Thank you for that! The thing my critics most often fail to see is that in at least two important ways I am really not "anti-ID": I do not believe Darwinian evolution can account for biological complexity, and I do not believe in "materialism" in the sense that physics as we know it can in principle explain our mental experiences.

I think the quote at the top sums up your major problem with ID and at this point

Right. ID has less to do with biology and much more to do with cognitive science, but most of the writing about ID ignores these central issues, even to the extent that the key terms of ID ("intelligent" and "design") are not prominently given unique, clear technical definitions.

My debate with Pez stopped at the point where he was arguing that "both sides" require metaphysical assumptions about the nature of mind, and this is where his arguments failed: Only (his version of) ID requires a belief that minds have the ability to transcend physical causation. No scientific theory shares this metaphysical dependency with ID - none of our theories require that this type of dualism is either true or false.

One way or another, all versions of ID reify "intelligence" as a causal thing - a mistake that scientists who study mind take great care to avoid. We have no way to characterize "intelligence" conceptually as a cause of anything, just as we can't say "athleticism" is the cause of anything. In both cases, they are how we refer to what we wish to explain, rather than concepts that can be used as explanations.

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.

However is there a scientific test that we can construct that determines that which is a scientific test and that which is not?

Well, a non-scientific test would be a test that independent researchers can't agree on.

ID needs to characterize "intelligence" such that any researcher can observe any sort of entity and say whether or not it is intelligent according to ID's definition (Pez agreed that this is true). If researchers can't agree on the results of these tests, then the tests can't be considered suitably objective for scientific inquiry.

But as we saw, there is no universal, objective characterization of intelligence (or intent) and so researchers can't reliably agree about what is intelligent. We even disagree about whether we ought to call computers or evolutionary processes "intelligent", and so how are we to agree if some hypothetical process (or being or force or something) that somehow produced or front-loaded life forms by exhibiting some sorts of behaviors that nobody can describe should be called intelligent?

The bottom line here - the nub of the nub - is that your entire conception of ID rests on the metaphysical assumption that mental causation differs fundamentally from physical causation, such that we could somehow observe the difference between something that is caused mentally and something that is caused physically. But this difference is precisely what philosophers argue about, because there is no test we can do to answer these questions.

I know that I may be voicing a minority opinion here but as one who considers themsef to be very pro ID, you AIGuy are my favorite anti ID person. This is just my personal opinion, and I suspect that others will not share my views but I really do think you are sincere and furthermore you put forth some vey interesting challenges that frankly I agree with.

I think the quote at the top sums up your major problem with ID and at this point ( I am always ready to change my opinion with reasoned counterpoints) I agree with you. I dont think there is a scientific test where by we can distinquish something that is caused mentally and something that is caused physically.

However is there a scientific test that we can construct that determines that which is a scientific test and that which is not?

Vivid

You haven't answered my question. Again:

Which of these can we infer from the evidence left behind by the Designer of Life: The Designer…
1) Has conscious awareness
2) Has mental images
3) Feels emotions
4) Can learn
5) Can solve novel problems (those never before encountered)
6) Knows what it is doing
7) Cares about what it is doing

Since this is an internet discussion and not and not a face to face encounter I know absolutely nothing about Aguy.

That is perfectly ridiculous. We all have a tremendous amount of world knowledge and we all know a tremendous amount about human beings and what they can do.

Now - can anyone answer my question, or will you concede that none of these statements can be inferred about an unspecified, unknown type of entity that nobody has ever observed but is hypothesized to have created life?

You can say precisely nothing - not a single thing - about an unknown type of entity simply by pondering the evidence of what it leaves behind

.
And:

Not one single thing can be inferred from the evidence, and so there can be no meaningful characterization of the "intelligent cause" of ID.

I would like to put forward the following hypotheses
Aguy is intelligent

Since this is an internet discussion and not and not a face to face encounter I know absolutely nothing about Aguy.He makes claims about himself but I have no empirical evidence about him at all I don't even know if he is an actual human being

Prediction: AGUY will eventually learn that I will not interact with some one who is not interested in a genuine dialogue where folks are expected to at least try and understand each others point of view

Experiment

I will refrain from interacting with him in this thread until he demonstrates that he has at least thought about what I have to say instead of only looking for ways to refute it.

I expect him to either eventually stop addressing himself to me or to take a deep breath and try to understand where others are coming from.

Either result will demonstrate he is intelligent (can learn) thus refuting his entire assertion in this thread

Peace

Who plans on testing such an entity? We can test radically different entities for IQ for example we can give a math test to both me and the dogs I linked to but we can't test an unknown, unspecified entity that nobody has ever seen and nobody knows anything about.

Such testing provides the only scientific foundation for detecting, measuring, or describing intelligence. If we can't say what such a test would contain, then it makes no sense to refer to what the test would measure (the intelligence of an unknown type of entity).

ID doesn't claim to do this and the fact that you think it does up shows your uninformed opinion of designers in general and your lack of imagination when it comes to dealing with forensics.

Of course I know that ID can't possibly do this, and that was the point.

I can give you a whole list of things we know about an entity simply by pondering the evidence it leaves behind. This is all independent of whether or not it is intelligent.

You can say precisely nothing - not a single thing - about an unknown type of entity simply by pondering the evidence of what it leaves behind. Why don't you try?

Which of these can we infer from the evidence left behind by the Designer of Life:
1) Has conscious awareness
2) Has mental images
3) Feels emotions
4) Can learn
5) Can solve novel problems (those never before encountered)
6) Knows what it is doing
7) Cares about what it is doing

Well that explains a lot if you are not even interested in a dialogue why should I bother.

I am attempting to respond to every point you make, and I am pursuing this dialogue with you. If you won't respond to my question above, I must assume you have no answer at all.

The answer, of course, is that none of these characteristics can be inferred, nor any ones you can think of. Not one single thing can be inferred from the evidence, and so there can be no meaningful characterization of the "intelligent cause" of ID.

I had an unknown, unspecified entity that nobody has ever seen and nobody knows anything about in mind. There are no standardized tests for unspecified types of entities, and nobody can design a test for an unknown type of entity because nobody knows what an unspecified type of entity can or can't do.

Who plans on testing such an entity? We can test radically different entities for IQ for example we can give a math test to both me and the dogs I linked to but we can't test an unknown, unspecified entity that nobody has ever seen and nobody knows anything about.

ID doesn't claim to do this and the fact that you think it does up shows your uninformed opinion of designers in general and your lack of imagination when it comes to dealing with forensics. I can give you a whole list of things we know about an entity simply by pondering the evidence it leaves behind. This is all independent of whether or not it is intelligent.

That might have been a good discussion but alas you aren't interested in what I have to say

Do you, FMM, and kornbelt actually think I see you as listening to and understanding my ideas

Well that explains a lot if you are not even interested in a dialogue why should I bother.

I'm of the old school that believes the way to move forward is to understand our opponents and not just assume the worst of them and work on better ways of phrasing our mantras
I guess I'll leave that exercise to you

Have fun

Peace

The question I asked is whether evolutionary systems exhibit "the ability to learn "¦ or to deal with new or trying situations" Can they adapt?

I'm not sure. If by "evolutionary systems" you mean life connected to the universe then I guess so but I think the intelligence is somewhat limited somthing like the learining ability of bacteria.

What about computers? Do they have the ability "to learn "¦ or to deal with new or trying situations"

Yes

An ant colony?

Yes

Peace

Ok, here's the last word. If you want to study how cognition might play a role in the cause of life, it behooves you to actually study what science and philosophy has found out about cognition. If ID is to explore the possibility that minds exist outside of living things, then all we have learned about minds ought to be relied upon to guide this exploration.

But instead I see little interest in how cognitive science or philosophy of mind is even relevant here (with the exception of Nullasalus, I must say). And most (but not all) folks at TT are a vast improvement over other IDers I've debated these issues with.

If ID is about intuitions and speculations and feel-good chats about how something was thinking about people when He designed us, you really ought to drop the "theory" part of this ID Theory project. Otherwise, take cognitive science seriously, and try to show how ID relates to the huge amount of scientific knowledge that has been amassed by those who actually have studied minds.

For my part, yes, I will order Mike's blog. I'd be more enthusiastic if Mike actually responded to any of my points here, and if Bradford and Joy didn't simply dismiss me out of hand, insult me, and block my posts.

I am particularly interested in the part of Mike's book that deals with the problem of establishing covariance (how we can know if different mental abilities go together or not). That is crucial, obviously, to both understanding what human intelligence is and to any attempt to devise a meaningful theory of ID. Can anyone tell me the section in Mike's book this would be found in?

I'm a little surprised you haven't read Mike's book. This is his blog after all, and he did a great job of laying out his views (which I essentially share) in a very readable way. Definitely worth the money.

I read your last post. Nothing new there that I haven't dealt with essentially. So, between you and me, you can have the last word on this thread.

Make it a great day.

Science is a useful tool for some things. It is not the tool I use when I see a correspondence and suspect a particular agency.

Fine - I think you are still making the mistake of reifying general intelligence, whether or not you claim you have empirical evidence.

Why aren't you over at UD bitching at Dembski then?

Because they instantly block my posts as soon as they realize I'm bringing up issues they haven't thought about.

Sigh. You mention "learns" and is "purposeful", but what about "planning" and "foresight" Do you claim that evolution does this the way humans do contra Dawkins's description?

First, let's clarify if there is any difference between "planning" and "foresight". In my view, the former captures all of the meaning of the latter, except the latter has connotations regarding our conscious experience of our plans. I will use the word "planning" then, because you are not suggesting we have reason to think we can infer consciousness. OK?

Now, of course evolutionary biologists deny that evolution plans for future adaptations, because their interpretation of the evidence supports the idea that mutations are random with regard to what might help the organism reproduce. But here comes the tricky part: Some cognitive scientists (including Nobelist Gerald Edelman, and William Calvin) suggest that random variation plus selection describes not only biological evolution but also the basic mechanism of thought. I am not endorsing this view; but I bring it up for this reason: IF this happened to be true, then it would mean that our ability to plan (our foresight) is, in a sense, the same thing as that which enables evolution to generate new species. When human beings plan, we are aware only of the end result - the planned-out solution. When evolution "plans", we can see the intermediate steps, and so we no longer consider it planning, but rather we consider it trial-and-error without foresight.

I don't know if you can follow that, but the bottom line again is that we have no principled way to draw a line between cognitive functions and non-cognitive, "unguided", "blind" processes.

aiguy: The phrase "at least human-like intelligence" only makes sense to me if it means "would get higher scores on the same IQ tests we give to other human beings". Since you can't give the Designer an IQ test, this has no meaning at all in the context of ID.
KB: It's not "at least human like intelligence" in a vacuum. It's suspected for the same reason I would suspect human-like intelligence (or not) by IQ tests taken by an entity I can't see: by it's effects.

IQ tests must present the subject with questions that the subject does not already know the answer to; otherwise, it is not testing intelligence in any sense. If we find an IQ test already filled out, but we do not know under what conditions, we can make no inferences as the cause of these answers. It may be that the test was filled out by a machine-like entity that pumps out those same answers no matter questions it is asked, for example, which would not be intelligent in any sense of the word I can understand.

And for me, the effects in evidence are the machinery inside cells as compared to what humans can do. It's certainly not proof, neither would double blind IQ tests be proof that the takers were human. But it's a reasonable suspicion.

There is no reason to suspect anything of the sort. By studying human beings, we have found (to the surprise of many psychologists) that there are correlations among the levels of different cognitive abilities in humans. That means that, statistically speaking, somebody good at math will likely be good at geography or history or music as well. This doesn't mean this is true of everyone, or any particular person; it only means that this is likely to be true.

That is the conception of intelligence among scientists who study human intelligence: The abstract theoretical construct to which this covariance is attributed. Nothing else is said about this abstract concept, and pscyhologists are very, very careful not to reify this concept as a causal force. (You might want to read about the controversy surrounding Stephen J. Gould's Mismeasure of Man).

It is also true that these covariances of mental ability correspond to covariances in neural characteristics, and so psychologists believe that the explanation of this covariance will be found in terms of neurological function.

Since we cannot collect any statistics of covariance of the cognitive functions of Designers of Life in the context of ID, and since we cannot collect any information regarding neural correlates of the Designer, then none of this can be applied in the context of ID. All of our scientific understanding of human intelligence, in other words, has no applicability in the context of ID, and our scientific understanding of human intelligence often denies what our common sense tells us. This is why I think we have nothing whatsoever to go on, and ID's "intuitions" are very likely to be nothing but anthropomorphic projections that have driven animistic theories throughout our history.

So, can unlearning savants create things like complex codes and redundant error correction? That would be cool to see. If you can show me an instance of such a thing, that was not endowed with goals, foresight, knowledge, ability to learn, and induction from a previous human-like intelligence, my suspicion will be invalidated.

Of course there are inumerable examples of exactly this. I suspect this will be, again, hard for you to see what I'm saying, but please just give it a chance. The examples of unthinking entities which are unlearning savants but still produce complex codes and so on are of course computers. Let me deal with your knee-jerk reaction before you start replying.

Either "intelligence" is a property of an entity that we can talk about and discern without reference to how the entity came to exist, or we cannot. If we must know and evaluate the manner in which some entity comes to exist in the first place before we can say if it is intelligent or not, then ID's project is hopeless, for it will be stymied by the "Who designed the designer?" question that ID people think is so lame. So let's agree that this question is lame, and that we can decide if an entity is intelligent or not without consideration of how the entity came to exist.

Now, consider the case of the computer. A computer which, by virtue of its physical characteristics, outputs complex designs, but cannot learn, adapt, or do anything else at all, would not suggest to your forensic intuition that it is intelligent. So there is your example, and your suspicion should be invalidated.

And now you argue: Wait! I know that a real intelligent agent (a programmer) made that computer, so it was the programmer that created the codes and not the computer! And so I say, and what programmed the programmer? Was it another human-like thing, or was it another computer-like thing? The difference, essentially, between the human-like and the computer-like programmer is that the human-like one can write different programs to do all sorts of different things, but the computer-like programmer only knows how to write a program to do one sort of thing.

Now: On what do you base your suspicion that the ultimate designer of life could have done anything else except what it did - design life forms? In other words, why do you suspect it was a human-like programmer instead of a computer-like programmer?

Maybe you understand my point, and maybe you don't, but please don't accuse me of not listening and arguing in bad faith. These are points I have studied for a very long time, and I truly believe in what I am saying.

No, I have not yet gotten Mike's book.