Understanding What Non-Telic Means
by BradfordIn his famous Natural Theology William Paley wrote:
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place. I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, namely, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive"”what we could not discover in the stone"”that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose…
Conventional wisdom would have you believe that Darwin's theory constituted a refutation of Paley. As the argument goes, Darwin demonstrated, by means of his natural selection concept, a process of nature which would account for the apparent design found in living organisms. Or as Richard Dawkins might put it, the blind watchmaker to whom design is attributed. The physical process cited as the one used by the blind watchmaker was a truncated one. It applies natural selection to already existing organisms. It tells us to watch for the numerous modifications the blind watchmaker made over time but to ignore the matter of how he secured the initial watch upon which subsequent modifications were made.
The Paley refutation notion, when combined with a colorful story involving one of history's greatest scientists (Pierre-Simon LaPlace) and one of its greatest conquerers (Napoleon Bonaparte), have led many along a meandering path that has confused those trodding it. Here is an account of the famous exchange:
LaPlace correctly pointed out that he did not need to assume the Creator within his hypothesis in order to demonstrate its predictive value. The incident is a source of delight to those attempting to advance the argument that materialism is completely comprehensive of the physical world. Explain hypotheses by means of physical phenomenon and argue that such phenomenon are non-telic. After all no less a luminary than LaPlace did the same right? Or did he? In the above exchange LaPlace does not delineate a causal trail of events demonstrating whether or not the Creator was a causal factor generating natural forces that are assumed in hypotheses. His focus was local and concerned the specific assumptions related to his hypothesis. LaPlace was no fool and knew the difference between no need to assume the Creator for a hypothesis in question and a disavowel of the Creator. Whatever his private thoughts he knew the emperor was no fool either.
Assumptions that forces of nature are non-purposeful for the purpose of testing a hypothesis says nothing of the nature of the cause which gave rise to them. Not needing to consider the matter of purpose in predicting that gravity will act to bring a projectile to the ground is not to be conflated with an assumption that the causal genesis of the universe and the physical laws by which it operates are non-telic. The LaPlace-Bonaparte exchange never addressed that issue. A non-telic assumption is philosophical at its core. That it is consistent with means of assessing physical laws says more about empirical methodology than it does about the genesis of those laws. Science is ultimately a poor arbiter of whether nature itself is telic or non-telic. Science operates best when explaining the trees we can see and measure. We are less adept at describing the forest we dimly see.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Bradford
Excellent post.
As you rightly point out; it does not matter. The science is the same either way, and it is the science that should be taught in science class, it is the science that should be in the textbooks, it is the science that should be promoted as science. Science is neutral on this issue.
Exactly right, as theistic evolutionist have been saying all along.
Again, I agree.
Right again. But you try telling that to the IDists!
Comment by The Pixie — March 5, 2008 @ 9:36 am
March 5th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Ah but you have an example of intelligent design before you. You do not need to know whether underlying laws of physics, describing forces that enable the compression of letter keys, are telic or non-telic. The design is not discerned by a contravention of natural laws but is seen in a pattern consistent with natural laws.
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2008 @ 9:45 am
March 5th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I thought that natural laws were incapable of creating information? Isn't that the gist of Dembski's hypothesis about design detection?
Comment by hrun — March 5, 2008 @ 10:00 am
March 5th, 2008 at 10:51 am
What created the information laden in this message?
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2008 @ 10:51 am
March 5th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Maybe I did? Maybe the information was contained within me and I converted it? Maybe the information was contained within the universe? Who knows?
But, since we are asking questions: Can information be created by natural laws?
Comment by hrun — March 5, 2008 @ 11:01 am
March 5th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Natural laws are descriptive devices. Too vague to be fingered as causative. You cite the arsonist, not laws, to explain the cause of a forest fire. When encountering information something more specific than natural laws is needed to explain its creation.
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2008 @ 11:35 am
March 5th, 2008 at 11:48 am
For the record, I agree with everything Mike said in that post. It matches perfectly with previous arguments I have made. So we all agree that teleology is a possibility and we all agree that nothing about science precludes the telic explanation for being true.
I have started reading Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence by Dembski in hopes of understanding what CJYman is talking about in the other thread, I particularly enjoyed the opening quote from Bertrand Russell:
Dembski seems to understand that this is the problem facing ID theories. Even if they turn out to be true it might be an error to believe in them. The idea of forming credibility is what Inductive Gradualism and the Explanatory Continuum are all about. The critics claim that in the face of other explanations there simply isn't enough credibility to the ID theories. This is not a claim that they are false.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 5, 2008 @ 11:48 am
March 5th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Really? Again, I think that Dembski's explanatory filter is based on exactly that: fingering natural laws as (not) causative:
"At the first stage, the filter determines whether a law can explain the thing in question."
So, according to Dembski, design is seen in a pattern INCONSISTENT with natural laws. Is he wrong?
Comment by hrun — March 5, 2008 @ 11:50 am
March 5th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I hope you recognize that this is a statement of belief. Its a valid opinion, but its just an opinion. Obviously the naturalists vehemently disagree on this basic point.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 5, 2008 @ 11:51 am
March 5th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
It is something with which LaPlace would have concurred. Stating natural laws dunnit has explanatory power but predicts nothing. LaPlace's hypotheses had meat to them.
Incidentally, this thread is not a referendum on Dembski's theories. Any comments need to address a point made or the individual making them. Dembski has not commented so far.:grin:
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Well, if that is the case, can you answer the question on whether or not natural laws can create information or not? Are you agnostic on this issue?
It seems like information there is an adherence among ID proponents to the idea that natural laws or chance are incapable of creating information, yet that intelligence does create information. The only logical conclusion is that intelligent design (and thus the creation of information) is INCONSISTENT with natural laws. I was merely wondering if you agree with this or if you think that natural laws actually CAN create information.
Comment by hrun — March 5, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
And
So science cannot determine if something is telic or not, except when it can. Have I got that right? Perhaps the second statement is not about science.
It is fair to say that the nature laws do not explain where the laws themselves come from, from natural laws do explain why earthquakers happen, why hot coffee cools and lots more besides.
Merely saying "natural laws dunnit" is as vacuous as saying "god dunnit" or "the intelligent designer dunnit". Not science at all, and actually has zero explanatory power. What LaPlace and countless other scientists have done is to study those natural laws so we have a huge body of knowledge about how they work. Now they have great explanatory power and great predictive power.
Comment by The Pixie — March 5, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
hrun:
Information has a quality that is not reducible to the underlying physical phenomenon associated with it. The information found in a newspaper is transmitted with material i.e. ink. The nature of ink is not to be confused with the essence of the information it conveys. Natural laws describe how ink is chemically created but intelligence assigns the linkage of symbols to concepts and the capacity of perception.
Nature is a tool providing the physical means of creating and transmitting information. Codons are symbolic. Yet their very symbolism acquires significance not only with the existence and availability of amino acids but with their formation in specified patterns. Irreducible complexity at a very basic level. We're perceiving intellect and attempting to deny it by describing it in purely physical terms when we assign chance and unspecified forces of nature as causes.
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Science does not tell us if the strong force is telic or non-telic. We do not need to know. Patterns are used consistently to make inferences. It is patterns, not the underlying forces of nature by which patterns can be described, that reveal causation.
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Bradford, please bear with me here, but I still can't discern from your post if you think that natural laws can create information or not. It seems like a simple question with a fairly straightforward answer.
From what you wrote, I suspect that you do NOT believe that natural laws are capable of creating information. If that is indeed the case, then shouldn't (contrary to your earlier statement) design be seen in a pattern INCONSISTENT with natural laws?
Comment by hrun — March 5, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Let's look at the pattern before us. I think it is consistent with natural laws. A computer engineer could better describe the physical means by which the patterns are generated to the screen but there is nothing about the process that is inconsistent with natural laws. We know though that a toddler or pet compressing keys would not send letters to a screen in a pattern that conveys an intelligible messsage. The design is consistent with cognition, intent and knowledge of an underlying protocol.
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Sadly, you just seem to be unwilling to answer the simple, but central, underlying question of this exchange: Are natural laws capable of creating information? Why does this appear to be such a difficult question to answer.
If you are unwilling to answer the question, why don't you just say so. I will stop questioning and not waste my time anymore. And if you are willing to answer the question, why don't you just answer it?
I know that physical processes underlie how characters get transmitted from fingers to keyboards to the internet to other computers and to the monitors. I was under the assumption that you would not call any of that stuff inconsistent with natural laws.
Yes, I know. The toddler/pet did not create information. But you do. So the question remains, are natural laws capable of creating information, or does the information-creation that apparently occurs in our brains lie outside of natural laws?
Comment by hrun — March 5, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
A creative act from a human brain is tracable to natural laws. Yes. Your point is that human brains function according to natural laws so everything is attributable to natural laws? What larger point does this make?
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
It is just surprising, that's all. It is merely a point of fundamental disagreement with Dembski's method of design detection that rules out natural causes and chance to detect design.
I understand that every ID supporter might be different and have different views on design detection, but since concepts utilized by Dembski (CSI, UPB, …) are often brought up in the comments section of this blog, I figured it might be useful to point out this fundamental discrepancy.
Of course this also makes difficult to uphold the whole idea of a second law of information. It shows that natural laws indeed CAN create information so you also fundamentally disagree with the part of the ID camp that uses this to make any kind of inferences.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not attempting to criticize you for this view. Indeed it is a view that is very close to my own, so I'm glad that at least in certain specific aspects of this whole debate, we can find very solid common ground.
Comment by hrun — March 5, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Is your point that we can only discern design if the designer is natural (as opposed to supernatural, i.e., beyond the universe)?
You seem to be dividing all science into forces and patterns, and saying we cannot determine if a force is telic, but we can with a pattern. What about particles? What about wavefunctions, what about the gas laws, relativity and the laws of thermodynamics? I ask because it sounds suspiciously like you want to have your cake and eat it. We cannot determine teleology in all these thing, so you decide that science cannot tell one way or another, rather than admit that maybe they are not telic. However, you believe we can discern teleology in patterns, so, because it suits your argument, you declare that we can discern teleology there. It is like declaring all swans are white, because some swans are white, and the other ones we can ignore because they are not white.
Comment by The Pixie — March 5, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
What are "Natural Laws" but descriptions of regularities observed in nature? Is design a regularity, or something exceptional to the regular habits of nature? If you mix organic chemicals in a vial and shake them up, do they normally or regularly assemble themselves into life forms? If you grind up beef in the blender, will it turn into a cow or will it just be ground beef in a blender?
That life forms CAN exist is obviously not a violation of natural laws - even the negative entropy is only temporary. It eventually turns back into mere material pieces-parts to be recycled.
Life does not appear to be a law of nature, physical or chemical. Thus law cannot explain it. Law can account for certain behaviors of matter, and this explains certain behaviors of matter. That's "information" the system we call life uses, but it's not the information that creates, sustains or explains life itself. Or any of its designs.*
*Possibly applicable in how big a critter can get before the weight of its own body in this gravity well makes it impossible to live.
Comment by Joy — March 5, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
The crux of any information transfer is that it changes the state of the receiver to conform to some state of the sender. (Any given transfer will yield one or more levels of state change in the receiver.) Whether or not nature can do this without intelligent agency as the first cause depends on the nature of nature.
If nature is deterministic then all states of spacetime were determined when the nature of the system and it's initial conditions were fixed. (The nature of the cause of spacetime is left unspecified, but would necessarily be responsible for all informational relationships within spacetime.)
If nature is non-deterministic then it is conceivable that sender/receiver relationship might emerge from the dynamic relationships of the system as we perceive it. (The nature of the dynamic non-determinism is left unspecified and is at least partially responsible for all informational relationships with in the system.)
Either way, it would appear there are limits to our grasp…. unless human consciousness transcends spacetime.
Can natural law create information? It depends on whether or not natural law (that which nature regularly does) is responsible for what reality is.
Interesting thread.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 5, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Maybe they are telic and maybe not. It is a philosophical choice on which scientific progress is not dependent.
We discern teleology in patterns because it has been done.
More like knowing the difference between a philosophical and an empirical view.
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I've read enough of Dembski to know his position is that systems characterized by what he labeled CSI are not generated in the absence of intelligence. IOW, he would rule out the possibility that blind forces of nature would generate a functional genome.
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Sure. But Dembski SPECIFICALLY rules out chance and natural law, which in his opinion only leaves intelligence. You obviously disagree with his method and base your 'design detection' on something completely different.
Just to highlight: Dembski and apparently Joy as well think that designed patterns are inconsistent with natural law and can thus be detected. You seem to think that design is consistent with natural law and can be detected with some other methodology.
Comment by hrun — March 5, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I've read enough of Dembski to know his position is that systems characterized by what he labeled CSI are not generated in the absence of intelligence. IOW, he would rule out the possibility that blind forces of nature would generate a functional genome.
I think the central issue here is the one which is usually overlooked by both sides of these debates: As far as we know, there is no difference between "intelligent cause" and every other type of cause.
We see living things as distinct from non-living things (even though "life" is a notoriously difficult concept to pin down), but we have no evidential reason to believe that living things are animated by any special vital force. Instead, as far as we know, living things are just special configurations of the same sort of matter and energy as everything else. Likewise, the behaviors that living things exhibit are distinct from those of non-living things, but none of these behaviors transcend the same fundamental material causes at work in non-living processes (as far as we know).
So, as far as we know, all of the things that ID points out as the result of "intelligent cause" - including the words on this blog - are the result of the same fundamental material causes that underlie every other phenomenon. In other words, "intelligence" is not the opposite of "blind forces of nature" at all - it is instead the exact same natural forces that underlie all phenomena.
And nor is it different from what we mean by "life" - that difficult concept again. The only things we call intelligence are what living things do, and all living things (even plants) behave in some way that we call intelligent. As far as I know, there is no way to characterize what "intelligence" means in the context of ID that is any more specific or objective than simply saying "it is what living things do".
In the end, then, the central claim of ID appears to be that the complex form and function of living things must be the result of living things, which doesn't seem to be a very helpful thesis.
Comment by aiguy — March 5, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
I'll clarify what I mean by consistent with natural laws with reference to detection. I have books at home that are loaded with symbols. The symbols are evidence of intelligent design and no "unnatural" causes are evidenced in the design. Here's an instructive example. Assume, for the sake of argument, the truth of the example. God is said to have placed the Ten Commandments in stone tablets and given them to Moses. If Moses had descended from Mt. Sainai and placed the tablets aside for a moment while an onlooker examined them the onlooker would have reason to conclude the artifact was intelligently designed. Assume that God had used some supernatural means of carving the symbols into the stone.
What is the intelligent inference based on? The engraving process and the physical evidence for it? One certainly could make that case and the evidence might be extraordinary. However I would argue that the simplest and most immediate inference is the lettering itself. The symbolic pattern is straightforward evidence and not dependent on whether the engraving process was natural or supernatural.
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
aiguy:
This is a belief that one could pose as an operating assumption but the materialism underlying it is philosophical in nature. Maintaining the distinction between forces of nature and intelligent input is useful not simply as a matter of clarity with respect to causes and effects, but it offers, what would be an otherwise non-existent dimension, for assessing events prior to the advent of human intelligence in this universe.
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Bradford,
This is a belief that one could pose as an operating assumption but the materialism underlying it is philosophical in nature.
I absolutely agree - it is the mind/body problem. I believe that most formulations of ID - including Dembski's - are predicated upon one particular solution to that philosophical conundrum, which is that minds necessarily transcend natural, physical cause. For that reason, I don't consider that type of ID theory to be scientific - it is based on philosophical premises.
Maintaining the distinction between forces of nature and intelligent input is useful not simply as a matter of clarity with respect to causes and effects, but it offers, what would be an otherwise non-existent dimension, for assessing events prior to the advent of human intelligence in this universe.
I suppose it would, but I've never seen any sort of attempt to actually outline this particular distinction in a way that can be tied to our shared empirical experience. If ID does not rely on the metaphysical assumption that intelligence transcends natural law, then what in particular does distinguish intelligent cause from non-intelligent cause? If the answer is "intelligence can create CSI and non-intelligent cause cannot", then it would seem that ID's central claim is reduced to a tautology (CSI is created by that which can create CSI).
Comment by aiguy — March 5, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
One does not have to maintain that minds transcend natural causes to support duality. Data supporting a dual causal flow will do it. If thought can alter biochemistry you have a causal flow from mind to body.
Maintaining the distinction between forces of nature and intelligent input is useful not simply as a matter of clarity with respect to causes and effects, but it offers, what would be an otherwise non-existent dimension, for assessing events prior to the advent of human intelligence in this universe.
I provided an example in a prior comment which cited the clay tablets containing the Ten Commandments. Even if engravings were supernaturally formed the physical evidence of the act is not the best design inference. A design inference can be based on symbolism alone. No need to adjuducate the natural vs. unnatural issue.
The claim that CSI is not generated without intelligence is subject to falsification. The claim is also open to data that can be supportive as well.
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Bradford,
Whether or not thought is biochemistry is, as you say, a question that is philosophical in nature. Thus, a scientific theory must not rely on one particular answer to that question. But if the answer happens to be that thought is another name for particular biochemical activities (as most cognitive scientists believe), then saying "thought alters biochemistry" is another way of saying "biochemistry alters biochemistry", and you haven't yet provided a basis for this "duality" which is not rooted in metaphysics.
Right. The point here is what is meant by saying the tablets were "designed" by "intelligent cause". Letters like that are caused only by human beings, as far as I know, so if I saw those tablets, I would conclude that a human being made them. If somehow we ruled out humans as the cause, I wouldn't know what to think. But simply saying "intelligent cause" made them wouldn't add anything to my knowledge, since we still haven't distinguished intelligent from unintelligent cause.
Well, here is the crux of the issue. In order to evaluate the proposition "CSI is generated only by intelligence", the following must hold:
1) We must know what things contain CSI. Let us agree we can do this.
2) We must know what things are intelligent, i.e. we must have a test to decide if, for any X, X is intelligent or not.
3) We must, by observation, verify that each time we see CSI, it is created by something that qualifies as intelligent.
It is #2 that troubles me. What sort of test can we administer to decide if something is intelligent or not? Obviously, simply observing something generating CSI will not serve as a test, because the very question we are trying to answer is whether or not something not intelligent can still create CSI.
Comment by aiguy — March 5, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Symbols can be created by any beings possessing the capacity for abstract reasoning. The irony of the whole thing is that it takes a capacity for abstraction to recognize symbols and understand the representative nature of them. It also takes an ability to reason abstractly to rationalize that symbols are not what they appear to be and that an unintelligent causal process is a better explanation for a symbolic outcome.
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
One does not have to maintain that minds transcend natural causes to support duality. Data supporting a dual causal flow will do it. If thought can alter biochemistry you have a causal flow from mind to body.
I did not say that thought is biochemistry. That is essentially a materialist claim.
Claiming that thought is nothing more than biochemical reactions tells us nothing at all. At best it is reasoning by association. A occurs when B happens therfore A and B are the same.
I have not reduced thought to chemicals. If thoughts are nothing more than chemicals then there should never be an occurence when a change of thinking is not preceeded by a specified biochemical reaction. Supporting data for that is woefully inadaquate.
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
kornbelt888:
Hi, kornbelt. I agree this could be an interesting thread, but I don't think the critics have thought it through very well. Life is demonstrably, 100% a temporary phenomenon that occurs - far as we know - only here in the whole of the universe.
Now, it might occur elsewhere, and we're actively seeking it. But this far nada, even in our own neighborhood. If it were a "law of nature" that matter live, matter would be self-congregating into life forms all around us all the time. That is NEVER observed to happen. The matter is just matter. It is what it is, nothing more.
Life can only 'bend' the laws for the duration of its time in vital expression. Here, not anywhere else we know of. After that everything goes back to raw materials - what it is, nothing more. If matter were ordered into life "by law," it would be a lot more difficult to kill.
Comment by Joy — March 5, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
hrun:
Joy knows lots of chaotic conglomerations of matter spontaneously gain a certain order upon interaction with forces, fields and other forms. But they're not alive, any more than a snowflake is alive. Joy just NEVER sees raw matter - even raw matter that was just a moment ago alive - suddenly spring to life. Same elements, same arrangement, same everything (except dynamic state). Life doesn't come from not-life, and the life that comes from life is is not dead at any point along the way.
Even when we design genomes and make artificial life, it'll have to put it into something that's already alive in order to be alive. THAT is the state of what we know and can do, and think we might be able to do in the near future. "I can imagine a way…" isn't evidence and it's not science.
Show me raw matter self-organizing into something alive. If you can't do that, I have no particular reason to believe that life spontaneously generates from raw matter no matter how you mix it up. And every reason to believe spontaneous generation is contrary to the "laws of nature" (governing matter and energy) because it is NEVER seen occurring.
Comment by Joy — March 5, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Bradford,
I think this is saying the same thing in a different way. If an entity was given instructions encoded in some code (morse code, English, etc) and that entity was able to recognize the code and carry out the instructions, this would suggest to you that this entity was capable of abstract reasoning, right? However, every cell in every living thing is capable of doing just that, yet we don't usually talk of cells possessing the capacity for abstract reasoning. Why not? Because cells don't really seem very intelligent, I suppose. So I don't think this can serve as the test that you need to identify "intelligence" apart from its ability to create CSI.
I understand this; I am not making this claim (although most cognitive scientists do believe it). What I am saying here is not that materialism is necessarily true; rather, I am pointing out that it is not necessarily false. If it is not false, then saying "thought changes biochemistry" means "biochemistry changes biochemistry", which is hardly what ID needs to distinguish intelligent thought from mere physical causes. All I'm pointing out is that ID requires that materialism be false, which is - as you say - a philosophical matter.
Let's just agree for argument's sake that cognitive scientists have no evidence that biochemical reactions are all that thought is. We must also agree that we have no evidence that anything else is involved either, right? You still haven't successfully distinguished intelligent cause from all other cause unless you assume a priori that materialism is false.
Joy,
Yes, I think this is exactly the rule that the evidence allows us to infer.
Unfortunately, that leaves us with a difficult task trying to characterize what might have gotten the whole thing started.
One solution would be to imagine that living things have existed forever; the other option would be to guess that some living thing(s) somehow came into existence in violation of this rule we've inferred. It would seem that these speculations about how abiogenesis might have happened represent the latter approach, and there's really not too much to say about the former. In any event, concepts like "teleology" or "mind" or "spirit" or "mother nature" don't seem at all helpful, since none of these get us any closer at all to knowing what happened.
Comment by aiguy — March 5, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 12:06 am
So you think we have explored a large enough percentage of the universe to make that claim with such certainty? You might as well search one square inch of the moon for a grilled cheese sandwich and when you fail to find one conclude that grilled cheese sandwiches don't exist. You have no warrant to claim life only exists on Earth even if it turns out to be true.
The claim that non-life can become life through natural causes is NOT a claim that this can happen under ALL conditions. You might as well say that if static charges can form lighting then lightning would be constantly striking the ground all around us. Just cause something happens under certain conditions does not mean we should expect it to happen constantly.
So you are claiming that its invalid to theorize beyond our current ability to experiment on those theories? That just because we can't currently do a thing we should consider that thing impossible? By that logic on December 16th, 1903, human flight was impossible and yet somehow the next day it was acheived. Making a hypothesis about the unknown and then testing it is exactly what science should do, and that includes experiments to create life from non-life. We might be decades away from that level of technology and understanding but its silly to imply that alone means its impossible.
Yet another demand for epistemological evidence. Can you show me any epistemological evidence of a designer? Of course not, yet you seem to believe in that.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 6, 2008 @ 12:06 am
March 6th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Right. So it's just as I said: While Dembski says that design is detected by things INCOSISTENT with natural law, you use a different methodology. You detect design by the use of symbolisms. It seems to me a rather limited fashion (i.e. lots of false negatives), but that's a completely different question. At least your method can be applied, while Dembski's has (at least to my knowledge) not ever been actually applied to anything.
Comment by hrun — March 6, 2008 @ 12:13 am
March 6th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Yes, Bradford might not be able to successfully distinguish intelligent causes from other causes unless he assumes a priori that materialism is false. Likewise the critic cannot successfully negate dual causes unless he assumes a priori that materialism is true. Many people contributing to this blog have admitted that when it come to first causes we are dealing with the philosophic rather than the scientific. Philosophy is mind work and is thus subjective. The point of studying nature is not to find definitive answers to origins but to inform our philosophy. In this way we might be directed to a more correct philosophy (I don't hold to the post-modern notion that all philosophies are equally valid).
We observe a universe where life exists and develops based on specified information. Does this observation favor a philosophy that embraces intelligent causes or one that embraces non-intelligent natural causes?
Comment by 0112358 — March 6, 2008 @ 1:33 am
March 6th, 2008 at 2:33 am
0112358,
We agree that these discussions about intelligent design are philosophical rather than scientific, and also that scientific results can inform our philosophy. The results that I think are relevant to your question are those from the cognitive sciences, where we study intelligence causes.
Since we've dropped the effort to provide an operationalized definition of intelligence, let's agree that what we're really talking about is conscious mind. While science can't tell us if our brains are sufficient for generating (or are identical to) our minds, there is good reason to believe that they are necessary for them. Our conscious experience is critically dependent on well-functioning neural mechanisms, and can be altered drastically by any physical changes to our brains. So I think there is also good reason to assume that anything which lacks brain structures similar to ours will not have conscious experiences similar to ours. This is why I don't think there's much of a philosophical (or theological) argument for attributing life to a mind that is like our minds. If the cause of life was intelligent, it was a completely different sort of mind than ours, and to think of it in anthropomorphic terms is certainly wrong. So we shouldn't use the same word ("intelligent" or "mind") to describe both human mentality and this whatever it was that designed life. As for the word "telic", I have no problem with that except that most people associate it with consciousness anyway.
Comment by aiguy — March 6, 2008 @ 2:33 am
March 6th, 2008 at 5:15 am
Joy:
If it was just a moment ago alive, and not now, then the matter is in a different state now. Not same arrangement, not same everything. Oh, except "dynamic state". Which means what exactly?
Are the bacteria that I store at -180 Celsius dead or alive while they are in the freezer?
Comment by Raevmo — March 6, 2008 @ 5:15 am
March 6th, 2008 at 9:52 am
A disruption of energy flow. While alive the organism's ATP and other such biomolecules were utilized to drive unfavorable reactions which in turn enabled critical functions like synthesis and movement against concentration gradients. Upon dying the organism attains an energy equilibrium with its environment. No longer does energy flow so as to maintain the order and stability found in living cells. In thermodynamic terms the cells now move toward increasing entropy.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 9:52 am
March 6th, 2008 at 10:22 am
You make it sound as if life defies thermodynamics. I thought that ALL reactions that occur within a living organism are actually not 'unfavorable reactions'. If they were, they would probably not occur.
Comment by hrun — March 6, 2008 @ 10:22 am
March 6th, 2008 at 10:34 am
To the contrary, I'm indicating what the differences are between a living organism and a lifeless corpse in terms of energy flow.
Assuming the existence of some intricate biosynthesis mechanisms resulting in ATP, NADPH etc. and some existing signaling networks the needed reactions occur. Of course a transition from an inanimate environment to a cellular one, equipped with those and other minimal functions, in the absence of a guiding intelligence, is viewed as problematic by most of us IDists.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 10:34 am
March 6th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Bradford:
It's not that simple of course. Equilibrium is attained (long) after death. When you die, not all of your cells are suddenly dead. Which is why organ transplants are possible.
Comment by Raevmo — March 6, 2008 @ 10:59 am
March 6th, 2008 at 11:06 am
aiguy:
As long as I can distinguish outcomes based on the logic of Nature distinguishing predictions are possible. We know that intelligent beings, capable of abstract thinking, exist in at least one part of this universe and can use our analytical skills to derive assumptions on which predictive outcomes are based. I do not have to assume anything about materialism to do this.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 11:06 am
March 6th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Raevmo:
The point is death marks a distinguishing event in a transition timeline. The process toward equilibrium is not instantaneously attained of course but the direction is clear.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 11:09 am
March 6th, 2008 at 11:11 am
There's plenty of energy in a lifeless corpse. A typical energy flow is from sunlight to plants to herbivores to carnivores to worms to bacteria. Each step involves significant waste heat. This is all pretty ordinary from the vantage of Thermodynamics. Life is just a temporal swirl as energy dissipates into the void.
Comment by Zachriel — March 6, 2008 @ 11:11 am
March 6th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Zachriel:
Of course there is energy in a corpse. There is energy in a stone too.:mrgreen:
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 11:16 am
March 6th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Bradford:
Oh yeah? What if you are eaten by an utterly complex super-intelligent being, whose bodily composition is hugely further away from equilibrium than yours?
Comment by Raevmo — March 6, 2008 @ 11:17 am
March 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Granted, the First Cause that is responsible for what we study through science is a completely different sort of mind than our own. Still, with our limited minds, we need to have ways of expressing ideas. I have no problem using the word intelligence in these discussions. Both a hacksaw and a metal press can produce identical objects. We routinely use the word "cut" for the work done by both of these causes. You could argue that the metal press is a completely different sort of tool than the hacksaw, so to say that the metal press "cut" out the shape is wrong. Use of the word "cut", however, does allow us to communicate valid ideas.
Comment by 0112358 — March 6, 2008 @ 11:18 am
March 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 11:18 am
March 6th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Todd:
I'd ask where you got this weird of a question from what I actually said, but since there was no certainty expressed, it's just misrepresentation. Why do you feel that is necessary?
The actual FACT of the situation is that we have no evidence that life exists elsewhere in the universe. Wishful thinking doesn't cut it, and neither do Hollywood movies or sci-fi novels. So while I'd like to meet ET someday just like most other people, I have no scientific warrant to claim ET exists and neither do you.
There are an average of 100 cloud to ground lightning strikes per second on this planet. 6000 strikes per minute, 360,000 strikes per hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. That fairly qualifies as 'constant' - all around us all the time.
You are the one who "vehemently" disagreed with Brandford's observation that natural laws are descriptive devices, too vague to be considered causal. I took that to mean that you believe "natural law" causes matter to self-organize into living organisms. Is that impression wrong? If so, please clarify why you vehemently disagree with the observation that laws are descriptive rather than causal.
And while I never said we should expect matter to spontaneously generate life "constantly," a single example would suffice to demonstrate that it CAN happen. No such example exists that we know of, anywhere under any conditions. Simply asserting your belief-in spontaneous generation cannot be expected to overrule 15 decades' worth of scientific observation and testing that soundly falsifies the notion.
I didn't say "impossible," I said we NEVER see life spontaneously poofing into existence from raw matter. You are certainly free to believe you can make it happen by intelligent design, but even if you were to succeed it wouldn't demonstrate that life spontaneously poofs into existence from raw matter anywhere in the natural world under any conditions.
Belief-in spontaneous generation is a lot like belief-in a flat earth or a geocentric solar system long, long after science demonstrated semi-conclusively that the planet is spheroid and goes around the sun. Scientists are as free to speculate as anybody else. But unless there is some shred of evidence that what they're speculating about is possible given what we know of the "laws of nature," those speculations do not rise to the level of science.
IOW, a scientist's metaphysical speculations are not automatically "scientific" just because he's got sheepskins. Physics and metaphysics are not the same thing.
Comment by Joy — March 6, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I like that post, except that I would not say that the designing intelligence was completely different. One, it would likely possess consciousness, and at least be as conscious as we are; and two, whatever modes of thought processes it has, they would certainly be at least as complex as ours. Likely it's going to have more, not less, of whatever faculties we possess, and possibly some we do not possess. But I don't think the kind of intellectual capability is of a different kind, rather a different degree. I don't think it's out of the question that humanity will one day possess the understanding it takes to engineer life.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 6, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
aiguy:
If life spontaneously poofed into existence from inert matter, it would indicate that the "laws of nature" have either changed over time or are not actually "laws." Both of those possibilities do exist and are not entirely unreasonable. Many physicists claim the speed of light - or another value of alpha - has changed over time. The idea that "laws" are simply regular habits that can be violated may explain quite a bit that science normally ignores as "impossible."
But in the shadow of any uber-theoretic that insists "laws of nature" are causal rather than merely descriptive, no changes or violations are allowed. Our current governing uber-theoretic could indeed be totally off-the-wall wrong. I've no problem entertaining that possibility.
Comment by Joy — March 6, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Bradford,
I think you are claiming to be able to make such a distinction, but it's not clear how you believe you can do it. As I indicated, a test for "abstract reasoning" would indicate that the machinery inside a cell - that can read, understand, and implement instructions encoded symbolically in DNA - is intelligent. Is it your belief that all cells are intelligent?
If not, tell us an actual operational criterion that tells us what is intelligent. Otherwise, we can't test your claim that only intelligent entities can generate CSI.
0112358,
We use "burn" to mean chemical oxidation and nuclear fission/fusion, too. But when we thought the Sun's radiation came from the former, we were perplexed by the fact that the Sun didn't quickly burn out of fuel, and people used this misunderstanding to argue that the Earth was very young. So these equivocations can lead to false deductions, and I think it's better to clarify the semantics when we know there is reason to believe different types of causes are at work, and that the equivocation could make for significant confusion. In this politically-charged debate, suggesting that an "intelligent" designer/creator is supported by empirical evidence is a very good example of an equivocation with a very strong potential for causing a lot of confusion. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that would suggest that the cause of life had any idea about what it was doing, or that it was consciously aware of anything at all.
kornbelt888,
I would say that it is very doubtful that whatever caused life to exist was conscious. As far as we know, the only things that can be conscious are living things with well-functioning brains. Maybe only human brains - we're not real sure about what other animals experience conscious awareness. If we can't decide if a fish is conscious (nobody knows), it's very hard to see how we could attribute consciousness to some completely unknown non-biological entity or process. Important to this discussion are the results of cognitive science that suggest consciousness is not causal in our voluntary behaviors (e.g. Libet, Wegner, etc). I'm not arguing that it is impossible for anything else to be conscious, but I think it's clear we have no basis to assume that other things could be, especially when they don't have a brain.
That doesn't mean that what engineered life originally was anything like a human. After a few thousand years we figured out how to create high-voltage arcs… but that doesn't mean that the thundercloud that makes them is consciously thinking about it.
Comment by aiguy — March 6, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
As long as I can distinguish outcomes based on the logic of Nature distinguishing predictions are possible. We know that intelligent beings, capable of abstract thinking, exist in at least one part of this universe and can use our analytical skills to derive assumptions on which predictive outcomes are based. I do not have to assume anything about materialism to do this.
I don't have patience for this stuff. If you can't figure out that the products of Newton's ponderings were the result of a capacity for abstract reasoning then I can't help you. If you wish to discuss grey areas that's fine. But in principle distinguishing between intelligently caused outcomes and those attributed to blind forces of Nature is possible.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Joy:
That's right. You can falsify abiogenesis in your own kitchen, following Pasteur's recipe. Boil some meat broth in a flask, seal the flask airtight, and if life hasn't emerged after a few days - well, that settles it. It's mind-boggling that all those expert OOL researchers can't see what Joy, who has no relevant expertise, can so clearly see. The researchers must be wrong - what other options are there?
Comment by Raevmo — March 6, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Bradford,
I understand that it is uncomfortable to re-examine deeply held intuitions, but a teleological theory of life origins requires that we think in unconventional ways. It is most clearly a grey area to imagine how similar the cause of life was to a human mind! Obviously we know Newton was "intelligent" and capable of "abstract reasoning" and "conscious" and "emotional" and all sorts of other things. But which of these characteristics are we justified in attributing to the cause of life? That is the question, and it is not a simple one.
If you want to take a theological stance about the creator, that's certainly reasonable. If you wish to explore what the science can say about it, you need to operationalize your definitions.
Comment by aiguy — March 6, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
We are justified in observing that actual biochemical structures perform symbolic roles. We are justified in observing that the association of forms to concepts is inherently an intellectual act. Based on these observations we can proceed to form a testing framework. I also understand that opposition to this can be theological in nature although critics are loathe to be honest about their motives.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Bradford,
I'm perfectly up-front about my motives: I think that implicitly equating the cause of life to a human mind (or a super-human mind) is an anthropomorphic projection with a long history of mistaken application. Every mysterious phenomenon has been attributed to a mind at some point - tides, seasons, planetary motion - because that is what human beings figure can do anything. While the cause of life might well have had "symbolic reasoning" abilities, it is perfectly unscientific to imagine that it also was "intellectual" or "conscious" or "self-aware" or in any other way similar to a human mind.
The only way to explore which of these attributes actually follow from the evidence is to examine the evidence and make sure we are using these terms in well-specified ways. That is all I'm asking for. If you don't want to do this, I would have to ask why not.
Comment by aiguy — March 6, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Neither is there empirical evidence that would suggest that the cause of life is purely naturalistic. Therefore we should not use connotation words that advance that theory either. We are at an impasse. What words can we use? All we can do is observe and study the physical world. We each acquire or develop a philosphy as we go through life. At best we can take our observations of the physical world and use them to guide us to a more rational and correct philosophy.
Comment by 0112358 — March 6, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I'm not talking about imaginings. We've restricted ourselves to materialist imaginings as to how life came about for more than a century with very little to show for our efforts. There is no barrier to producing supporting data for an intelligently generated outcome except for the personal incredulity arguments you've presented.
There are many places one can go to to find definitions about intelligence and purpose. There are also elaborations. But what would it matter if you have ruled out possibilities in advance based on philosophical materialism?
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
0112358,
All true. Here is what I think: First, we should retain a strong distinction about the knowledge that we can verify against our shared experience - our scientific results. Those results are necessarily "naturalistic", given that our shared experience extends by definition only to the "natural". As far as scientific results go, the answer to the origin of life is thus currently "We do not know". As for our philosophy, I've argued that a more nuanced view of the components of mind is in order. We project our human mentality (which is critically dependent upon our human brains) as a model for ultimate cause, and I believe that our growing knowledge of cognitive psychology ought to tell us this is naive.
Bradford,
If you read every post of mine here, you will see that I have never done any such thing. I have asked for a more careful consideration of exactly what is entailed by calling the cause of life "intelligent". For example, virtually all definitions of "intelligence" in psychology (and there are many of them) entail learning and the ability to quickly adapt to changing environments. Would you say that is part of what you mean when you use the word "intelligent"
Comment by aiguy — March 6, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Raevmo:
LOL!!! This from the imaginative author of "Poof-Joy." Tell us, Raevmo. Have you magically poofed any more people into existence since me, or is Poof-Joy still the only asserted example of intelligently designed spontaneous generation on the planet?
Comment by Joy — March 6, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Bradford, as we've seen time and time again many of the critics seem to believe that they have no preconceived notions or that their assumptions are somehow scientific. Is there any possible way to demolish these notions in the critics so that they can see that we are all in the same position when it comes to these discussions?
Comment by 0112358 — March 6, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Here is my stated position on materialism (from a previous post in this very thread): "What I am saying here is not that materialism is necessarily true; rather, I am pointing out that it is not necessarily false."
My only arguments here are that assumptions regarding specific characteristics of the cause of life must be made unambiguous and explicit, and we need to discuss the evidence that they are true.
So I've explicitly denied that I assume materialism, and I have not based any of my arguments on materialism… yet your only response to my arguments is to accuse me of materialist dogma?
Comment by aiguy — March 6, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Yeh, I second that! You TelicThinkers need to Orwellianize your definitions."”Oops! Of course I meant operationalize your definitions.
Comment by Rock — March 6, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I see - now the criticism moves to ridicule. Is there nowhere that one can have a meaningful discussion of these ideas? Read my posts here and point to one single argument I've made that is based on an a priori materialist assumption, or one single question I've asked that is somehow unreasonable, and actually quote it for me so I can see what it is you all find so offensive.
Comment by aiguy — March 6, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I have yet to see an argument that rules out the possibility of supporting evidence based on anything other than philosophy. But why don't you simply cite how Nature generates the type of symbolism evidenced in this message in the absence of an intelligent agency.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Sorry if I jumped to a wrong conclusion about your personal philosophy. If your only argument is that assumptions regarding specific characteristics of the cause of life be made unambiguous and explicit how can we even explore origins?
So, imagine a person with no preconceived notions regarding origins. In regard to his philosophy he is in the exact middle between a materialistic philosophy and a non-materialistic philosophy. In other words, he doesn't know what to think. He observes order and specified complexity in the universe and that pushes him a bit towards a non-materialistic philosophy. How exactly is that pr