Blurring the Line
by MikeGeneThose who have read The Design Matrix might appreciate the significance of these recent observations:
The cobbling together of life from synthetic DNA, scientists and philosophers agree, will be a watershed event, blurring the line between biological and artificial — and forcing a rethinking of what it means for a thing to be alive.
"We're heading into an era where people will be writing DNA programs like the early days of computer programming, but who will own these programs?" asked Drew Endy, a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"I see a cell as a chassis and power supply for the artificial systems we are putting together," said Tom Knight of MIT, who likes to compare the state of cell biology today to that of mechanical engineering in 1864. That is when the United States began to adopt standardized thread sizes for nuts and bolts, an advance that allowed the construction of complex devices from simple, interchangeable parts.
If biology is to morph into an engineering discipline, it is going to need similarly standardized parts, Knight said. So he and colleagues have started a collection of hundreds of interchangeable genetic components they call BioBricks, which students and others are already popping into cells like Lego pieces.
From here
December 26th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
There is a section of The Design Matrix entitled Attributes of Rational Design. It discusses the matter of distinguishing Rational Design from the design of the tinkerer. It appears to me that humans play the role of tinkerers with respect to cells and their constructs. We are able to do increasingly wonderous things with the passage of time but we take the given basic designs and modify them to fit our purposes.
Comment by Bradford — December 26, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
And this is why the "Bad design!" argument, which strikes me as the last and ultimate fight between the ID and no-ID crowd, fails for me: The amount of control we now have and will have over nature in detail (down to our cells and perhaps smaller, by this article) is tremendous, and growing rapidly. I guess I'm close to the Ray Kurzweil kind of camps in that respect - what intelligent agency is capable of is stunning. Who knows what the limits are. Heck, who knows if there are limits.
*ahem* Just aweing-out for a moment there. Great article.
Comment by nullasalus — December 26, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Hi Mike,
I don't wish to dwell too much on the negatives but I find discussing the areas of agreement boring.
One of the fundamental disagreements we have had in the past is what I see as your emphasis on human-like intelligence and human-like designers.
I think it is a cop-out to suggest we are limited to thinking along those lines, even if it is true. In The Design Matrix, you appear to place a great deal of weight on evidence based on human thought processes. Be it in the recognition of a face on Mars to what humans classify as machines.
To put it bluntly, what difference does it make what humans think?
Humans tended to classify laser light as being artificial. It turns out the laser light occurs "naturally" on Mars (link). Does that mean laser light is designed or not? In a similar vein, humans have attempted to organize all of matter into a Periodic Table of the elements. Does this mean all of matter was designed?
Mike, you have expended effort pointing out database searches for mechanical design function terminology and your interest in the Washington Post article linked in the opening post. As an engineer, I see this as the common human reaction to complicated situations. I give little credence in presuming the human practice of organizing thought processes as providing insight into the ultimate reality (Who knows the Truth?).
The Washington Post article talked about…
Does this mean standardizing thread sizes is the ONLY way complex devices can be constructed from simple, interchangeable parts? If so, would the ultimate standard be Metric or English? Please excuse the sarcasm, but the point is that a lack of human comprehension matters little to understanding reality, IMO.
That is UNLESS"¦
You wish to presume an ultimate designer of life and/or the universe is human-like. I suggest detecting front loading does not require a presumption of intelligence, much less a human-like intelligence. It only requires detecting for-shadowing or in the term I like, retrocausality.
In your book, your introduction to a human-like designer was practically a side-comment. From page 23"¦
"This interpretation comes from the realization that a human-like designer would be likely to recruit evolution to serve design objectives."
You wait until halfway into the book (page 136) to formally explain why you presume human-like intelligence"¦
"Since we have no independent experience with a designer that is both omniscient and omnipotent, the effects from such a cause are not easily investigated. To more effectively infer design, in an empirical, investigative sense, we will restrain our hypothesis to invoking a human-like intelligence."
I disagree with your presumptions about our lack of ability to investigate life's "design" without presuming a human-like intelligence. It all comes down to how you define the terms "intelligence" and "design". If your definitions inherently require human-like intelligence then you have assumed your conclusions (i.e. "begging the question").
As I have indicated. There are things I agree with in your book. However, while it might be politically important to hold on to something in direct support of certain theological concepts, as long as you do so without a better argument than convenience or an unqualified presumption of human superiority it will continue to be a weakness exploited by your critics.
At least this is how I see it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 26, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Even "human-like" intelligence is extraordinarily broad, and multiple standards can develop for the same purposes. Inches versus centimeters, for example. A human intelligence can even employ non-humans towards desired ends.
Once we're arguing that non-intelligent forces can 'front-load' and design on the scale Mike suggests, we've established that we can never be certain whether those forces ARE the result of intelligence or lack thereof. And then..
…politics is all we have left. I'm one-note on the subject, but I'm unapologetic about it - if it's argued that the unintelligent and unconscious can accomplish everything the intelligent and conscious can, it's all down to philosophy. There's no weakness exploited by Mike's critics on this topic; there are people who philosophically disagree, and some of them do so for political reasons. Just as it's no weakness when ID-proponents point out that what they assume is unplanned could actually be part of a brilliant plan. It's another way of viewing the world and, to the chagrin of some, rather justified.
Comment by nullasalus — December 26, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
I just finished chapter 3 of the DM, and with all due respect I can't say I'm too impressed with what I read so far. The conclusion of chapter 3:
The language of human biologists makes design plausible. Think about that. Is that really evidence for the design of life? Biologists study structures that are loosely similar to constructions studied by human engineers. It is only natural that biologists would borrow engineering language. In the same way that biologists have borrowed language from economists when considering costs and benefits of biological traits. It really doesn't prove anything at all about design. In fact, there are mathematical theorems (the "street car theorem") that show that unguided evolutionary equilibria possess certain "economic" optimality properties akin to optimal rational design.
Comment by Raevmo — December 26, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Raevmo:
Raevmo, Mike wrote this:
That's accurate. One can trace causal pathways in the other disciplines and use them to explain larger events. Start with the four basic forces underlying physics, add some plate tectonics, surmised elemental composition of the earth's interior along with their physical properties and we can explain earthquakes and volcanoes. We can do the same with chemical reactions. Identify the chemicals and conditions and large scale events are causally explainable by focusing attention on the properties of individual substances.
These large scale events, explained by causal pathways, fall short in biology. One cannot start from primordial earth and get anything like detailed specificity to life.
Mike continues:
Departures from usual patterns signify a need for change- the hunch.
Comment by Bradford — December 26, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Hi Nullasalus,
Thank you for responding. You wrote…
Which gets to the point. Why is it important to answer that particular question?
Think about the possibility of a timeless designing agent or process. What difference does it make to the SCIENTIFIC questions whether or not the agent/process is intelligent? Sure, it is an important philosophical/religious question, but not a scientific one IMO.
Please, let God forbid. When I went through my MBA training it was constantly drummed into us that perception was more important than reality. The same holds true for politics. Possibly, even more so. Some of our politicians believe they create reality.
One of my favorite activities as an engineer is to create reality in the form of inventions/prototypes. Especially when some theoretician told me my design wouldn't work but it does.
This gets into shield bashing and burden of proof issues. The mainstream theory of evolution does not preclude the existence of intelligent and/or conscious beings.
As you may remember, I look at things from the NOMA point of view. I tend towards keeping philosophy and science separate. I know many do not agree with that. Excuse me for forgetting where you stand visa-vie NOMA.
A Third Choice hypothesis neither required nor forbade a deity-like designer.
Under pressure, I followed up with a version of the hypothesis that violated my NOMA stand, The Third Choice, ID version link
If the Intelligent Design Movement is only about philosophy and politics, so be it. I will treat it as such. If there are ID proponents interested in making scientific arguments, I am willing to deal at that level. I admit to having difficulties when the two are mixed.
Let's do science or philosophy, not both.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 27, 2007 @ 12:34 am
December 27th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Hi TP,
I can't promise lengthy replies, as I have run up against a new challenge "“ the challenge of having both kids and spouse fighting with me for access to the same computer. So let's get the core issue:
You'll have to attribute this to my puny brain. Without my knowledge of human-like intelligence and human-like designers, I don't really have a good handle on going about trying to infer intelligent design. The Rabbit may be an illusion, but I have no way of knowing this.
You may be right. Nevertheless, as I outline in chapter 7, it was my emphasis on human-like intelligence and human-like designers that led to my ideas and proposals about front-loading. Whether those assumptions/emphasis are necessary is a separate issue from whether they were indeed my lil' spark. If you seek to tease front-loading apart from these asumptions, you won't find me complaining. On the contrary, you might succeed in taking it to the next level.
Hi Raevmo,
Yes, it's part of the evidence that leads me to suspect the design of life, especially since there is no obvious reason such borrowing would turn out to be so deeply, widely, and fruitfully employed. Of course, the book was not written with the intention of expecting you to accept this as evidence. On the contrary, as I write:
I would merely ask what type of data would cause you to suspect that life was designed?
Comment by MikeGene — December 27, 2007 @ 1:26 am
December 27th, 2007 at 2:20 am
TP,
Agreed. The problem is, the politics of the situation is such that 'there is no design' is treated as being The Fact of The Matter by many, while 'there is design' stirs everything from angry responses to demands for conclusive proof or retraction in that case.
I've said time and again, my interest in ID stems primarily from what I view as an uneven exchange. Science needs to make no reference to either a designer or a lack of designer. That's a philosophical and religious question. Unfortunately, only one response gets typically called out as such. Or at least it did, by and large, until the modern ID 'movement'.
NOMA is fine by me, honestly. The problem with such a construct is it's only as effective as it is respected by all parties - and when it comes to biology, I find that respect low. And I also find it tremendously disingenuous to wield the 'NOMA' club on one hand as a weapon to beat back people who mix science with philosophy… but only when they reach a conclusion someone disagrees with. Whereas if they come to the 'right' conclusion, well, they don't embrace NOMA and they're free to speak their mind and shouldn't be criticized for what they're doing. Politics is complicated, but it's usually easy to track the tricks if attention is paid.
In truth though, I would gladly, happily accept a situation where the lines between science and philosophy were not only marked clearly (the easy part), but crossing over would either entail honest admission on the part of the claimant, or risk serious denunciation from their peers regardless of their conclusion (the hard part). Since Victor Stenger, for example, hasn't been pilloried by the academic community for his abuse of science, then I feel no qualms about cheering on Behe, Dembski, MikeGene, and the growing number of others. It's not ideal, but I don't set the rules in play. I just react to them.
Comment by nullasalus — December 27, 2007 @ 2:20 am
December 27th, 2007 at 3:34 am
bradford said:
Human engineering is largely a matter of tinkering as well. It is rare for a new machine to be designed ab initio; instead, it is almost always done as a set of small variations from an existing design. Human cognition can look farther ahead than natural selection (which doesn't look ahead at all), but it can't look very far, so humans explore design space largely by local hill-climbing, just like natural selection.
With respect to cells we are certainly in the tinkering stage, but even small-molecule drug chemistry, which has 100 years of science behind it, is still more a matter of making small modifications to known compounds, many of which are natural products, rather than purely rational design.
Comment by mtraven — December 27, 2007 @ 3:34 am
December 27th, 2007 at 6:55 am
TP says:
So, who is gonna be doing the understanding? Science is a human endeavor. Human comprehension is essential for the enterprise of science to proceed.
You push politics as much as any poster around here. You just remain in denial about it. And since there seems to be some dispute about what is science and what isn't, that issue can only be discussed in philosophical ( or political, depending on one's view of science) terms. That you fail to grasp that is what torpedoes your arguments.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — December 27, 2007 @ 6:55 am
December 27th, 2007 at 9:47 am
One of the best, practical arguments used to support human agency and intention. Mtraven, it's nice having you on our side.
Comment by Doug — December 27, 2007 @ 9:47 am
December 27th, 2007 at 11:52 am
doug, I have no idea what you are talking about. i thought the argument here was about npn-human agency and intention.
Comment by mtraven — December 27, 2007 @ 11:52 am
December 27th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Whoops… I quoted the wrong section of your post:
Do you still have no idea what I am talking about? In your argument against ID you're employing terms of intention and agency. You're even imbuing nature with concepts of agency and intention (humans exploring and designing in a manner similar to that of natural selection).
Comment by Doug — December 27, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I wasn't making an argument against ID, I was making a point about how human design works.
I did not attribute agency or intention to natural selection, I used a metaphor. People do this all the time. Metaphors do not imply metaphysics. I can write a five-line computer program that explores a design space. That gives it roughly the same level of intelligence and agency that natural selection has, but does not give it intelligence and agency in the sense ID wants it.
But anyone with any sense already knows that. The more interesting point is that humans are not magical intelligent agents either; they are also bound by the laws of nature and their inherent cognitive limitations. We can design novelty, but only by building out incrementally from the known into the unknown. Your computer wasn't designed all at once, it's an accumulation of thousands of small innovations. Remind you of anything?
Comment by mtraven — December 27, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
How is that computer program not an indicator of intelligence and agency in the sense that ID means it?
Comment by Bradford — December 27, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Kind of like a Dr. Dennett "Intentional stance"
Bound maybe…. but not defined nor explained by the laws of nature. There is a difference.
How does this show that we do not act with intention?
Yeah, it reminds me of the intentional work of an agent…. remind you of anything?
Comment by Doug — December 27, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Exactly.
On that we will have to differ. If you want to believe in the supernatural, go ahead, but don't pretend to be doing science.
me:
doug:
Who said anything about humans not acting with intention? You seem to be having an argument with some strawman of your own.
bradford asked:
A five-line computer program is not very intelligent. In fact, it's about as intelligent as natural selection, capable of doing incremental hill-climbing optimization. If the designer postulated by ID is similar, than ID is just natural selection under a different name.
Comment by mtraven — December 27, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
"Magical intelligent agents"- that's NA shorthand for a trash talking.:grin:
Why would natural cognitive limitations negate a finding of intelligent agency?
Comment by Bradford — December 27, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
There are many things that intelligent people do that do not require great or even average intelligence. Einstein had to tie his shoes. There are gradations of intelligent challenges. But like most critics you miss the point. Whether an outcome requires great or lesser intelligence to effect it it is still an intelligently designed outcome. The issue is whether selection processes came about as a result of intelligent input or are reductionist manifestations of underlying forces of physics (which themselves may or may not be products of intelligence). The Design Matrix had some interesting ideas that would enable us to impute ID to a natural selection process if the data is supportive. Of course if one has a religious or philosophical bias, that does not allow consideration of the possibility, then so be it. Faith would then be duly noted as the basis for opposing ID.
Comment by Bradford — December 27, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I don't think you understand. Are you telling me that the laws of physics can be used to determine what actions you are going to make? Or, that your actions, decisions, thoughts, behaviors can be reduced to the laws of physics?
No, I'm discussing these matters with you. If you're going to allow intention and agency to exist at the level of human behavior, then it makes no sense to arbitrarily limit the possibility of supernatural agency and intention. In a materialistic mindset how do you even account for intention and agency? If that's a strawman that I'm constructing then please show me how it's not relevant to this discussion.
Comment by Doug — December 27, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Yes, depending on what you mean by "determine" and "reduced". The alternative is supernaturalism, which I don't accept.
You are saying that because natural agency exist, that implies that supernatural agency must exist also. Forgive me if I do not accept this logic.
You've read Dennett (I assume) so I doubt I will be able to improve on his answer to that question. It is very easy to construct a system that is perfectly mechanical yet displays intention, such as a thermostat or the five-line computer program I postulate.
Comment by mtraven — December 27, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Kinda of a footnote to another discussion here, but did anyone notice if biodesigners have real problems working with cytosine?
Ironically enough (on the basis of quick-and-dirty search of my own files), its would seem to be more of a problem for evolution than design.
Go figure!
Comment by Rock — December 27, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
I think I understand your position. But I hope you can see the problems that arise from it. For you then, what is the point of defending a position that you think you believe because it's rational - when in actuality it's not the rationality of the position that compelled you to believe it…. it's just the result of an interplay of atoms and molecules - ultimately determined by nonrational laws of nature that govern a nonrational universe.
I can understand your initial apprehension…. but it's not a simple argument of "heck, you accept intention and agency at the level of humans…. why not just include supernatural intention and agency?". It's more a matter of, if agency and intention do exist then they are beyond the purview of material explanations.
It's because I've read Dennett that I am not impressed with his solution to this problem. Nor does Dennett seem too pleased either - at least when pressed in debate - with his solution.
I don't believe it answers anything to point to a thermostat, which we know to be designed (in which we're debating about the possibility of intention of the human designer) to claim that the thermostat provides insight into how something can be mechanical and displays intention. If I'm assuming that humans can truly direct their actions and truly have goals pointing to something contrived by humans doesn't support your claim that intention and agency are illusory. I'm assuming that you think they are illusory because you relied on Dennett's position as some type of default position to be maintained.
Comment by Doug — December 27, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I never made any such claim. If you're going to misrepresent my position there isn't much hope for having a worthwhile conversation.
Comment by mtraven — December 27, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
Thank you for your response. As I have indicated, I feel you have clearly and honestly laid out your rational in The Design Matrix. I am not surprised by your hints of a follow on book since you clearly have more specific things to say concerning front loading.
As for "taking it to the next level", I strongly suspect you see the simplistic beauty of the timeless, holistic picture of life and the universe I have just begun to comprehend.
Whether we think of the other stuff as excess baggage or training wheels, it detracts from the purity of the shared vision. The fact that it brings in the ugliness of politics and religion makes it even worse.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 27, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Hey, if you want a convenient way out of this discussion, by all means…. take it.
But don't forget my closing to that post:
DougFresh (me) said:
Which you did.
You stated:
Do you know what his answer to that question is? Can you improve on an answer if you really don't understand what that person's (Dennett) answer is? Do you think Dennett believes that intention and agency are real?
Comment by Doug — December 27, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
I see a differences based consistancy of actions with statements. Victor Stenger's last book is titled, God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist. I suggest there is little doubt that Stenger rejects NOMA.
Stenger would have no room to complain about Dr. Walt Brown's In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. It is equally clear that Dr. Brown also rejects NOMA.
Mike Gene takes care to clearly separate what he views as science from what he views as non-science. My opinion of Dr. Behe is mixed. I think Dr. Behe started out in mostly in earnest with Darwin's Black Box. I think you know my negative opinion of Dr. Dembski in this regard.
Using a they-started-it rationalization as a blanket excuse for people you wish to cheer on anyway, is just that, rationalization.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 27, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Of course Dennett believes that intentionality and agency are real. Just because something is comosed out of simpler pieces doesn't mean it isn't real. A chair is composed of atoms, both the atoms and the chair ar real. Similarly, intentionality is composed of physical processes, and both are real. It's clear that while you may have read Dennett, you haven't understood him very well.
Comment by mtraven — December 27, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
TP,
The difference between you and me is that I regard NOMA as, in essence, the only honest stance to ultimately take. You regard it as a mere option.
Frankly, TP - as others have pointed out, you play the politics game as fast and loose as anyone else, Dembski included. You don't admit it, but the funny thing is, you don't need to for it to be true and obvious.
Besides - look up the word rationalization. I've been explicit about the stance I take, and how practical it is. I would prefer if both scientists and philosophers honestly outlined the caveats with regards to their claims. That alone would solve the problem. But if Stenger wants to talk about how science proves that there is no God, then as you say, he's in no position to tell people who claim the opposite to knock it off. Unfortunately, the problem goes beyond Stenger - and Dawkins, and Dennett, and the rest. Any mention of agency or lack thereof at work in base natural sciences invites the reply. Which means that a whole lot of justification was in place for ID, far in advance of the modern movement arriving on the scene.
Comment by nullasalus — December 27, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Hi Rodger Rabbit,
It's nice to see things haven't changed much during my brief absence. You wrote…
I consider science to be the primary human endeavor of extending our reach beyond our grasp.
Do you really think quantum physics is comprehensable by mere humans?
Including you?
I do?
People keep telling me the perception is reality. I realize my engineering mind has corrupted me in this regard. Just consider me a quaint, archaic throwback to an ancient time. Although, you may have to ignore the appearance of me successfully fitting together pieces you would rather not see go together.
Pieces like…
The reality of space-time conforming to Minkowski geometry (General Relativity) that is being constantly verified via GPS satellites.
The reality of interconnected quantum effects verified by experiment after experiment demonstrating "quantum weirdness".
The reality of Life's reliance on quantum effects in DNA processing, photosynthesis and, probably, consciousness. (see Patel, Berkeley Labs and Hameroff).
But we all know my weakness of actually trying to put the pieces together simply "torpedoes" my arguments because I fail to grasp the concept that perception is really what makes reality.
Oh well, I just got to be me.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 27, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
Thank you for responding. You wrote…
Did you mean a "mere opinion" Either way, please consider the multiple posts I have championed on TT discussing NOMA. Also consider the lengthy arguments I have gotten into with those that think my NOMA stand is illogical.
The NOMA stand IS illogical. "The only Truth is that no one knows the True" or variations on that is self refuting. I agree that it is an appropriate stance to ultimately take. But to call it the ONLY stance is just ignoring reality. Rejecting NOMA is a stance people can, and do, take.
Those of us embracing NOMA are stuck.
How can we say they are wrong without violating NOMA ourselves?
I don't use NOMA as a club to say people are wrong. I use it as a bright light to get people to admit to themselves what they are doing.
It gets even more interesting when people try to have it work only one way. Some act like science can inform religion but not the reverse. Others act like religion can inform science but not the reverse.
I can't criticize people for their beliefs as long as they are consistent with them. I will, and do, criticize people for not acting consistently and openly.
I am human and recognize that I all I can do is try my best to live up to standards I expect of others. My NOMA stance is inherently inconsistent, but I still think it is the best policy. I try to be open about it.
You included?
If it is obvious, it would be redundant to admit it.
I have stated my political motivations more than once on Telic Thoughts. I think religious movements like that embodied in the Discovery Institute are dangerous.
My weapon of choice is to take ID proponents at their word, to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
I have put together an ID hypothesis. I have presented it here and in After the Bar closes. I have defended it with scientific evidence and argumentation in both places.
If I have any other hidden agenda, it is so hidden, I don't know it myself.
rationalizationnoun
1. the cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason
2. (psychiatry) a defense mechanism by which your true motivation is concealed by explaining your actions and feelings in a way that is not threatening
It is consistant and practical to cheer for one side over another because of NOMA violations on both?
Are you forgetting Theistic Evolutionists and Creation Scientists have been around before ID? (Unless, of course, you are suggesting ID predated Darwin).
What do you want? God back into the classroom?
If you do, I am going to fight you on that one.
Government funding for researching scientific evidence in support of the existence of God? Going to fight you on that one too.
A let's-pretend-game that the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document is somehow no longer representative of the true motivations and methods behind that religious movement?
Another let's-pretend-game that the ID Movement isn't about motivating the religious masses with speeches from Dr. Wells that end with"¦
"The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion "“ especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.
This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.
If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid."
link
I don't share your desire to cheer on this kind of activity.
In case there was any doubt, this was my offering my political views on the subject.
I would rather be discussing science. Besides, it is more in keeping with TT's about us policy.
So, in a probably vain attempt to get back on subject,
Let's do Science!
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 27, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
TP,
No, I meant mere option. To be accepted or rejected, and ultimately being of little consequence. Stenger says God is a failed hypothesis. He takes on the mantle of a scientist and puts on a show pretending science has buried God. By your admission, he violates NOMA. But all that apparently means in his case is 'Well, then he can't complain when someone else does it'. My standard is different.
Because pointing out that someone is taking excessive liberties with their argument is not a violation of NOMA, even if the person in question is an archbishop or has a PhD in natural sciences (Or, for those Polkinghorne types, a mix of both.)
You shine your light unevenly.
Me included, absolutely. And I'm more than happy to put arguments and criticisms up for inspections of consistency on top of that.
If you want to come at me with definition 2, by all means, let's dance. I recall a time when questioning someone's motives bought me a comparison to racist hate-speech. I wonder who threw down that gauntlet?
Absolutely. I'm completely up-front about why I cheer, what I cheer, what I agree with, and what I disagree with. My stance is that neither side can conclusively prove agency or lack thereof - inconclusive arguments of various persuasive strength can be made. If one side wants to masquerade their arguments and assumptions as scientific in violation of NOMA, then that invites the opposing viewpoint to wear the 'science' label as well. I politically favor one side, but by your own admission, so do you. I just strive to be honest about the limitations both have, instead of selective chiding.
Me: far in advance of the modern movement
ID is of a different tact than Theistic Evolutionists (Who took a generalist approach and often declined to consider agency and design in natural processes) and Creationists (Who generally avoided mainstream science).
As for where you'll "fight me", I really do not care. My desire to have God discussed in public schools or research on God funded by the government is non-existent. As is my desire to have evolution taught as being unguided and purposeless, or funding for research that produces unnecessary wording of same. Really, in a perfect state of affairs, children would be educated outside of state-sponsored schools altogether. Lacking that, conclusions of agency should not be addressed either way - ruling in or out a designer is not necessary to understanding mechanisms and processes.
Uninteresting. ID is not Wells, Dembski, Behe, or even the Discovery Institute. For all I know, the Discovery Insitute of today is not the Discovery Insitute of 5 years ago. The concept is growing, not to mention spreading.
I've said outright what I cheer on with ID - the consideration of agency and intelligence at work within and behind nature, in contrast to assumptions that those things do not exist. Insofar as Wells intends to promote wielding the biological sciences and saying "Hey, look at this. I can find agency and design where Dawkins finds cold, pitiless indifference", I certainly cheer that on. And I welcome the day when science is science, not a political weapon. I simply realize that the best route to that goal is to make sure everyone's philosophically armed.
Disingenuous.
Comment by nullasalus — December 27, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
dis"¢in"¢gen"¢u"¢ousadj.
Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.
hmmm, I thought I made my motivations and methods quite clear.
oh well.
BTW, have you read The Design Matrix, A Consilience of Clues?
It is actually a pretty good book. If you are interested being an informed cheering section for ID, I would recommend getting it.
The subject of this thread deals with the blurring of the line between life and designed machinery.
This is similar to what another ID proponent, Dr. Behe, suggested in his book, Darwin's Black Box. He introduced the ID argument that at the cellular level life doesn't just look like machines, they are machines.
This ID concept couples quite nicely with the proposition that quantum mechanics may be what makes life a living thing. Quantum physics can be thought of as digital, not analog. DNA and microtubules are of the size that allows them to be digital quantum computers. Are cells miniature computerized machines?
A blurry line indeed.
Let's do science!
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 28, 2007 @ 12:15 am
December 28th, 2007 at 12:51 am
TP,
I was stunned when I saw Hameroff's presentation. If what he's saying about paramecia (I believe) being able to learn and such is true, it strikes me as quite an example for his microtubules versus neurons argument. I know little of that field, but I haven't been able to turn up any counters to that particular example - perhaps someone here knows of some?
Comment by nullasalus — December 28, 2007 @ 12:51 am
December 28th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Hi Nullasalus,
For the lukers, here is the presentation I think you were talking about.
It is a fairly concise introduction to Hameroff's ideas.
Excuse me for the confusion of offering evidence that runs counter to the hypothesis I have been promoting, but it is interesting and even topical.
While arguing for Hameroff's hypothesis, I asked this in After the Bar Closes…
"What is your presumed answer for how single-celled organisms can avoid obstacles, find food and engage in sex?"
Here was Qetzal's answer…
This paper pretty much confirmed Qetzal's description.
I had two reactions to this description. First, it was apparent, in this particular case, microtubules weren't involved in the cell's decision making process (at least from what I could comprehend).
The second reaction was to be very impressed with how machine like this process was.
Blurring the line indeed.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 28, 2007 @ 1:22 am
December 28th, 2007 at 6:16 am
TP says:
Yep. The difference is that I don't deny it, I don't think politics is a dirty word, and I think it is the appropriate arena for many of the issues raised.
You on the other hand repeatedly assign positions to me that I don't hold, quote from the so called wedge document, and then proclaim "let's do science'. Nothing keeps you from doing science instead of quoting the wedge, except your own choices.
Put the pieces together if you are able and choose to do so. Don't blame me if you don't or can't.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — December 28, 2007 @ 6:16 am
December 28th, 2007 at 10:30 am
I know you're not kidding when you say this, but I really would like to have begun this sentence with, "You're kidding, right?".
So I'm going to conclude that you do not understand Dennett's position (which you appeared to accept earlier - which you then became upset and stated that you were done with this conversation when I assumed that you did accept his position, based off of your earlier comment) nor do you understand what "intentional stance" means.
Let me briefly explain: since Dennett DOES NOT believe that beliefs, intentions, desires (goal-directed states) have any casual role he advanced the idea of the intentional stance. So, we treat humans as if they actually are agents and have goal-directed behavior allowing us to predict future behavior. And we do this because a full materialistic account is currently unavailable, unknown or…. even if it were possible to obtain it would be an incredibly daunting task (again - to provide a strictly materialistic account of the behavior).
Hey, I don't dispute agency and intention…. the guy you appeared to agree with and his position that you seemed to be in-line with does. Let me say this; if I were to advance that argument that you just gave to support the reality of intention and agency (which I do accept) - by saying that the chair and the atoms that compose that chair both exist so therefore it's not beyond the scope of reason to assume the reality of agency/intention… the argument would be picked apart.
This coming from the guy who stated in the same post:
Assuming that people have intentional states (because a materialistic account currently isn't forthcoming) for the sake of predicting behavior is very different from making ontological claims about intentional states.
Claiming that an eliminative materialist like Dennett actually believes that intentional states are real is mind boggling.
Comment by Doug — December 28, 2007 @ 10:30 am
December 28th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Intentionality is aboutness. "” Daniel C. Dennett
Dennett considers human intentionality to be real, and of the same status as intentionality in a vending machine or a laundry list.
Comment by Zachriel — December 28, 2007 @ 11:21 am
December 28th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
So next time you use a vending machine Doug, remember that the machine intended to provide the indicated choice.:roll:
Comment by Bradford — December 28, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Hi Zach,
I know that, you know that, Dennett knows that. That's how we define intentionality. That's not Dennett coming to a conclusion of what intentionality is… it's Dennett stating what philosophers agree intentionality to mean. And it certainly doesn't elucidate any claim of the ontological status of intentionality held by Dennett.
No more than if Dennett were to state the commonly accepted definition of God.
Dennett adopted his intentional stance to treat humans as if they actually did have goals, because he believes this allows for a close prediction of behavior and because a purely materialistic account isn't currently available.
Dennett has a philosophical devotion to physicalism, where would the ontological status of intention fit? It wouldn't.
Comment by Doug — December 28, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
So next time they screw up your order at the drive-through, remember that they intended you to skip the fries.
It's called a lede. It's the first sentence of Dennett's essay on Intentionality.
Doug, did you bother to read Dennett's essay I had linked to?
Dennett: the intentionality of our mental states and processes is derived in just the same way as that of our books and maps (and the inner states of our robots). Suppose you have composed a shopping list, on a piece of paper, to guide your shopping behavior. The marks on the piece of paper have derived intentionality, of course, but if you forgo the shopping list and just remember the wanted items in your head, whatever it is that "stores" or "represents" the items to be purchased in your brain has exactly the same status as the trails of ink on the paper. There is no more real, or intrinsic, or original intentionality than that.
"Has exactly the same status as the trails of ink on the paper."
The "intentional stance" is an abstraction, much like the center of gravity is an abstraction. That doesn't mean it doesn't correlate to a real property of the world.
Comment by Zachriel — December 28, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Is this evidence of intention on the part of a machine? Is there any limit on the silliness materialists will resort to in order to buttress their philosophy?
Comment by Bradford — December 28, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Could you distinguish the intentionality of (suitably designed) human or robotic order fulfillment? {I.e. a human dispensing orders from inside a vending machine?}
Comment by Zachriel — December 28, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
First off, Dennett is an eliminativist about qualia, not about intentionality or agency. But this is all a very secondary and uninteresting argument. I don't care all that much about what Dennett or anyone else believes, I'm interested in accurate descriptions of reality. Intentionality and agency are obviously useful concepts for describing a variety of systems. But there's nothing supernatural about them. We've learned a great deal in the last hundred years or so about the material basis for thought and cognition. Just as biological vitalism has been invalidated now that we understand the material basis of biological function, there is no need of intentionality as some kind of magical elan cognito. Intentionality is a higher-order property of certain systems, systems that could in theory be described by pure physics but in practice must be described using intentional language. But this is no more magical than when you are building a house, you talk in terms of joists and floorboards rather than atoms.
Comment by mtraven — December 28, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Have you read Darwin's Dangerous Idea?
Let me be blunt: Of course for you it would be a very secondary and uninteresting argument. Considering your other attempts to weasel out of the argument which are well noted above.
And with your incoherent understanding of agency how exactly do you plan to go about doing this? And with your inability and unwillingness to actually engage in the discussion why would you even think your attempts would be fruitful?
Regardless if you are an eliminative reductionist or one who takes a more subtle approach believing that reality has no agency but humans have randomly obtained the ability to have intentional and goal-directed behavior, your smuggling in of those aforementioned concepts is unwarranted and your negating the existence of the supernatural is arbitrary.
Yeah, because we theists always thought the brain was irrelevant
While you're at it…. why don't you explain how advances in organic chemistry invalidated that murky notion of vitalism.
Regarding intentionality… your treatment of the issues involved are laughable. While you might have a Zach hop to your defense, I can assure you that these issues are certainly more important and difficult to resolve than you have let on.
Damn! It's that simple? If I give you Michael Ruse's phone number will you call him and just explain this to him? I wouldn't want him to fret anymore over Menuge's "Agents Under Fire".
And the earlier position you maintained has just come crumbling down.
I shouldn't be too stunned at your inconsistency… because your incoherent philosophy broadcasts it loudly enough.
Comment by Doug — December 28, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Does the vending machine 'understand' the request?
Comment by Doug — December 28, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
and
Hi Zach,
Just noticed now that "Dennett" was linked in your earlier post. I'll read the paper now.
Comment by Doug — December 28, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Doug burbles:
Yes. In fact, I have it right here:
Still want to maintain that Dennett is an eliminativist about intentionality?
Get bent. I'm stating my position very straightforwardly. All you've done is dance around. So, what do you believe is the nature of intentionality? Is it supernatural?
This is gibberish, I'm afraid.
They invalidated it by removing the need for a superfluous explanatory principle, by showing how biological processes are rooted in strictly mechanical chemical and physical processes. Did you have a point?
me:
you:
What the fuck are you talking about?
Comment by mtraven — December 28, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Wow. Way to handle yourself mtraven.
If you can't defend a point, trying backing out of the discussion by claiming that I was misrepresenting your point, come back to the discussion by stating that the I really don't understand the topic, contradict your claims in the process, get frustrated… the throw out words like "burbles", "gibberish"… get wound up in your emotion tell me then to "get bent" and swear alittle.
Nice.
Comment by Doug — December 28, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
I learned a new word:
Doug, cut out the burbling.:mrgreen:
Comment by Bradford — December 28, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Translation: "I got 'nuthin, so I'll be shocked at the horrid man's language."
So far, you've misrepresented me and Dennett, and refused to answer the very straightforward question of whether or not you are saying that the sources of intentionality are supernatural, and thrown out a few unsupported references. Color me unimpressed. I'm done with this conversation unless you actually have something to say.
Comment by mtraven — December 28, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
mtraven:
The human brain is a certain system. How does pure physics enable one to discern the intention connected with any single individual?
Comment by Bradford — December 28, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Bradford:
One could construct a purely physical machine that asks the individual about their intentions, and then the same purely physical machine would record the answer. But your question was rhetorical, wasn't it?
Comment by Raevmo — December 28, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
My question seeks to know how laws of physics can be predictive of human intent.
Comment by Bradford — December 28, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Bradford:
Here's how Maxwell's laws can be used to predict human intent. A human will intend to avoid sitting on an electric chair.
Comment by Raevmo — December 28, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
You need Maxwell to know that humans seek to avoid pain? What we know about intentions come from other disciplines but why spoil the party?
Comment by Bradford — December 28, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Bradford:
Alternatively, I could have answered that intent is part of a physical configuration of the brain (like a shopping list is a physical configuration of intent), and that the physical brain evolves according to physical laws, and that in theory we could therefore predict future brain states, but I guess you don't buy that since you seem to believe in an immaterial soul. Or am I wrong?
Comment by Raevmo — December 28, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
There's no by-necessity connection between accepting brain states reflect thought and denying the (variously considered, multiply-envisioned) soul. Even committed dualists like Swinburne accept the proposition that correlations between brain states and particular thoughts ('Russia is a big country' is his particular example) are going to be found. Hell, a physicalist could affirm soul if they wanted to.
But one particular question in the 'evolution of brain states according to physical laws' is how to make that jump from discovering correlations between state and thought to being able to develop a real and reliable predictive theory on physical law alone. Being able to predict and explain how a brain is going to react to, say, Chris Rock standup while making no reference to what eliminative materialists deny at the outset. And not only that, but being able to explain it better and faster than the denied alternative.
Comment by nullasalus — December 28, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
You can assert that intent is reducible to matter and physical effects operating in accordance with natural laws and that the brain evolved but how is this in any way helpful in predicting intent? IMO the single greatest obstacle to widespead acceptance of evolutionary biology is not the DI or creationists or Dembski et. al. It is the linkage of evolutionary biology to materialism and the insistence that free will is but an illusory manifestation of strictly physical effects. It is a battle you will never win because the conclusion can be subjected to empircal evaluation by each and every human on the planet in the privacy of their own minds.
Comment by Bradford — December 28, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Instead of Maxwell, can we talk about Sir Rodger Penrose?
Orchestrated Objective Reduction of quantum effects is neither "materialism" nor algorithmic.
I suggest consciousness is an artifact of quantum effects. Quantum effects are interconnected in the space-time geometry that is the reality of the universe we occupy.
Is there loving consciousness behind the interconnectedness or is it just a cold, heartless universe existing.
That is a philosophical question you and your descendent can and will argue forever.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 28, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
December 28th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
This discussion of intentionality being reducible to neuronal data processing seems to get down to the qualia issue (Chalmers), and Searle's Chinese Room example of the incoherence of materialistic theories of mind.
Chalmers promulgated the point that the "qualia" of conscious experience are not reducible to matter.
But of all the various arguments posited by opponents of reductionist
materialist theories of mind I like Searle's "Chinese Room" argument the best.
However, this philosophical/metaphysical debate is basically dry and empty, since it blandly ignores a mountain of empirical evidence for a "spiritual" or nonphysical component to man's consciousness. The empirical evidence trumps any amount of philosophical theorizing. Of course the materialists here will resort to selective hyperskepticism to deny that there really is any valid evidence.
I do like the issue of "zombies" (that is, the rhetorical/philosophical kind, not the Haitian kind). They have no internal experience. They are unconscious, but give no obvious externally measurable evidence of that fact. Materialists like Dennett can be considered by their own theories to be such "zombies". Searle's Chinese Room is essentially an example of one of these.
Computer scientist Jaron Lanier (one of the inventors of "virtual reality") has written a clever and biting critique of the "zombie" theories of mind. The title is You Can't Argue with a Zombie, at http://www.jaronlanier.com/zom....
He opens by cleverly quoting an old Navajo proverb: "It is impossible to awaken someone who is pretending to be asleep".
Lanier makes some very good arguments against the "mind is a computer program in operation" concept. He says: "Let's suppose you run a more normal program "¦.. that implements the functional equivalent of your brain, a bunch of other people's brains, and the surrounding environment, so that you and the rest of the brains can have lots of experiences together. (This is the condition in which my test zombies thought that nothing
fundamental would have changed; they'd still experience themselves
and each other as if they were flesh.) You save a digital record, on the same disk that holds the program, of everything that happens to all of you. Now the experiences "pre-exist" on the disk. Take the disk out of the computer. Is this free-floating disk version of