Thought Food
by MikeGeneThere are a couple of things about the Monod quote* that caught me eye. First, I was struck by the similarities to ID101. I'll let readers see if they can spot any points of convergence.
Second, and more importantly, this sentence stands out:
Hence it is through reference to our own activity, conscious and projective, intentional and purposive-it is as makers of artifacts-that we judge of a given object's "naturalness" or "artificialness."
Maybe it is simply not possible to make such judgments without accessing this subjective element. After all, recognizing design may indeed be akin to recognizing another mind. For how do we recognize other minds if not by recognizing what they design?
*BTW, the quote is from the first three paragraphs of chapter 1.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Mike, that has been my point all along. The felt contrivance must be recognized as other, or it would not be called design. Now we are getting closer to Schelling's transcendental idealism, noting that otherness is felt as an opposition that takes flight. We then become curious and return to our prior flights. This is the same oscillation as doubt and promise.
Darwinists take flight, and ID advocates become curious of the prior flights found as design (including the flight of Darwinists).
We desire our own explanations presumably given to us by the blind watchmaker (or the said impartial scientist that only has his nose to what is "physical") as any agency beyond our own cannot be tolerated (we take flight). But for there to be the said explanation there must also be a contrivance that cries out for said explanation. And the contrivance can only be felt to come as the handiwork of an agency that is not our own, otherwise we feel no challenge to provide an explanation.
Comment by Stephen — May 21, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 am
As I mentioned on the other thread, the human mind tends to ascribe purpose even for those events for which we now have natural explanations. Once upon a time people believed they were being punished by drought or earthquake or disease, and that their fate was determined by the movements of the planets. Even today, people thank God for their good fortune.
What we are really considering is the process of categorization. We do that by comparing objects to known objects, by proposing and testing hypotheses, and by reconstructing the causal chain from artist to art to artifact.
Comment by Zachriel — May 22, 2008 @ 8:24 am
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 am
After all the self evident tension, Zachriel find himself agreeing with me!
Comment by Stephen — May 22, 2008 @ 10:48 am
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
That's pretty much always been my view on the issue. I wouldn't say anything is impossible, but in the entire history of humanity no one has figured out an objective way to identify design. I think the ID movement needs to focus on this problem within a more confined environment. If they truly cared about design detection and not pushing religion or proving god then my advice would be to start by proving that artifacts made by other animals are "intelligently designed." If you could, say, develop a methodology that could indicate a beaver damn is designed while also indicating that a driftwood dam isn't designed then you might have a methodology that could be meaningfully applied to other areas. Or perhaps a methodology that could distinguish arrow heads from triangular rocks. In trying to develop such a methodology I think it would become obvious that more information is needed than just what the artifact itself provides. For example, knowledge of beavers would seem to be required in order to identify a beaver dam as a designed artifact.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 22, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Hi Todd,
Yes, that is one way to go about it. Yet as you noted, "in the entire history of humanity no one has figured out an objective way to identify design." This is true, as the scientific community itself has no such metric. You also note, "In trying to develop such a methodology I think it would become obvious that more information is needed than just what the artifact itself provides." Again, this appears true. So what does it all mean?
Maybe it is simply not possible to make such judgments without accessing this subjective element.
Thus, the attempt to come up with an objective way to identify design may simply be nothing more than a dream and any attempt to accomplish this is ultimately a step of faith.
There is, however, another way of approaching these questions. It begins by embracing the insight of Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod:
Instead of assuming it is possible to objectively identify design, let's instead assume that reference to our own activity, conscious and projective, intentional and purposive- as makers of artifacts-is necessary. And build from there.
Enter The Design Matrix.
Comment by MikeGene — May 22, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:57 am
Indeed. Yet this is nothing more than a caveat that I am aware of and take into full consideration.
So far, so good.
Is this reconstruction dependent on independent knowledge of the artist?
Comment by MikeGene — May 23, 2008 @ 10:57 am
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:41 am
One should also be aware of Edmund Husserl's phenomenology. In his book "Crisis," Husserl does a very good job presenting transcendental subjectivity. In deep reality there is no said objectivity as known by traditional science, as objectivity requires purification to remove all the subjective biases: it returns as transcendental subjectivity, after stripping away all the pre-given assumptions that are taken for granted.
Likewise, Darwin's theory requires its purification too. When Dawkins's claims that the watchmaker is blind he is pretending that natural selection is context independent. The problem is that natural selection is context dependent, it depends of the genetic sample space and the fitness landscape. Dawkins's must first disclose this bias to relgiousity, otherwise he is found concealing a design (or a contrivance), but Dawkins is blind to his own pregiven assumption. The particular contrivance cries out for its cultivation, except that only the ID advocates (and like-minded scientists) can feel it.
Comment by Stephen — May 23, 2008 @ 11:41 am
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
What scientist has ever claimed natural selection is NOT context dependent? How is context dependency a problem? You haven't demonstrated Dawkins' "bias to religiosity," you've simply laid out more personal affirmations of metaphysics. This sounds like more "one-hand-clapping" noise to me, at best you are attacking a straw man.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 23, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Todd, full disclosure is required! Dawkins is claiming that the watchmaker is blind, but this can only be said if natural selection is context independent. Otherwise, Dawkins can make no claims about an agency that is found coopting the context.
You feel something Tobb, but do you have the tolerance to articulate your feelings enough to bring on full disclosure?
Comment by Stephen — May 23, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Stephen:
Nobody has ever claimed that NS is context independent. It's too obvious that the effect of a trait on survival or other fitness components may depend on the context. Why are you so hung up on that metaphor? And why do you treat Dawkins as such an authority figure, as if his words are holy? He's a popularizer of science, that's all.
Comment by Raevmo — May 23, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Given that natural selection is context dependent, then it follows that the concept of the blind watchmaker requires full disclosure: Because one can only claim that the watchmaker is blind with a false leap to the conclusion that natural selection is context independent. Full disclosure is the best way to avoid straw men that come in the holy image of Dawkins.
Comment by Stephen — May 23, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Stephen,
I do not understand why you think this follows. The metaphor "blind watchmaker" means a process lacking foresight that otherwise mimics the results that a designer with foresight might create. It implies "no foresight" but not "no memory." Evolution has a huge memory, you could think of evolution as a process that accumulates context the longer it operates. Also "natural selection" is more a description of the result and not even a description of the process itself.
So you seem to be saying that unless you deny "context" in the operation of natural selection than you cannot deny the possibility that some agency (which I take to mean an intelligent designer) might have created or altered that context in order to design the outcome? This possibility is not denied by anyone, rather it is simply pointed out that this potential interference does not appear to be required in order to get the observed result. Perhaps I'm not understanding what exactly you mean by context?
I'm sorry, but if I fully disclose my feelings you might get thrown in jail for practicing psychiatry without a licence ;). I'm also concerned that you'll send me a bill for the therapy sessions you seem to be trying to provide. I'll gladly discuss any issue, but please keep your pop psychology to yourself.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 23, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Stephen:
The blind watchmaker is not a concept. It's a metaphor that sounds good and helps selling books. And it's apparently an effective meme, mostly used by ID proponents trying to discredit evolutionary biology.
Since nobody is making that leap, what's the relevance of your complaint?
Comment by Raevmo — May 23, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Once again I do not understand why that follows. Nothing about the blind watchmaker requires the conclusion that natural selection is context independent. In fact the opposite seems true, natural selection completely depends on context. Perhaps you should define what you mean by "context" Otherwise I still do not understand your position.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 23, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Something is being felt, but oddly the articulations are not very clear. Full disclosure would otherwise be such an easy thing to declare. But there remains a self evident clinging to contrived meanings that find themselves intelligently designed. Its only the tension that remains.
Comment by Stephen — May 23, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Stephen, honestly your posts remind me of my experiments with Yahoo's Babel Fish, when I tried to have Mandarin text translated into English.
Comment by hrun — May 23, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
hrun, Husserl believed that historical reactivation is needed to reconnect with ontic meaning. You can read about both Husserl and Schelling directly, you don't need my interpretation of these great thinkers. I only note that Schelling was one of the first evolutionists. And if you can merely tolerate my thinking, then you might be able to understand my Amazon book reviews; and two books on the list relate directly to Husserl and Schelling, so you might want to go there first. But I will simply agree with Husserl, there must be a reactivation; there must be full disclosure behind the heat generated by our contrived meanings. And so full disclosure is essential to find ontic meaning in the confusion presented by heated contrivances.
Comment by Stephen — May 23, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
May 24th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Don't despair. Evolutionary science to the rescue! Seems we don't have to rely on our "subjective" evaluations. Ironically, methods developed over the last 75 years by evolutionary biologists seem to work just as effectively in "detecting design."
http://www.theburkelab.org/rep...
Comment by Rock — May 24, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
May 25th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Can we create a computer program that perfectly identifies design? No. We can't even create a computer program that recognizes objects of a general sort in a reliable way. (The best we have can recognize very specific objects like faces or tennis balls 95% of the time)
But say you built a detector to detect design. And you turned it on, and the 'DESIGNED' indicator lights up. And you point it at something else, and the light is on. And you point it every direction, at the ground, at the sky, and the little LED just won't go off. It stays always lit, all the time.
Aha! you say. This just proves that everything in the universe is designed. Good job. And your friend comes over and says, well, how do you know it's working correctly? How do you know there's not a short or some hidden error? Show me that when you point it at an undesigned thing the light turns off. What do you do?
Comment by steve — May 25, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
May 25th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I don't think it's possible or useful to try to prove generic design. Whenever we want to understand important outcomes that were intentionally produced, we always have to build up a model with some details, we never settle with recognizing that there was design. We want to know that it was the Rosenbergs with a dead drop behind a mailbox at the behest of the Soviets, we don't just try to prove that Spy occured and settle with that. We don't just say that Murder occured, we figure out that the husband did it for the insurance money and transported the body in a boat. In all these kind of designed events work is done to build up a model that has details. If ID wants to take a shot at explaining biology it needs to do the same. Tell us whodunit, and how, and in what order, and etc. Imagine a detective who said I'm going to prove this was murder, but I refuse to specify anything about who it was, or how it was done, or when it occurred, or for what reason. I think that the reason the creationism journal has published 7 issues since Kitzmiller v Dover
http://creationontheweb.com/co...
and the ID journal has published 0
http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php
is because the ID refusal to specify anything about the designer makes it impossible to create much of a model.
Comment by steve — May 25, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
To design is to objectify the subjective. Another name for design is "science."
Comment by Rock — May 27, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
THE notions we acquire of contrivance and design arise from comparing our observations on the works of other beings with the intentions of which we are conscious in our own undertakings.
- Charles Babbage
Comment by MikeGene — June 7, 2008 @ 1:49 pm