptical defense: If AIGuy makes me say exactly what I mean by "intelligence", then I will simply challenge his use of every word he types!

I am not the only one who believes that discussions about minds require careful use of technical vocabulary, Bilbo. Everyone who does scientific or philosophical investigations of cognition feels the same way.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 5:33 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Nullasalus,

It seems you're arguing that just because humans and clouds both produce high-voltage arcs, you see no reason to suppose that the electric arcs clouds produce are designed (while someone could/would obviously insist that the electric arcs humans make are designed). But a human making a cloud that produced an electric arc would at least establish that clouds (and their resulting effects) could be designed, rather than 'being brought about by natural, unguided processes'. And so on with every natural example.

I was hoping this was not what you were getting at, actually. With this argument, you see the universe as a whole as designed, so why look at anything in particular and try to decide if it has the tell-tale signs of "design" or not?

Anyway, no, if a human could build a lightning-generating cloud, that would not tell us if a human-like mind was responsible for these clouds in nature or not, any more than the fact we can generate lightning tells us that clouds have minds.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 5:38 pm

Bilbo Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
aiguy:In the example I provided, to 'solve' the problem meant to answer the question posed of whether or not the two figures were of the same object.

So would you have a problem with saying that the goal, in this case, is to answer the question of whether or not the two figures were of the same object?

Comment by Bilbo — June 4, 2008 @ 5:39 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Bilbo,

So would you have a problem with saying that the goal, in this case, is to answer the question of whether or not the two figures were of the same object?

Sure – that was the subject's goal. (And the goal of a falling apple is to return to the Earth, just as Aristotle thought, right?)

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 5:44 pm

Bilbo Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
aiguy:Sure – that was the subject's goal. (And the goal of a falling apple is to return to the Earth, just as Aristotle thought, right?)

Are you being sarcastic? Do you think that was the subject's goal, or don't you?

Comment by Bilbo — June 4, 2008 @ 5:46 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Bilbo,
I am not being sarcastic. Yes, of course that was the subject's goal.

We might have a more productive discussion if you tried to actually articulate some thought or to make an argument rather than interrogate me looking for some opportunity to trip me up.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 5:52 pm

nullasalus Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
aiguy,

I was hoping this was not what you were getting at, actually. With this argument, you see the universe as a whole as designed, so why look at anything in particular and try to decide if it has the tell-tale signs of "design" or not?

Bingo. Which is exactly why I regard the ID/no-ID issue as entirely philosophical. On the other hand, human advances in engineering, science, etc do lend some support to this position – so I think the general theme MikeGene, Kornbelt888 and others are dealing with have some philosophical weight. If it's similar to stuff 'we' design, there may be a reason for that.

Anyway, no, if a human could build a lightning-generating cloud, that would not tell us if a human-like mind was responsible for these clouds in nature or not, any more than the fact we can generate lightning tells us that clouds have minds.

It doesn't answer the question, but it provides something interesting to talk about that (philosophically) design proponents can pick up and run with. As for clouds having minds – I find it a doubtful assertion, but that isn't stopping the panpsychists and those similar.

Comment by nullasalus — June 4, 2008 @ 5:54 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
KB: Humans design things. One need not get bogged down into how they do it to discuss what the characteristics of their effects are.

aiguy: Ok, so you mean that the cause is "like" a human, but everybody can mean something different in terms of the ways in which they are alike.

Perhaps. Which is why we should focus on the effects contra the effects of "blind" nature (a process without goals or foresight beyond the next next/proximate effect.)

KB: In the case of cellular machinery, an impressive analogy is seen between what humans can produce and what has been produced in cells. No matter what you call it, what is important is that the thing that produced cells is able to mimic the artifacts of human engineering.

aiguy: And I don't find that important in the same sense because humans and non-human processes do things so differently. The fact that humans and clouds produce high-voltage arcs does not convince me that clouds think about making lightning the way humans do.

You seemed to have ignored my use of the term "mimic." Humans and clouds can mimic "one another" with respect to voltage arcs. Very well then. But can clouds produce something akin to automobiles? If I were a man living 5000 years ago, knew nothing of automobiles, and I only had access to cloud effects and something like an automobile, I doubt I would suspect they came from the same kind of cause.

aiguy: Most people who study cognition believe human thought goes from proxmimate state to proximate state, with only the end result being accessible to our consciousness. So while it appears that we somehow "see past" the next state, we actually considered and discarded that state subconsciously.

Understanding the internal workings of human cognitive processes is unnecessary in a forensic investigation. The police do it all the time by merely considering the effects that humans produce.

KB: Are Dawkin's words here meaningful to you? If not, then I don't think there's much hope for you.

aiguy: You believe that Dawkins is clear and correct about everything he writes? I wouldn't have thought that was the case.

Fair enough. But you asked me why telic language is used by ID. I just showed you one example why. Have you e-mailed him and demanded he reprint his book in order to clarify what he meant? Perhaps you should do a pubmed search for telic terms within peer reviewed biology papers and see what you come up with. I think the common understanding of those terms if sufficient to make a good start at a forensic telic investigation.

KB: It's impossible to get away from words like "foresight", "look ahead", "blind", "see beyond", "goals", because we're humans and we have and use that ability, and it leads to particular kinds of effects. Effects that seem to "see beyond" the next/proximate effect.

aiguy: See above. The reason we have to use metaphorical words like "sight" (even though we really aren't talking about optical vision here) is because we are describing what it feels like to come across a solution. We don't know how we do it, which is why scientists have to do experiments to figure it out.

The reason we have to use metaphorical words at all is because humans have the capacity for abstract thought that cannot be expressed in concrete language except via metaphor. You can make the language less colorful, but you can't make it less abstract.

At any rate, how we produce the effects we do is irrelevant to the fact that do, in fact, produce them, we know we do it, and we manifest certain kinds of effects that we apply the term "goal" and "foresight" to. And we recognize that we do. Human effects are very much the part of the ID investigation. Without human reason there would be no investigation.

aiguy: It might be just "blind, unguided" processes inside our heads after all, which would really confuse the entire ID project (ID could no longer say that "sighted" processes were involved rather than "blind" processes).

Whatever kind of processes they are, they are special, because they produce special kinds of effects that we, ourselves, recognize to be special. Human reason could be an illusion, but that were true, everything else, including all of science, would be subject to that same damning judgment.

One issue to keep in mind here is that you cannot take yourself, and other humans, out of the picture. You're inside of it, not outside. Either our mental processes, the ones that make hypotheses, and inferences, and recognize our own mental processes as special, are special, or they are not, and science in general is a lark. You can't saw off the intellectual branch you're sitting on, and expect to remain connected to the tree.

Do you consider human reason to be valid?

KB: Two things that produce the same output can be considered to be the same kind of thing or that one thing can mimic another.

aiguy: Hmmm, I'm not sure I can agree here. If the Sun produced light and heat by chemical combustion, we would be faced with the odd paradox that it is still burning after billions of years. It produces light and heat all right, but the same output can come from very different causes, and nuclear reactions are very different.

If there was absolutely no difference in the effects, there would no reason to suspect a difference in the cause. Stellar radiation due to nuclear fusion, for example, has many well understood "signatures", depending on the particular elements involved, and they differ with chemical combustion. (Red-shifted atomic signatures is how we determine the distance of a star.)

KB: One possible way science can help is to try to figure out ways "blind" nature could have come up with the cellular system. If it can, the telic hypothesis is falsified.

aiguy: The "telic hypothesis" says that "not-blind" (or "sighted") nature is responsible. Now you ask me to figure out how "blind" nature could have been responsible, in order to falsify the claim that "not blind" nature was responsible.

I'm not asking you, personally, to do anything. That's the job of molecular biologists, and some of them are trying to figure it out. And rightly so.

aiguy: And neither of us can say for sure if the processes underlying even human design abilities are "blind" or "not blind". So this enterprise seems to be a little far fetched to me.

Heh. Let's turn the tables here: what did you just mean by "blind" and "not blind" Surely, there's some kind of meaning attached to those terms in your mind, other than merely parroting my words, and other than the obvious metaphorical association.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 5:59 pm

Bilbo Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
aiguy:I am not being sarcastic. Yes, of course that was the subject's goal.

So in the case of the question of whether or not two figures were of the same object, we could say that the brain may have unconsciously transitioned through a number of neurological states that were representations of the object, until it either found a match or not. And we could say that this whole process occurred in order to answer the question. In other words, that the goal was to answer the question.

Comment by Bilbo — June 4, 2008 @ 5:59 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Nullasalus,

Bingo. Which is exactly why I regard the ID/no-ID issue as entirely philosophical. On the other hand, human advances in engineering, science, etc do lend some support to this position – so I think the general theme MikeGene, Kornbelt888 and others are dealing with have some philosophical weight. If it's similar to stuff 'we' design, there may be a reason for that.

Again I appreciate your view about the epistemology (which is all I meant about you "choosing to go the rest of the distance"). I don't understand how you believe seeing what humans can manage to build impacts the philosophical arguments, though. It never changes the issue regarding different paths to the same result.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 6:02 pm

Bilbo Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Running out of time at this library. Aiguy, you've admitted there are such thing as goals. We could, if we wanted to, say that gravity is a goal of nature — to attract objects to each other.

So far, there doesn't seem to be any identifiable goal in nature that would lead to proteins, RNA, or DNA. If they arose in nature, it seems they did so randomly. One can hold that view, but the odds seem to be rather implausible.

And as Mike Gene's current essay seems to suggest, proteins, RNA, and DNA exhibit signs that they were the result of goal directed behavior.

Meanwhile, there is Darwinian evolution, which takes over once we have living organisms. Darwinian evolution does have a goal: to produce organisms that will survive and reproduce. It's a shortsighted goal. It's not trying to answer the question of what will survive one billion years from now. Just, what will survive now?

If we find features in organisms that suggest far-sighted goals (like what will survive one billion years from now? or what will make it easier for
this organism to travel?), it suggests that something more than Darwinian evolution is involved. And perhaps that will help you understand the difference between ID and non-ID.

Comment by Bilbo — June 4, 2008 @ 6:24 pm

nullasalus Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
aiguy,

Again I appreciate your view about the epistemology (which is all I meant about you "choosing to go the rest of the distance"). I don't understand how you believe seeing what humans can manage to build impacts the philosophical arguments, though. It never changes the issue regarding different paths to the same result.

Largely because the issue is whether what we see in the universe (including the universe itself) could conceivably be designed by a human-like mind, as opposed to being in origin and development mostly 'unguided natural processes'. (Only "mostly" because humans certainly do exist, and certainly do design, so the totality can't be unguided.) So as humans design more and more things – gardens, artificial lakes, new breeds of animal, perhaps create life from non-life in the lab, and so on – we're directing, guiding, and to a degree creating more and more of nature intentionally. If we can create a simulation of the (or even 'a') universe a la Nick Bostrom and others, we'll have arguably designed the totality, at least in one form.

But the closer we come to that situation, the less we need to lean on 'unguided, natural processes' as an explanation for what we see. Design in principle explains everything, and it's the one thing we're certain of by virtue of being designers. The truly unguided, however, is merely postulated to exist. It will always remain -possible-. But every time the guided achieves what the assumed unguided can do, it makes the "no guidance" assumption less parsimonious. Along the lines of, say, arguing Mount Rushmore was formed by 'unguided, natural processes'. Well, no, because we have evidence that such formations are human artifacts. So, what happens when forests, planets, and universes (even simulated ones) are also human artifacts?

Comment by nullasalus — June 4, 2008 @ 6:28 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
KB,

But can clouds produce something akin to automobiles? If I were a man living 5000 years ago, knew nothing of automobiles, and I only had access to cloud effects and something like an automobile, I doubt I would suspect they came from the same kind of cause.

You argued that like effects come from like causes, and I'm pointing out that independent evidence is always required for the simple reason that like effects also come from unlike causes. This is especially true when the hypothesized cause is completely unknown (an unspecified thing operating according to unspecified process).

Understanding the internal workings of human cognitive processes is unnecessary in a forensic investigation. The police do it all the time by merely considering the effects that humans produce.

From the previous thread:
ID requires that we can detect "intelligent agency" by observing artifacts, but commits the fallacy of over-generalization by mistaking the methods of human archeology or human forensics for instances of "intelligent agency" detection in the abstract. It is never "intelligent agency" that is actually detected, but rather it is some particular type of organism that we happen to call intelligent. The detected cause of the phenomenon in question is always a human, or some other animal, or even some extra-terrestrial life form, but never some unspecified type of "intelligent agent", and never "intelligence" per se.

Fair enough. But you asked me why telic language is used by ID. I just showed you one example why. Have you e-mailed him and demanded he reprint his book in order to clarify what he meant?

I have had one e-mail exchange with Dawkins. I didn't tell him to reprint his book. I took him to task on a couple of issues and he responded with citations to his books, which turned out to be completely non-responsive to my points.

At any rate, how we produce the effects we do is irrelevant to the fact that do, in fact, produce them, we know we do it, and we manifest certain kinds of effects that we apply the term "goal" and "foresight" to. And we recognize that we do. Human effects are very much the part of the ID investigation. Without human reason there would be no investigation.

How we produce the effects we do is central to the question ID is asking! ID assumes that however humans build machines, the machines of biology are built in a somehow similar manner. But if the processes by which humans build machines proceeds according to blind, unguided processes, this makes ID's conclusions very difficult to interpret meaningfully.

One issue to keep in mind here is that you cannot take yourself, and other humans, out of the picture. You're inside of it, not outside. Either our mental processes, the ones that make hypotheses, and inferences, and recognize our own mental processes as special, are special, or they are not, and science in general is a lark. You can't saw off the intellectual branch you're sitting on, and expect to remain connected to the tree.
Do you consider human reason to be valid?

We've had this argument, and you referred me to C.S. Lewis. I think his arguments are lame because of this: 1) Either human reason is valid or not.
2) If it isn't, nothing we say matters.
3) If it is, we don't have to worry about it

If there was absolutely no difference in the effects, there would no reason to suspect a difference in the cause. Stellar radiation due to nuclear fusion, for example, has many well understood "signatures", depending on the particular elements involved, and they differ with chemical combustion. (Red-shifted atomic signatures is how we determine the distance of a star.)

Exactly right! Now, what is difference between what "intelligence" does and what "not intelligence" does? In order to decide, we need to be able to test two things independently: First, we need a procedure for identifying intelligent things, and second we need a procedure for identifying their signatures. I grant the latter – what is the former?

aiguy: The "telic hypothesis" says that "not-blind" (or "sighted") nature is responsible. Now you ask me to figure out how "blind" nature could have been responsible, in order to falsify the claim that "not blind" nature was responsible.
KB: I'm not asking you, personally, to do anything. That's the job of molecular biologists, and some of them are trying to figure it out. And rightly so.

The "telic hypothesis" says that "not-blind" (or "sighted") nature is responsible. Now you ask molecular biologists to figure out how "blind" nature could have been responsible, in order to falsify the claim that "not blind" nature was responsible. And neither you nor they can say for sure if the processes underlying even human design abilities are "blind" or "not blind". So this enterprise seems to be a little far fetched to me.

Heh. Let's turn the tables here: what did you just mean by "blind" and "not blind" Surely, there's some kind of meaning attached to those terms in your mind, other than merely parroting my words, and other than the obvious metaphorical association.

To me (and Nullasalus) "not blind" means "conscious". Will you agree to this meaning?

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 6:31 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Bilbo,

In the interest of efficiency, I'll wait until you've formulated some point before I respond. It seems you believe that "goals" are uniquely mental, but again, we could just as reasonably say the goal of a river is to deliver water to the sea. (Cybernetics has operationalized the notions of goals and purpose, but these definitions don't seem popular here).

EDIT: Bilbo, just saw your last post – I'll respond to that one.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 6:34 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Bilbo,

Aiguy, you've admitted there are such thing as goals. We could, if we wanted to, say that gravity is a goal of nature "” to attract objects to each other.

Or we could say that falling to Earth is the goal of the apple.

So far, there doesn't seem to be any identifiable goal in nature that would lead to proteins, RNA, or DNA.

Yes, the goal (in the same non-mentalistic sense) apparently was to produce biological systems.

If they arose in nature, it seems they did so randomly. One can hold that view, but the odds seem to be rather implausible.

I find "randomness" to be a perfectly meaningless explanation for anything at all.

And as Mike Gene's current essay seems to suggest, proteins, RNA, and DNA exhibit signs that they were the result of goal directed behavior.

In cybernetics, "goal directed" means "incorporating negative feedback". Evolutionary processes incorporate negative feedback, so they are purposeful in this cybernetic sense. If you mean something else – like conscious goals or mental goals – then I have no idea how to begin to investigate those in the context of ID.

Meanwhile, there is Darwinian evolution, which takes over once we have living organisms. Darwinian evolution does have a goal: to produce organisms that will survive and reproduce. It's a shortsighted goal. It's not trying to answer the question of what will survive one billion years from now. Just, what will survive now? If we find features in organisms that suggest far-sighted goals (like what will survive one billion years from now? or what will make it easier for this organism to travel?), it suggests that something more than Darwinian evolution is involved. And perhaps that will help you understand the difference between ID and non-ID.

If I haven't mentioned it to you, I don't believe Darwinian evolution can account for what we observe in biology. So the question becomes what can account for it? Saying that the cause has "far-sighted goals" doesn't imply anything like human mentality. It implies "front-loading", but it doesn't imply the "sightedness" or awareness of that front-loader. It could just as well be a blind, natural, unguided front-loading of biological forms that will unfold over time.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 6:46 pm

nullasalus Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
aiguy,

To me (and Nullasalus) "not blind" means "conscious". Will you agree to this meaning?

I want to make one thing clear here: In a discussion you and I had, I defined (for the purposes of the discussion) an intelligent Designer as 'conscious'. I've also said others may have other definitions of it which may well be valid. I could entirely accept other formulations of a Designer which are intelligent but not 'human-like conscious', or Designers that don't exhibit human-like foresight but instead foresight of another (still very real) variety. The Designer may well be an immutable, eternal, unchanging principle – those discussions are long and involved, and a variety of views are and should be in play.

Comment by nullasalus — June 4, 2008 @ 6:52 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Nullasalus,

Largely because the issue is whether what we see in the universe (including the universe itself) could conceivably be designed by a human-like mind, as opposed to being in origin and development mostly 'unguided natural processes'. (Only "mostly" because humans certainly do exist, and certainly do design, so the totality can't be unguided.) So as humans design more and more things – gardens, artificial lakes, new breeds of animal, perhaps create life from non-life in the lab, and so on – we're directing, guiding, and to a degree creating more and more of nature intentionally. If we can create a simulation of the (or even 'a') universe a la Nick Bostrom and others, we'll have arguably designed the totality, at least in one form.

Ah, thanks – that's interesting. On one hand, if we someday use our human minds to create an entire universe, it is an existence proof that human-like minds can create universes. On the other hand, if we someday create a truly human-like mind (using an algorithmic machine), Dembski's "entire theology will crumble" (as he famously declared) because we will have shown that human-like intelligence operates by nothing but pure, blind physical causation. Ouch, my head! This is why philosophers have to be so smart. They should make more money.

Design in principle explains everything, and it's the one thing we're certain of by virtue of being designers. The truly unguided, however, is merely postulated to exist. It will always remain -possible-. But every time the guided achieves what the assumed unguided can do, it makes the "no guidance" assumption less parsimonious. Along the lines of, say, arguing Mount Rushmore was formed by 'unguided, natural processes'. Well, no, because we have evidence that such formations are human artifacts. So, what happens when forests, planets, and universes (even simulated ones) are also human artifacts?

Ok, I now understand where you were going with this – thanks. This actually gives me something to think about.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 7:08 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Nullasalus,

I want to make one thing clear here: In a discussion you and I had, I defined (for the purposes of the discussion) an intelligent Designer as 'conscious'. I've also said others may have other definitions of it which may well be valid. I could entirely accept other formulations of a Designer which are intelligent but not 'human-like conscious', or Designers that don't exhibit human-like foresight but instead foresight of another (still very real) variety. The Designer may well be an immutable, eternal, unchanging principle – those discussions are long and involved, and a variety of views are and should be in play.

My complaint there is that conscious awareness is the single factor in our inter-subjective human experience that can differentiate mental from physical cause. Once you claim agnosticism about consciousness, then we no longer have a way to understand what you mean when you speak of guided as opposed to blind processes, or a sighted front-loader as opposed to a blind front loader.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 7:13 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Nullasalus,

Seriously – this is an interesting notion regarding Bostrom's simworld that I didn't appreciate. The universe can be shown to have likely arisen from mind, and (since the simulation includes agents) mind can be shown to be nothing but natural law (since the sim runs algorithmically). If you start with the simulation, you see it as law-directed, and if you start with programmer, you see it as mind-directed. Could this be the basis of a Bohr-like complementarianism?

New idea? Old hat for Bostrom fans? I just went to Bostrom's home page for the first time – looks like I'm going to spend some time there.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 7:33 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
aiguy: If you start with the simulation, you see it as law-directed, and if you start with programmer, you see it as mind-directed. Could this be the basis of a Bohr-like complementarianism?

Getting closer to the duck and the rabbit.

Heh heh, I think we're getting somewhere.

Hats off to Nullasalus for that one!

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 8:06 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
KB –

See, I'm really not the nasty old Darwinist materialist determinist atheist relativist eugenicist white-coated scientism fundamentalist you took me for.

I've been thinking about cosmic minds all my life (and I'm pretty darn old too). That's why I've learned there is no principle by which we can distinguish intelligent from non-intelligent cause in general, unless we explicitly are talking about conscious awareness. And once we talk about conscious awareness of unobservable beings, we leave the realm of the empirical completely.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 8:32 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
aiguy: You argued that like effects come from like causes,

That's not exactly what I said. I said that like effects can come from like causes or causes that can mimic other causes.

and I'm pointing out that independent evidence is always required for the simple reason that like effects also come from unlike causes. This is especially true when the hypothesized cause is completely unknown (an unspecified thing operating according to unspecified process).

Only if I'm trying to prove something, which apparently you seem to think I'm arguing.

Cellular machinery is strikingly analogous to human engineering. Cellular machinery is not strikingly analogous to any other effect from any other cause. This leads to a forensic suspicion that is leading to a forensic investigation. That's all I've been saying, and nothing more.

I got into the fray originally because you were complaining that the terms like "design" are meaningless. I think you're wrong with regards to the cell, simply because "design" is used as a tag for what humans do. Since human effects are the criterion that the evidence is being compared with, it's a perfectly meaningful term.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 8:34 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
aiguy: ID requires that we can detect "intelligent agency" by observing artifacts, but commits the fallacy of over-generalization by mistaking the methods of human archeology or human forensics for instances of "intelligent agency" detection in the abstract. It is never "intelligent agency" that is actually detected, but rather it is some particular type of organism that we happen to call intelligent. The detected cause of the phenomenon in question is always a human, or some other animal, or even some extra-terrestrial life form, but never some unspecified type of "intelligent agent", and never "intelligence" per se.

If you stay focused on the evidence and keeping asking yourself, "how much does this look like human engineering", and "is a human engineer or human engineer mimic required for this", you'll stay out of the swamp.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 8:37 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
aiguy: How we produce the effects we do is central to the question ID is asking!

Not in the least. Not me, anyway.

I have no idea how I produce anything in terms of the machinery of my brain. But I still keep designing stuff.

aiguy: ID assumes that however humans build machines, the machines of biology are built in a somehow similar manner. But if the processes by which humans build machines proceeds according to blind, unguided processes, this makes ID's conclusions very difficult to interpret meaningfully.

Remember, it's we humans are who are doing the considering of the issue of telic causation. We are telic by definition. By definition, human design is not blind. If you put yourself out, there's no way to get back in again. But if you accept that you are a telic cause, we can examine effects and compare them to what we know we can do, and see if there's reason for forensic suspicion.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 8:44 pm

nullasalus Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
aiguy,

I've never seen Bostrom himself advocate what I'm saying, mind you – I refer to him because he's advanced the general idea of a simulated reality being a strong possibility. He does have other interesting ideas, though, and he's been fun to read here and there. But this is something I worked out for myself (naturally influenced by other philosophical thoughts, of course.)

It's what I was alluding to in another thread, when I mentioned believing that the philosophical ramifications of computers/simulation haven't been fully appreciated yet. And this aspect (design v unguided) is just the tip of the iceberg.

And thanks, kornbelt888, for the compliment. I'm glad it's stirring some thought here.

Comment by nullasalus — June 4, 2008 @ 8:46 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
aiguy: We've had this argument, and you referred me to C.S. Lewis. I think his arguments are lame because of this: 1) Either human reason is valid or not. 2) If it isn't, nothing we say matters. 3) If it is, we don't have to worry about it

Yes, we had this argument, but you didn't win it. If you didn't assume your reason is valid, what are you doing here? Just having a play with words? Naw, I suspect you think your own reason is a valid enough. Otherwise what pragmatic good could come of any of this?

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 8:47 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
KB: If there was absolutely no difference in the effects, there would no reason to suspect a difference in the cause. Stellar radiation due to nuclear fusion, for example, has many well understood "signatures", depending on the particular elements involved, and they differ with chemical combustion. (Red-shifted atomic signatures is how we determine the distance of a star.)

aiguy: Exactly right! Now, what is difference between what "intelligence" does and what "not intelligence" does?

I don't know. I could throw out some attributes, but the question is largely uninteresting to me. I can tell you the difference between what human engineers do and what other causes do.

As I've said, I'm not interested in explaining the inner workings of the cause of cellular machinery or deciding if it's a human or a god or whatever else. Because of the analogy between cells and human engineering, I'm interested in further research into whether or not non-human forces can plausibly produce such a thing (yes, you read that right), how we might apply the machinery of cells to better use, and how we might engineer nano-technology ourselves. (Of course, I'm also interested in any clear designer signatures within genomes, or pointers to more information about a designer, but that's an entirely other matter.)

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 8:58 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
KB,

I got into the fray originally because you were complaining that the terms like "design" are meaningless. I think you're wrong with regards to the cell, simply because "design" is used as a tag for what humans do. Since human effects are the criterion that the evidence is being compared with, it's a perfectly meaningful term.

Each time I complain, I try to make clear that these terms are meaningless in this context unless they were qualified somehow. I obviously don't mean that they somehow can't be assigned specific meaning. Moreover, when they are assigned meaning, I complained that the specific meanings did not logically follow from any consideration of empirical evidence that independent researchers could agree on. But here on TT the zeitgeist seems to be that you're not crafting an empirical argument, but rather brainstorming on interesting ideas.

I'm all for brainstorming, but I won't stop complaining about cognitive intuitionism being a dead-end street: If you don't say what you mean, then all of your ideas about mind will simply sink under equivocations that you're not even aware of. I really want to know if consciousness is causal, but I won't just implicitly assume it and start talking about "intelligence" when I really mean a conscious volition that transcends physical cause.

Only if I'm trying to prove something, which apparently you seem to think I'm arguing.

OK, not you. Pez really did state – over and over again – that "purpose" and "intent" can be detected by observation. And I suspect lots of others here (Bradford comes to mind) who are still laboring under the illusion that conscious, sentient mind is the best explanation for specified complexity (or some such thing), and simply leave out the "conscious, sentient" part because that makes it sound too unscientific.

Cellular machinery is strikingly analogous to human engineering. Cellular machinery is not strikingly analogous to any other effect from any other cause. This leads to a forensic suspicion that is leading to a forensic investigation. That's all I've been saying, and nothing more.

If you changed "forensic" (which really has to do with human legal affairs and is misleading for the reasons I've given above) to "philosophical" I wouldn't take issue with anything you've said. (I have the same suspicion, but for me it really is all about consciousness (because otherwise I don't know how to distinguish the mental from the physical).

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 9:00 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
aiguy: To me (and Nullasalus) "not blind" means "conscious". Will you agree to this meaning?

Unknown. And I don't think it matters. I'm not trying to explain the internals of the cause. Only whether or not natural forces can produce cells not. That the cellular machinery is strikingly similar to human engineering is a forensic clue that blind natural causes alone may not be. Further research is required.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 9:05 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
aiguy: See, I'm really not the nasty old Darwinist materialist determinist atheist relativist eugenicist white-coated scientism fundamentalist you took me for.

Whuh? That hasn't been my impression of you.

I've been thinking about cosmic minds all my life (and I'm pretty darn old too). That's why I've learned there is no principle by which we can distinguish intelligent from non-intelligent cause in general, unless we explicitly are talking about conscious awareness. And once we talk about conscious awareness of unobservable beings, we leave the realm of the empirical completely.

To use Mike's idea, I and others are on a forensic rabbit hunt. We suspect design from similarity between cellular machinery and human engineering. We want to see how far the rabbit hole goes.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 9:11 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
KB,

I'm running out of steam here, but I want to put this one to bed:

Yes, we had this argument, but you didn't win it. If you didn't assume your reason is valid, what are you doing here? Just having a play with words? Naw, I suspect you think your own reason is a valid enough. Otherwise what pragmatic good could come of any of this?

I mounted a counter-argument which you have now twice ignored. For the third time:

1) Either human reason is valid or not.
2) If it isn't, nothing we say matters, because our arguments will all be unreliable (including this one).
3) Else (if our reason is reliable), then we don't have to worry about our reason being reliable.

Do you disagree with any of these statements?

It's clear that we can't possibly know if our reason is valid, because valid reason is required for all knowledge. Since we can not know, we can only assume one answer or the other, and so we assume it is.

One last time: Our reason is either valid or it is not, and nothing we assume to be true about evolution, naturalism, minds, volition, God, or any other thing can possibly have any affect on the situation. And neither can any of our beliefs about any of these things be justified by our assumption or desire that our reasoning capability is reliable.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 9:14 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
aiguy: But here on TT the zeitgeist seems to be that you're not crafting an empirical argument, but rather brainstorming on interesting ideas.

Well, nobody's crafting a scientific theory if that's what you mean, but otherwise, yes, I think you've got it.

I'm all for brainstorming, but I won't stop complaining about cognitive intuitionism being a dead-end street: If you don't say what you mean, then all of your ideas about mind will simply sink under equivocations that you're not even aware of. I really want to know if consciousness is causal, but I won't just implicitly assume it and start talking about "intelligence" when I really mean a conscious volition that transcends physical cause.

Nothing wrong with greater precision in terminology. You're input is welcome.

Please read Mike's book and join the rabbit hunt.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 9:15 pm

MikeGene Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Hi aiguy,

What I see is that everyone is reading their own meaning into what is being talked about, without being explicit about it.

Although you did not define "see," I think you are making a claim about what you see with your own mind's eye. But while you may see this, I don't see it as being that hopeless or reckless. To one extent or another, all human beings read their own meaning into what is being said, as perception is not a passive process. Nevertheless, I'm not as pessimistic as you, as I see that others are interpreting my words in the way I have in mind. I see nodes of agreement.

I have my own reasons for thinking this is a bad thing, but maybe you think that's just fine. Maybe ID is supposed to be like poetry, where everybody finds different meaning in the same words.

I'm not saying how ID is supposed to be, but I do know there is plenty of middle room between poetry and the idealized notion of science (and remember that even science has trouble defining many basic concepts).

You began by asking two questions: "What does biological complexity tell us about the Designer? Nobody thinks the Designer looks like a flagellum, of course"¦ but does it tell us that thought was required in order to bring it into existence?"

I did not need you to rigorously define "complexity," "thought,." or "required." I was able to understand your question and spot the two places where the questions did not apply. The essay was not about "biological complexity," it was about two different biological molecules "“ proteins and DNA. And the essay was not about thought being required to bring them into existence; it was about the evidence that thought seems to connect two unrelated, crucial molecules "“ DNA and proteins "“ in a remarkably sophisticated manner.

Rather than take DNA and proteins for granted, and treat them as brute givens that play background roles in a story that stars the Blind Watchmaker, I explore these molecules and find a set of similarities that not only show the two unrelated molecules to be variations on the same theme, but they actually complement each other in remarkable ways. Is it really a coincidence that the alpha helix so nicely matches the major groove?

I know – my religious friends say very similar things about their various faiths. That's fine.

Of course it's fine. Because that is what it boils down to in the end.

I just think it wouldn't be all that hard to try and pin down just a bit what is meant by 'design'.

Then do it.

In the meantime, I'm able to follow the lead of Dawkins ("biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"), Crick ("Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.") and Monod ("I have cited it only to emphasize how arbitrary and pointless it would be to deny that the natural organ "“ the eye "“ represents that materialization of a "purpose" – that of picking up images "“ while this is indisputably also the origin of the camera.") I can communicate with people like this and I don't think most would have a hard time with my point about limitations on the designer-mimic.

For example, the issue of a conscious vs. an unconscious process is quite fundamental, no?

Sure. Is the cause like us? Do we see something that leads us to suspect that another mind was behind its origin? As Monod noted, "it is through reference to our own activity, conscious and projective, intentional and purposive-it is as makers of artifacts-that we judge of a given object's "naturalness" or "artificialness."" This observation resonates loudly with my own personal, subjective experience in detecting any design, thus it is useful. If someone comes up with a rigorous objective method built on rigorous objective definitions, I will be sure to incorporate that and use it to confirm or disconfirm the hypotheses that have been built in the meantime.

Do you not think it matters if people are imagining the evidence for design is evidence for conscious thought or not?

What matters is whether a teleological perspective generates further insight and understanding of the biological world.

If these distinctions are truly unimportant, then I'm really not sure what ID is trying do.

I'm in no position to explain what "ID is trying to do." I myself suspect the original life forms were designed by some agency with human-like intelligence and thus explore the biotic world from this perspective.

Comment by MikeGene — June 4, 2008 @ 9:18 pm

aiguy Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
KB – I'll read it, I promise. Cheers for now.

Comment by aiguy — June 4, 2008 @ 9:18 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
aiguy: If you changed "forensic" (which really has to do with human legal affairs and is misleading for the reasons I've given above) to "philosophical" I wouldn't take issue with anything you've said.

Well, one definition is: Relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law. Except for an actual "court of law", I think that sounds closer to what is going on with Mike and his fellow-travelers. I don't normally think of detectives when I think of "philosophers", and I think of this as more detective work than anything else. Plus I just like the sound of the word "forsensic."

(I have the same suspicion, but for me it really is all about consciousness (because otherwise I don't know how to distinguish the mental from the physical).

It's an interesting subject in it's own right. But what do you do with sleep walkers that have a "goal" to go to the bathroom, or walk to the kitchen in order to get food? Is it a violation of the terms "goal" and "foresight" to apply it to the unconscious sleepwalker? It seems brains came execute goals with foresight without consciousness.

I suspect consciousness is involved with the design of life and the universe for various other reasons, but just looking at cellular machinery, I am not compelled to require consciousness.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 9:30 pm

MikeGene Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Hi kornbelt,

To use Mike's idea, I and others are on a forensic rabbit hunt. We suspect design from similarity between cellular machinery and human engineering. We want to see how far the rabbit hole goes.

Well it looks like communication is possible.

In the context of these discussions, let me raise a point. The desire for succinct, precise, objective definitions can be thought of as definitional reductionism. The Design Matrix, in contrast, offers what amounts to a holistic definition. We gain more confidence in our design inference when a suspicion is supported by the convergence of four criteria that have long been used in the teleology/non-teleology debates.

Comment by MikeGene — June 4, 2008 @ 9:55 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I mounted a counter-argument which you have now twice ignored. For the third time: 1) Either human reason is valid or not. 2) If it isn't, nothing we say matters, because our arguments will all be unreliable (including this one). 3) Else (if our reason is reliable), then we don't have to worry about our reason being reliable.

Do you disagree with any of these statements?

I didn't perceive that as a counter-argument. But yes, I agree.

It's clear that we can't possibly know if our reason is valid, because valid reason is required for all knowledge. Since we can not know, we can only assume one answer or the other, and so we assume it is.

Right. Most people, for pragmatic reasons, if nothing else, assume that it is valid. But my point is this: if you assume that it is valid, you have to stick to it. No fair calling it into question downstream in another discussion, since that stultifies your original assumption.

And, of course, if you assume reason is valid and stick to it, it brings a whole 'nother batch of philosophical issues into play. But that's another thread (perhaps on another blog.)

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 4, 2008 @ 10:06 pm

aiguy Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 3:23 am
Mike,

Although you did not define "see," I think you are making a claim about what you see with your own mind's eye. But while you may see this, I don't see it as being that hopeless or reckless. To one extent or another, all human beings read their own meaning into what is being said, as perception is not a passive process. Nevertheless, I'm not as pessimistic as you, as I see that others are interpreting my words in the way I have in mind. I see nodes of agreement.

I am not calling into question that we can speak meaningfully about our mind's eye – our thoughts, beliefs, desires, hopes, fears, and joys, and our foresight, intentions, and volition too. The question is, as it has always been, how can we bring these concepts into the framework of an empirical inquiry when the primary data are only subjectively knowable? One could deny the reality of mental states, as the radical behaviorists did, but I think we all know that this fails to account for even our behaviors, to say nothing of our phenomenology.

The approach you seem to advocate is to simply bracket all questions about the referrents of mentalistic terms, and proceed according to intuitionism. This is certainly the easiest route; unfortunately, this is in large part responsible for the endless misunderstandings and unresolvable disagreements between people who intuit that mind is a causal thing and those who don't, leaving those who reserve judgement on the matter (like me) to argue for clarity on the issue.

The desire for succinct, precise, objective definitions can be thought of as definitional reductionism.

That's not my desire, however. I think "conscious reason" is a perfectly meaningful definition of "intelligence", and it captures what most people really mean when they talk about telic cause. This definition is hardly reductionist, although it would be the most difficult to investigate: Solving the problem of other minds is sometimes impossible even when it comes to other embodied human beings laying right in front of us (think of poor Terri Schiavo)! And so it is all the more difficult to imagine how we might solve it when we don't even know what we're talking about.

The Design Matrix, in contrast, offers what amounts to a holistic definition. We gain more confidence in our design inference when a suspicion is supported by the convergence of four criteria that have long been used in the teleology/non-teleology debates.

My concern is not about the strength of the evidence for the design inference. Instead, my concern is what is it that is supposed to be inferred. Instead of rehashing my arguments from elsewhere, allow me to ask this: I see the books "Agents Under Fire" and "The Volitional Brain" on your blog. How do you see the relevance of these books to your thoughts about teleology?

And yes, I'm purchasing your book, so if you'd rather I get the answers there, that's fine.

And finally, I'd like to thank you for providing this blog, where I've enjoyed some very stimulating discussions.

Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 3:23 am

aiguy Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 3:25 am
KB,

But my point is this: if you assume that it is valid, you have to stick to it. No fair calling it into question downstream in another discussion, since that stultifies your original assumption.

I never called into question the validity or existence of human reason. I questioned whether we can characterize it sufficiently well to recognize that the same thing is responsible for flagella.

Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 3:25 am

aiguy Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 4:49 am
KB,

But what do you do with sleep walkers that have a "goal" to go to the bathroom, or walk to the kitchen in order to get food? Is it a violation of the terms "goal" and "foresight" to apply it to the unconscious sleepwalker? It seems brains came execute goals with foresight without consciousness.

Yes, absolutely (also see discussions of blindsight). I have made this exact same argument many times against ID proponents who believe that consciousness is implied by the evidence.

Now, you and I can agree that consciousness is not implied, but consciousness and especially volition are clearly integral to most people's view of mind. This is why I say ID folks should be in the habit of qualifying what they think the evidence actually supports, rather than leaving it up to each reader's intuitive conception of mind.

Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 4:49 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Hey Aguy:

Seriously – this is an interesting notion regarding Bostrom's simworld that I didn't appreciate.

And finally, I'd like to thank you for providing this blog, where I've enjoyed some very stimulating discussions.

Please don't take this wrong but it smells like you might be exhibiting intelligence (learning). Keep it up and folks will be more apt to carefully listen to what you have to say around here.

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 5, 2008 @ 7:24 am

TeleAboveGround Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 9:37 am
"What matters is whether a teleological perspective generates further insight and understanding of the biological world."

This is the true insight. How will a Design Paradigm increase speed of research building blocks for new design and repair of life. Engineers have this "hardwired" thru the necessary communication of instruction for their particular areas of specialty. The Bio-sciences for a long time unable to see the engineering aspects on the nano level didn't quite understand the coming revolution because so many were stuck looking backwards for gradual evolutionary solutions. I'm not saying that much research was not valid or didn't help, but I think it may haved sidetracked us for some time.

While pharmaceutical companies spend billions. They will be the first to rapidly deploy a repeatable solution that cuts out steps thru known engineering principles that solve real world problems. Same with any medical field utilizing genetic research.

Scientist will discover the old paradigm falls away as a solution for future applications of rapid, guided, creation in the field of biosciences and genetics. If evolution cannot be utilized for an engineering process much like physics and math, is it then a failed theory going forward?

I'm not talking about population genetics. In software, even the most rudimentory programs allow for upgrades thru networks. Most are automated for enhancements, feedback for security, etc., to fight off viruses. The key to life is understanding the network, communication and information exchange protocol. Deciphering the backbone, the architecture, the signal systems and management and power(energy) systems. It is both a holistic process and deductive. It all depends upon where the researcher applies their knowledge.

By looking at our very own designs we see ourselves repeating life's digital networks, often times without even realizing it. A virus is created by an intelligent hacker that sends the bug thru email systems. "Cells" if you like, unaware open them. The ones without the virus protection software find their "Cells" destroyed or handicapped, losing valuable information. It can spread thru the networks(arteries, nerves, blood cells – packets). Intelligent designers counter the viruses thru a multitude of ways from "Cell Walls" to sophisticated sniffers and analysis and finally built in list of known viruses, much like white blood cells or good bacteria have a built in list of known viruses it can kill.

Scientist can hardly wait a million years to solve the problem of lost fingers or limbs. As software/hardware engineers enter the field which understand the process of small fields(magnetic, electric, covalent) processing, automated and embedded software updates, the biology field will explode with design metrics. If you want to call this evolution you can, but it is proceeding by design of intentional agents discovering how what we do every day is similar to what we are.

From a bio-engineering perspective seeking out solutions for disease, is it better to look for common aspects of enigneering and design? Or tend to a story of backward guesses about history? Umm…. meaning, to date, is the story of phyla important to the future process of design? Or, is the story of functional diagrams more important? Evolutionist with no reward for engineering principles of life can forever be arguing over the past. But researchers of life that must make positive leaps in understanding need a more robust systematic approach based upon Design principles, do they not?

Is it more important if principles of engineering are applied to reverse engineer life forms of all kinds rather than guessing history? If life can be reversed engineered so what we "see" can be rapidly produced, then it is a self-affirming design principle at this point. The agent reproducing what the agent has uncovered. The revelation is in the process of how it works now, not what we may think has happened in the past.

I ask a simple "thought" question for gradual evolutionist. Today research scientist duplicate organ(s) faster than the normal 9 month period of gestation within the human womb. Given time with improvements upon actual methodology of reproducing organs from cells, how long will the procedure take in 5, 10 years? The question goes to the Design paradigm. Why is a supposedly unguided "process" repeatable with nano architecture and accuracy like any chip making process? And why can it be done at a much faster rate outside of what we would call a natural process? Why do we see in life what we design? The old question of art mimicing life, or life mimicing art comes to the fore in science.

While most evolutionist already know that RV & NS are sorely lacking for any explanation at all as to how life functions and replicates accounting for even historical references (Cambrian explosion) a Designer Paradigm can account for a burst of information explosion given the ability to lay dormant or unfold given the right conditions. The Design paradigm is no more limited than the blind watchmaker.

And I think it is a much richer research program going forward. Thinking how would a Designer design life that is will be more beneficial than thinking how did it happen by accident.

Comment by TeleAboveGround — June 5, 2008 @ 9:37 am

aiguy Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 11:17 am
FMM,

Please don't take this wrong but it smells like you might be exhibiting intelligence (learning). Keep it up and folks will be more apt to carefully listen to what you have to say around here.

Indeed – I can learn!

And so can my computer. Using genetic and other machine learning algorithms, it has learned to design complex machines that I didn't even understand until I saw them work. Not only that, but it decides all by itself what it is that it wants to design!

It really is so counter-intuitive to see how simple laws and a deterministic machine operating according to blind, natural processes gives rise to amazingly intelligent results without any intervention from me. I suppose it could be said to demonstrate "foresight" (it produces designs all at once without visible intermediate trial-and-error), but of course everything it does really is completely determined by its innate structure and its interactions with its environment. I have no reason to think it is aware of anything, so if it has beliefs and desires it doesn't know it. I really don't think it knows what it is doing – or why.

Yup, a completely unconscious, blind, unaware, deterministic physical mechanism operating according to nothing but fixed law and chance, incapable of doing anything but what it does, and there it is grinding out artifacts of complex form and function. Intelligence is so cool!

Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 11:17 am

kornbelt888 Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
aiguy: And so can my computer. Using genetic and other machine learning algorithms, it has learned to design complex machines that I didn't even understand until I saw them work. Not only that, but it decides all by itself what it is that it wants to design!

What is this process generating? If you don't mind.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 5, 2008 @ 3:16 pm

Bilbo Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
aiguy:In cybernetics, "goal directed" means "incorporating negative feedback". Evolutionary processes incorporate negative feedback, so they are purposeful in this cybernetic sense. If you mean something else – like conscious goals or mental goals – then I have no idea how to begin to investigate those in the context of ID.

"Incorporating negative feedback" sounds good to me.

If I haven't mentioned it to you, I don't believe Darwinian evolution can account for what we observe in biology. So the question becomes what can account for it? Saying that the cause has "far-sighted goals" doesn't imply anything like human mentality. It implies "front-loading", but it doesn't imply the "sightedness" or awareness of that front-loader. It could just as well be a blind, natural, unguided front-loading of biological forms that will unfold over time.

But this "blind, natural, unguided front-loading of biological forms" is Darwinian evolution. If you don't think it can account for what we observe in biology, then some other process that can incorporate negative feedback for potential biological forms must have occurred. And this is like human mentality. We can imagine and we can experiment, before we come up with a final design. Obviously the process that resulted in living organisms was much better at it than we are at our own designs.

Comment by Bilbo — June 5, 2008 @ 4:30 pm

aiguy Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
KB -

What is this process generating? If you don't mind.

AI systems generate all sorts of things, including integrated circuit designs, other kinds of mechanical and electronic components, and complex plans and scheduling for manufacturing processes (the latter is one example I've worked on personally).

Bilbo -

But this "blind, natural, unguided front-loading of biological forms" is Darwinian evolution.

I don't think so, no. Pure GAs don't do very well in the systems I build. But who knows – you might be right.

If you don't think it can account for what we observe in biology, then some other process that can incorporate negative feedback for potential biological forms must have occurred.

Yes, that is what I think.

And this is like human mentality.

What is like human mentality? Genetic algorithms? Possibly, but I don't think so. Nobody in AI uses GAs for other types of mental abilities, like language comprehension or visual recognition. Do all forms of AI use negative feedback? No – sometimes they don't need to learn.

Think of this: checkers-playing robots used to need to search for moves, and some of them could learn. Now the game has been solved and we can build checkers-players that play perfectly, right out of the box, without search routines.

We can imagine and we can experiment, before we come up with a final design. Obviously the process that resulted in living organisms was much better at it than we are at our own designs.

So, evolution experiments, and GAs experiment, and other algorithms experiment, or not… one way or another, intelligent behaviors arise with no apparent magic at any step. So far, so good…

Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 6:39 pm

Bilbo Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
aiguy:So, evolution experiments,….

For Darwinian evolution the problem is to survive. Once it solves that problem, no further experiments are needed, and may not be forthcoming. No need for perfect checker players. Just checker players that win. And once Darwinian evolution has made a move, going back and changing the move is usually not an option. If its opponent makes a move that will result in its death, no matter what next move it makes, it can't go back and start the game over.

Comment by Bilbo — June 5, 2008 @ 6:59 pm

aiguy Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Bilbo,

For Darwinian evolution the problem is to survive.

Well, make lots of successful offspring I guess.

Once it solves that problem, no further experiments are needed, and may not be forthcoming.

The experiments never stop, right – unless maybe the carrying capacity far exceeds reproductive capacity in some environment…

No need for perfect checker players. Just checker players that win. And once Darwinian evolution has made a move, going back and changing the move is usually not an option. If its opponent makes a move that will result in its death, no matter what next move it makes, it can't go back and start the game over.

Right. My point here (as always) is that if the cause of biological complexity and the cause of human behaviors are both algorithmic (and who knows – they may be), then it becomes impossible to contrast "intelligent cause" with evolutionary processes.

Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 7:04 pm

Bilbo Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Bilbo:No need for perfect checker players. Just checker players that win. And once Darwinian evolution has made a move, going back and changing the move is usually not an option. If its opponent makes a move that will result in its death, no matter what next move it makes, it can't go back and start the game over.

aiguy:Right. My point here (as always) is that if the cause of biological complexity and the cause of human behaviors are both algorithmic (and who knows – they may be), then it becomes impossible to contrast "intelligent cause" with evolutionary processes.

Your comment is a non sequitur to mine. If by "evolutionary processes," you mean "Darwinian evolutionary processes," then my point was that Darwinian evolutionary processes aren't able to learn from experience and try over.

Comment by Bilbo — June 5, 2008 @ 7:12 pm

aiguy Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Bilbo,

Your comment is a non sequitur to mine. If by "evolutionary processes," you mean "Darwinian evolutionary processes," then my point was that Darwinian evolutionary processes aren't able to learn from experience and try over.

Oh, I see. But yes, Darwinian processes learn from experience – you just have to look at the population rather than an individual.

Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 7:20 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Aguy

Darwinian processes learn from experience – you just have to look at the population rather than an individual.

Does a pouplation try over?

By learn form experience don't you just mean record information from the environment ?

Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 5, 2008 @ 7:24 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Bilbo: Your comment is a non sequitur to mine. If by "evolutionary processes," you mean "Darwinian evolutionary processes," then my point was that Darwinian evolutionary processes aren't able to learn from experience and try over.

A new variant doesn't necessarily replace its ancestral populaton. They can exist side-by-side. And 'trying over' is common; the original ancestral population may continue to spawn new variants.

Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2008 @ 7:26 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
ZAch:

A new variant doesn't necessarily replace its ancestral populaton. They can exist side-by-side.

You can't say a population is trying over if it still exists can you?

And 'trying over' is common; the original ancestral population may continue to spawn new variants.

Is spawning new variants trying over? In that case do clouds try over?

Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 5, 2008 @ 7:30 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
fifth monarchy man: You can't say a population is trying over if it still exists can you?

Yes. We're considering an evolutionary algorithm that is exploring a problem space, such as a maze. One variant may take the left pathway which is a dead end, but other variants of the *original population* might take the right pathway. At the end of the process the evolutionary algorithm will have learned to navigate the maze.

Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2008 @ 7:38 pm

Bilbo Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Zachriel:Yes. We're considering an evolutionary algorithm that is exploring a problem space, such as a maze. One variant may take the left pathway which is a dead end, but other variants of the *original population* might take the right pathway. At the end of the process the evolutionary algorithm will have learned to navigate the maze.

Let's say the only way out of the maze is to first take one left. Now the original first took a right. In order to survive, the variants will have to back up and take a left. I should be more cautious, and say yes, Darwinian evolution could do this. Just not very frequently.

But let's go back to Mike's original point: The properties of nucleic acids and amino acids are rationally connected, so that making a code of the first can be mapped onto a chain of the second. It's possible that Darwinian evolution could have started with something else and eventually gotten to nucleic acids and amino acids. But where is the evidence of this? Instead, what we see is what appears to be a rational design decision to link the two.

Comment by Bilbo — June 5, 2008 @ 7:49 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Bilbo: Let's say the only way out of the maze is to first take one left. Now the original first took a right. In order to survive, the variants will have to back up and take a left.

Not necessarily. We would have to look at the precise environment (algorithm). It may just continue to live in that niche, a bug under a rock. Evolution isn't always winner take all. Other variants of the original population will have already taken and occupied the other niche, so that niche may not be open to a late comer. (It's not a perfect analogy. It was offered just to illustrate one aspect of the process.)

Bilbo: It's possible that Darwinian evolution could have started with something else and eventually gotten to nucleic acids and amino acids. But where is the evidence of this?

Let me preface this by pointing out that we know with a great deal of scientific certainty that humans evolved from primitive fish. The 'rational design' of everything from wolves to warblers is well-explained by evolutionary processes. The questions about the evolution of microbiological structures concern very ancient transitions that left no bony fossils. Our evidence consists mostly of analysis of extant organisms, shrouded by a billion years of evolution.

There are many unanswered questions, and much of the following is still very tentative. I'm not trying to inundate you with papers, but just to give you a flavor of how this problem can be approached. The key to probing this mystery is the proposal and testing of specific hypotheses.

Origins of the genetic code: the escaped triplet theory: There is very significant evidence that cognate codons and/or anticodons are unexpectedly frequent in RNA-binding sites for seven of eight biological amino acids that have been tested. This suggests that a substantial fraction of the genetic code has a stereochemical basis, the triplets having escaped from their original function in amino acid-binding sites to become modern codons and anticodons.

Is the Genetic Code Really a Frozen Accident?: We conclude that arginine shows specific affinity for its codons in the context of arginine aptamers, and that this affinity may have played some role in determining which codons encode arginine in the universal genetic code.

A Co-Evolution Theory of the Genetic Code: In conclusion, unanswered questions surrounding the genetic code remain numerous. Nevertheless, the Co-evolution Theory, by offering plausible explanations to many nonrandom characteristics of the code, suggests that the code's origin is by no means a riddle closed to systematic enquiry.

Evolution of the genetic triplet code via two types of doublet codons.: we propose a simple new hypothesis for code evolution involving a progression from singlet to doublet to triplet codons with a reading mechanism that moves three bases each step. We suggest that triplet codons gradually evolved from two types of ambiguous doublet codons, those in which the first two bases of each three-base window were read ('prefix' codons) and those in which the last two bases of each window were read ('suffix' codons). This hypothesis explains multiple features of the genetic code such as the origin of the pattern of four-fold degenerate and two-fold degenerate triplet codons, the origin of its error minimising properties, and why there are only 20 amino acids

There have been a few previous threads on this topic at Telic Thoughts.

Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2008 @ 8:31 pm

MikeGene Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Hi aiguy,

The approach you seem to advocate is to simply bracket all questions about the referrents of mentalistic terms, and proceed according to intuitionism. This is certainly the easiest route; unfortunately, this is in large part responsible for the endless misunderstandings and unresolvable disagreements between people who intuit that mind is a causal thing and those who don't, leaving those who reserve judgement on the matter (like me) to argue for clarity on the issue.

Endless misunderstandings and unresolvable disagreements are the norm for human communication. I think this is mostly a problem when one tribe is trying to compel or force the other tribe to agree, or when one tribe is trying to impose its mental world on another. But I have made it crystal clear since the beginning that I do not consider ID or my views to be science. Nor do I expect others to accept my views and think as I do.

So I see a fork in the road. On one path, I can invest all my energy and time trying to be the first to invent an objective way of detecting design, complete with rigorous definitions and deductive arguments, that will be embraced by all. The other path is as you mention. And while it may not lead to consensus, it does allow me to explore the biotic world. In other words, since I enjoy biology much more than I enjoy philosophy, and the second path leads me into the world of biology, I favor that one. And besides, I am not convinced the first path can be successfully completed by anyone.

But as I have always said, if someone invents an objective method for detecting ID and I am able to understand this method sufficiently to apply it, I will be happy to apply it. It would be a wonderful test of confirmation/disconfirmation for the narrative I hope to complete!

That's not my desire, however. I think "conscious reason" is a perfectly meaningful definition of "intelligence", and it captures what most people really mean when they talk about telic cause.

But how did this get past your original problem? I imagine that both the words "conscious" and "reason" can mean different things to different people.

This definition is hardly reductionist, although it would be the most difficult to investigate:

And I have always maintained that if life was designed by some intelligent agency, this would indeed be the most difficult thing to detect via an investigation.

Solving the problem of other minds is sometimes impossible even when it comes to other embodied human beings laying right in front of us (think of poor Terri Schiavo)! And so it is all the more difficult to imagine how we might solve it when we don't even know what we're talking about.

Well, not being able to nail something down with mathematical precision is not exactly the same as being hopelessly confused and incomprehensible. But it's not a matter of "we," aiguy. If you suspect that life on this planet might have been designed, then you can join the "we." As I explained above, I don't look at you as a Judge; I look to Nature as the Judge. I value critical feedback, but I don't bow to it.

My concern is not about the strength of the evidence for the design inference. Instead, my concern is what is it that is supposed to be inferred.

Yes, there is always the high risk of making the mistake at the final step. I simply notice that the more we learn about the molecular world of life, the more it reminds us of our own advanced technology. Thus one wonders if the reason for this similarity is because life and our own advanced technology have similar causes. Perhaps life, at its core, is artificial "“ a true example of carbon-based nanotechnology. After all, why think the similarities between proteins and DNA are worth ignoring and why think that match between an alpha helix and the major groove is a coincidence?

Comment by MikeGene — June 5, 2008 @ 10:53 pm

aiguy Says:
June 6th, 2008 at 3:31 am
Mike,

Endless misunderstandings and unresolvable disagreements are the norm for human communication.

I guess I'm just an optimist, hoping that misunderstandings can sometimes be fought with clarity. Not always, but maybe sometimes.

Anyway, I understand you're not claiming scientific certainty here, and I really am in favor of exploring even the wildest speculations about what's going on in the universe. I just quite honestly think a little bit of semantic housekeeping would serve to remove a tremendous amount of animosity; making one's metaphysical assumptions explicit just can't hurt. ID reifies mind, one way or another, and in that ID is in the perfectly fine company of many philosophers. But these discussions show that these assumptions are not only kept implicit, but when they are made explicit, ID proponents find they disagree amongst themselves about things they didn't even realize.

why think that match between an alpha helix and the major groove is a coincidence?

I would no more think this was a coincidence than I would think the fact that the same interval occurs between the pulses of a pulsar was a coincidence. I assume both derive from deeper relations that I don't understand.

Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 3:31 am

MikeGene Says:
June 6th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Hi aiguy,

I guess I'm just an optimist, hoping that misunderstandings can sometimes be fought with clarity. Not always, but maybe sometimes.

And I'm more of a pessimist/cynic who has a high tolerance for ambiguity.

Anyway, I understand you're not claiming scientific certainty here, and I really am in favor of exploring even the wildest speculations about what's going on in the universe.

Yes, I am certainly not claiming scientific certainty, but it is more than that. I do not consider this inquiry/investigation to be science. I'm not even convinced it can ever become science, as we may have a topic that does not neatly fit into any of the epistemological boxes we envision. Once this step is made, it doesn't make sense to treat ID like it is supposed to be science.

I just quite honestly think a little bit of semantic housekeeping would serve to remove a tremendous amount of animosity;

I doubt it. For example, I have been engaged in quite a bit of semantic housekeeping by clarifying, for example, that my views are not science. Yet I don't see any significant decrease in animosity.

making one's metaphysical assumptions explicit just can't hurt.

Sure. I am a theist and my theism allows me many options when it comes to the origin of life on this plant.

1. God did not use natural causes but instead created life in a way that we cannot comprehend.

2. God used other intelligent agents to create/design life.

3. God used natural laws/chance by front-loading the appearance of life with the creation of the Universe.

4. God used natural law/chance by bringing this Universe into existence among an infinite set of possible Universes.

My ID views do not stem from a theological viewpoint (for the record, my theological leaning is for option #4) or any sophisticated philosophical analysis. They stem from my raw experience:

1. I experience reality as both objective and subjective. While my subjective reality is mostly hidden from objective reality, it is not hidden from me "“ it is as real.

2. I know there are things that exist in the objective world only because I brought them into existence. I conceived them and then used my hands to translate a mental reality into a physical reality.

3. The objective reality around me also contains things that exist only because other fellow humans conceived them and then brought them into existence.

Either human beings are the only beings who could possibly do this or they are not. I favor the latter.

Building on this, I simply notice that the more we learn about the molecular world of life, the more it reminds us of our own advanced technology. Thus one wonders if the reason for this similarity is because life and our own advanced technology have similar causes. Perhaps life, at its core, is artificial "“ a true example of carbon-based nanotechnology.

ID reifies mind, one way or another, and in that ID is in the perfectly fine company of many philosophers. But these discussions show that these assumptions are not only kept implicit, but when they are made explicit, ID proponents find they disagree amongst themselves about things they didn't even realize.

As I showed above, the same thing happens when biologists being discussing life, species, or self-replication. Disagreement is expected because the act of design, something the inference appeals to, is so subjective. We all know what it is like to design, even though we may have problem nailing down what we do with objective terms.

I would no more think this was a coincidence than I would think the fact that the same interval occurs between the pulses of a pulsar was a coincidence. I assume both derive from deeper relations that I don't understand.

In the end, I would be quite satisfied if I had pinpointed something that exhibits a deeper relation even if that deeper relation was not due to design (recall, I am focusing one things that most people take for granted). Yet it would remain that what allowed me to spot something that may derive from a deeper relation is a form of subjective analysis "“ seeing the reason I experience inside myself to be present in the outside world. That is not exactly going to discourage a design inference.

From here there are all sorts of interesting and neglected aspects of reality: fundamental changes in the way we view evolution, proteins as material that prop up the blind watchmaker , tissue gadgets in single-celled organisms , evolution genes, and more to come. Could there be a deeper relation between it all?

Comment by MikeGene — June 6, 2008 @ 3:43 pm

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Are dem bunny prints?

89 Responses to “Are dem bunny prints?”

Leave a Reply

Featured Books