Bradford: Based on what we know (as opposed to assumptions based on our ignorance) natural phenomenon do not generate the type of encoded messages we see evidenced here. Why? What is required to generate them if not some underlying determinisitic physics process?

To say that natural phenomenon do not generate encoded messages is to assume that the origin of life is telic. I agree that we do not know otherwise, but the lack of knowledge doesn't support the telic position either. The only legitimate warrant is to say, "I don't know." I don't think either of us are willing to adopt a purely deterministic world view just yet, even if the reason is nothing more than hubris.

Here is the definition of "athleticism":

ath·let·ic /æθˈlɛtɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ath-let-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
"“adjective
1. physically active and strong; good at athletics or sports: an athletic child.
2. of, like, or befitting an athlete.
3. of or pertaining to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina: athletic sports; athletic training.
4. for athletics: an athletic field.
5. Psychology. (of a physical type) having a sturdy build or well-proportioned body structure. Compare asthenic (def. 2), pyknic (def. 1).

Now, please tell me why it is a useful explanation of how Cheetahs run fast to say "They are athletic" or "They use their athleticism". (hint: it is not useful). In exactly the same way, we cannot explain how humans design airplanes by saying "They are intelligent". And in exactly the same way, we cannot explain how life formed by saying "Something intelligent did it".

Now, let's say that we were trying to detect "athleticism." Can we do it? Strength, agility, and stamina are measurable, so let's start. Is "athleticism" necessary for certain effects we see in a cheetah? How about a rock? Now, bring out the handy-dandy detector … is "athleticism" detectable?

Now, let's get back to ID. I agree that "foresight" doesn't explain "how" the foresight was utilized. However, to say that an engineer uses his foresight to draw up blueprints is correct. Foresight (as one major aspect of intelligence) is detectable and it does tell us that the cause had the ability to plan a future goal and then manipulate matter, law, and chance in such a manner as to engineer a solution to accomplish the future pre-determined goal.

Remember the question that starts research into intelligence detection?

Todd: So Behavior is not Intelligence and vice-versa. This is why we need a deeper understanding of intelligence and a method of detecting Intelligent Design that is not dependent on analogy to Human Behavior.

I've never been enamored with the behavioral approach either. A capacity to bring about result x appears a surer strategy. That includes natural phenomenon (reducible to laws of physics) in the mix. It also explains why symbolic coding systems serve as a good focal point. Based on what we know (as opposed to assumptions based on our ignorance) natural phenomenon do not generate the type of encoded messages we see evidenced here. Why? What is required to generate them if not some underlying determinisitic physics process?

aiguy: To the rest - good luck ever publishing a paper that explains some natural phenomenon (ANY phenomenon) by referring to the actions of an intelligent unknown, instead of an intelligent life form. You will never live to see the day.

So extraterrestrials would be intelligent life forms. Would they be classified as intelligent knowns or unknowns if the evidence consists of signals? Is this just a round about way of claiming that we must be able to see and touch an intelligent source before we can incorporate it into a causal chain of events regardless of physical evidence?

I began this thread with the intent of showing how non-telic cause assumptions are rooted in metaphysics. It also appears that telic causes are positioned within metaphysical constraints as well as far as mainstreamers are concerned. If a telic process were involved in the actual genesis of life the rules of the game make it effectively impossible to establish because abstraction is shorthand for a thinking process. Causes stemming from a thought process require a body according to the rules of aiguy et. al. In the absense of one we are to assume some unidentified natural phenomenon is the cause. Same old same old. The wheels keep spinning as they have been for more than a century.

fmm: Screw the Turing test.

Actually the Turing Test is not a valid method of testing for intelligence. This falls into a common trap of assuming Behavior is Intelligence. The Turing Test involves a computer behaving indistinguishable to a human, but mimicking behavior does not imply intelligence. Consider a tragic example, Joy spills her beer and slips in the puddle breaking her spine at the 5th vertebrae. She almost instantly loses all ability to Behave, but she is obviously still Intelligent. Conversely, John Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment shows that a Behavior can mimic intelligence without having the recognition or understanding that are generally considered requirements of Intelligence. So Behavior is not Intelligence and vice-versa. This is why we need a deeper understanding of intelligence and a method of detecting Intelligent Design that is not dependent on analogy to Human Behavior.

I want to thank you for helping me to focus on the connections between AI and ID. I'm very skeptical about the possibility of strong AI and had never thought that the same reservations that I have with indentifying whether a computer is really intelligent could also be expressed against an inferred designer.

Instead of coming to share your conclusion that intelligence is meaningless with non humans I now intend to hold an AI machine to the same standard that I do a possible designer. Unless an entity can produce CSI I will not consider it intelligent.

Screw the Turing test.

Long story short you helped me though I doubt it was your intention.

Peace

To the rest - good luck ever publishing a paper that explains some natural phenomenon (ANY phenomenon) by referring to the actions of an intelligent unknown, instead of an intelligent life form. You will never live to see the day.

Cheers!

aiguy: There are no scientific disciplines that infer "intelligence" in the abstract.

ID need not do it either. ID can, and should, IMO, assume that whatever intelligence got life going here has at least human-like intelligence.

aiguy: As I've already explained, we know a lot about humans, and we know a lot about other animals on Earth. SETI researchers look for (as they themselves put it) life as we know it, from our study of life on Earth, that they believe might have evolved on other planets. None of these things are intelligence in the abstract.

We don't search for abstractions. Concrete evidence inferring intelligence will do.

If you read what the SETI astrobiologists actually say, you'll see that what they look for is decidedly not merely intelligent "beings" (in the abstract). Instead, they look for intelligent life forms, which have sufficiently large brains to figure out how to build transmitters. That is why they look for signals coming from planets where they think biological life may have evolved (not too hot, not too cold, containing liquid water, etc). If they were simply looking for intelligence in the abstract, without making all of these assumptions based on life as we know it, they wouldn't be preferrentially looking at habitable planets, and they wouldn't be computing the likelihood of biological creatures with large brains evolving over assumed lengths of time, and so on.

You are engaged in more circumlocution. If SETI finds intelligent life forms they will then have a very short leap of logic to make in linking such life forms to the evidence of their intelligence.

There are no scientific disciplines that infer "intelligence" in the abstract.

It is inferred with concrete evidence. You seem to think there is something noteworthy in applying the term abstract to advanced technology linked to ET life forms as evidence of their intelligent capabilities. It's a vacuous point.

No, rather than evading the point, I explained that being able to assemble a complex object was one sort of definition of intelligence, rather than an indicator.

It's an example. There is a difference between an illustration and the definition it serves as an example of.

Now, please tell me why it is a useful explanation of how Cheetahs run fast to say "They are athletic"

Their ability to run fast is an indicator of athleticism. Follow the direction of the logical flow instead of obfuscating.

I mentioned intelligent animals and ETs to demonstrate that intelligence need not be assumed to be restricted to humans.

As I've already explained, we know a lot about humans, and we know a lot about other animals on Earth. SETI researchers look for (as they themselves put it) life as we know it, from our study of life on Earth, that they believe might have evolved on other planets. None of these things are intelligence in the abstract.

We know nothing about ETs. We make assumptions based on what we know about the intelligent beings we are familiar with and logically infer from this knowledge.

If you read what the SETI astrobiologists actually say, you'll see that what they look for is decidedly not merely intelligent "beings" (in the abstract). Instead, they look for intelligent life forms, which have sufficiently large brains to figure out how to build transmitters. That is why they look for signals coming from planets where they think biological life may have evolved (not too hot, not too cold, containing liquid water, etc). If they were simply looking for intelligence in the abstract, without making all of these assumptions based on life as we know it, they wouldn't be preferrentially looking at habitable planets, and they wouldn't be computing the likelihood of biological creatures with large brains evolving over assumed lengths of time, and so on.

We don't declare intelligence. We infer it from evidence.

There are no scientific disciplines that infer "intelligence" in the abstract. None, ever. We only infer the existence of living things that we may or may not choose to call "intelligent". Since living things is exactly what ID is attempting to explain, it does not help for ID to detect living things (like archeologists or forensic experts or, potentially, SETI researchers).

I point to an example of an object being assembled to make the point that complex assembly of an item is an indicator of intelligence and you respond with circumlocution that evades the point.

No, rather than evading the point, I explained that being able to assemble a complex object was one sort of definition of intelligence, rather than an indicator.

Saying that intelligence is required to assemble a complex machine is analogous to saying "Athleticism is required to run fast". Explaining the ability to assemble a complex machine is analogous to saying "Joe can run fast because he is athletic."

Why are definitions problematic when dictionaries, glossaries, encyclopedias and textbooks abound?

Here is the definition of "athleticism":

ath·let·ic /æθˈlɛtɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ath-let-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
"“adjective
1. physically active and strong; good at athletics or sports: an athletic child.
2. of, like, or befitting an athlete.
3. of or pertaining to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina: athletic sports; athletic training.
4. for athletics: an athletic field.
5. Psychology. (of a physical type) having a sturdy build or well-proportioned body structure. Compare asthenic (def. 2), pyknic (def. 1).

Now, please tell me why it is a useful explanation of how Cheetahs run fast to say "They are athletic" or "They use their athleticism". (hint: it is not useful). In exactly the same way, we cannot explain how humans design airplanes by saying "They are intelligent". And in exactly the same way, we cannot explain how life formed by saying "Something intelligent did it".

You could say "Some life form" did it, as we've already discussed. If you do that (as some versions of ID do), you don't have the problem of talking about something that is completely undefined. But of course you are not explaining how life arose in the first place.