Moving Boundary Conditions
by BradfordMichael Polanyi and Harry Prosch authored the book Meaning. In chapter 11 of the book they analyze the concept of mechanism. Mechanism appears to embody two types of principles. Physical conditions and natural laws afford a predictability to mechanisms. But mechanisms also have boundary conditions which determine the limits within which interactions involving physical parts or chemicals will occur. The arrangement of parts or the structure of a machine delineates the boundary conditions relevant to it. They cite man made machines and make the observation that the patterns of their parts are structured to enable their function. Boundary conditions become a guide to related teleology in the match between form and function.
Biological molecular machines also have parts whose arrangement matches their function. We speak of a machine's purpose and a molecular machine's function with the understanding that both operate in a larger context to further ends that transcend themselves. Biological ends center around sustaining life and fostering reproduction. Biological organization is linked to biological goals although the use of language like purpose or goals in a biological context is frowned upon. Natural philosophers will place a term like seeming before the word goal to emphasize that the goal is only apparent; a philosophical judgement made at the outset of any discussion.
The authors use thunderstorms to illustrate the difference between complex systems evidenced in meteorolgy, for example, and the complex systems found in biological organisms. The difference is explained by maintenance mechanisms found in organisms which lends a permanency to life. Living organisms fail and succeed with reference to a goal inherent to their existence- the continuance of life. Built in mechanisms enable them to manipulate their local environment for a larger purpose. For example, if short of moisture, movement toward water can be an option. Or sometimes more efficient conservation of available water is an adaptive strategy.
At some point in time there was not even a blind watchmaker. There were no biological mechanisms. No maintenance or reproductive goal. So what is left? Besides boundary conditions there were physical laws operating within natural conditions and it is to them that atelic scenarios must be reconciled. Basic laws of physics ultimately must explain the origin of mechanisms. Such forces also become the boundary conditions for yet to exist mechanisms. Stereochemical forces must have kick started the formation of a genetic code. A Big Bang settled the mathematical parameters describing such forces within the first instant of time.
Don't confuse measurements with measurement standards. The former can express a natural property of that which is measured. The latter entails an act of cognition. Pushing ever further back in time for explanations grounded in our descriptive measurements of natural forces does not refute observable purpose. It does not even explain physical outcomes. What it does is slide a philosophical assumption in through the back door. There are some things science is ill-equipped to resolve. Physical origins and complete causal trails are among them.
January 11th, 2009 at 12:13 am
It's true that science cannot tell us the complete causal trail, but further it's also true that we can never by any means know the "complete" causal trail. So far science is the only tool we have that has taught us anything about this trail, but it will never completely answer all questions. So we have two options, we can stop at some point along this trail and just say, "I don't know," about what lies beyond. Or we can make up fairy tales about the unknown and declare that we know it all.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 11, 2009 @ 12:13 am
January 11th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Fairy tales are in the eye of the beholder when science is a hapless adjudicator. To me the belief that matter and energy just exist without further causal anlysis is a fairy tale tucked under Grimm's Materialist Fantasies. So is the idea that ribonucleic acid self-organizes to form genetic codes and the stuff of proto-cells. I won't allow self-appointed defenders of science to pass off scientism as science.
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 12:20 am
January 11th, 2009 at 12:41 am
So instead of accepting the ambiguity inherent in saying, "I don't know why there is anything instead of nothing," you actually think its more correct to simply invent an arbitrary explanation? You think concluding, "I don't know," is a fairy tale equivalent to Christian mythology?
And as to "without further causal analysis," the whole point of stopping at "I don't know" is to leave things open for further investigation whereas the purpose of fairy tales is to convince us we already know the final answer. Why look further when the final answer is already known?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 11, 2009 @ 12:41 am
January 11th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Bradford wrote:
That's a hopelessly naive caricature of the scientific method. Primitive reductionism doesn't work even within physics. Nobel Laureate in physics Bob Laughlin and David Pines explained that in The Theory of Everything. Here is a teaser:
Comment by olegt — January 11, 2009 @ 1:04 am
January 11th, 2009 at 1:05 am
Since I already pointed out the limits of science it's obvious I believe there is no empirical resolution to be found. So we are left to our own non-empirical views.
That's a good question to put to your cohorts. Their views are set in stone.
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 1:05 am
January 11th, 2009 at 1:08 am
I like this quote Olegt supplied. Bears repeating:
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 1:08 am
January 11th, 2009 at 1:09 am
Bradford,
A word of caution. The quote doesn't imply that physics fails.
Comment by olegt — January 11, 2009 @ 1:09 am
January 11th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Back to the quote again, if reducing all of ordinary physical behavior to a simple, correct Theory of Everything, only reveals exactly nothing about many things, then what is the alternative approach?
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 1:12 am
January 11th, 2009 at 1:13 am
I did not think so which is why I posed the prior question.
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 1:13 am
January 11th, 2009 at 1:19 am
Why is any old explanation better than simply accepting ambiguity and saying, "I don't know?" Personally I reject the form of relativism that says given an unknown all explanations are equal. The only thing we can say about the unknown is "I don't know."
I love how those most guilty of an offense are the ones most likely to blame their opponents for that offense. It's certainly true that science is limited.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 11, 2009 @ 1:19 am
January 11th, 2009 at 1:25 am
Todd:
I do say I don't know quite often when confronted with unknowns. But humans who think indulge in speculation. Nothing wrong with that as long as it is so labled. Unless one is brain dead he speculates and wonders.
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 1:25 am
January 11th, 2009 at 6:01 am
Bradford:
Excellent idea. So from now on you will write the alleged God/Jesus/Designer?
Comment by Raevmo — January 11, 2009 @ 6:01 am
January 11th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Bradford wrote:
The point of the article is that a complete characterization of elementary particles (that's essentially what string theorists call the ToE) does not tell you how the world works. Forget the human brain. Rigidity of crystals is a collective property of atoms arranged in a periodic lattice. It is not reducible to the properties of individual electrons, quarks, gluons, and their interactions.
So physicists work on many different levels. Some study elementary particles, others study crystalline solids, yet others work with colloids and polymers, etc.
At the same time, physics is not a collection of disjoint pieces of knowledge. It is more like a patchwork of theories: different topics overlap and are consistent with each other in the overlap regions. For instance, particle physics is compatible with electromagnetism: quantum electrodynamics is part of the Standard Model. But no one uses the Standard Model to describe the properties of laser light: such a description would be extremely cumbersome and unwieldy.
Comment by olegt — January 11, 2009 @ 8:43 am
January 11th, 2009 at 10:17 am
More fundamentally is the concept of an 'object'. It is the perception or the ability to distinguish one thing from the rest of everything, the boundaries of 'this' rather than 'that', a form of categorization. However, it turns out that 'objects' are not always distinct, despite appearances. And 'objects' can form and unform, such as a 'storm'.
But there was matter and energy and 'objects' forming and unforming.
No more philosophical than the shared observation of 'objects'. And even then, we just have to understand that 'object' is a categorization.
Beauty is truth.
The 'object' we call "Earth" finds its physical origin in the collapse of a stellar nebula.
Comment by Zachriel — January 11, 2009 @ 10:17 am
January 11th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Raevmo:
This typifies the moronic comments that have become your trademark. Take a look at Olegt's comments if you want to do anything other than indulge your childish impulses.
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 10:39 am
January 11th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
He has a point though, you are demanding that science recognize your personal metaphysics while at the same time chastising science because you think someone else's metaphysics have seeped in. You don't want disclaimers that teleology is fundamentally metaphysics, yet you want science to abandon its traditional methods because you think they hide metaphysics.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 11, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
It is one thing to say "we don't know", and another to say "we don't know but we will arbitrarily exclude the design inference."
And the latter is exactly what you and your ilk do on a daily basis.
And talking about science is there even a testable hypothesis for the anti-ID position of blind and undirected processes?
Could one of you please publish it?
Comment by ID guy — January 11, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
That is the speculation. However speculation does not take the place of science.
Comment by ID guy — January 11, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I don't demand that others recognize my personal mtaphysics if you mean agree with when you say recognize. That's the point of emphasizing the limitations of science. True science says "we can assert the following based on empirical verification in the form of multiple tests: x, y, z…" It also allows for the admission that some matters are beyond the scope of a scientific approach. When reaching a scientific boundary it behooves one to refrain from statements about what science sez as science would no longer indicate a resolution.
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
ID Guy:
That's not what they are saying, science says, "We don't know but we are unwilling in inject philosophy and call it science." Because "design" is nothing but philosophy and metaphysics it should be excluded from science.
There is no anti-ID position in science, its just that none of the evidence points towards ID which makes ID a failure even as a philosophy. As to evolution, there are thousands of testable hypothesizes which have made tons of accurate predictions, these are what form the standard models of evolution. Despite what you might think they didn't just make this shit up to offend your imaginary sky faerie.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 11, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Bradford:
I don't mean "agree with," I just mean, "consider as a valid source of scientific guidance."
I agree. ID, Teleology and Theism are philosophical ideas and thus belong beyond the reach of science. As such people who adhere to these ideas shouldn't try to force them into the scientific arena. At the same time, I believe science should effect one's philosophy even though one's philosophy should not effect science. In other words a philosophy should not contradict our empirical knowledge of the universe.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 11, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Todd:
We cannot force anyone to think anything at this forum. We don't have that kind of power. In any case I prefer open systems allowing for disagreeable ideas to the alternatives.
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Bradford:
Again I agree, but with the caveat that the debates happen in the correct forum. In this case backwater internet forums populated with interested non-experts seems like the correct place to discuss ID. The principle of openness to disagreeable ideas does not mean that science should spend time considering philosophy; science should still only concern itself with disagreements that can be worded within a scientific framework.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 11, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
There is substantial evidence that planets form by the collapse of nebula, including that we can observe various stages of the process across the galaxy.
But no matter. We can answer Bradford's point with the formation of frost on windowpanes.
There is no valid "design inference" for the origin of species. A well-defined design hypothesis could certainly be subject to scientific investigation, but no such hypothesis or evidence has been forthcoming. The poorly defined ID claim as usually proposed isn't testable.
The supposition of Jack Frost is superfluous to explaining ice crystals on windowpanes. Do you consider this an example of a "blind and undirected process"?
Comment by Zachriel — January 11, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Zachriel:
The problem with the silly Jack Frost analogy is twofold. First, Jack Frost was intended as an artistic metaphor useful for things unrelated to the physical details of frost formation. But frost formation also falls short as an analogy to the origin of the universe or the origin of life. The former was a one time event, not directly observable. The latter may have had multiple origin sources but likewise is not directly observable or measurable. More to the point though the event transitions do not correspond to anything familar. No universe and then one exists. No genetically coded nucleic acids and then they exist. There are physical transitions needing to take place whose theoretical underpinnings are not even firmly establshed. You can argue that such things are just like our investigations of frost formation. We just lack an understanding? What's lacking is an appreciation that frost formation and origins are fundamentally different with respect to our ability to investigate and understand them.
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Friendly tip: I assume "pholosophical " is a typo.
Another friendly tip: I am having trouble deciphering the purpose of this entry. If it "There are some things science is ill-equipped to resolve." I agree.
Even thunderstorms seem to have a purpose, if only ancillary: Depositing nitrogen in the soil. I am not sure if this supports or goes against the point of this blog entry, however.
Comment by William Wallace — January 11, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Thank you for this post, Bradford. Though I love some of the grousing about how unknowns should be recognized as unknowns.
And to answer ID Guy – no, there's no test for blind and undirected. So why is that so often packed in with explanations of phenomena? For one thing, so Bradford can make posts like these!
Comment by nullasalus — January 11, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Heh heh. What drives your apparent addiction to this particular backwater forum?
I'm reminded of a particular television preacher who pounded the pulpit against sin and yet couldn't keep himself from visiting prostitutes.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 11, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
A) Are you saying that science does not rest upon any unprovable philosophical assumptions?
B) Do you consider SETI to be a scientific pursuit?
C) Do you consider forensics to be a scientific pursuit?
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 11, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Limitations of science is one theme. There is more which the authors did a better job of demonstrating than my summary. The discontinuity found in a causal trail leading to life can itself be an indicator of design. Of course this would be fiercely resisted by critics who would label this as God in the Gaps thinking.
Of course everything has a purpose when viewed from the perspective of an organizing mind which puts different parts into a holistic setting. But the purpose evidenced by machines differs markedly from a purpose we attribute to rain. Man made machines are constructed to serve a specific objective. Cellular parts also serve a transcendent objective which is independent of chemical necessity from an origins perspective. Abiogenesis advocates contend that chemical necessity exists but is not yet demonstrable due to a gap in knowledge. Weather cycles are determinsitc even as they are complex. When IDists look for internal indicators of design they do not cite gravity as designing the fallen pencil. There could be design from a divine perspective but IDists are looking for contingencies in nature that signal a departure from deterministic laws of necessity.
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
nullasalus:
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
kornbelt888:
No, all knowledge starts with axioms and science cannot escape this. One difference between science and philosophy is that those axioms on which science rests are mutually agreed upon by just about everyone including theists; primarily the idea that empirical evidence is valid. Really the only reason anyone ever disagrees with that axiom is just to be argumentative.
I've discussed previously the reasons why I think SETI is a not good science.
Yes. They use classical fields like chemistry to make and test their hypothesis.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 11, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Science is more than capable of resolving the physical origins of the 'objects' we call ice crystals on the windowpane.
I note you didn't answer the question. Do you consider the formation of ice to be a "blind and undirected process"?
It wasn't put forth as an explanation of the origin of the universe, but the scientific explanation of the physical origin of 'objects', ice crystals.
Comment by Zachriel — January 11, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Zachriel:
In the same way LaPlace did. The forces of nature relevant to the process could have been designed but with respect to ice formation that factor would be superfluous.
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Is this consensus comforting to you personally? I.E, does it give you more confidence that you're on the "right track?"
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 11, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
From the article by Laughlin and Pines:
I think Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg (an avowed atheist) would essentially agree but take the argument one step further. In his 1992 book, Dreams of a Final Theory, he writes:
“Of all the area’s of experience that we try to link to the principles of physics by arrows of explanation, it is consciousness that presents us with the greatest difficulty. We know about our own conscious thoughts directly, without the intervention of the senses, so how can consciousness ever be brought into the ambit of physics and chemistry? The physicist Brian Pippard, who held Maxwell’s old chair… at the University of Cambridge, has put it thus: ‘What is surely impossible is that a theoretical physicist, given unlimited computing power, should deduce from the law of physics that a certain complex structure is aware of its own existence.’” (p44)
I think I have said before the emergence consciousness is more difficult to explain by recourse to reductive materialism or naturalism than the origin of life, but for some reason committed materialists ignore this objection, or simply dismiss it with an airy wave of the hand. Why is this? Maybe these people are not really conscious.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 11, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
John_A_Designer,
Or because airy handwaving is about all they've got. An unknown is an unknown, after all, and promissory notes don't make that go away – and when the emotional or social stakes run a bit high, anything goes.
On the other hand – are there really that many 'committed materialists' anymore? Naturalists, sure, so long as naturalism means nothing but 'no God'. But materialists? My experience is they aren't very numerous. They're just loud.
Comment by nullasalus — January 11, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 12:20 am
nullasalus:
True, there are not that many “died in the wool” materialist’s anymore. But, nevertheless, those we know about like Dawkins, Dennett and the late Francis Crick were able to achieve a certain level respect in the academic world, and continue to have some sympathizers and influence. These are people who think that the mind, consciousness and self are illusions and can be explained away completely by physical processes. The irony of all this is illustrated by Dawkins disciple psychologist Susan Blackmore who writes: “ I long ago concluded that there is no substantial or persistent self to be found in experience, let alone the brain. I have become quite uncertain as to whether there really is anything it is like to be me.”
The point I am trying to make most people I think would not deny the existence of their personal consciousness or self like Blackmore. Indeed, our only real knowledge of consciousness or self is from our personal subjective experience of consciousness and self. I would argue this knowledge is not only a very real kind of knowledge but is also not something that can be easily reduced to known physical laws of nature.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 12, 2009 @ 12:20 am
January 12th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Apparently she doesn't view her own consciousness as primary, and does not see that inferences (including her "conclusion") are derived indirectly from sense perceptions, and are not primary. If she suspects her mind is an illusion, why doesn't she suspect her "conclusion" is an illusion too? How can the conclusions of mind carry more authority than the mind itself?
Her kind of thinking seems insane to me. It's hard for me not to suspect that maybe there really are two kinds of people on this planet: conscious ones and unconscious ones, and never the twain shall agree.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 12:34 am
January 12th, 2009 at 12:54 am
kornbelt:
Psssst… we call 'em zombies…
Comment by Joy — January 12, 2009 @ 12:54 am
January 12th, 2009 at 1:38 am
Yes, an unknown is an unknown and there is no made up theistic or telic explanation that will prevent it from being unknown. Science is willing to say, "I don't know" and leave it at that. Then again, a promissory note from a source with a history of paying its debts is better than simply making up a fairy tale and calling that the answer. So even were they guilty as you charge they still come out ahead.
I think they can be explained by physical processes, but am not a die in the wool materialist.
So it's knowledge by intuition, no wonder you're a theist. Personally I consider intuition to only be the first step of inquiry, not the end point of knowledge as you suggest. And while I agree that consciousness might not be easily reduced to physical laws that doesn't mean it won't eventually be reduced to these laws by increased knowledge. Feel free to call that a promissory note, whatever, continuing to study consciousness is better than throwing up your hands and saying, "God did it, we can stop looking deeper now."
Yeah, I know exactly how you feel. I've often thought large numbers of people seem barely cognitive at all.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 12, 2009 @ 1:38 am
January 12th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Do you always become a shrink whenever a response fails to generate some cheap culture war assault? If you have nothing to say you might consider saying nothing.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 12, 2009 @ 1:44 am
January 12th, 2009 at 3:00 am
Todd B,
Haha! A history of paying its debts! And you like to talk smugly about fairy tales?
First off, materialism has changed so much that it's damn near unrecognizable at this point. Whenever a difficulty pops up – from dark matter/energy to quantum interactions to the Big Bang to otherwise – materialists handle it by saying 'Well, we're going to call whatever we just discovered material now.' There's a reason the trend has been for materialists to call themselves 'physicalists' instead – because having to squirm whenever the definition of 'material' needed changing was getting embarrassing. At least physical is vague enough to cover a lot of bases.
Second, materialism has not 'paid its debts'. Every scientific advance can be neatly accommodated under various dualisms (You do realize that dualists believe in this whole 'physical interaction' thing, right?), idealism, and otherwise. Why, idealists can even propose theories and mechanisms – their line in the sand is related to the nature of the underlying 'stuff', not what it does. Which would explain why so many scientists are capable of successful research and work while clearly knowing diddly-squat about philosophy – it simply rarely matters for scientific work.
Third, science does not say 'I don't know', nor does religion say 'I know'. Science is a construct – certain methods, and data. It doesn't say a damn thing – it doesn't even interpret itself. And religion can be and often is entirely compatible with acknowledging mysteries as mysteries, and seeking to learn more about the natural world. Do religious people typically commit themselves to some answers? Of course – as do the holders of most any philosophy, consciously or not.
If you're conflating materialism, much less naturalism, with science – well, as said, you're not exactly lacking in belief in fairy tales here.
Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2009 @ 3:00 am
January 12th, 2009 at 3:16 am
John_A_Designer,
Oh, I agree. I just think the fact that their sympathizers are small in number is one of the best kept secrets.
Crick's impact seems to have been more in general neuroscience than with consciousness specifically, for obvious reasons. Dawkins typically keeps his mouth shut about greater philosophical issues and even memes alike nowadays – he's basically a one-trick 'I dislike Christianity! I was a scientist!' pony by now. And Dennett? Dennett's hardly heard from at this point in any venue. He was cringe-worthy in debate on religious subjects. Chalmers outmaneuvered him in philosophy of mind. I suspect that his habit of treating everyone who disagrees with him with contempt turned around and bit him in the ass.
Well, I'd agree with all of the above. Blackmore is free to insist she's meditating or bonging herself out of existence, just as the Churchlands can talk in their adorable oddball language in an attempt to be trendsetters, but subjective experience is hard to get around. Which is probably why Chalmers made such a big splash, Searle has to repeatedly assure everyone (without success) that he and the strong-emergentists are not some kind of dualist, the mysterians are pre-emptively sandbagging, etc.
Materialism just ain't what it used to be. Hasn't been for decades.
Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2009 @ 3:16 am
January 12th, 2009 at 6:34 am
nullasalus
I am confused. Todd is talking about science, and you respond with a rant about materialism. Do you think they are one and the same? Apparently not, as you said:
And earlier, you even noted the difference between materialism and naturalism: "On the other hand – are there really that many 'committed materialists' anymore? Naturalists, sure, so long as naturalism means nothing but 'no God'. But materialists? My experience is they aren't very numerous. They're just loud.". Clearly you are aware that science, materialism and naturalism are three different things. So I am just wondering what makes you think that Todd is talking about materialism, when he specifically said science?
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 12, 2009 @ 6:34 am
January 12th, 2009 at 7:41 am
The Pixie,
Gee, I wonder if it could have anything to do with the fact that Todd was responding to me when the only thing I was talking about with JAD was the amusing state of materialism and naturalism, with nary a word said about science. Do you think maybe that's the reason I'm the one stressing to Todd the difference between materialism, naturalism and science – and pointing out how he seems to be confusing them (so him 'specifically saying' science would be of no use here)? Do you think the fact that he went off on a defensive riff about science – complete with defending 'them' against 'my' charges – when I didn't say word one about science (unless 'materialism' and 'naturalism' are confused with science) may indicate he's not up on the distinctions?
I wouldn't try to run charity defense for Todd on this one, Pixie. If it wasn't for the constant and largely unchecked equivocations of science, naturalism and materialism, I'd never have gotten interested in ID to begin with.
Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2009 @ 7:41 am
January 12th, 2009 at 8:23 am
But that is what you nare doing by denying the design inference- injecting YOUR philosophy.
Just how did you come to that ignorant conclusion?
Is archeology al;so just philosophy?
And talking about science is there even a testable hypothesis for the anti-ID position of blind and undirected processes?
1- There is an anti-ID position in science
2) Tghere isn't any scientific data which shows undirected processes can acount for all we observe.
But "EVOLUTION" is NOT being debated. Thne debate is undirected processes vs directed processes.
IOW you are either really ignorant or very dishonest.
Now how about that hypothesis for undirected processes?
Comment by ID guy — January 12, 2009 @ 8:23 am
January 12th, 2009 at 8:29 am
ASnd there is no valid reason to infer undirected processes led to our existence and the existence of the universe.
ID is testable. However I have noticed that no one on your side can provide a testable hypothesis for undirected processes.
It is a start however you would also need to show how undirected processes can account for the laws that allowed ice crytals to form.
You do realize tat those laws are one of the evidences used as evidence for an intelligent designer?
But I digress- try a hypothesis using undirected processes pertaining to biology.
IOW if the origin and evolution of living organisms was due to undirected processes what would/ should we expect to observe?
Comment by ID guy — January 12, 2009 @ 8:29 am
January 12th, 2009 at 8:38 am
The theory of evolution:
We cannot predict what variation will arise min a population. Nor can we predict what will be selected at any point in time.
IOW what prediction can be made from the theory?
And Todd science is not conducted via promissory notes. Scientists have to go with their knowledge at hand. They cannot and do not wait for what further research may or may not develop.
Science is a tentative enterprise.
Also "design" is a physical process. Cars are physical and duie to design. Houses are physical and also due to design.
Comment by ID guy — January 12, 2009 @ 8:38 am
January 12th, 2009 at 9:49 am
You forgot to mention how.
The evolution of biological forms is "undirected" in the sense that the formation of ice crystals is "undirected".
What we do observe is a branching pattern with the vast majority of the lineages going extinct, as well as direct observation of natural selection, variation, divergence and fecundity.
Cars are manufactured in factories. It isn't sufficient to waive the word "design" around as if that explains how cars are put together. It requires both planning (design) and a physical process of assembly (mechanism).
Comment by Zachriel — January 12, 2009 @ 9:49 am
January 12th, 2009 at 10:21 am
In the Lederberg Experiment, we can predict that some colonies will develop antibiotic resistance, and that this resistance develops irrespective of the environment.
In the Lederberg Experiment, we can predict that organisms with particular mutational variations will be environmentally selected in the presence of antibiotics.
Comment by Zachriel — January 12, 2009 @ 10:21 am
January 12th, 2009 at 10:29 am
nullasalus
Thank you for clarifying. Just to be quite clear, then, do you think anyone who has posted on this thread, or indeed on TT that you have noticed, is a materialist? Do you agree with JAD that Dawkins and Dennett are materialists, as opposed to naturalists? I would have said no in each case.
Wiki defines materialism: The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance. Quantum mechanisms suggests that matter is itself composed of wavefunctions, which pretty much blows materialism out of the water. My guess is that Dawkins and Dennett both know that, though I am not that familiar with the writings of either of them to know for sure. Perhaps you do? If so, why?
The reason I ask is because creationists and IDists have a long history of conflating these three things. As Joy said recently, "Culture Warriors must have a designated Very Scary Enemy [VSE] in order to justify their warrior-hood." For the creationists and IDists, their VSE seems to be materialism. It would be great to believe that you were not like that, especially as you have made an issue of it yourself..
Leaving materialism and naturalism aside for the moment, how do you respond to Todd's comment about science:
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 12, 2009 @ 10:29 am
January 12th, 2009 at 11:49 am
From an ID FAQ:
That said, one of the main questions science asks is “How did it come to be this way?” (“it” being that which is being studied)
This is where undirected vs. directed processes comes in. To say that this is a philosophical question is to then demonstrate an ignorance of science.
Archeology depends on the ability to disseminate artifact from undirected processes. It would matter to their investigation whether artifacts are found or just rocks- hint- if they don’t find artifacts they don’t have anything to investigate beyond the first- are artifacts present or not?
I would say that forensics has the same dependency. As does SETI.
Now to say that biology is somehow immune from the design inference is not only absurd but also not grounded in science.
However the design inference in reference to living organisms can be refuted by showing that undirected processes can account for their existence.
And isn’t that one of the hallmarks of scientific inquiry, ie a stated position that would refute yours?
Design is a mechanism observed to take things in nature and do with them things that nature itself could not and would not do.
Comment by ID guy — January 12, 2009 @ 11:49 am
January 12th, 2009 at 11:54 am
But the variation that allows for the resistance also allows for survival of the population. And survival is key to evolution.
So as I have said before as far as anyone knows the variation arises because it was designed to.
And even then there isn't any guarantee antibiotic resistanec will develop.
IOW your alleged "prediction" is BS.
Comment by ID guy — January 12, 2009 @ 11:54 am
January 12th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
ID is testable.
That is in the ID literature. It is also evidenced by evolutionists saying they have not only tested it, but falsified it.
You don't have any evidence for that assertion.
Natural selection has been observed to conserve. Variation is always observed to oscillate around a mean. Divergence has been observed to bring about specializations not novel body plans.
So what you have is a crock of nonsense.
Also "design" is a physical process. Cars are physical and duie to design.
No, but saying "design" is a START. From there you go about the investigation accordingly.
We wouldn't start with the premise cars are due to undirected processes and hope to get anywhere with our investigation.
Comment by ID guy — January 12, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
We cannot predict what variation will arise in a population.
How about a specific DNA locus or loci we should look for?
Without that your "prediction" is about as "predictive" as those TV frauds that say they talk to the dead.
Nor can we predict what will be selected at any point in time.
Artificial selection- right?
Well heck I can predict what I will select.
Comment by ID guy — January 12, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
ID Guy
But a good knowledge of the history of ID?
The thing is that science does not use dichotomies like that. If you claim the process is directed, you give a mechanism, and show how that fits the facts. You mention archaeology. Archaeologists do not merely divide their finds into artefacts or rocks; rather they do their best to determine why the artefact for made, how it was made and who by. The same applies in forensics.
ID is not like that. ID makes the claim "living things were designed". End of story. There is no question about who did it (Mike even has a web page about why that question is not relevant).
No, design is not a mechanism. Cars are designed, surprise parties are designed. Do you really think they arise through the same mechanism? Sure, there are similarities in the process, but their are huge differences too.
How odd that you do not specify how ID can be tested, nor give a link to a web page that might help, nor inform us where in the ID literature. One could almost think you were speaking out of your backside.
Often IDists point to IC as being a testable ID hypothesis, and that has indeed been refuted by mainstream evolutionists. You will probably dispute that, but consider for a menent that it was true: If IC was proven to be false, would it necessarily follow that ID is refuted?
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 12, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
It's a statistically predictable event.
In other words, you can't answer the question.
Sure we do. The Lederberg Experiment shows that in at least this instance evolution is "undirected" and random with respect to environmental selection.
We know from Common Descent that organisms have diversified over time. And we can observe and test various stages of this process.
Antibiotic resistance is a (heritable) variation. That is what you requested.
It's an empirical prediction. And we can replicate the results. That you would handwave away something that is easily tested seems to indicate you have little regard for the facts.
Antibiosis occurs in nature.
Comment by Zachriel — January 12, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
ID could never be ruled out if IC is not found, but wouldn't an instance of IC tentatively (as with all scientific inferences) demonstrate it? Of course, one could always posit unknown natural atelic forces at work, but I'm talking about IC with regards to the known forces.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
kornbelt888
How long have you posting on TT, and you still do not get the basics of IC, do you? Try to get it straight, please! IC does not disprove evolution. chunkdz kindly started a thread on this very issue just last month. Here is a snippet:
So please, let us have no more of this silly "IC disproves evolution" nonsense.
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 12, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Let's start with a general definition. An IC system is a system composed of several parts performing a function such that if we remove one part it ceases to function. There may be some ambiguity concerning what constitutes a 'part' or a 'function', but we could suppose that there are examples where there is no ambiguity. If we find such a system then how could such a system evolve by selectable steps?
There are several hidden assumptions because of the analogy with human manufactured machines. One such assumption is in the notion of a part. A part itself may evolve! So we might start with a loose assemblage of parts that then become more and more dependent on one another. Or in genetics, we might see gene duplication followed by functional divergence. The parts change.
Comment by Zachriel — January 12, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Zachriel: Let's start with a general definition. An IC system is a system composed of several parts performing a function such that if we remove one part it ceases to function.
I have a somewhat stronger version of IC in mind. Not only would the object cease to function if any of its parts were removed, but it could be positively demonstrated to have no path to formation given all known natural laws and forces. In other words, there are positive natural barriers to its formation. (Perhaps this sort of structure should be called something else.) A while back I cited the Rubic's Cube with re-arranged color squares as an analogous example of such, but I didn't see any replies.
If such an object were shown to exist, wouldn't the reasonable tentative (as in all scientific inferences) scientific conclusion be that it was designed?
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
That's not Behe's definition, or the definition that seems implicit in the term. Irreducible. Complexity.
But even then, it just means we don't know. It could be design. It could be some unknown natural law. It could just be a failure of imagination. Simply saying you have eliminated everything you can think of does not constitute a scientifically convincing argument. Indeed, the more ignorant you are, the more likely you are to reach the design conclusion.
Comment by Zachriel — January 12, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
First of all, when you say "ceases to function", do you mean ceases to function at all, or only that it ceased to function as it was functioning before. One stock refutation of IC is that a development pathway might (well, typically, actually) involve a change in function.
But however you address this, the larger problem is how this definition relates the structure to intelligent design. Can you explain that, please? The logical problem is that an arch fits this definition, yet natural examples of arches abound, telling us that IC structures (according to this definition) do not require intelligent design.
"Positively demonstrated to have no path" is a logical contradiction: there's no way to demonstrate that there's no path. All we can ever say is that we don't know of a path. So if we take this definition at face value, we don't have to worry about IC anymore because it's logically impossible to meet the requirements of the definition.
You can show barriers to any suggested path, but you cannot show that there are barriers to all paths, since, of course, we don't know where those paths lead.
The cube is turned at random, and somethings stops the movement when all sides present a single color. No intelligence required.
Of course, you've strayed off of IC: proving such barriers would simply be a direct way of proving ID is required. Using this proof of barriers for some case and then declaring that made the case IC makes IC pointless as a support for ID: your barrier proof is all you need. You are using the hypothetical possibility of a barrier proof to prop up IC which I think you subconconsciously recognize as useless.
Comment by don provan — January 12, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Zachriel: That's not Behe's definition, or the definition that seems implicit in the term. Irreducible. Complexity.
Hence the "Perhaps this sort of structure should be called something else."
Zachriel: "But even then, it just means we don't know. It could be design. It could be some unknown natural law."
Hence the "tentative."
Actually, my specification is stronger than that: "positive natural barrier." Re-arranging the dots on a Rubic's Cube so as to prevent a human from "solving" it in the normal way is a positive natural barrier. The ocean is a positive natural barrier for me driving my car from America to France. If my wife saw me in my car in America on monday, and then saw pictures of me in my car in from the Eiffel tower on tuesday, given what we know, wouldn't the reasonable tentative conclusion be that I and my car got there by some other way than driving (or that the pictures were faked) ?
If it could be demonstrated there is a positive natural barrier for, say, a particular assemblage of proteins, given everything else we know about the forces and laws, wouldn't design be the reasonable tentative conclusion? Or at least a reasonable suspicion? At what point in the scale of things does it became unreasonable to have such a suspicion?
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Only because there's no bridge between America and France. The point being that it's only because you know there's no bridge that you know the ocean's a natural barrier. If you didn't know all the possible ways to get a car from America to France, you would have no way of determining if there was a barrier to all of them.
I suppose it might be, but, after all, any assemblage of proteins that you find in biology you can see assemble itself right in front of your eyes. So it isn't the actual assemblage — i.e., what we can observe with our own eyes — that's the problem, but "the design" of the assemblage, something we can only imagine. So it's not actual barriers such as your ocean, but "barriers to design" which are not even remotely as clear cut as you are pretending, even in principle.
Comment by don provan — January 12, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Look how wildly divergent your answers are! Either you put your car on a transport plane, or someone used Photoshop. That's why you would seek additional information before reaching any conclusions. You would attempt to link the evidence to the mechanism.
So if you thought you had a protein that couldn't have been made by the expected mechanisms, you certainly should consider other possibilities. But to conclude design, you would want to link the artifact to the art and the artisan. The better you could support this, the stronger your case would be.
Comment by Zachriel — January 12, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Don Provan: "But however you address this, the larger problem is how this definition relates the structure to intelligent design. Can you explain that, please? The logical problem is that an arch fits this definition, yet natural examples of arches abound, telling us that IC structures (according to this definition) do not require intelligent design."
Hence my stronger version of IC:
KB: "I have a somewhat stronger version of IC in mind. Not only would the object cease to function if any of its parts were removed, but it could be positively demonstrated to have no path to formation given all known natural laws and forces."
DP: "Positively demonstrated to have no path" is a logical contradiction: there's no way to demonstrate that there's no path. All we can ever say is that we don't know of a path."
I disagree. There are plenty of scenarios that have positive, demonstrable natural barriers given known forces and laws, as I said.
DP: "You can show barriers to any suggested path, but you cannot show that there are barriers to all paths, since, of course, we don't know where those paths lead."
If I propose that I'm going to drive my car from New York to Paris without any boats, planes, etc, with a stock passenger car, and no other unusual trickery, are you saying there may be some paths that exist for me to do it? If you were forced at gunpoint to bet your life on one outcome or the other, which bet would you take?
Natural barriers are plentiful given known forces and laws. Try getting to the moon without a rocket.
KB: "A while back I cited the Rubic's Cube with re-arranged color squares as an analogous example of such, but I didn't see any replies."
DP: "The cube is turned at random, and somethings stops the movement when all sides present a single color. No intelligence required."
Perhaps you didn't read the original posts. If I take a Rubic's Cube, peel off the colored squares, I can put them back on in such a way as to block all paths to the normal solution of uniform colors on all sides. It's a positive barrier to uniform colors.
"Of course, you've strayed off of IC: proving such barriers would simply be a direct way of proving ID is required. Using this proof of barriers for some case and then declaring that made the case IC makes IC pointless as a support for ID: your barrier proof is all you need."
You bet. Any arrangement of matter whatsoever contra natural barriers given known forces and laws suggests either there are forces and laws we don't know about (certainly possible), or a "supernatural" designer was involved in the arrangement. I think a biological structure that exhibited this (making it necessarily IC) would constitute a very interesting clue a la Mike Gene's matrix.
DP: "You are using the hypothetical possibility of a barrier proof to prop up IC which I think you subconconsciously recognize as useless."
Ah, Don, let's do keep this friendly and enjoyable. No reason to point a finger at my poor subconscious when an accusatory finger pointed at my normal consciousness will do just fine.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Bah, this is easy! Just slap a "Jesus is my copilot" bumper sticker on your car and drive across the water! Should be about a 36 hour drive from New York to Paris then. Anyone who accepts the literal truth of the bible must admit that its sometimes possible for heavy things to travel over the surface of water.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 12, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
But what if you've ruled out every means given known forces and laws? Then what would your tentative conclusion be?
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
My question is a hypothetical one, not based on any known examples.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Well, science routinely encounters arrangements of matter that cannot be explained given known forces and laws. This is why science develops new theories and laws. In the end all this boils down to is classic god-of-the-gaps, we end up with an unknown and your claim is a supernatural designer could fill that unknown. Sure, a supernatural designer could fill ANY unknown, luckily science continues to study these gaps rather than just saying, "god did it."
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 12, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
No, "couldn't have been made by the expected mechanisms" is not my specification. Natural barriers given known forces and laws is a positive strike against, not merely a informational gap.
"But to conclude design, you would want to link the artifact to the art and the artisan. The better you could support this, the stronger your case would be."
Not necessarily necessary. For example, if we had in our possession an object that was the first known cellular organism, that had natural barriers to certain protein configurations, and this organism had embedded within it text and images (that allowed the text to be deciphered), with a description of the basic functions of the cell itself, would we not rightly conclude the cell was designed without knowing anything about the designer(s)? Tentatively?
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
"Cannot be explained (because of gaps in our understanding given known forces)" is not quite equivalent to "cannot occur given known forces." Consider the question, "given known forces and laws, can I get to the moon in one millisecond?" If we were dealing with a mere gap, "I don't know" would be the correct answer. But given known forces and laws (and humans have a formidable body of experimental evidence), the reasonable tentative answer is "no." I think most people would agree. There are positive natural barriers to me getting to the moon in one millisecond. There is no path to that goal. From what we know about physics, there is a strong positive barrier against that goal.
So then, my discussion here is not about IC in the Behe sense. I'm talking about arrangements of matter that violate known forces and laws. They exist in spite of known physical barriers. Like I said, if we encountered such, we might have to revise physics, or at least acknowledge it's incompleteness. But the real question is: at what point on the scale of things does it become unreasonable to suspect "supernatural" telic intervention? If someone popped up to the moon in a millisecond, I think it would cause quite a stir. Now, if we saw something just as much in violation of natural law operating within a cell, some might think that a pretty powerful bit of evidence in favor of a tentative conclusion pointing in the direction of telic intervention. I would.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
That's actually pretty funny! Good one.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
But, as I said, you cannot know if all paths have such barriers for the simple fact that you don't know all paths.
The point is that for biological systems, you cannot list all possible paths like this, so you cannot similarly deny them one by one as you are doing here.
Try using your argument in the 19th century to prove it is impossible to get to the moon. Guess what? You argument works because no one knows space flight is possible yet! Doesn't that tell you anything?
Oh. I thought it was an interesting question. As stated, it's no more interesting than saying "Imagine I eliminate all hydrogen. How could natural causes lead to water?"
Perhaps it would, but the fact that you wanted to call it "IC" would be entirely irrelevant to that purpose.
It's actually extraordinarily disappointing that you don't even get this. "IC" is doing nothing whatsoever for your argument, but you still feel a need to defend it. It's like a religious icon to you.
Well, OK, if you want. I was hoping to get you to take an honest look at how you really feel about IC, but you seem unwilling.
Hypothetically we might see God's hand come down and rearrange a species right in front of us. What's the point?
My conclusion would be that I didn't know how it got there.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that "known forces" implies an informational gap: unknown forces. Are you imagining that all unknown forces must be intelligent?
Comment by don provan — January 12, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Well, originally there was a positive barrier against travelling faster than the speed of sound; humans would be damaged by the forces. Then there was a positive barrier against leaving earth's atmosphere; space radiation would kill you instantly. Post Newton and pre Von Braun the immense force needed to fire a human from a giant gun was a barrier against travelling to the moon; no human could survive the required acceleration. At many times in the past science has provided us numerous positive barriers against travelling to the moon. Then we did it. So while science currently tells us you need at least 1.28 seconds to travel to the moon we can only speculate that this is a hard barrier.
Well, the mass and velocity of our universe violated known laws. To explain the discrepancy it was concluded that most likely we were wrong about one of the barriers, in this case the mass of the universe. The result was a hypothesis about "dark matter". So yeah, science encounters these all the time and they revise their knowledge of known forces and laws. As to acknowledging its incompleteness, it is a fundamental aspect of the scientific method to consider everything as tentative and incomplete.
Well, you should never suspect supernatural telic intervention until you have exhausted all possible avenues of inquiry. Saying "god did it" is giving up and admitting that the knowledge is beyond our grasp so a random guess is as good as we can get.
Sure, popping to the moon in a millisecond would cause quite a stir. So would, say, levitating to the moon with no power consumption. So would creating a perpetual motion machine. So far there is nothing humans have discovered in all of biology that comes anywhere close to these sorts of examples. Biology is just chemistry and physics. I agree that some people would consider that powerful evidence of telic intervention; after all many people consider even less than that to be powerful evidence. Still if any of my examples above can be demonstrated I certainly hope science asks "how?" and doesn't just say, "well that's supernatural, guess god did it."
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 12, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
But we would know something about the designers, such as what their text is and how they encode text and images, and a cellular organism that they may have designed. That makes all the difference. Show us such an organism and everything changes. Until then, your argument is sunk.
I say this often, but perhaps you've missed it: science doesn't say such things are impossible, it only says we've never seen anything like that.
Comment by don provan — January 12, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
I think I just said this, but let me say it again clearly, on its own: we can see every single arrangement of matter involved in current biological systems, so we know beyond any question that they can occur and violate no known forces or laws. Do you understand that? Do you understand what it means to your argument?
Comment by don provan — January 12, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Zachriel, re: the Lederberg Experiment, why did you put up a link to a creationist site?
From the site:
This experiment shows a "random" resistive mutation happening first, then the selection pressure eliminates all bacteria without the mutation.
When I expressed doubt of Darwinian evolution based on the likelihood of this phenomenon, countless Darwinists have told me this is all "hopeful monster" and "arrival of the fittest" creationist claptrap. So now you give us a link telling us it isn't claptrap, and the creationists have been telling us the truth this whole time. Good to know, thanks!
To relate it back to the topic at hand and at your response to ID guy about the predictive power of whatever iteration of evolutionary theory is most current, does evo predict that the resistance mutation will remain or disappear if the penicillin-resistant bacteria culture is kept isolated from from other bacteria cultures without the mutation?
And if it predicts disappearance, will the mutation disappear completely or only partially in the population?
And approximately how many generations will it take to reach an equilibrium?
Thanks in advance for your answers to my admittedly naive science questions.
Comment by angryoldfatman — January 12, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
At present, this is true. I know of no biological structure that fit this bill. As I've said, this is a hypothetical discussion pertaining to tentative conclusions regarding the scenarios I've presented.
Like I said, we might uncover unknown laws. Certainly if someone popped up to the moon, we could safely assume that there are unknown laws or forces on some level of reality, but it might not be within the spacetime to which our physics describes. At very least, a radical new physics would be necessary, one that violated just about every law we've come to cherish. It would require major theoretical overhauls, not slight tweaking.But it's also possible that no physical theory within spacetime could even explain it. (Though, I certainly hope someone would try.) It's easy to demonstrate how this is possible using a virtual reality scenario.
It's merely an example of showing how a telic agency was required to overcome an otherwise natural barrier. It's merely an analogy. If it's not useful, forget it.
Hence my statement: "Perhaps this sort of structure should be called something else." I.e., something other than "IC." A structure that violates known forces (let's called it VKF) and laws isn't "IC" in the Behe sense, because function is irrelevant. But an example of IC implemented as VKF would be cause for some excitement.
I don't defend IC, per Behe's definition at all. It's too weak. For a structure to truly be IC it would have to exhibit VFK as well. I don't think Behe goes that far. At least I have not seen him state such.
?
Would that be your only conclusion? If someone got to the moon in one millisecond I would certainly have more of a reaction than that…
Nope. But some of them may be. Particularly ones that violate known physics, along the lines I've specified.
Like I said, a merely explanatory gap is not equivalent to a positive barrier. Your example of mach travel by humans is not on par with someone popping to the moon in one millisecond. In the first case, there were barriers to the goal in our understanding, but when the solutions were found, they were found to be in physical harmony with the previous understanding in a way that did not require a radical overhaul of our previous understanding. Popping to the moon in one millisecond would violate all known forces and laws, some very superb theories, like Special Relativity, would be thrown out, unless one considered that something like a radical, completely unknown physics exists that can explain it and envelop even S.R. – Some events merely cause tweaking of a given theory. Some events overthrow theories entirely, and cast reality in an entirely new light. Think Newton vs QM, and Newton vs General Relativity.
Now, if you saw someone popping to the moon in one millisecond, wouldn't you think a little more than "I don't know how it's done?" I would think something like "the physics books will have to be re-written. What other kinds of things can happen in a universe where faster than light travel is possible? What beings are exploiting this? Did they have anything to do with earth life?" Etc, etc.
Like I said, this is all hypothetical. But this is a telic thought kind of thing, and I was curious about the telic thought processes of some of the participants here on Telic Thought.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
No. Wrong. It's logically true for all time. We are not omniscient and we never will be.
Comment by don provan — January 12, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
I agree to a point. But there is a point where telic agency is an immediate, rational suspicion. Each of us has a point where that is true. The point of my thread was determine what that is, for those participating.
Bad example, for it helps make my point. Adding dark matter to the mix does not require a radical overhaul to the fundamental physical theories, such as QM, G.R., or S.R. It's a relatively minor accommodation. Popping up to the moon in one millisecond would require a major overhaul of physics.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
kornbelt888: At present, this is true.
How do you know humans will never be omniscient? That doesn't sound like an agnostic position to me.
At any rate, we'd have to get at a specific instance for this to be truly meaningful. And I have no examples to proffer. It's merely a hypothetical discussion on human assessment. Maybe someone, someday will invent a massively parallel quantum computer that is capable of tracking every path a given micro-structure could possibly have taken given all the known forces. Science is still in it's infancy. Have a little faith in a promissory note.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Me too.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Which argument of mine is sunk?
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Hence my example to Zachriel here regarding the "first known cellular organism." Obviously, the structures within a cell today are generated by mechanisms within the purview of our physics.
Pay attention Don!
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Yes, that is correct. The mutations occur whether or not the organism is exposed to the antibiotic demonstrating that the mutations are not in response to the environment, that is, the mutations are random with respect to fitness. This has nothing to do with "creationism", but a classic experiment showing random mutation.
Antibiotic resistance is often associated with a fitness cost and antibiotic resistance strains will then disappear over time.
It depends on the specific fitness cost, if any. Even a small cost will result in the population being overtaken by revertants. However, due to erratic overuse of antibiotics, compensatory evolution has resulted in strains that ameliorate the costs of resistance.
Comment by Zachriel — January 12, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
If we observe something that is against known forces and laws, that doesn't imply design. It implies our understanding of those forces and laws is incomplete. There is nothing in *design* that allows us to break known forces and laws. If we see something go to the Moon faster than the speed of light, it doesn't imply design. It's simply something we don't understand.
You can consider anything you want. But providing scientific support requires more than your personal
vanitywhimssuspicions.That's fine. But your hypothetical doesn't lead to the conclusion you had hoped. If you want to find the culprit, there's no substitute for shoe leather.
Comment by Zachriel — January 12, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
I'm not attempting that, as stated numerous times.
Vanity?
Do remember, this is Telic Thoughts. Speculation along these lines are welcome here, last time I checked.
What hoped for conclusion might that be?
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 12, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
You said, "If such an object were shown to exist, wouldn't the reasonable tentative (as in all scientific inferences) scientific conclusion be that it was designed"?
Many a witch has been hanged on a suspicion. ("Rational" usually implies thoughtful and measured, somewhat antithetical to immediate and intuitive.)
A tentative scientific conclusion affirming your telic thoughts.
Comment by Zachriel — January 12, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Nullasalus wrote:
Here is an interesting quote from Chalmers. He writes in his book, The Conscious Mind, that: “Consciousness is a surprising feature of our universe. Our grounds for belief in consciousness derive solely from our experience of it. Even if we know every last detail about the physics of the universe—the configuration, causation, and evolution among all the fields and particles in the spatial temporal manifold—that information would not lead us to postulate the existence of conscious experience. My knowledge of consciousness in the first instance comes from my own case, not from any external observation. It is my first-person experience of consciousness that forces the problem on me.” (p101,102)
Ironically, Chalmers describes himself a “philosophical naturalist” and, I believe, also a non-theist. But contrast his thinking with the thinking of Dawkins, Dennett and the Churchlands etc. I would argue that there really is a striking difference. The main difference is that Chalmers conceives of consciousness ontologically distinct from matter-energy and that to study it scientifically we must first begin with correct ontological, or conceptual frame work.
I think Pixies point that Dawkins and Dennet are more naturalists than materialists seems moot when you compare their thinking with Chalmers. If materialism is on the left and naturalism and then theism are on the right they are still IMO very far to the left.
Todd B wrote:
My personal self consciousness is the first thing that I know is real. As Descartes said, “I think therefore, I am”
I spend eight hours a day, five days a week modeling complex machines on a computer. I try to design my models as close as I can to real objects in the real world . This, hopefully, saves a lot of time, when it comes to proto typing and testing. Indeed, this virtual reality can be somewhat seductive. After a while the virtual machines that I design and the virtual space in which they seem to exist begin to seem real. But, even if I assign density and mass to the components of my virtual machines their density and mass and the “space” they occupy is an illusion. So, it’ not very difficult for me to consider the possibility that the space that I believe is real space and the matter that I believe is real are also only illusions of some kind. The only thing that I find that I can’t truly doubt is that I am a conscious and thinking being. That is the only knowledge that I am really sure about.
Well, I can’t say a priori that that is an impossibility. But, on the other hand, Todd, it seems to me that you have already made an a priori commitment. You have already decided the outcome before any real experimental work has been started of any viable theory has been proposed. How would you know that? Is your real name Todd Nostradamus? I may be a theist but I’m also a skeptic and somewhat of an agnostic. Build me a computer that is capable of self conscious thought and awareness, I’ll be more than happy to accept your belief that consciousness can be reduced to some kind of physical process. However, I still would not be ready to accept that consciousness or self consciousness could have evolved by an unguided, undirected process. How would you prove that?
Ironically, you’re the one that is smuggling faith into science.
This a tired old canard. I don’t think that way. Does nullasalus? Bradford? Joy? Who thinks that way? Provide the quotes please.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 13, 2009 @ 12:01 am
January 13th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Zachriel wrote:
I mentioned to you under what circumstances I was told it was creationism. It has been people like the Thumbers, Darwin Central, etc., that told me stuff like that. It's people like you who educate them. Either you are doing a poor job in educating them (these are the ones rejecting the spooky sky fairy wizard stuff, remember, so they are obviously well educated), or the stuff being taught is incoherent all the way up.
Considering the counterexample they usually give me, the one where microbes eat some sort of nylon that didn't even exist until the early 20th Century, I'd say it was the latter. To wit:
Selection pressure doesn't cause alleles/mutations because they are already present, except when they couldn't possibly be, at which time selection pressure does cause alleles/mutations. IOW, whatever we observe, that's what happened, and evolutiondidit.
Fitness cost = the change is somewhat deleterious to the organism. IOW, the organism is sick or damaged. So basically an organism with an inherited disease is proof of Darwinian evolution, as is a strapping healthy organism.
The sicker an organism gets, the more likely it is to help form a new species. This is great stuff, I'm learning a lot!
Now now, don't evade with vaguaries. I gave you a specific example. What you gave me back is in essence no prediction. "Depends" is not a scientific answer, that's something I expect from one of those biblethumping hillbillies when you ask them about their sky Santa allowing evil to happen.
Roughly how many generations will it take the microorganism to revert back to an equilibrium state like it was before it was exposed to penicillin (which is a strange proof of Darwinism – changing into a new species by not really changing), given that everything is set up with the exact same parameters of the Legerberg experiment? And roughly what percentage of the organisms will still have the resistance mutation, if any?
Comment by angryoldfatman — January 13, 2009 @ 12:05 am
January 13th, 2009 at 1:36 am
JAD:
I also believe that consciousness is real, but this fact doesn't convince me that it is supernatural. Personally I suspect what we perceive as consciousness is an emotion; its just what it feels like to have a human brain. If that's true than consciousness is much like love or fear or desire or envy. I can't weight them or measure their length yet I accept these things are all real, but we don't fully know how (or even if) they are represented by matter and energy.
…? Saying consciousness might be reducible to natural causes is an a priori commitment? Whatever.
This is just my opinion, but I expect this to happen within my lifetime. I admit progress has been slow and the 70's computer science dream of AI largely failed, but progress still continues to be made. The first question is whether consciousness is a purely algorithmic problem or whether its a hardware problem. I lean towards algorithmic but have no strong convictions in that regard.
Careful, that sounds a lot like one of those a priori commitments your were just trying to chastise me about.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 13, 2009 @ 1:36 am
January 13th, 2009 at 9:01 am
You mentioned, but didn't elaborate. If you provide a link, I'll take a look.
You appear confused. In the Lederberg Experiment, the bacteria are grown from a single strain, possibly a single organism. That makes them clones—except for the occasional mutant. Some of these mutants will be resistant to antibiotics. This occurs whether or not there are antibiotics in the environment. If there are antibiotics in the environment, then these occasional mutants are selected and become predominant.
The mutation for nylonase has probably occurred countless times over millions of years. But only when these mutants found themselves in a conducive environment were they selected, becoming the predominant population in a vat of industrial waste.
We directly observe evolution. It doesn't go away because you don't like it.
Of course it is.
It depends. Here's an example with Strep.
Haenni & Moreillon, Fitness Cost and Impaired Survival in Penicillin-Resistant Streptococcus, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 2007.
But as I said, erratic overuse of antibiotics has led to compensatory evolution.
Andersson, Persistence of antibiotic resistant bacteria, Current Opinion in Microbiology 2003.
Comment by Zachriel — January 13, 2009 @ 9:01 am
January 13th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
We're talking about the definition you presented.
Having "positively demonstrated" no path, you (according to your logic) have demonstrated telic forces directly. When you turn around and call it "IC", you are just trying to prop up the icon and pretending you're actually using it for something.
I have no doubt you'd jump to all kinds of unsupportable conclusions.
Naturally I don't care what you speculate about. I just want you to be clear that as soon as you said, "What beings…", you crossed the line from speculating about things we know about and what we don't know about them to introducing a specific possibility that has no supporting evidence. The next step most telic thinkers take is going from "perhaps there are beings" to "can't you see there must be beings?" As long as you don't do that and keep straight in your mind that your speculative beings are not even up to the level of an entirely new force of nature (since an entirely new force is necessary regardless of whether it is wielded by "beings" or not), I have no objection.
You might be halfway there. You did say "beings". Does that by any chance mean you recognize that said beings may be neither intelligent or purposeful?
Comment by don provan — January 13, 2009 @ 1:12 pm