Intelligent Design

[Elind]

I believe the muddled methodology is a bigger issue here, largely because the notion of 'irreducibly complex' is not well-defined (as Paul pointed out earlier, it conflates at least two incompatible definitions and in practical terms many more once the defensive "shifting of terms" happens). Many things have been found that are "irreducibly complex," but each irreducibly complex thing that has been found has resulted in a definition change....

Well we know that ID is a movement with a predefined goal looking for a methodology to get there, which makes it a moving target, just like creationists became when they added "science" to the name.

However I don't follow your difficulty above (not having studied philosophy or theology ) with irreducibly complex.

One can debate endlessly about theoretical letter sequences and the information they contain, but this issue is really about biology and evolution and real life that we all know.

I do not believe any irreducibly complex systems have been proposed by the IDers, which have not promptly been shot down by real science, and that includes biochemical constructs.

If you believe the last refutation of ID (Dembski) as posted by Paul earlier has flaws, we would be interested to hear them.

 

[Robin]

Surely "eternal/infinate duration/outside of time" is just the "turtles all the way down" argument...

In the first place it is not an argument, it is a matter of clarifying a definition. If time is a property of this universe then it is quite possible to have something 'outside of time' and this is what Christians have meant by 'eternal' since about the middle ages.

It is a useful distinction if you are talking about ideas like causality and design.

"Turtles all the way down..." is really just a phrase people use to ridicule an idea.

 

[Robin]

If you believe the last refutation of ID (Dembski) as posted by Paul earlier has flaws, we would be interested to hear them.

It would certainly be irrelevant to a discussion on intelligent design in any case since as I have pointed out, neither Dembski nor Behe even attempt to make a case for intelligent design.

Instead they try to make criticisms of evolutionary biology. But even in the unlikely event that they were successful and all of Darwinism was refuted it would not help the ID cause one iota because we would just be back to "I don't know".

I am interested in hearing if there are any actual theories of intelligent design.

 

[drkitten]

I do not believe any irreducibly complex systems have been proposed by the IDers, which have not promptly been shot down by real science, and that includes biochemical constructs.

Wrong end of the stick. The usual sequence is : ID proponent identifies something as "irreducibly complex" as per specified definition). Biologist demonstrates how evolution can produce such a complex structure, and further demonstrates how similarly complex but demonstrably arisen non-biological systems are also "irreducibly complex" under that same definition. ID proponent adjusts definition.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Many things have been found that are "irreducibly complex," but each irreducibly complex thing that has been found has resulted in a definition change.... [/B]

You mean that a thing has emergent properties which cannot in principle be discerned by an examination of its parts? Could you name any such thing? Don't mean to be confrontational btw, I just have a genuine interest.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You mean that a thing has emergent properties which cannot in principle be discerned by an examination of its parts? Could you name any such thing? Don't mean to be confrontational btw, I just have a genuine interest.

What does "in principle" mean? What principles are we allowed to use in our reasoning?

When I plug in my lamp, it gives off light. Does its emission of light follow in principle from my plugging it in? Yes, if we allow ourselves to use the laws of electricity in our reasoning. But those laws are just based on observation; they are by no means logically necessary. They describe how this world happens to work, not how any conceivable world must work.

Presumably, although currently not nearly as well understood as the laws of electricity, there are similar laws of consciousness, also based solely on observation and not logically necessary, using which we could derive the fact that people are conscious from a detailed description of their brains. Such a derivation would, ultimately, be no more than just the observation that things with brains are conscious and things without brains aren't. But all laws of nature are ultimately no more than descriptions of observations. If they count as "in principle," why should consciousness be treated any differently?

 

[Interesting Ian]

What does "in principle" mean? What principles are we allowed to use in our reasoning?

In principle means that given sufficient information we can derive the properties of some existent from an analysis of its parts.

When I plug in my lamp, it gives off light. Does its emission of light follow in principle from my plugging it in? Yes, if we allow ourselves to use the laws of electricity in our reasoning. But those laws are just based on observation; they are by no means logically necessary. They describe how this world happens to work, not how any conceivable world must work.

Eh?? We're talking about this world. Are there things which have emergent properties. In other words is it the case that micro-physics cannot completely describe the world.

Presumably, although currently not nearly as well understood as the laws of electricity, there are similar laws of consciousness, also based solely on observation and not logically necessary, using which we could derive the fact that people are conscious from a detailed description of their brains.

Derive?? If you literally mean "derive" then this is the position that consciousness is reducible to physical processes. But I don't want to discuss consciousness. Are there are things in the Universe which cannot be reduced to micro-physics? I thought that conventional wisdom held that all things can be reduced?

Such a derivation would, ultimately, be no more than just the observation that things with brains are conscious and things without brains aren't. But all laws of nature are ultimately no more than descriptions of observations. If they count as "in principle," why should consciousness be treated any differently? [/B]

I wasn't addressing the issue of consciousness. But to address your point anyway, laws of nature are derived from physical theories. We can think of no theory which would allow us to derive consciousness.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We're waxing a bit philosophical here. Dembski has a specific method for detecting irreducibly complex objects:

1. Is the object contingent or an unconditional result of natural law? If the latter, it is not designed.
2. The object is contingent. Is there any possible naturalistic explanation? If so, it is not designed.
3. Is the object specified, that is, is it an instantiation of some detachable pattern? If not, it is not designed.
4. The object is designed.
   [/list=1]
   The problems with the methodology are fairly obvious just on the face of it. There is at least one major problem with steps 2 and 3. Note that Dembski is analyzing the actualization of the object, not the object itself.
   
   ~~ Paul

 

[Eos of the Eons]

We can think of no theory which would allow us to derive consciousness.

Yes we do. We have brains. This allowed us to derive consciousness.

You can lose consciousness when your brain is injured. You can be unconscious and just asleep...this involves your brain entirely. No brain, no consciousness. It's quite simple.

I know some peoples' beliefs get in the way of reason, but it doesn't change the facts.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Yes we do. We have brains. This allowed us to derive consciousness.

Well in that case go and write a book and explain your reasoning. You'll be the first human ever to satisfactorily explain how consciousness fits into materialism. You'll be famous!

Why do you think there's so many different versions of materialism? It's because they're all desperately trying to find an interpretation which can accommodate consciousness, that's why!

But if the answer's so obvious to you.

Go for it!

 

[Eos of the Eons]

OH give me a break. There's tons written on it already. You just refuse to read what's already out there, obviously. Do a simple google search and you'll find all the scientific writings on the brain and consciousness.

I don't know any different versions of materialism, in fact I don't really even know what you are talking about.

I am quite simply realist.

 

[fishbob]

Robin:

If time is a property of this universe then it is quite possible to have something 'outside of time' and this is what Christians have meant by 'eternal' since about the middle ages.

It is a useful distinction if you are talking about ideas like causality and design.

The results of causality and design are in this universe. Anything 'eternal' by this definition would also be irrelevant.

 

[Interesting Ian]

OH give me a break. There's tons written on it already. You just refuse to read what's already out there, obviously. Do a simple google search and you'll find all the scientific writings on the brain and consciousness.

I don't know any different versions of materialism, in fact I don't really even know what you are talking about.

I am quite simply realist.

Get it through your head - I'm not talking about the mind having its source in the brain. Materialism claims more than that. And I've been reading loads of philosophy papers on it (although none of it scientific). I need to understand everything about it since I'm writing about it for my website.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Come on now, Eos, you know Ian is right. After all, there is only one version of idealism and no such thing as dualism. Every philosopher knows what works and what doesn't. They just keep at it for job security.

~~ Paul

 

[Elind]

Wrong end of the stick. The usual sequence is : ID proponent identifies something as "irreducibly complex" as per specified definition). Biologist demonstrates how evolution can produce such a complex structure, and further demonstrates how similarly complex but demonstrably arisen non-biological systems are also "irreducibly complex" under that same definition. ID proponent adjusts definition.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

I think you over intellectualize in this matter. We are talking of real identifiable irreducibly complex biological constructs, not theoretical exercises. Either they can be identified and proven as irreducible, or not. So far not.

ID proponents don't adjust the definition, they just tweak the examples to bring the argument back to square one again and in the process they pick up converts who don't have the stamina to follow the debate and I fail to see why you want to keep twirling your stick and make the issue a theological one.

 

[Elind]

Get it through your head - I'm not talking about the mind having its source in the brain. Materialism claims more than that. And I've been reading loads of philosophy papers on it (although none of it scientific). I need to understand everything about it since I'm writing about it for my website.

Hang in there for the first HAL based on a quantum computer and you can ask how it works. My bet is it will say "I don't know"

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Get it through your head - I'm not talking about the mind having its source in the brain. Materialism claims more than that. And I've been reading loads of philosophy papers on it (although none of it scientific). I need to understand everything about it since I'm writing about it for my website.

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are not talking about the mind, then you are not talking about consciousness. You are then just speculating and "philosophizing" and no facts enter into it. This bores me.

If you want to understand something for once, then yes try some scientific information. I'm afraid that would make your head explode though, and you'd forever lose consciousness.

Edited to add some simple "science"

The brain stem coordinates the body's functions such as breathing, blood pressure and pulse. It also contains the reticular formation which is responsible for consciousness, drowsiness, and attention. Originating in the brain stem are 12 cranial nerves.

http://www.abihelp.org/brain.htm

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Something I've said before...Those ID idiots can have their material in the classroom for "equal time" when they have equal facts. Their baseless nonsense mixed with misinformation and purposely left out facts has no business in the classroom.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are not talking about the mind, then you are not talking about consciousness. You are then just speculating and "philosophizing" and no facts enter into it. This bores me.

If you want to understand something for once, then yes try some scientific information. I'm afraid that would make your head explode though, and you'd forever lose consciousness.

I am talking about the mind. I said that materialism involves more than supposing mind has its source in the brain. Mind has to be appropriately similar to all other things in the Universe in order for materialism to be true, not merely come from the brain. Read my website when it's finished. It's going to be as simple as I can make it, yet not compromise too much on content. I'll let you know when it's complete.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I have no idea what "materialism" means to you...but I can see it might stand for "nonsense" if left for me to define.

The brain is the mind, the mind is the brain. They are one and the same, so I still have no idea what you are talking about.

Mind has to be appropriately similar to all other things in the Universe in order for materialism

Eh? From what I am reading your idea of "Universe" and "materialism" is completely foreign to me. We're talking different languages here.

I have no interest in this fantasy philosophizing stuff.